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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
114538
|
How to preserve a spread in a jar
I am starting a business making a vegan chocolate spread. It is beginning as a small, family run operation, in a hired industrial kitchen.
We are stuck on how to 'treat' the spread when getting to the canning process (in glass jars) so that it will be as shelf stable as possible.
So far, our research has pointed us toward simmering the sealed jars in boiling water for 10-15 mins. (the jars are also sterilized beforehand).
Would this be sufficient? Does this suck the oxygen out? How do large manufacturers approach this process for similar products?
Can you share the list of ingredients for the chocolate spread? Chocolate by itself is shelf-stable for months at 10-18C. What else in there is perishable?
You should start by taking a food safety certification course. You don't say where you're located but it's required by law where I live if you want to sell canned food products like this.
If you're working with something acidic like a jam, you can indeed process the jars in hot water. This is sufficient to kill any pathogens that got sealed in with the product and can thrive in an acidic, high-sugar environment like jam. Since the water bath also seals the jar, nothing can enter the sealed jars, the jam is now shelf-stable. In your case, the spread is unlikely to be acidic enough that water bath canning is sufficient to preserve it.
You should look into pressure canning instead. You would need a pressure cooker for this, which will let you process the jars at a higher temperature than a water bath allows. There's also some concern around the fat in your spread (I assume it's based on something like coconut oil?). Fat can interfere with the seal and prevent the jars from sealing properly, and it can also go rancid even if the jars sealed correctly.
You would need to reach out to the food safety agency in your country to see what requirements they have on similar products, and likely have a food safety lab test your sealed product to determine that it's safe for as long as whatever your best-before date says.
@Nanna There's also the problem of whether the spread is sterile - enough heat and sugar (or lowering water activity to a suitable point somehow) will get around this, but if the product can't be heated extensively then it likely won't be shelf stable. I have some commercially produced vegan chocolate spread (nut free, can't remember brand) at home and it is in a glass jar and very viscous, if that is any help.
So in conclusion, none of your recommended methods would work?
Thank you for all of your feedback.
We’re actually not using oil, but we are using coconut cream/coconut milk - pretty much the only truly perishable thing in our ingredients (others include powdered supplements, vanilla essence, dark choc, cocoa powder etc). So at this point I would say it’s mostly making the coconut milk/cream last as long as possible. The thing we’re most concerned with is any of the processes (boiling sealed jars in water, pressure cooking) will ‘cook’ our spread and change its makeup and taste
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.359430
| 2021-03-01T10:16:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114538",
"authors": [
"Dan C",
"FuzzyChef",
"Gigili",
"Nanna Nanna",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91647"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46732
|
Does a plain latte have chocolate in it?
I cannot eat chocolate but would like to drink a latte. Is there any chocolate in a regular latte? I know you can get a chocolate latte, but need to know if a plain latte has chocolate in it.
A "chocolate latte" would be called a mocha. There are many lovely charts out there which nicely depict the differences between espresso drinks, like this one: http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0319/8489/files/espresso-recipe-guide-966x1224.png?1086
No, it does not. A latte is espresso with steamed milk and a thin layer of steamed milk foam on top. Assuming your barista knows what he is doing, you'd have to specially ask to get chocolate in a latte, and then it would be called a mocha (in the US).
And foam! Foam is important.
@logophobe Sigh...Ok, edited to include.
Not a big deal, you nailed the substance of the question. I've just been criticized before for forgetting foam. I'm not a barista, just a pedant.
I'm just giving you crap :)
It's got a bit of foam on the top unless it's a wet latte, which is milk with no foam.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.359709
| 2014-08-29T15:14:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46732",
"authors": [
"Alexandra Mirghes",
"Chris Lundie",
"Esteban",
"GdD",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lauren",
"Mark Miskelly",
"Trevor Jones",
"Vanitha Rhea",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe",
"ted rexford"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45125
|
How to achieve more solid consistency when preparing seitan from wheat flour?
I'm making my own seitan from wheat flour, rather than using vital wheat gluten. I usually do about 4-5 washing steps when preparing my seitan. It is good, but I would like it to be more stiff/solid (not sure if this is the right word). I think this would make it a better meat-substitute.
I normally put the flour into a bowl and fill it with water so that it results in pastry. Then I knead the pastry under water. You can see the starch coming out and making the water more murky. I do this for about 3-5 minutes. Then I get rid of the water and fill the bowl again. As mentioned above I repeat these steps about 4-5 times. At the end I simply cut the seitan into pieces and cook it in broth. Usually I freeze the cooked seitan afterwards.
So if I want to produce a firmer consistency, is it about how often I wash the seitan or are there any other rules or tricks on how to achieve this?
This is a possible duplicate of an older question here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11184/how-can-i-make-my-seitan-a-bit-firmer?rq=1 However, that doesn't mention a washing step. Can you add more information about the steps you're following, including a recipe if you started from one?
@logophobe Thank you for the link. I also added all the steps I do to my original post.
@logophobe I have to object the "duplicate"-proposal. All they discuss in the referred question is about making seitan out of vital wheat gluten. I don't I am using just simple flour!
I think you should edit further to clarify that you're not using vital wheat gluten (as most of the recipes I found seem to recommend). In that case I'd agree with you that this is a distinct question, but you want to be clear about why previous questions don't answer yours. I'll have to do a little more digging around and post an answer later on.
I went ahead and made a few changes per my previous comment. Feel free to edit further if I misstated anything. For anyone reviewing, I'd withdraw my duplicate flag if I could figure out how to.
The texture and yield is governed two factors: developing the gluten completely and washing out the bran and starch effectively.
To develop the gluten, combine the flour and water into a workable dough and give it 50 light strokes. Cover the bowl and let it rest 10-15 minutes. It is during this time that water chemically combines with the flour and the strands of gluten form. After resting, return to the dough and you will notice it has a different feel. It is because the gluten has formed. Knead the dough 100 times. Immerse the finished dough in ice water or at least very cold water for at least 30 minutes. An hour is better.
To effectively wash out the bran and starch it is essential to work the dough under alternating hot (as hot as your hands can take) and cold water baths with 30 minute rest intervals each time you change the water. Start with hot, work the dough with a spreading motion for a few minutes. Pour the water into a bucket (not down the sink!), cover with very cold water and let it rest 30 minutes. Repeat and cover with hot water. Let it rest 30 minutes each time. Usually during the third round the dough will very soft and your hand technique should become one of gathering instead of spreading. If it feels like you are on your way to pancake batter, pour it through a fine colander to gather the gluten and give it a cold water bath. In the last couple rounds it will become increasingly firm and the strands of gluten are evident.
Finally you have a ball about 1/3 the size of the original dough. I divide this into baseball sized pieces and drop them into a boiling pot. Return to boil and cook until the pieces float to the surface. Remove and put in cold water. The shape of the pieces is now set but they aren't yet fully cooked. From here cook in a broth seasoned to your liking. I simmer them for 2 hours in a simple kombu, tamari and water broth.
I use fine ground whole wheat flour. Stone ground will work but yields are lower and texture is inferior. My dough formula is 2600 gr fine whole wheat flour and 1900 gr cold water which produces 2000 gr finished seitan. Hope this is helpful!
Very helpful.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.359845
| 2014-06-25T05:55:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45125",
"authors": [
"FQA.vn SPAM",
"Jim Bucher",
"Onlinenews",
"Pam",
"Prismonic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25602",
"logophobe",
"merv",
"user3896248",
"チーズパン"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78607
|
Pyrex glass coffee pot
I have a very old Pyrex glass coffee pot that belonged to my grandmother. As a kid, I have a distant memory of her using it on a gas stove to boil water. The pot has a picture of a flame on the bottom of it, but it doesn't say either way whether it's safe to use on a gas stove. I'm sure the pot is very old; maybe 1950s or 60s. Any advice?
Hi Carol, welcome to the site. I think some pictures would be useful in order to answer your question.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54298/pyrex-percolator-on-stove/54302#54302
Sounds like what you have is Pyrex Flameware, which is range safe.
From the link:
Flameware by Pyrex by Corning Glass Works of Corning, New York is a line of range top kitchenware...
Identification of Flameware is easy as most pieces were imprinted in the bottom of each piece with the "flame" logo, plus the item number and size.
Thanx 4 the advice!
I have two Pyrex coffee pots that sound like they are the same as this. If they are Flameware, they are made for use on a stove top. I love mine.
Thanx 4 the advice!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.360294
| 2017-02-21T19:12:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78607",
"authors": [
"Carol",
"Cindy",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54811"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78786
|
A lot of smoke when using induction stove with any recipe with oil
I recently switched from gas stove to induction. I tried some recipes I could do well with the old stove. Most of them have oil at high heat. However, when switching to induction stove, any time I tried with oil, there always be a lot of smoke coming from the meat. The bottom is usually burnt while the top is not cooked yet.
I usually set the temperature to 150-200oC and put oil in immediately. Any advice what I should do? Currently I can only cook soup recipes with the induction stove.
EDIT: Sorry I forgot about the oil. I usually use olive oil, but once I tried vegetable and sesame oil too. Still a lot of smoke.
Have you actually checked the temperature your pan is achieving? You'd need an infrared thermometer, I think... but the general rule is, if your oil is burning, the temperature is too hot. Turn the heat down.
Induction is really efficient when used with good flat bottom pans
@Max It happens that my pan has small metal circles in its bottom, the seller told me that would be better for induction.
What kind of oil you're using would be helpful but, really, the answer is, whatever temperature it is you set it at, it's too hot.
Turn the temperature down.
The temperature gauges shouldn't necessarily be trusted to give you a perfect temperature reading. You can use an infrared thermometer to test it but your result tells everything, really.
If your gas stove was underpowered "high" heat may not have really been that high and the induction stove is probably stronger, so you're overheating your pan.
Since you added your oil usage:
Olive oil is a very low smoke point oil (325-375°F/165-190°C), so it should never be heated so much. Some sesame oils are also pretty low (350-410°F/175-210°C), depending.
Vegetable oil (400-450°F/205-230°C) is much better. Soybean or peanut are even higher (450°F/230°C).
Thanks, I added the oil in the question. Also, the olive oil I use quickly "evaporate" when I use induction stove. I will try again today with 100-130oC, and see the result. Thanks a lot!
I usually set the temperature to 150-200oC
Forget the temperature setting of your induction stove. If it has any sensor at all (some don't), it is a sensor below the plate, far away from your pan and food. It has nothing to do with the real tempearature in your pan, and is a useless gimmick.
Use the normal strength setting, and start with the lowest. If the oil still smokes too much on the lowest setting, put the pan higher (e.g. insert a ceramic tile between the pan and plate), or use a different pan (steel will heat less than cast iron, for example) or cook larger amounts of food.
I have used an induction stove and it's really a matter of lowering the setting. Higher settings are great for bringing stocks to a boil quickly.
Also, with the stove, they should provide a guide. The lowest setting should be great for melting chocolate, or something
@BaffledCook I have had 2 induction stoves, and both of them were too strong for melting chocolate even on the lowest setting, at least in amounts typical for making a single cake. It's a nice idea, but did not work for me.
I can't remember how I used to melt chocolate. I've been using a [brand name kitchen robot] for that ever since I bought it.
Some induction stoves are so slow regulating even if not used at full power ... that your best bet is to just leave the thing on full blast and control heat with distance, use of movement and choice of cookware :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.360423
| 2017-02-28T21:08:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78786",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Catija",
"Luke Vo",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96182
|
If I want a complex, yeasty soy sauce, what to look for?
My local Asian food shop has many, many, brands of Chinese soy sauce, light and dark, most of them describing themselves as 'superior'.
What should I be looking for in the ingredients lists as a sign of quality?
Do you mean "superior" or actually "superlative"?
@Luciano I was being a bit snarky... is 'Superior' a meaningful term? Any restrictions on its use?
I usually see in my shop a few actual "Superior soy sauce" so I was just wondering if "superlative soy sauce" actually exists...
@Luciano.. edited :)
Soy sauce should only contain at most 4 ingredients - soy beans, wheat, salt and water; Chinese ones often leave out the wheat, which is a more typical Japanese ingredient. The quality of the sauce depends on the fermentation and maturation processes (like a good wine or beer), so is not reliably predictable from the ingredients lists. Some types have sugars and/or spices etc added as well, but it depends on the variant.
Good quality soy sauce is usually expensive, so cost can be an indicator, but is not reliably so, just like you can find good quality cheap wines, you can find good quality cheap soy sauce. In general, a longer fermentation time leads to more varied and richer flavor profile
Dark soy sauces tend to be richer in darker(maltier)/yeastier flavors, while light sauces are saltier with brighter flavors (think aromatics). However, the use of the soy sauce alters how you might interact with it. If, for instance, you were using the sauce for dipping sushi or dumplings, you would use a different sauce to one that you might cook and blend flavors with. Chinese actually have a double pressed variant on light soy sauce used specifically for dipping.
First of all I would suggest working out what you want to do with the sauce, and what style of food you are making - Chinese? Japanese? Thai? Malay? Korean?... etc, all have different ideas on soy sauces and how to use them. Then, go and have a look at the local grocer and see what they have, look for brands that have wine-sized bottles - those are probably the go-to for people doing regular, every-day cooking at home, so will be both cheap and (probably!) moderate quality. If you can find smaller versions of the same brands, they are a good place to start for testing out what you like
Another way to do it is to ask - the people at the shop, your favorite local [insert-asian-food-style-here] waiter, your colleague from work...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.360719
| 2019-02-06T16:23:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96182",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"Robin Betts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78979
|
having problem with chicken pot pie crust
I made two chicken pot pies last night, and the crust turned out like a giant cracker. Not soft and flaky at all like the store bought ones.
I think I have identified two probable reasons:
1) I skipped the egg was at the end. So the top layer was just really dry.
2) I probably overworked the dough. I used the pizza dough setting on my breadmaker which takes 90 minutes.
I used butter that was almost frozen. And I chilled my water in the freezer for 10 minutes before mixing. I think I did those parts right.
Next time I will try just working the dough by hand and handling it as little as possible. And I definitely won't skip the egg wash.
My question is: Next time I do this, how can I know if I've done it right without just simply cooking the pie directly. This was a TONNE of work. It would be nice if I could focus on mastering the crust before I make another pie. Can you just cook a crust by itself in the oven to see what happens?
Edit: After reading some related topics, there seems to be a technique called "blind baking" which may be what I'm looking for.
Should I just omit the filling and keep baking crusts until they start turning out the way i want?
Clarify, please: are you saying that the dough ingredients spent 90 minutes being worked in a breadmaker?
Well it gets worked for about 30 minutes, then is left alone for a while, the breadmaker occasionally kicks in for a few minutes then stops. I don't know exactly how long the dough was worked but the entire process took 90 minutes. (For pizza dough this includes rising time)
I'm sure that this defeated the purpose of chilling the butter/water.
I think you're first instinct is correct; it was quite overworked.
And for a pot pie, you shouldn't need to blind bake before filling.
I more just meant blind baking as a way to test if my crust is going to turn out or not. Would that work? I am scared to spend another 5 hours to make crappy pies again. :S
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
You can just bake scraps or cutouts of crust by themselves, I've seen these frosted into cookies ("pie crust cookies" should get you suggestions) or otherwise used as small snacks, savories, or a base for toppings. you can work out your pie crust recipe by itself before risking a whole dish in it. On the other hand, if you fail... you can probably make nice actual crackers out of the dough, which work fine as long as you're not expecting them to be something else.
I am very surprised to read your description. "I used butter that was almost frozen. And I chilled my water in the freezer for 10 minutes before mixing" sounds like you were making a pie crust dough. "I used the pizza dough setting on my breadmaker" sounds like you were making a bread dough. Can you please post your recipe?
do not use your bread machine for pie dough. In fact never ever use a bread machine not even for bread.
@rumtscho I used 5 cups of flour, 1.5 cups of butter, 1 cup of water, and 1 teaspoon of salt
I only used the breadmachine because I didn't understand the physics behind pie crusts and I blended everything into a dough like substance. I tried it again last night by hand and it worked out great!
You started out great with cold cold butter and water and then you beat the livin crap out of em for 30 min.
You are making a pie crust. The thing that makes pie crust flaky is that the small little pieces of butter, shortening, lard remain intact and then are gently flattened when you roll out the dough.
( good quality lard is best but a combination of butter and shortening will do ).
The butter, shortening, lard are not mixed into the flour, they are coated with flour and when you GENTLY roll your dough out you squish them so that you have little layers of lard and flour. When you bake them the lard steams between the layers of flour creating a flaky crust.
Butter has low melting point so it should be nearly frozen, If you insist on butter cut it into very small pieces and the put it in the freezer. it is best to chill shortening and lard as well.
Cut your butter into your flour/salt mix with a pastry blender cut it together until the lard is in small little pieces about half the size of small peas. Add ICE water ( water with ice cubes in it but you just spoon out the amount you need ) in small increments until it a shaggy dough. (You want it so you can grab a little in your hand a squeeze and it will just hold together.)
You do not need a mixer but if you use one use it just enough to bring the dough together to the shaggy state.
Divide the dough into portions appropriate for your pie plate. gently form it into a ball, gently press it flat. Wrap it in plastic and chill it in the fridge before rolling it out. Roll it gently , do not over work it.
Use the egg wash, cut it with a little water or milk. If you find it is browning to much brush it on part way through the baking time. Do not brush the edges.
Once you do it a few times it will not be a "tonne of work" and you can make enough to keep some in the fridge for a while or freeze some.
This is definitely the answer! I did it like this last night and it turned out absolutely BEAUTIFUL.
one follow up question: assuming a make the pie perfectly, will the structure be harmed if it sits at room temperature for a long time before being cooked in the oven? like say I want to bring one to my friends house as a gift, uncooked, and its an hour long drive or something. Is it safe as long as I dont move it around?
sitting a little bit should be ok as long as room temp is not to high. In a hot car you may melt the fat and that could change its behavior but i have never done it so it is only a guess. send me a chicken pot pie.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.360935
| 2017-03-08T21:05:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78979",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Giorgio",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55147",
"roo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46100
|
Should I store my uncooked marinated chicken wings in the freezer?
Today I have marinated lots of chicken wings. I have to store three-fourths of these in the freezer. I am wondering whether I should keep these uncooked or half cooked. I will keep these in zipper bags for two or three weeks.
I previously kept some half cooked marinated wings and found that was good to defrost. But, I am not sure about the taste.
Hello and welcome. Please note that if you have further information to add to your question, you can use the "Edit" option to update. I've flagged the answer that you added since it doesn't actually address the question, and I'm also going to edit your question to add the same information.
From a flavor standpoint, the preparation of the wings isn't likely to affect how well they taste after being defrosted. I think you're most likely to notice a difference in texture.
Although you didn't ask about safety, it's very important that you do cook the wings fully after they're thawed, even if you've par-cooked them previously. If the meat is at all raw, there's a possibility that any bacteria present will continue to reproduce and quickly re-colonize the cooked portions. Unless they're cooled from the initial cooking and frozen very quickly, they could stay long enough in the so-called "danger zone" to cause concern.
So, given that you need to cook them fully, partially cooking doesn't gain you anything - you're just damaging (via cooking) some of the meat. That will make the wings drier than they would be otherwise. For the best texture, keep them raw before freezing and cook them completely after being defrosted.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.361637
| 2014-08-04T20:05:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46100",
"authors": [
"Edward Curtis",
"Judith Jones",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe",
"mike",
"minerva_png"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46920
|
When *brewing* Irish coffee in a drip coffeemaker or French press, do I need to use more Irish whiskey?
Back in the early 1980's I received a very nice coffeemaker as a gift. (Okay - it was very nice for the 1980's.) There was a small recipe booklet that came with it that had a great recipe for Irish coffee in which the Irish whiskey was put into the carafe along with superfine sugar and then the coffee was brewed into it. After the coffee finished brewing you would stir it and let it sit on the hot plate for about 10 minutes and then pour, top with whipped cream, and serve.
It was so good! It seemed to have more depth to the flavor and no hard edge on the whiskey. Smooth but not lacking in any way.
The recipe booklet is long gone and I can't remember the details of the recipe. When making Irish coffee the standard (for lack of a better word) way, adding Irish whiskey to a cup of coffee, I usually add 1-1/2 oz to 2 oz whiskey to 6 oz of coffee. (Depends on what mood I'm in or who I'm serving it to.)
I want to try the brewing method again so I'm wondering if I need to use more Irish whiskey to get the same flavor. I hope someone has an answer. If not, this could be a fun experiment!
I don't think you'd need to increase the proportion. You could, but I'd probably advise against it mostly because of sobriety concerns. It's much easier to over-serve someone with a more potent cocktail than it is a milder one - especially after the first couple.
This is kind of an interesting method, and I think the key to success is the gentle heating of the whiskey over the heating element before the coffee is dripped in. Ethanol is pretty potent stuff (ever seen a Molotov Cocktail in action?) and will evaporate more readily than water will. This is why when adding wine, vermouth, etc. to a dish, you can drive off most of the alcohol at stovetop temperature well before the water evaporates. Adding the whiskey to a warm carafe is likely driving off a small percentage of the alcohol, reducing its bite (and its punch as well, but this seems like a reasonable tradeoff for something generally considered a dessert drink).
Some of the depth of flavor could also come from volatile flavor compounds (things like esters which develop as spirits age) being driven off or changing composition. Heating spirits or setting them on fire isn't a common trick these days, but historically bartenders often used it to transform how the flavor of spirits is sensed by the drinker's palate. It's the flip side of chilling and diluting drinks through stirring or shaking, and it's a good substitute for those in the middle of winter, when more ice is the last thing you want.
I think it's also worth pointing out that the brand and variety of both coffee and whiskey will do a lot to change the end result. Coffee obviously has a huge number of origins and roast levels, plus myriad other factors that can affect its flavor. Irish whiskey varies too; it's often seen as a monolithic category, but it'll differ as much as scotch or bourbon depending on the quality of the mash, how it was distilled, and the aging process. Powers is unapologetically brash and spicy; Knappogue Castle is a much more subtle product that would be really well-suited to this type of application.
+1 Thanks for a great answer! But, darn it, now I don't have to experiment! LOL! I really appreciate the detail as it helps me to understand the "why" as opposed to just accepting an opinion. And I can apply the knowledge to other things. Thanks again!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.361815
| 2014-09-06T16:57:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46920",
"authors": [
"Allan Richardson",
"Cindy",
"Linda Ecker",
"Meghan Magee",
"Pat Therrell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"赵东霞"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47077
|
What is inside the Prawn Cocktail crisps flavour?
I'm looking to make something close-enough at home for a friend. I'm suspecting it doesn't actually have Prawns in it.
Just speculating (hence not in the answer box), but I would imagine you can use dried shrimp like you would find in an asian market. If it has cocktail sauce flavor as well, that could be simulated with ketchup and horseradish. That is what I would do in US though; since you call them crisps, I assume you are from a commonwealth nation. May be different, but the dried shrimp thing is a start. pulse it in a spice grinder with some salt and garlic powder and sprinkle it on after frying.
I answered the question asked: "what's in the crisps". I don't have an answer as to "how can I make this at home", sorry.
I like @JSM's idea of using dried shrimp, but use sparingly - those little buggers are potent.
Assuming you're talking about Walker's brand, we can see the following ingredients list from Tesco.co.uk (should match what's on your bag):
Prawn Cocktail Seasoning contains: Flavouring, Sugar, Glucose, Salt, Citric Acid, Potassium Chloride, Dried Yeast, Dried Onion, Vale of Evesham Tomato Extract, Colour (Paprika Extract), Sweetener (Sucralose)
Nutritional yeast (which is what I assume the 'dried yeast' is) is often used in vegan recipes to simulate a cheesy flavor, so it's probably not that. You can imagine what sugar, glucose, salt, citric acid, tomato extract, and dried onion taste like. Potassium Chloride is commonly used as a salt replacement to lower the salt content of food without losing that salty flavor.
I suspect it's that first ingredient, 'flavoring'. You're probably talking about a product like this: http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/prawn-Flavor-O5557-used-in-puffed_1699947706.html?s=p
prawn Flavor O5557 used in puffed foods
Professional and mature R&D team, Application team.
Manufacturer of flavor
Origin: Jining city, Shandong Province, China.
Sounds... appetizing?
Hi! I just want to let you know that the alibaba product link is down. I didn't know if you'd want to find another or edit it out, so I left it alone!
The operative word in prawn cocktail crisps is cocktail. They're essentially Marie Rose sauce flavour, there's barely any prawn notes. Marie Rose sauce is usually tomato ketchup, mayo, a little Worcestershire Sauce, and cayenne. Should be easy to replicate at home.
How would you coat a fried potato with that? Aren't crisps = chips in British/American? Putting a wet sauce on a thin, fried potato does not sound tasty. If you could find dry or powdered versions of those things, I could see that working. Ketchup, worcester, some cayenne and a tiny pinch of dried shrimp. Work out the ratios until it tastes similar.
Naturally I mean the flavours can be replicated somehow, as you say, with dehydrated versions.
Prawn cocktail is in fact made of orange zest, salmon and chicken stock.
Seems like an answer to me, just had an odd "signature" (which isn't necessary here since your username appears by your answer). Not sure if this is correct, but still an answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.362154
| 2014-09-12T16:05:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47077",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"JSM",
"Jess Hopper",
"KATHRYN DAWE",
"Karyie J Busch",
"Luxnie Britanico",
"Neil Mckenzie",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"Yamikuronue",
"alicia peyrano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32234
|
How do I substitute proofed dried active yeast for fresh yeast?
I have a recipe that calls for fresh yeast, but I want to substitute a particular weight of dried active yeast for the fresh yeast.
It seems from this question that I do not need to proof the dried active yeast and can simply weigh the amount of granules out of the dried yeast and just make the dough with that relying on the water content of the dough to work on the yeast.
What I am interested in though is if I decided to proof the yeast, how would I go about doing this to use in the recipe?
The bread recipe calls for a weight measure of yeast which is easy to achieve without activating the yeast. However activating the yeast calls for a specific weight of the yeast along with measurements of sugar and water. This would leave me with a liquid of a particular volume - this doesn't translate into a weight of dried active yeast too easy any more. Secondly, the bread recipe calls for water, yet adding the proofed yeast would change the ratios of this and I imagine alter the consistency of the dough.
Good question - your title was backwards, though (see for example http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23360/substitute-x-for-y).
@Jefromi Whoops! I'm sorry, I am a native English speaker but I suffer from dyslexia so easily get confused over that sort of thing. Thanks for the correction. :)
In both cases, you don't add the recipe's amount of water to the proofed yeast. If your recipe says e.g. 500 g flour, 300 g water and 10 g fresh yeast, you measure these 300 ml water, then pour some of the 300 ml over 10 g of pressed yeast to proof it, adding a teaspoon of sugar if you want it quicker. After that, you mix flour, proofed yeast and the remaining water together (for simplicity, I left out salt and possible other ingredients).
You do it exactly the same way with dry yeast, only you have to use the correct substitute ratio, which is 3:1. So you measure 300 ml of water and (1/3)*10 g = 3.3 g of dry yeast. Then you pour some of the 300 g of water over the dry yeast, and after it has bloomed, you mix flour, sponge and the remaining water. The bread hydration stays correct, and the fermentation time/amount is equivalent to the fresh yeast case.
Proof the yeast in the water you mention in the last sentence.
If you want to make sure it works properly, use instant and not active dry. Active dry will probably work, but you can't really rely on it. Instant yeast is a little closer to fresh yeast and keeps a lot more reliably. I have heard that on occasion a recipe pops up that requires dissolving the yeast in cold water; for that, you want cake yeast and nothing else, because dry yeasts can't handle the cold shock. Other than that, cake yeast is kind of a pain and not usually worth the effort.
The OP is asking about this in the context of proofing, and the whole point of that is to verify that the yeast is going to work - so you can rely on it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.362534
| 2013-02-26T15:03:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32234",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Martin",
"R4D4",
"Sue",
"eqzx",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74238",
"kenbagnallaolcouk",
"sem"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42928
|
Mixing a banana with homemade sunflower butter turned into a horrible, leathery substance. Why?
I often make sunflower butter in my food processor by pureeing raw sunflower seeds. Today I decided (after the seeds became creamy) to blend a banana into the mixture. The result was horrible:
Almost instantaneously the creamy substance turned dark and leathery, and it did not taste banana-y or sunflower-y at all. Why did this happen? I have mashed up bananas into my sunflower butter before and this did not happen.
Completely unrelated to your question, but that stuff makes me want to add a bit of milk to it. I kind of get the feeling it would taste pretty good, though this is completely baseless speculation.
I have tried adding bananas to other things. Except for fruit salads and my morning oatmeal, the rest were complete regrets.
I suspect the textural change you experienced is analogous to the seizing of chocolate (which is also a ground, fatty seed--in that aspect similar to a sunflower seed).
Sunflower seeds are fairly dry. The consist mostly of fat, and starches, and protein. When you add a small amount of water (from the mashed up banana), the starches in the sunflower hydrate and absorb the water, making it thick and giving the textural transformation you experienced.
If this hypothesis is correct, adding enough additional water to fully dissolve and suspend the starches will give you a smooth fluid, or paste again.
As to the taste perception, that I cannot comment on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.362790
| 2014-03-23T00:11:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42928",
"authors": [
"Anpan",
"Cynthia",
"Douglas Galliano",
"Olivia Coffman",
"Spammer",
"Swordmaster2552",
"gns100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19867"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129651
|
Is there a problem with leaving too much space in a glass jar when freezing liquids?
When freezing liquids in glass jars, I know it's important to leave some room for expansion to avoid breaking the jar. To some extent, the more room the safer. But is there a problem leaving too much space in a jar? In other words, I know there's an upper limit for filling the jars when freezing, but is there a lower limit? What if I freeze a half-full jar - will there be any implications for either safety or quality?
I'm thinking freezer burn results in freezer air getting into containers, like onto food in a poorly sealed plastic bag. I'm asking about jars that would be well sealed, with the usual metal lid with mason jars and/or tight tinfoil against the glass.
Sort of a unique use case but I'd think the Q&A applies to any liquids. I'm a new parent and plan to freeze breast milk in jars to avoid plastic containers. I'll try the ice cube method also, freezing 1oz at a time, but when using jars I wonder if it's better to size up to have plenty of space even freezing 4oz at a time. Would the empty space in the jar result in freezer burn or otherwise reduce time the milk is good frozen?
You might want to look into a vacuum lid sealer accessory to remove air in the headspace before freezing. There are multiple variants, the ones that use the standard lids are the least expensive to actually use regularly. 4 oz freezer jars are a stock size, and the 4 oz is supposed to be the capacity at the headspace line, not filled to the brim.
From a safety standpoint, there's no lower limit. If you freeze a single drop of water in a one-quart mason jar, you'll get small patch of ice at the bottom of the jar.
From a quality standpoint, a frozen liquid will tend to sublimate and re-freeze; if the amount of liquid is quite small relative to the container, it will tend to re-distribute itself evenly over the inner surface of the container. If the liquid is a mixture of volatile and non-volatile elements (for example, chicken broth), you'll wind up with concentrated liquid at the bottom, and pure water ice everywhere else.
(Source: my experience with freezing pre-measured chicken broth in various containers.)
The issue isn't just about headspace for pressure... it's about making sure the liquid doesn't go up to the shoulders of the jar.
Because water expands as it freezes, the shoulder constrains how much the glass can expand, and is much more likely to break when frozen. As such, many folks suggest leaving as much as one inch to the shoulder, which could mean almost 2" (5cm) of headspace.
Most websites that I've seen that talk about freezing in glass jars recommend using 'wide mouth' jars that have no shoulders. This one even has a picture showing a Ball jar that has a 'for freezing' line on it: https://thehomesteadingrd.com/can-you-freeze-mason-jars/
Mason jars intended/labeled as suitable for freezing do not have any shoulder, in my experience or part of the world. They taper from small at the bottom to the size of the lid ring in a straight line. Freezing in jars with shoulders is taunting the universe and asking to get a rude surprise, as many have straight (non-tapering) sides that can be broken (but are not always broken) by freezing things that never get as high as the shoulders of the jar. Given that there are jars designed for freezing, one might as well use the right jar for the job.
While I agree with the information you give here, I understood the question differently. The OP appears to already know that there is an upper limit for filling the jars (and that's not the jar capacity). What they are asking here is a different question - is there a lower limit? What if they freeze a half-full jar - will there be any implications for either safety or quality?
@rumtscho : okay, then answer that interpretation of the question
@Joe I would, if I knew the answer.
@rumtscho you are correct about what I was asking. I'll edit the question to make that more obvious.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.362956
| 2024-11-26T03:28:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129651",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"cr0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103899
|
Preventing Warping when Roasting at High Temperature
I like to roast in a gas oven at 400F for extended periods. Ex: I will cook large batches of bacon at 400F for about 35 min, and large batches of Brussels Sprouts at 400F for 60+ min (with stirring). I have a large, gas convection oven.
A challenge I experience is my pans warping. This can cause them to suddenly deform in the oven, flinging food out of the pans and causing burns in the oven.
I recently got a set of 18-gauge stainless steel baking sheets, an upgrade from a thinner, cheaper set I had before. These have helped some, but I still experience warping. My questions:
Would aluminum be better than stainless steel for purposes of preventing warping?
Is the use of metal inevitably going to risk warping? (i.e. do I just need to give up and switch to glass or something?).
Do I just need an even higher gauge (e.g. maybe 10?). (note: I like to use baking sheets that are at least 20in x 14in, and it's hard to find sheets this large at gauges higher than 18).
Am I somehow missing something else entirely?
I've read that having fewer raised edges can reduce warping. But, I really need the pans I use to have all four edges raised about an inch.
Not sure I can formulate an answer from this info, as idk the precise specification that makes the difference - however, my cheaper [£5 - 10] non-stick 'bendy-metal' ovenware will deform in the oven . My expensive [£15 - 35] enamelled steel doesn't , ever. Alternatively, caterers seem to use exclusively aluminium with sides up to 3 or 4" deep, so that may be an option too. Maybe a rule of thumb; if you can flex it when cold, it will flex on its own when heated.
I found some 16 gauge stuff that was a bit out of price target, as I'm also on the same hunt, and theoretically it's 25% thicker than 18 gauge, (0.05" vs 0.0625) so that could be enough.Generally thick aluminum will be better to avoid warping for baking sheets, but not so good for health. Toxicologists consider it a "heavy metal" because of its adverse properties in the body. Whereas steel, being primarily iron and carbon isn't really volatile for living things. High nickel content is not so good in some stainless alloys though.
12-gauge baking pans are easy to find, and not that expensive - you just have to look in the stores that sell to professional cooks. Search for "12 gauge sheet pan" and you'll get plenty of results. Just make sure that you check the size: a full-size sheet pan (18"x26") won't fit in most household ovens.
I liked this, un/fortunately for me, I am avoiding aluminum as much as possible, so it's been a challenged to find a stainless steel 12 gauge sheet pan, but I found a "blue steel" one, a bit pricey though... https://www.restaurantsupply.com/matfer-310103-blue-steel-23-3-4-long-15-3-4-wide-1-16-thick-oven-baking-sheet-with-4-gripped-edges @67USD before tax+shipping! Better than 90-120 like the two big name brand residential kitchen chains (SlT/W-S).
The bottom surface of the pan will expand as it heats. The edges will also expand but they won’t be able to expand as much as the bottom surface. This will cause the warping, even cracking.
As you have mentioned one way of avoiding this is having one or two edges, as the cookie sheets would have. These pans will not create such tension as the surfaces of the pans expand.
In your case however I think you need thicker pans that can withstand the tension.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.363282
| 2019-12-04T00:03:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103899",
"authors": [
"NOTjust -- user4304",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93303
|
Can cinnamon rolls be frozen after they are shaped?
Can you freeze cinnamon rolls after they are shaped? Also, about how long does it take for the dough to come to room temp?
I would use parchment or wax paper and then aluminum foil wrapped tightly around the pan when freezing. Do not freeze more than 2 weeks in a regular freezer as they may develop freezer burn taste. Then, instead of letting them come to room temp, I would warm them in an oven for 15-20 minutes and then ice/frost them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.363558
| 2018-10-27T14:53:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93303",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93328
|
Should I reheat my eggs before using in recipe?
I premade scrambled eggs tonight for this recipe (very early tailgate party tomorrow, don’t judge): https://www.hgtv.com/design/make-and-celebrate/entertaining/ham-egg-and-cheese-croissant-wrap
My question is should I reheat the eggs first in the oven before adding them to the crescent rolls and baking them? Or will the 15-18 minutes the recipe calls for be enough to warm the eggs through?
The time in the oven should be plenty for heating the eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.363625
| 2018-10-28T05:28:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93328",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93005
|
Bread crust separated from interior
I'm an amateur baker, been making bread weekly for about 9 months now, working out of Ken Forkish's "Flour Water Salt Yeast" cookbook mostly. I had something happen to my bread this week that I would like to understand.
I was making a recipe in the book called "Overnight White Bread" which takes a very small amount of yeast and then rises for 12-14 hours. As a variant suggested in the book, after shaping the loaf in the morning I placed the proofing basket in the refrigerator and then, after work, set it on the counter while pre-heating my oven (I bake in an enameled cast iron Dutch oven). This let it work with my work schedule.
The bread came out pretty good, with an excellent taste. It has great big holes, which this recipe does usually, but I notice that the bread itself sort of separated -- there were extremely big holes near the top of the loaf, but it was relatively dense near the bottom. Basically, it looked as if the bread collapsed some on the interior, but after the crust had already risen and solidified enough to hold itself up. As a side-effect, with just a few gluten filaments beneath it, the top of the loaf couldn't conduct heat away and so blackened more than I would like..
It's not a huge deal, but I'd rather have a more evenly-distributed loaf if possible. Why does this happen, and can I do anything to prevent it?
Possible duplicate: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73479/crust-separating-from-crumb-in-white-bread-what-gives?rq=1.
Dear Zeldredge, thank you for a well written first post. An improvement suggestion: a picture would help to decide if it is a duplicate, and if not, help with diagnosing your problem.
@rumtscho I think that is very close to what I observed, although mine was even a bit more severe. Unfortunately by the time I thought of making the post, the parts of the bread that most demonstrated what was happening had been eaten, so no picture was possible. I will try some of the techniques suggested in that answer, thank you!
This sounds like a case of "flying crust". For more information about it, check out the "Tunnel Between the Crust and the Crumb" section here: http://artisanbreadbaking.com/problems/
This happend to me as an young bread baker. You should always consider slashing the top of your loaves with a very sharp knife or razor blade to relieve pressure inside the loaf and prevent this separation. You may have also over risen your loaves. Check them periodically by pressing a wet finger into one. When the dough does not spring back very fast, its bake time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.363696
| 2018-10-18T00:11:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93005",
"authors": [
"Rick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/855",
"rumtscho",
"zeldredge"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113695
|
Pulled Pork Jackfruit
When cooking jackfruit for “pulled pork” from canned young green jackfruit, do you cut off the core from the rest of it or just braise it till tender?
if you pull jackfruit, wouldn't that be "pulled jackfruit" instead?
I use two forks to shred the jackfruit - core and all. The core pieces have a bit more firm texture so it's a nice mix with the rest of it.
Sometimes I need to chop the core a bit with a knife due to toughness, but shredding with forks is the way to go
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.363916
| 2021-01-10T23:49:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113695",
"authors": [
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"njzk2"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113818
|
Pasteurized milk boiling dilemma
Experts tell drinking pasteurized milk from carton is fine. But sometimes, when I boil refrigerated previously opened milk carton with oats, it curdles.
Does that mean it is not safe to drink milk directly from carton without boiling it? Or, is the problem with cooking oats and milk together?
I faced this issue with cow's milk. Will using soy milk make any difference?
The answer probably lies in your question:
refrigerated previously opened milk
Products that have been made shelf-stable by a heating process will be susceptible to spoilage again once the package is opened. While unopened UHT milk will last for months without refrigeration and ESL milk gets up to three weeks (depending on process and refrigerator temperature), once the package is opened, all of them will stay safe for a mere days only. The same is true for plant-based milks like soy milk.
So unless you have introduced some substance that encourages curdling (typically an acid), the curdling indicates that your milk has gone off and is no longer safe. Boiling will not remedy that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.363991
| 2021-01-19T02:24:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113818",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113869
|
Heating milk in yogurt-making
I'd like to make yogurt with non-fat dried milk enriched with canned (full-fat) evaporated milk. Since both these products have already been heated in the manufacture, do I need to heat/cool the mixture (as I would fresh milk) before adding the starter culture?
What result do you expect by adding evaporated milk?
I have made very good yogurt with non-fat dried milk that does not need to be heated and cooled -- a process that would add a great deal of additional prep time. But some people prefer their yogurt made with whole or partially de-fatted milk. I'm not sure the difference in flavor and texture, but I didn't want a lot of time in heating and cooling if it were not really needed.
I would say, go with your gut. It is possible that you see a very slight advantage, or that you don't have any at all, so do as you feel better.
The denaturing of proteins has already been done in both the canned and dried milks, so you don't need to heat up for that part. What you can win is a bit on the contamination front. Making yogurt is about creating an ecosystem, and to give your preferred culture the best start in life, you are trying to keep the mixture as sterile as possible. The combination of canned milk, milk powder and water shouldn't have any more bacteria and yeasts than anything else in your kitchen, and heated milk gets re-contaminated during cooling, so if you can get any edge, it will be small. But if you want to shoot for it, there is no harm in that. Especially if you are reinoculating from the old batch a lot, this might reduce the time until you have to refresh your culture.
Thanks. I understood that commercial dehydration was done at lower temperatures than those used at home, made possible by processing in a partial vacuum. I didn't know whether those lower temps were sufficient to denature the proteins.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.364096
| 2021-01-21T06:10:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113869",
"authors": [
"Alfred",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90939"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114208
|
Toasting and blooming spices
From what I've read, to make some spices more "potent", you have to toast or bloom them. Take cinnamon stick for example, in most Indian recipes, they call for it to be fried in oil (blooming). Other spices like coriander needs to be toasted first.
Different spice calls for a different treatment. What about if I toasted the cinnamon stick first and then fried it in oil? Will it somehow make it more potent? The same case goes for coriander; will it "improve" the coriander if I toast it first, ground it, and the fried the powder in oil?
For more context, lets say the cinnamon stick is for biryani and the coriander for some stew.
As it stands this question is very broad – you might get a better response by making it more specific. I also noticed this question which seems quite similar which you might benefit from: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78899/how-do-different-spices-react-to-heat?rq=1 and the link someone provided there to 'Indian Spices 101': https://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/indian-spices-101-how-to-work-with-dry-spices.html
@dbmag9 Thanks I'll read that first and comeback if it doesn't answer my question.
Toasting followed by blooming would not make spices "more potent" than either toasting or blooming alone, but would make them taste different.
Per Serious Eats:
Frying spices in oil gives them a completely different flavor than dry-roasting. When dry-roasted, a spice's flavor changes in fundamental ways: volatile aromatics begin to cook off, while compounds in the spice recombine to form new flavors that are often deeper, roasted, and earthier. Frying them in oil, on the other hand, tends to enhance the original flavors of a spice, making them bolder and more intense, almost as if they've become more sure of themselves. In short, oil-fried spices have a brighter and fresher aroma compared to dry-roasted spices.
For this reason, you might use spices that are dry-roasted but not fried, spices that are fried but not roasted, or even spices that are roasted and fried. In the last case, you're trying to spread the nuttier/earthier flavor of the roasted spice through more of the dish by infusing the oil.
There's a caveat, though, which is that spices that have already been roasted will burn much faster than raw spices, particularly if they've been ground. As such, you'll want to add them to less hot oil, or to oil that already has other things in it bringing the temperature down (like chopped onions).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.364256
| 2021-02-10T11:04:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114208",
"authors": [
"autumn322",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91308"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114408
|
Egg bread recipe calls for 2 eggs and 2 yolks, can I use 4 whole eggs?
The recipe for egg bread calls for 2 eggs and 2 yolks. What would result from just using 4 whole eggs?
It will likely be a more coagulated, firmer, and more spongey result. Why not just save the two separated whites to make a healthy omelette in the morning?
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/64774/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/60329/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/28150/67
Welcome to SA! There are already multiple questions, with answers, about yolks vs. whole eggs on this forum. Please browse those, as your question is almost certainly answered in one of them. If you believe that your question is different, please edit it to include more information about the recipe you're following and why you want to substitute.
Does this answer your question? Can I use whole eggs instead of egg yolks in a lemon bundt cake?
@FuzzyChef I also thought of closing as duplicate of that one, but I thought it's a tad different, because 1) the other is a cake and this one seems to be a yeast bread, and 2) in the older question, the OP seems to have a yolk-only recipe, and here, it is mixed yolks and whole eggs, which makes the substitution more forgiving.
Rumtscho: given the lack of detail in the question, how can we possibly know?
Let's put it this way - you can, but there will be consequences, so you probably shouldn't.
Bread dough that behaves like you expect it to depends on a given amount of liquid for a given amount of flour. Using whole eggs instead of just the yolks called for increases the liquid, so you'll have a runnier dough while its raw, making it harder to knead, so then you're tempted to add more flour and everything gets out of whack.
.................
In bread making, an egg is a liquid. One egg yolk is about 20 grams of liquid. One egg white is about 40 grams.
So four eggs are 460=240 grams or milliliters (a bit more than a cup of liquid), while two eggs and two yolks are 260=120 grams plus 2*20=40 grams for 160 grams of liquid (a bit less than 3/4 of a cup).
So what to do with the leftover egg white? There were good suggestions here already, but I like to either freeze it for later use, or stir it with something flavorful (anchovy, parmesan, garlic, and then fry it up and eat it now or chopped in a salad later :)
I love how Lisa started her answer - you can, but there will be consequences.
I am not sure there will be that much problem with the hydration. Additional egg whites don't make dough as liquid as water or milk does, and 40 g extra egg whites are probably not going to do that much to the dough consistency, if you are not working with tiny amounts of flour. And the dough consistency doesn't matter that much anyway - there are many breads which handle terrible as doughs, but are formulated to produce a great final texture, so a slightly runnier dough shouldn't be a problem.
What will change most is the final texture. It will be more tender, crisp and dry. It will also be crumbly compared to the original, but that's a relative thing, you shouldn't expect it to fall apart when cut. You won't get that moist softness which comes from high-yolk dough, it won't have the silky smooth mouthfeel intended by the original recipe. And the taste will be different, with less of an eggy flavor. So, you will generally be making a different type of bread - it is up to you if you want it that way or not.
As you can probably tell, 2 whole eggs consists more liquid than just 2 egg yolks. Many sources recommend replacing 3 eggs yolks for 2 whole eggs, while many other sources recommend replacing 2 egg yolks for one whole egg.
Since the recipe calls for 2 egg yolks, it would, of course, be more convenient to use the 2 egg-yolks to one whole egg ratio. But since there is about 5 grams of fat in every egg yolk, or one teaspoon of oil, I recommend the best substitute for 2 egg yolks would be one whole egg + one teaspoon of oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.364483
| 2021-02-19T22:49:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114408",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"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
}
|
114503
|
Cocoa butter crystals in chocolate frosting
We have been making a chocolate frosting recipe for 15+ years. At it's best it is creamy, smooth, fudgy, and stays a beautiful, spreadable consistency at room temperature. We make it in a batch that can frost three layer cakes, so we can have it on the shelf ready to go at all times for last minute cake orders.
At times, though, we have trouble with it "crystallizing". It gets little grains of cocoa butter in it, sometimes just a few, and sometimes so many that it just looks terrible and loses it's spreadability.
I'm pretty certain the grains are cocoa butter because they melt completely at body temp if you rub them between your fingers. The frosting tastes fine and because the crystals melt so easily, you don't notice them in the mouth. If we rewarm the frosting, it smooths out, but then either the crystals reform, or the whole batch of frosting sets up way too hard, like a very firm ganache, and it can't be spread on cakes. Here is the recipe:
3.5# Unsalted butter, softened to warm room temp, until shiny. (We use only Plugra as our regular butter from our foodservice supplier varies way too much in water content.)
4 oz. Cocoa Powder (we use Bensdorf Dutched now, but have used various brands with no consistent negative or positive effect)
8 fl oz. Hot water - from our coffee makers
3#10 oz Chocolate chips, melted (We use C'est Vivant brand from Bakemark- standard semisweet chip)-
6 fl oz Corn Syrup
Method: Cocoa powder is dissolved in hot water, cooled slightly and blended in to very soft butter. Chocolate chips are melted and blended in and then corn syrup blended in. Minimal blending is used as excessive blending makes the frosting light brown instead of dark and fudgy. (It is easily blended by hand, but we frequently use a 20qt mixer with a paddle attachment.)
I know the recipe can work, because we have made this frosting for so long, and have gone for months at a a time without the crystallizing problem, then it crops up and we try to figure it out, then it stops for a while, etc. We have tried different chocolates, but honestly, the better chocolates don't necessarily make a better frosting - they tend to make it too soft or too hard, or it tastes weird, and they are expensive, or we have to pay for shipping, or we can't even get it shipped in the summer, or we have to buy a 50# case. It's really best for us to just use the chocolate chips we have in inventory for so many other uses.
Other things we have tested and eliminated as contributing factors - meaning crystallization has happened under both circumstances: brand of corn syrup (generic foodservice product vs Karo), eliminating any water droplets being introduced after the frosting is finished, melting the chocolate chips in a microwave vs double boiler, hand mixing vs machine, and probably some other things I can't think of right now.
The thing that seems to make the most difference is the temperature the frosting is held at as it sets up after mixing. Too cold an environment seems to exacerbate the crystallizing. Too warm an environment and the frosting stays very soft - almost a liquid and too soft to frost anything but a frozen cake. So we store it in various places depending on the season.
In the summer when the main kitchen gets too hot, it goes in the storeroom, in the winter when the main kitchen stays below 68F all day, it goes on a server shelf in the dining room that stays warmer or on top of the ice machine. So yes, the problem is definitely worse in the winter. I really love this frosting when it is right - it has the right texture, a good, American style chocolate flavor and a beautiful spreadability that makes our humble diner style chocolate cake look like something from a photo shoot.
I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions for making this recipe more foolproof. Is there something I can add or a technique I can try to prohibit or delay or minimize the crystallizing of the cocoa butter? Would an emulsifier help? (If I could find the perfect storage temp, that might work, but I don't really have a spot for storage that is consistently the optimal temp in our building over the course of all the seasons here in Michigan, USA.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.364866
| 2021-02-25T19:07:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114503",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114579
|
Does water "go bad" in this sense?
I have an electric water boiler in the kitchen. I put fresh tap water into it, boil it up, and use it for my coffee. Then, an hour later, I go back and press the button again and have it re-boil the now room-temperature water, and use it for another cup. Sometimes, several hours pass; sometimes, half a day.
When "too long" has passed, I tend to empty it and put fresh tap water into it, because it feels like it has "gone bad".
Is this silly? Can water really "go bad" like that? Is there any difference whatsoever between freshly poured water and water that has been standing still in the container half a day or even the entire day?
It's still gonna be boiled? Doesn't that "neutralize" basically any kind of water?
“Electric water boiler”. First time I’ve heard that phrase being used to mean “kettle”
There are other types of water boiler that are not strictly 'kettles' - When I first moved into my current house it still had a Creda Corvette from the 60s. In the 90s I bought what at the time was a boiler I'd only ever seen in Japan which boiled then kept hot all day example. I see urn types like this frequently in my day job, for locations catering. Google Image search "electric water boiler -kettle" for a whole lot more.
Just wanted to point out that you can put your boiled water in a thermal carafe or a thermos (depending on how much water you want to keep hot) and it will stay very hot for the better part of a day.
The literal translation in some languages is that one! And for example when I came back from a year abroad in England almost 15 years ago, brought some kettles as presents with me, and my friends (and their respective families) were quite shocked as it was not really common item. Now it is more common! @ChrisMelville
It doesn't go bad, but it does change the taste.
When water is just sitting there, water evaporates, but most things dissolved in it don't. Then, each time you boil it, the steam causes additional water to escape leaving the same amount of dissolved stuff in there. So, the concentration of dissolved stuff keeps going up.
Dissolved oxygen also decreases when you heat or boil water, changing the taste.
Finally, even if your kettle is stainless steel, it can eventually rust.
Would simply agitating the water re-introduce oxygen?
@Luciano somewhat. But water will absorb other substance floating in the air as well, changing the taste in different direction.
if you live in a hard-water area you can get a very strong limescale taste after a while and, eventually, enough limescale will build up in the kettle/boiler to influence the taste of any water left sitting it for a while, even if not boiled. As such it is generally advisable to boil only as much water as needed (which also saves money), and pour out any remainder before the next use
My stainless steel kettle is at least a decade old & shows no sign of rust whatsoever. The only time you get rust on SS is if you have something else ferrous in the same 'water bath' like in a dishwasher. One contaminates the other.
Note if you don’t boil the water ever and leave it out at room temperature, in some places it can develop algae if it doesn’t completely evaporate fast enough.
@Tetsujin some tap water has iron in it. Especially in places with iron pipes.
@derobert - I guess I'd never even considered pipes could be made of iron. In the UK we went from lead [a long time ago] to copper, now to plastic. In almost 60 years of using kettles daily I have never known one to rust, nor have I ever tipped out the contents 'just in case'.
As far as I know it does not go bad, but there is a good reason not to fill your kettle completely when you fill it from the tap.
Partly filled kettles come to the boil in less time. Also costing less in energy, which can be a concern for some.
So fill the kettle part way, say to the amount of water you actually use and you will spend less time waiting but no more time filling.
I often refill my kettle after using it till empty, having it ready to run and already at room temperature when I want to have an other hot drink.
Here I do not notice much difference in taste between fresh and re-boiled water but that may differ between locations.
This is the right answer: you shouldn't be in a position where it comes up in the first place.
Potable water does not "go off" ever*
I wouldn't even consider actually changing the water in a kettle unless I was going to be away from the house for more than a week, for which I'd simply empty it before I left & fill it again when I got back.
Any bacteria acquired through the spout is going to be negligible, and you are flushing the system through with fresh water every time you boil it [or once a day, if you insist on filling it unnecessarily to the top each day, which does nothing but waste energy]. Even if you leave some in the bottom each time, it's not the 'same bit'.
Hard water - high calcium carbonate concentrations leading to limescale & furred-up kettles - will taint the flavour anyway, whether you start with fresh each time or not. The difference in flavour between 'new' & 'mixed with the old' is going to be negligible. Allowing limescale to build up doesn't really hurt anything except your electricity bill & the kettle element which will eventually burn out from overheating.
The solution to both flavour & electricity bill is a water filter.
I live in a very hard water area but grew up in a very soft water area. I consider a filter an essential item, not a luxury.
*assuming it is not later contaminated. This is supported by building regulations, which allow you to cap a pipe without ever needing to allow for the water remaining in that unused section ever being drained or flushed.
I'm not the downvoter, but I want to comment on the water filter solution: in the area where I live the government has started advising not to use water filters since they tend to be a breading ground for bacteria and similar. I have seen a filter that was long overdue for a change go very bad at someone else's house.
@Lavandysh - That's like outlawing baking trays or grease traps because some people don't clean them. It's really tough to legislate for the truly stupid. Water filter has a clock in it. When clock flash, change filter.
It makes perfect sense. I use the remaining water in the kettle each and every time, I don't see why not!
I think it's a good answer but I have a counter-example. We fill the water bin of our coffee maker from an RO filter; all chlorination has been removed by the filter. After a month of the bin not being cleaned, we can feel a biofilm on the inside surfaces of the bin, even though it's only had potable water added to it. But the lack of chlorination allows bacteria to grow, and bacteria can grow with a surprisingly low amount of nutrients. The kettle gets sterilized each time it is boiled, so if boiled often enough, it shouldn't ever get a biofilm like that.
@WayneConrad - that's kind of covered with my "not later contaminated" caveat. I'm not familiar with the 'RO filter' type. We have what in the UK is a 'standard' Brita jug, which gets cleaned every time the clock runs out. My coffee machine's tank doesn't really ever get a clean at all, it just gets topped-up as it runs empty. I've had a succession of these machines over almost a decade & none have ever developed that 'fish-tank' feel that I think you mean (& I know that effect because I used to keep fish;) If it did, I'd be ringing the council to see what's wrong with the water supply.
'RO' would be reverse osmosis. And I think the issue is that standing water will inevitably be "later contaminated" by things in the air, if the chlorine/etc is removed; odds are that wouldn't happen in a small kettle in a few days time, but given weeks...
@Tetsujin, the Brita jug isn't a RO system. It's a simple filter. I've used the jug types for years, and it's a much simpler system than RO. Brita makes a RO system, but it fits under the sink. Even the Brita filters that fit onto the faucet aren't RO.
I did say I wasn't familiar with the RO system [though I did Google it to see what it is] & that the 'regular' Brita filter was what I am familiar with.
If you don't do it too often this might be a good idea for another reason: when you pour out the water (and preferably give your teapot a rinse) you also pour out concentrated chalk residue and any other particles that didn't boil.
Chalk is the white stuff that forms around in your boiling pot after a while. It isn't bad for you at all, but it is bad for your boiling pot. By emptying it completely every once in a while you give your appliance a longer life (independent from how long the water has been in the pot). Chalk doesn't disappear when boiling. So, if you boil more and more water without ever getting rid of the little bit of water at the bottom, it has nowhere to go and the concentration of the chalk will rise and it will stick to the pot after a while. If you empty out the water, the new water will have a lower concentration for a while and you get less residue.
How bad the chalk is depends on the quality of the water where you live. Also, if it really has been a long time since you last used it, I would also clean it because dust still comes in. It's probably not dangerous to drink, but can affect the taste and isn't nice.
Chemistry followup: is this "chalk" the same as the mineral calcium carbonate, like in the white cliffs of Dover?
Yes, though it's more usually called Limescale in domestic water.
Depending on what minerals are in your water, you may get other precipitates besides calcium carbonate, though the effect is similar (not dangerous, can impact flavor, over time can cause problems with the appliance).
I work in drinking water quality chemistry at a municipal water authority. The "Potable" water at your tap is treated with chlorine. For the water to be safe from microbial growth, there must be a sufficient "residual" of chlorine. However, the chlorine breaks down over time, for example, water that has sat stagnant in a main for about a week or more will lose its Cl residual, and must be flushed to waste because it is not "potable" anymore.
Heating water breaks down and evaporates the chlorine almost completely. That kettle of warm, non-chlorinated water sitting on your counter is a prime breeding ground for microbes, some of which could be disease-causing. Always dump out the kettle when you're done with it, never drink (or cook with) water from your home’s hot-water heater, and re-boiling water will NOT necessarily make it safe again.
Which part of the world are you located?
"...never drink (or cook with) water from your home’s hot-water heater, and re-boiling water will NOT necessarily make it safe again...." Seriously? That's like an everyday occurrence...
Ok, so to put it in simpler terms. Lets say you have a bucket of marbles,(Water) and sand (Dissolved solids). Each time you boil the water, two marbles are taken away until eventually there is no water, but dissolved solids instead and this can really mess up the taste, and mess up your pot/kettle in general. So the best thing to do is trust your instincts on this one and just dump out the old water.
My recommendation is to boil it about 4 times and then ditch the batch and refill the kettle.
This doesn't work as an illustration. By your theory after a year or so of never dumping out the contents, the kettle would be full entirely of sand. This is demonstrably not true.
@Tetsujin - the following is not just to you but it's relevant to what you said. || "All models are wrong. Some models are useful." - This IS a useful model / metaphor - but if carried to extreme it gives a wrong impression - as do all metaphors. It should not have been downvoted - other answers which say much the same thing in a different way have been upvoted. .
Your water goes bad because of microbiological growth.
Your tap water is not pure water. There is a lot of stuff in it. And your environment is not sterile and simply cooking it to 100°C for a short amount of time does not sterilize it. You have to cook it for 10 minutes and your container needs to be airtight after.
This doesn't occur over the course of days, or even weeks, though. Most sources suggest that tap water is fine to drink when stored for up to six months. It's totally unnecessary to boil tap water for 10 minutes after it's been sitting for a day.
… only if you live in an area with non-potable water. Tap water in the EU & presumably the US too will not go "off" at all if you put it in a sealed container. There is nothing in it that can 'grow'. It is sterile.
@Tetsujin I thought only the police were in the fatally erroneous habit of sealing their kettles.
@Tetsujin I don't think I'd go so far as to call it 'sterile'. Sure its perfectly safe outside of very extreme situations but its definitely not 'sterile' in the technical/medical sense of the term, especially when you consider how many miles of pipes the water flows through before it gets to your tap.
I'm not sure why this is getting downvoted, it's correct. Manufacturers of bottled water add a ton of chlorine specifically to prevent mold from growing while it sits on a shelf. @NuclearHoagie My wife left a pot of coffee out for 3 weeks and a bunch of mold grew in it. It definitely doesn't take 6 months.
Look up pasteurization. Here another link that states, that pathogens die already below boiling point. Air contains microbes. Sterilized water-retaining material is a ground for them to settle and make it un-sterile again. In normal tap water they won't find much food, though. So they will not grow.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.365223
| 2021-03-04T01:12:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114579",
"authors": [
"BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft",
"Bryan Krause",
"Chris Melville",
"Dewi Morgan",
"GHP",
"Gigili",
"Jack Aidley",
"Joe M",
"Lavandysh",
"Luciano",
"M.K",
"Nuclear Hoagie",
"Roland Puntaier",
"Ross Presser",
"Russell McMahon",
"Tetsujin",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Tristan",
"Wayne Conrad",
"Willeke",
"computercarguy",
"derobert",
"fraxinus",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91773",
"levininja"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92619
|
Is it possible to freeze my own 'oven-fry' crumbed food items?
I cook quite a lot for a less able person, who would find it impossible to shallow fry the fish-cakes I make for her, but who would be quite capable of taking them from frozen, or defrosting them, and baking them in an oven.
The ingredients (fish,potato,seasonings) are all cooked before frying, but the crumb (flour, egg-wash, dry breadcrumb) is not.
I imagine the commercially available oven-bake fishcakes have been treated in some way, in particular introducing fat, somehow, so the result of baking them is reasonably similar to the result of frying your own, and, of course, safe.
Has anybody any experience of preparing their own 'oven-fry' crumbed items that work in a similar way to the shop-bought ones?
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86516/considerations-for-prepping-breaded-chicken-for-freezing
related - something to be aware of: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89349/why-does-the-breading-always-come-off-of-my-oven-fried-chicken
We don't you just try freezing a breaded one?
@paparazzo.. because I know, without some kind of added fat, just baking a dry fishcake would produce quite an unpleasant result. I'm imagining that oven-fry products have fat introduced somehow (and some are pre-cooked, to a degree).. I just don't know how, or if you can imitate that at home. Maybe I should edit the question to clarify this aspect?
Thanks for the acceptance! Favour returned: question upvoted! ;-)
I have experience with 2 methods:
The "parfrying" method:
Heat your favourite deep-frying oil to 175°C (350°F)
Fry the crumbled food items until the temperature drops below 175°C (on most fryers: until the red temperature light goes on, on some: until the green temperature light goes off)
Let the items sit above the oil until 175°C is reached again
Fry them again for about 20 seconds
The "parbaking" method:
Pre-heat your oven till 150°C (300°F)
Put the items on parchment paper
Spray them with a little bit of your favourite oil
Leave them in the oven for 10 minutes
Take them out of the oven, turn them upside-down, spray the other side, put them back into the oven¹
Leave them again in the oven for another 10 minutes
Whichever of the above method you've used, your items are now ready to freeze (I always use the fast-freeze section of my freezer while they're still hot, but YMMV) and can then be re-heated in the oven at 175°C for 20 minutes if unfrozen or 35-40 minutes if frozen.
Note ¹: This is to ensure your oven is closed and stays at 150°C while you're turning them upside-down.
Note ²: The above method is for items about 2 thumbs in size. If your items would be smaller, (e.g. little balls), diminish the times above.
Note ³: Maybe there is a professional term for "parfrying" and "parbaking" but I'm not aware of any so just these as an analogy to parboiling, without the water... ;-)
Do you spray / otherwise oil your 'parbaked' ones? In other words, are they 'par-roasted?'
@RobinBetts Oops! Forgot that bit: Edited!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.366281
| 2018-10-03T09:22:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92619",
"authors": [
"Ess Kay",
"Fabby",
"Robin Betts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90839
|
Does traditional Pesto Genovese contain garlic?
.. I'm hoping a native Genoan can tell me. Every recipe for Pesto Genovese I've found out there includes a fair amount of garlic. But I barely cook the sauce. I really just warm it through, tossing with the pasta and a little pasta water to form an emulsion. This means the garlic is pretty much raw. Even a little is pungent enough to detract from the other ingredients.. is this really traditional? Am I doing something else wrong? I've taken, instead, to melting a little garlic in a frying pan before introducing the pasta, pesto, and water.
Fresh raw garlic isn’t supposed to be pungent. Try (a) reducing the amount of garlic, and (b) finding fresher garlic. Cooking or blanching the garlic will completely change its taste.
@KonradRudolph I suspect you're right - I can't get the right kind of garlic, and it isn't fresh enough.
Remark: even in Italy, not everyone enjoys the taste of garlic in pesto. There are many recipes for garlic-free pesto, and it's even sold in supermarkets (well, at least the mass-produced version of pesto, to which many Genoans will object). So don't feel weird for that.
According to the CONSORZIO DEL PESTO GENOVESE, which defines what is considered official Pesto Genovese, it does contain garlic. They suggest that traditionally it contained less garlic than the current official recipe calls for - one clove for 600g of pasta versus two. Later on they mention that it contains one clove for each thirty leaves of basil, and also leave the following suggestion:
The garlic must be sweet, it must not prevail while making itself felt in the background ... in short, it can not be missing!
Note that pesto is traditionally not cooked at all; it’s made solely in the food processor (or of course a mortar and pestle or mezzaluna truly traditionally).
As far as your taste - I would suggest leaving out the garlic if you truly don’t like it!
Some suggestions for keeping the garlic taste down:
From Cooks Illustrated:
Blanching the garlic (briefly cooking it in boiling water).
Microwaving the garlic until warm
Toasting the garlic in a dry pan
From Fine Cooking:
Remove the germ, or the thin center piece of the garlic, which often turns green (like a sprout); this is more bitter than the rest of the garlic.
Avoid cooking it in butter or other preparation methods that will substantially alter its flavor, as that will also alter the flavor of the pesto excessively (unless you like that flavor change!).
Well you can't get more authoritative than that! Thanks for finding it. I suspect my problem is ( as is true of most great, simple Italian recipes ) the raw materials must be spot on, and I can't lay my hands on them. In particular the 'sweet' garlic. I'll have to improvise.
If you want to moderate the garlic, maybe try blanching it in water, rather than cooking the sauce (please don't!) or cooking it with oil - that will change the flavor less.
I'm certainly having impressed on me the importance of not cooking pesto at all!
@RobinBetts I added a few suggestions for moderating the garlic, including A. Leistra's suggestion, and a few references.
FWIW, I generally roast or toast my garlic per above. It mellows the flavor, and that way I don't have to be as careful about exactly how much I add.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.366550
| 2018-07-06T13:34:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90839",
"authors": [
"Federico Poloni",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe M",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Robin Betts",
"Silenced Temporarily",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66768",
"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
}
|
103269
|
Cooking octopus: simple boil or broth?
I have heard about "polvo à feira" (Pulpo a la Gallega/Spannish style octopus) and I went on a search for recipes.
In one of my findings (https://youtu.be/bHSjnzNvJYo), I have seen Eric Ripert boiling the octopus with ham, celery, parsley, onion, garlic and seasonings (black pepper and paprika), in a process that he called a "broth".
As I am not familiar with it, is there advantages of doing a "broth" instead of a simple boil (in which one can add an onion) when it comes to the flavor?
boiling ham is a crime against ham :(
It is unless it's heavily salted for preservation @StianYttervik, boiling or soaking in water is very important to make it edible then.
@GdD I have heard of soaking, but boiling? Guess I learned something new. Would you have compareable ...deliciousness...between a good ham (of which the spanish tradition have so many) and a... heavily salted and preserved ham, which has then been boiled?
In my experience not even close. An Iberico ham, parma ham, or just an average quality normal ham is far better than heavily salted hams, even after it's been soaked more than once.
@StianYttervik Proscuitto, Iberico and the like are dry-cured meats, whereas hams of the type to be boiled to remove salt are wet-cured. A boiled ham subsequently roasted is the meat for your two veg, not charcuterie. I doubt one would want to eat a half inch slab of Iberico for dinner. Different foods for different purposes.
Eric Ripert's approach is essentially that if the cooking liquid tastes good, it will help impart flavor on whatever you cook in that liquid.
By adding ham & aromatics, the goal is that the octopus will take on some of that flavor. By converse, the same theory would say that if you cook in a simpler, bland water, your octopus will flavor the water, and the water will dilute the octopus's flavor.
Whether it's necessary is really a point of personal preference. You may find that other ingredients in your recipe provide enough flavor that you can go with the simpler method, or you may find that it really needs that extra flavor.
In general, these seemingly complicated, seemingly unnecessary steps (like using broth instead of water) make restaurant dishes have a more complex, deeper taste. Sometimes that attention to detail is just the difference between a home cook and professional chef. Sometimes the difference can be subtle and feel "not worth it" when cooking at home--you'll have to decide that on your own.
What about the broth? After cooking fish in broth, you get boiled fish and a great base for fish-soup. Is octopus-soup worth making?
@Ivana I can imagine working out nicely. It should have some octopus, as a nice fish soup has fish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.366857
| 2019-11-04T12:11:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103269",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Gonçalo Peres",
"Ivana",
"Stian",
"Tom W",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71428"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98788
|
Salt turned peas from creamy to crunchy
Here is what I did, I boiled a bag of frozen peas,about 400 grams, in a pot of water. I checked for tenderness after a while and they were creamy on the inside like I wished they were. I take some out and salt them generously and soon after they turn to a somewhat unpleasant crunchy texture.
Is this normal? how can I season my peas without changing their texture?
edit: I tasted some after writing this and it seems that they are getting crunchier as they get cooler as well even without salting
How long did you boil them for? Frozen peas need no more than bringing back to the boil, if even that. The longer you cook them, the tougher they get. If you want them salted, salt the water first; though I never salt peas, they really don't need it.
I just checked on them randomly, frankly I don't remember the total cooking time just that they were good when I turned the gas off.
If you gave them more than a couple of minutes, they were probably already over cooked when you turned the gas off. If you didn't immediately drain & serve, then they would continue to cook in the hot water. By the time you came to drain & salt them, they would be completely ruined.
Do peas harden when overcooked?
Yes. The longer you cook them, the tougher they get. As far as I know [though I've never tried] there's no rescue once you've done that. Answer added.
Frozen peas don't really need 'cooking' at all.
The smaller they are the less they need, too; so anything labelled 'garden peas' or 'petit pois' really all you should do is drop them into boiling water, stir & give them maybe 1 minute maximum to heat. Drain & serve immediately.
Don't wait for the water to return to the boil, assuming you have maybe twice the volume of water as peas, just keeping the heat under them for a minute will be sufficient.
They will keep cooking as long as they remain hot, which is possibly why you thought adding the salt afterwards was the trigger. It wasn't, it was that they will simply keep cooking; so the trick is to drain them early rather than late.
I usually drop them as I'm serving the rest of the meal, so they're not waiting around at all, they're just the last thing onto the plate. If I'm adding to something like risotto, I will add right as I'm going to serve. Drop, stir, serve. They'll finish cooking on the way to the table.
If you leave them too long - 2 or 3 minutes is all you've got, maximum - then they will just get harder & harder over time. There's no rescue at this point, they're ruined. Switching off the gas isn't sufficient to stop them over-cooking, you need to get them out of the hot water straight away.
If you want them salted, salt the water first; though I never salt peas, they don't really need it. I do salt almost all other veg, just not peas.
The same, incidentally, applies to sweet corn. On the cob, 6 mins max; as individual kernels, drop them in boiling water, stir, done.
you can have a +1 for this if you add that the peas keep cooking so long as they are still hot which is why it looked like adding the salt was the issue and is also why they needed taking out before they reached the ideal point because they'd keep cooking to ideal.
The salt probaby compounded the problem to some degree, depending on how much was used. Hot peas shed water through evaporation but, if salted, the salt can additionally draw even more moisture out of the peas to the surface (where it can evaporate).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.367205
| 2019-05-03T06:14:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98788",
"authors": [
"Ahmad Hani",
"J...",
"MD-Tech",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48070"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93265
|
Is it true that bananas are radioactive?
Is it true that bananas are radioactive, and if you eat too many it can kill you? If yes then how many bananas are good to eat at once.
I've read that bananas also do contain some alcohol, which seems to be more relevant. Don't know whether this is a hoax, though. This PDF says "…according to a report published by Indiana University, a standard glass of orange juice contains between .2% and .5% alcohol…". Here is another study about alcohol in certain food. It says that bananas contains 0.4 g ethanol per 100 g fruit.
It's more like bananas is potassium rich and potassium is radioactive (so is almost everything else).
EVERYTHING living or once-living is radioactive, because of carbon-14 uptake from the food chain.
Harriet Hall , M.D. (ret.) has published a list of all the molecular compounds in a banana. (See skepdoc. info). Her point is that almost any food could carry a warning such as "May contain scary-sounding stuff that you don't understand".
Well, yes to both, up to a point. All things are radioactive - radioactive isotopes occur in minute concentrations in nature, so stones, trees, water, air, and indeed fruits are radioactive, and it can be measured too, but only because our instruments are very sensitive. Life has evolved in this environment for ~4 billion years, and it is clearly not enough to harm us. As for the second question - if you will forgive the tongue-in-cheek answer - anything will kill you if you eat too much; that could be concidered the definition of 'too much'. But I think you will have to eat an incredible number of bananas, and it won't be the radiation that kills you, but the overeating.
Yes, it's true that bananas are radioactive, however, the amount of radiation that you get from eating a banana is negligible. It's also true that eating too many bananas can kill you, but if you manage to eat enough bananas to get radiation poisoning, you're going to die from something else long before potassium exposure comes into the equation - like, say, the death penalty after murdering the next person to bring a banana within 50 miles of you.
Source https://xkcd.com/radiation/
Bananas are on the left, third from the top. To better communicate the scale, the top legal (i.e. totally negligible) radiation dose for US workers is equivalent to eating 500,000 bananas/year.
There is actually a unit of radiation exposure measurement called the Banana equivalent dose. Suffice to say, there are about a thousand other sources of radiation in your day to day life that you should worry about before how many bananas you eat starts to become a real concern. You can safely eat as many bananas as you please, at least, from a radioactivity standpoint.
In answer to the specific question asked, according to the chart it's one million bananas for a measurable increase in cancer risk, or twenty million bananas for potentially-fatal radiation poisoning. Further, since potassium-40 decays by a mixture of beta emission and electron capture, consuming the bananas is not required: it's sufficient to have them piled on top of you.
@Mark somehow, I think someone with 20 million bananas piled on them would not be worried about radiation poisoning.
@FuzzyChef I doubt I've have much else to occupy my time, so why not?
This place has gone bananas.
@Mark Beta particles aren't going to do much to you from outside. You need to eat the bananas and absorb the potassium.
@DavidRicherby - Because they'd be dead from the gross crush trauma of having 9.15 million kg of bananas on top of them.
@Malandy 20 million bananas is more like 2.5 million kg. That's nothing. Here, hold my beer.
@Mark: Would the non-potassium bits of the inner layer of bananas not become a blocker for the radiation you should get from the outer layer of bananas?
@Flater: Of course. The effect is already noticeable with a single banana; radiation from the far side is quite effectively shielded.
@Mark "Further, since potassium-40 decays by a mixture of beta emission and electron capture, consuming the bananas is not required" The penetration of beta radiation is not sufficient to be able to pass though other bananas. (required if you're going to stack 20million on someone) After all, if they can penetrate through the other bananas, then they're not going to be absorbed by you.
Oh wow, so even radiation scientists use a banana for scale?
I'm already afraid of having a nightmare about 20 million radioactive bananas chasing me.
@MikeTheLiar Actually the dose indicated on the graph is correct for the banana irself, but wrong if referred to the person eating it. It's a common mistake. That dose is calculated on the full amount of Potassium in the banana, however when you eat it the body will discard the excess from your body (that means... all the amount in the banana), therefore the dose you actually receive is (in first approximation) only the integral of the decreasing exponential starting at the full content of the banana when you eat it, down to zero in less than a day... much much smaller than you expected.
It may be a small amount, but cargo ships filled with bananas do set off the radioactivity sensors installed at ports to detect possible radioactive materials being smuggled into the country
@FarO bottom of the chart, from the artist: "I'm sure I've added in lots of mistakes; it's for general education only. If you're basing radiation safety procedures on an internet PNG image and things go wrong, you have no one to blame but yourself."
Actually, it probably will be the potassium that kills you, but not the radioactive potassium.
In addition to the answers explaining that bananas do contain radioactive potassium, but in small amounts, it's also worth noting that your body maintains a fixed amount of potassium through metabolism.
So even if you somehow manage to consume 5 million bananas, your body won't actually be exposed to 5 million Banana equivalent doses of radiation.
I wonder what it takes to overload that system (e.g. dehydration) and whether a buildup of potassium in your system would cause problems at lower doses than the radiation
@ChrisH: Your body uses certain chemicals like potassium, sodium, calcium, and chloride to make your nerves and muscles work. If they get out of balance, your muscles and nerves would stop working correctly. Elevated potassium levels is called hyperkalemia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperkalemia
@DietrichEpp, yes, I've been reading a bit about electrolyte requirements and balance recently (in the context of endurance exercise). I hadn't really thought about getting too much, rather the opposite, when sweating several litres in a day. I see that even extreme hyerkalemia is only something like a doubling of normal levels, which would be problematic way before radiation could do anything, however the hyerkalemia arose.
@Ben, like with all such measures, the assumption is that you eat all these bananas at once, in a single sitting. This still doesn't make it correct, because the Potassium-40 half-life is enormous and you won't keep yourself exposed for long, but it shows that you'll die from other things :)
@Ben, I agree with all you said, but when, in general, people don't know about 'dose rates', as in "the lethal dose of X is Y", or "if you eat too many [bananas] it can kill you", the assumption is of a single dose. Or so I believe...
Metabolism can take care of potassium for fairly normal diets. Those mechanisms can get overwhelmed for super doses.
While it's true that bananas are unusually radioactive (which actually means very slightly), you should keep in mind that all plants and animals are radioactive. For people, about half of our intrinsic radioactivity comes from the potassium in our bodies, and about half from the carbon-14 which we all carry around.
As for safe quantities, that's pretty simple: about 4 liters (9 pounds or so). But this has nothing to do with radioactivity - it's the approximate maximum capacity of the normal human stomach. Eating more than this runs the risk of tearing the stomach and dying.
The question of banana radioactivity has sparked the creation of the Banana Equivalent Dose of radiation. It's about 0.1 μSievert. Since it takes about 5 to 7 Sieverts to kill an adult human, the lethal dose (radiation) for bananas is something like 50 million bananas. And it's even harder to kill somebody that way than that rather silly number suggests. The body has a fairly comprehensive and efficient set of mechanisms for keeping things in balance, and excess potassium is typically excreted within 24 hours. Although, admittedly, the changes needed to support the ingestion of 50 million bananas would almost certainly cause other changes in the (formerly) human body, and any discussion of associated effects become pure speculation.
James' answer seems to me to provide the best perspective. Sure, the banana's radioactive, but so are you. Also, every living thing on Earth.
Yes, bananas are radioactive. They contain potassium, and a small part of this comes as a radioactive isotope 40K. The dose of an average banana is (rounded up) around 0.1 μSv. Other potassium-rich foods also naturally contain 40K, e.g. potatoes.
There is absolutely nothing to worry about. Our natural environment and cosmic radiation means our bodies are constantly exposed to radioactive material, but just in trace amounts.
Yes. The wings are not on fire.
If you were to somehow actually take all that radioactivity into your body you would be dead long before the radioactivity became an issue. The radioactive element is potassium--and potassium chloride is used as an execution drug.
In practice your body maintains potassium levels at the right amount (too little is also deadly), eating more bananas simply means more potassium in your urine.
Besides, I have a jar sitting here next to me. It's far more radioactive than a banana. It's meant as food, though:
Wait, you have a jar containing an execution drug sitting besides you?!?!
@KonradRudolph, sola dosis facit venenum.
@Mark In this case it isn't even the dose as the speed. In the old days doctors very occasionally killed accidentally patients this way. The potassium was intentional, of medical benefit if injected into the IV bag, but lethal if injected into the IV line. Now they only have it available pre-mixed in the IV bags to avoid such mistakes. (Taking it slowly and carefully to avoid an oops isn't an option--the problems occurred when patients were crashing.)
When people compare the radiation received from other sources with the radiation from eating a banana, the point of the exercise is not to say that eating bananas is risky. It’s to say that the radiation level you’re exposed to from from things like nuclear power is safe, and you shouldn’t worry about it (or about eating bananas).
Yes, but it's extremely small.
Bananas do have a very small amount of radioactivity, but as showed by the chart linked in another answer, it's a really small amount, compared to the amount you are exposed to by being around everyday items/doing everyday activities.
You would need to eat several million bananas in a short time span to actually suffer ill effects/die, which we all know is basically impossible. The bananas would've probably killed you some other way.
Basically, don't worry.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.367570
| 2018-10-26T19:49:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93265",
"authors": [
"Baldrickk",
"Chris H",
"DanielWainfleet",
"David Richerby",
"Dietrich Epp",
"Don Branson",
"ElmoVanKielmo",
"FarO",
"Flater",
"FuzzyChef",
"John R. Strohm",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Loren Pechtel",
"MSalters",
"Malady",
"Mark",
"Mike.C.Ford",
"Scott Seidman",
"UKMonkey",
"User1000547",
"Uwe Keim",
"Zeus",
"copper.hat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"leftaroundabout",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92932
|
preservative to use in falafel sauce
I have falafel sauce made of:
dried red hot pepper
fresh red bell pepper
onion
garlic
lemon
salt
black pepper
I want to sell this product in glass bottles or plastic containers. What kind of preservative should I use?
How long of a shelf life are you hoping to have? Do you have a canning process to pasteurize the sauce and sterlilize the containers?
with the onion and garlic in there, you'll need to pressure can/bottle - there's no other safe way. to sell this product to people, you'll need to pressure can/bottle at a professional kitchen with the right professional equipment - there's no other safe way.
As you're already using lemon (I assume the juice), and considering the tart/sour taste of citric acid would pair well with your ingredients; I would go for citric acid.
However food safety, especially when you're planning to commercially sell these products, is not something you should get direct advice from strangers on the Internet...
I wouldn't follow the guidance for the amounts and the processes mentioned here (or anywhere else). You really need professional opinion on creating shelf-stable food products. And you should be following professional food preservation techniques.
Talking directly to a food scientist is best before you try to market. This will cost you $$$.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.368700
| 2018-10-15T17:33:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92932",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"SnakeDoc",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112378
|
How is rare steak made safe to eat?
The USDA recommends cooking many meats to an internal temperature of at least 145 °F (63 °C) to kill off pathogens. That usually works for me, but the big exception is steak. Whenever I try reaching at least 145 °F (63 °C), I always cook the steak to well-done, and online articles generally say rarer cuts have to dip well below 145 °F (63 °C).
Still, regular portions of rare steak hasn't ever gotten me sick. So what keeps the raw meat safe enough for us to eat rare? Are there things I do or should do to ensure safe raw meat (e.g. sourcing, preservation, preparation, and cooking)?
There are countries where people eat raw meat, especially steak cut to tartare (fine pieces) and nobody gets sick (or at least so few it does not make the news) that is for instance France and the Netherlands.
@Willeke: People absolutely do get sick, and even die, from eating raw meat in these countries. It just isn't widely reported.
@JackAidley In fact it is so not widely reported that I was unable to find a single example of death related to steak tartare in France. Uncooked chicken, yes, but not steak tartare.
Tartar steak are prepared differently. I suspect the standards are similar to how sushi is made safe without cooking. It involves flash freezing and defrosting, killing the surface pathogens.
Nelson is quite correct at least for carpaccio. The frosting has the pro of easing the cutting in fine slices. In my country we eat grind meat (as in burger), raw and seasoned. I personally don't know / ear of diseases related to carpaccio and tartare consumption but I guess is a possible outcome.
@Willeke: Food standards in the EU are significantly higher than in the US. See for instance the current UK debate about chlorinated chicken.And if you do get sick, antibiotics are more likely to help.
@Msalters EU higher, as in all the adulterated olive oil coming from Spain and Italy
@Nelson, when I am at my butchers I ask for tartare and he takes the smaller bits of steak, which do not sell as steak anymore, and mince that for me, very fine. This is fresh meat, not frozen and certainly without extra chemicals. I can not be sure of supermarket sold tartare but there should not be much difference from mince in the way it is prepared. (This is the Netherlands.)
It isn't, rare steak is a potential disease vector.
@BatWannaBe would be nice to see the reference where you read the USDA recommendation.
First, 145 °F (63 °C) and higher is the temperature for a well done steak. So, with the addition of carry-over cooking, your results don't surprise me. If you are shooting for rare, cook to an internal temperature of 125 °F (52 °C), and let your steak rest 10 minutes before slicing.
While the USDA correctly and necessarily provides temperature guidelines, in fact the reduction of pathogens follows a logarithmic curve and includes the variables of temperature and time. That means, in general, that longer times at lower temperatures will reduce pathogens. This understanding is the basis of sous vide cooking, for example.
Additionally, we generally assume that any potential pathogens are only present on the surface of whole muscle cuts. So, again, in general, achieving the target temperature on the surface eliminates the threat.
Finally, the quality and handling of the raw product is critical. It is important that you have fresh products, kept refrigerated or frozen until use, and handled by people who are practicing safe handling procedures (washed hands or gloves, ...).
Basically you are saying that pathogens are on the surface for the most part and killed off by cooking?
@GdD for whole muscle cuts this is generally my understanding. The biggest risk comes from surface contamination.
I guess this is why people often suggest using the mallet instead of the needle tenderizer; the needles poke holes for the surface liquids to seep deep inside.
@BatWannaBe anything that breaks the surface has a potential to carry pathogens with it.
The explanation for why steak is ok to eat rare should also be a convincing reason to fully cook hamburger
@GdD correct, and in my opinion this should really be the first thing in this answer. (The other parts might be true, but they're less relevant to answering this specific question.)
It's perhaps worth noting that the reason that poultry is not safe when merely surface cooked is precisely because pathogens do penetrate the muscle in these meats.
@JackAidley and with Pork, they are hosts of parasites and they come from the inside.
@Nelson Doesn't modern agriculture try very hard to remove parasites and pathogens from animals while they're still alive?
@Nelson The fear of raw pork, especially in the US, is mostly related to poor food safety standards. Raw minced pork is commonly eaten in Germany with no ill effects.
At least in the US, you cannot assume that pathogens are only present on the outside because many cuts are sold using tenderizing techniques that can distribute them into the interior of the steak. Additionally, improper butchering can also do this and you really have know way of knowing. Of course you can minimize this by going to a good butcher and buying expensive meat, but for the vast majority of people that are just buying cheap meat at a chain grocery it's a potential concern.
"the USDA correctly and necessarily provides temperature guidelines". You might point out that they are concerned only with disease, not with taste. Their recommended temperature is one that will kill almost any bacterium instantly, so if you follow their advice, they know for sure it will be safe, but will taste like a piece of leather. As you note, lower temperatures for longer times are just as effective, but that requires that the cook have at least a small amount of skill, judgement, or intelligence, and that's not something the USDA is willing to rely upon.
@RayButterworth exactly, they recommend the equivalent of full hazmat gear for high school science experiments. It does work but its complete overkill
@eps It's a potential concern, I guess. But is it a likely one? It's not even unusual to eat medium-rare burgers.
"the reduction of pathogens follows a logarithmic curve" Do you mean exponential?
Not necessarily @aherocalledFrog. If meat was seared before mincing then the surface pathogens will be remove but the internal meat will still be raw. That's how, in the UK at least, rare hamburgers are allowed.
@Ben and they're delicious :)
Re "we generally assume that any potential pathogens are only present on the surface of whole muscle cuts": What about parasites like trichinella spiralis? They can be inside the muscles of the host organism. They are present in rodents (that may come in direct or indirect with live stock).
One answer I didn't see above: (Edit: Well, it was there. Guess I missed it. Leaving this to cover details that were omitted)
Cooking for safety is a function of temperature and TIME. For example, the USDA recommends 165° for chicken. But, that's an instantaneous temperature read. It's perfectly safe to eat chicken that was cooked to lower temperatures, held for a longer time.
For example, serious eats has the following chart at their food lab guide to sous vide: (Their chart was in-turn derived from a USDA link which is no longer live)
Temperature Time
136°F (58°C) 68.4 minutes
140°F (60°C) 27.5 minutes
145°F (63°C) 9.2 minutes
150°F (66°C) 2.8 minutes
155°F (68°C) 47.7 seconds
160°F (71°C) 14.8 seconds
165°F (74°C) Instant
So, if you want medium rare chicken, just bring it up to 140° and hold it at that temperature for 27.5 minutes. Steak is safer for additional reasons also discussed, but it's perfectly possible to have less-than-well done chicken and pork safely.
British Columbia has a guide to sous vide pasteurization temperature & time: http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-gallery/Documents/Guidelines%20and%20Forms/Guidelines%20and%20Manuals/EH/FPS/Food/SVGuidelines_FinalforWeb.pdf#page=18
The USDA recommends cooking many meats
many
That is your problem right there. This USDA guideline is one that, if followed, makes almost all meat safe to eat. Meaning that it caters to the lowest common denominator, the cheapest meat out there.
It's like recommending a complete Hazmat suit with oxygen bottle for anyone working with any chemicals. Yes, everyone will be perfectly fine, but it's an overkill for 99% of activities.
And the same goes for your beef: you're bringing out the hazmat gear for a high schoolers "growing crystals" experiment.
So
So what keeps the raw meat safe enough for us to eat rare?
Generally two things: first of all, its beef as opposed to pork or chicken. The latter two can carry many diseases which spreads to humans. In cows there are very few such diseases and all those are tested for.
Secondly: people give a shit. Especially with the meat that decent steakhouses procure, they have their tested and tried supply chains and pay the premium for people to give a shit about hygiene.
In Europe safety regulations means that this care is (supposed to be) taken for all beef but I wouldn't trust it with random stuff from the supermarket. Go to your local butcher and ask them about beef you could eat raw and if they are good they should have some.
Regarding pork: keep in mind that pork is also eaten raw in some countries, see Mett.
Finally a nice answer concerning food safety. People seem to compare chain catering and more generally food distribution/shipping to their kitchen.
Are there things I do or should do to ensure safe raw meat (e.g. sourcing, preservation, preparation, cooking)?
Raw beef from a healthy cow is sterile, so most of the pathogens you could poison yourself with develop on the surface. With that knowledge:
Smell the meat you're going to eat raw. Spoilage on the surface typically starts with "sour" smell, which gradually turns into "rotten"
Prefer big chunks of meat over smaller slices
If in doubt, cut the outer parts of the chunk and cook them conventionally, only consume the inner part raw
Don't consume mass-produced ground meat raw: it is a mix coming from different animals, so the risk of getting poisoned by the meat from a sick animal is multiplied. Plus, the whole mass is essentially "surface"
Poultry and pork bear much higher risk of inner pathogens and should not be eaten raw.
IIUC, pork no longer has particularly high likelihood of "inner pathogens", and is roughly as safe as beef now.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.368873
| 2020-10-29T10:56:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112378",
"authors": [
"Acccumulation",
"Alchimista",
"BatWannaBe",
"Ben",
"Casey",
"Davor",
"GdD",
"Gonçalo Peres",
"Hobbamok",
"Jack Aidley",
"Joe M",
"MSalters",
"Maeher",
"Nayuki",
"Nelson",
"Nzall",
"OrangeDog",
"Peter Mortensen",
"Ray Butterworth",
"Robert",
"Willeke",
"aherocalledFrog",
"asac",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89338",
"moscafj",
"paulj",
"tardigrade"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81779
|
How do tempura chefs touch 350 degree oil without being burned?
In this video of a chef deep frying shrimp, he repeatedly applies more batter to the shrimp, clearly touching the oil over and over. Does the batter protect your fingers? Is it just a short enough time to not be burned? It seems like this shouldn't be possible in oil hot enough to cook meat. Is this a safe practice?
Presumably you meant tempura chefs rather than sushi chefs?
@user110084 Aren't most tempura chefs sushi chefs and vice versa? The guy is the video was certainly also a sushi chef.
The norm is not. Outside of Japan, anything goes. There are plenty of small restaurant owners in Japan who can do multiple disciplines but they tend to regard themselves as owners or cooks rather than chefs. There is extreme pride (rather than snobbery) that goes with such narrow specialisations. Hard to compare with other cuisines.
Because his fingers are covered in the tempura batter, which forms a very thin protective shell. Also note that he's in and out very quickly - he doesn't let his fingers just sit in the oil.
Mostly, experience with working with frying oil.
And a bit of science:
The cook probably has his hand wet, and when he touches the oil, the heat from the oil forms a thin steam barrier between his hand and the oil.
See this related video about dipping a hand in molten lead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTOCAd2QhGg
DO NOT stick wet hands in hot oil. The water won't do a damn thing to insulate you. You'll burn yourself, and possibly start a fire.
Yeah, and I think the tempura cooked in molten lead was kind of heavy...
@MikeBaranczak That is not correct
@Paparazzi - How so? I know water does not insulate from heat, a moist hand towel, when used as a potholder, wicks heat right through and scorches one's hands while a dry one insulates and can be safely used. Is oil that much different when heated? Or is it bare hands that are more insulated?
@Megha Heat of vaporization
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.369832
| 2017-05-18T15:49:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81779",
"authors": [
"J.Todd",
"Megha",
"Mike Baranczak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5602",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22306
|
How to deep fry cauliflower?
I tried to deep fry cauliflowers (without breading; I am NOT making tempura), but they turned out soft.
I have seen that done on TV where cauliflowers are freshly deep-fried and turn out to be crunchy. But when I tried doing that, the cauliflower ended up soft and somewhat soggy. I increased the frying time thinking that may help evaporate the moisture inside the cauliflower but it then turned out soft and soggy with oil instead of water.
Are there preparations that I need to do to the cauliflower, or are there something special that I need to add to the oil?
First of all, what vegetables did they fry in on TV? I can see this working for starchier vegetables... but definitely not for something like onion which is made mostly of water. You would need batter for something like that. Even a really thin one would work.
Cauliflower exactly. Plain cauliflower. I deep fried it and it turned soggy with a mix of oil and water..
flowerettes or sliced? i'm guessing stem is longer cooking than flower and evening the 2 out by slicing would reduce frying time... just guessing. They won't have a chance to brown, just heat thru, without going soggy cooked. I reckon just seconds til they reach hot-stirfry-crunchiness at 160c
Flowerettes (I don't even know this word exist..). It's hand peeled (and break off).
Florets, guys. Just FYI.
Foods tend to get soggy with oil when they're fried in oil that's not hot enough. Maybe instead of, or as well as, increasing the time fried, increasing the temperature might help? Or maybe cooking fewer pieces at a time, since the more food added, the more the added mass can cool the oil, then it needs time to heat up again.
You need to cover soft vegetables in egg or batter first. Normally the vege's are steamed first to actually cook, cooled, then egg washed or lightly battered and flash deep fried in hot oil just to set the thin batter
Try Indian style spicy pea/chickpea flour batters
Fresh cauliflour definitely not frozen.Boil for 5 to 10 min.Batter to your preference including spices of your preference and deep fry for another 10 min
Why not frozen? I'd understand you don't want frozen because of ice crystals splattering when deep frying, but if you boil it anyway?
@Robert : freezing damages the cell walls, and typically turns vegetables mushy ... which you said you're trying to avoid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.370050
| 2012-03-16T01:59:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22306",
"authors": [
"Elangovan",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"KMC",
"Megha",
"Pat Sommer",
"Paul Nijjar",
"Pawan Yadav",
"Robert",
"anuradha muthu",
"heathenJesus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9344"
],
"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
}
|
84328
|
Low-calorie French Fries
Update
thanks to Max's answer I decided to give baked fries a try. Experimenting with different methods, this is my recipe so far. There are still a few problems with it (read below):
Boil fries for an hour until tender.
Carefully place fries in a microwave for 2 mins, or until they are approximately 60% of their original weight.
Place fries in a freezer for 2 hours.
Dip frozen fries in oil briefly to coat them. Place fries on a rack and bake at 400F for 15 minutes.
Baked Fries Problem 1: Lack of uniform golden texture
While fries this way turn out crispy, they don't have a uniform golden texture that french fries do. Instead, they have certain 'brown spots'. Just google 'Oven fries' and you will see what I mean.
Baked Fries Problem 2: Oil content
To coat the fries, I poured a large amount of oil in a rectangular tray. I dipped the fries in oil before placing them on the baking tray. I found out a batch of 114g of fries used up about 30g of oil after coating them. I wonder if there is a way to reduce this amount to cut down even more calories.
Original Post
Recently I have been experimenting to make lower-calorie alternatives to potato fries.
I tried using rutabagas, also known as swedes. These were 39 calories per 100g, as compared to 79 calories per 100g of potatoes. A much lower calorie option!
I prepared the rutabaga fries the same way as I did potato fries, with some modifications.
Cut into 0.5" sticks and boil them for 45 mins, until tender.
Dry in refrigerator for 2 hours.
Fry at 170F/130c for 4 mins.
Put back in refrigerator for 30 minutes.
Fry them a final time at 370F/190c for 4 minutes.
However, unlike the results I got from conventional potato fries, the rutabaga fries came out limpy, greasy and wrinkled up. Fries were often hollow. Not crispy at all.
After some research, I attributed this to the high moisture content of rutabagas, as compared to potatoes:
Per 100g:
Potatoes, 77 calories, 79% water content
Rutabagas, 37 calories, 91% water content
My understanding from cooking French fries is that deep-frying drives moisture out of the fries, displacing the water inside each potato fry with an almost equal amount of oil.
For rutabagas/swedes, the high moisture content meant that a lot of oil was pushed into each fry. It also made the fries wrinkle up much more severely during the drying step, leading to hollow fries.
The high moisture content also means that when comparing the calories of dry, fried rutabagas to dry, fried potatoes, they are not much healthier as I thought.
I thought I could make diet alternatives with rutabagas and even pumpkins but it seems like their high moisture content makes them unsuitable for French fries.
Am I wrong, or is there something I have not tried?
I thought of trying to coat the rutabagas with a corn starch batter and frying them just like banana fritters or chicken wings. This would give them a crust, while maintaining their moisture content, thus making them lower in calories than potatoes.
@Stephie I have edited the title and content. Will take note about this in the future.
Isn't the oil (and bad oil temperature), the main reason for calories in fried food, not the vegetables themselves?
Just coating in corn starch will not help at all, the moisture in the vegetable will still make them limp and oily.
If you do a tempura or batter type frying, then the batter itself becomes the calories sponge.
If you want to make "lower" calories french fries, just do them in the oven.
cut and prepare your potatoes, put them in a bowl and add a little bit of oil (and seasoning) and shake/mix well and put on a sheet and put them in the oven until crispy (flip them around a couple of times).
That won't really be french fries, but it'll be MUCH tastier :)
I need to research more on this. I read somewhere that fries absorb up to 10% of their weight in oil, so per 250g of fries, there could be 25g of oil.
On the baking, if we coat them in oil before baking them, won't the fries simply absorb the oil the same way it does in deep frying?
no, use as little oil as possible to slightly coat them; maybe a teaspoon or a tablespoon.
I'll try it. My concern is that they won't be as crispy baked. Do your baked fries turn out as crispy as fried fries?
They have different texture, the oven fried potatoes are dryer than the deep fried ones; for other vegetables I only use the oven method (personal taste here)
@user60513 you're not really getting fried anything this way; you'll be getting roast potatoes. Which can end up far móre crunchy than fries, depending on how long you put them in the oven.
@Max alright. I decided to try three approaches to baked fries. 1. coating them with oil before baking them at 450F. 2. pre-heating the oil to around 330F in the oven before adding the fries, as the recipe I found says to minimise oil absorption this way. 3. coating with a layer of cornstarch before baking it.
@user60513 : If you have a pump oil sprayer (misto is a brand name, but I don't like that one ...find one w/ a clear base), you can put a really light coating of oil on them, and they'll crisp up great.
I updated my question. The oven baked fries are great (still trying to get them crispier) but there's also a problem with their colour. See the update for more info.
@Joe Alright, will try to see if I can pick one up from my local store! Currently the baked fries use around 20-30g of oil per 100g of fries. If the spray can reduce that (through it's more efficient way of covering surfaces with oil, perhaps?), it would be great.
Less oil than dipping? Hell yes. Depending on the size of your fries, if they're thick enough so they're still sturdy after boiling, you can put them on a grid of some sort and vibrate it to shake some of the oil off. This can also rough up the surface of the potatoes some. (it's a recommended step when frying, so you have more surface area and get a crispier outside). As for the uneven color -- you're never going to fix it 100%, but a convection oven will be better than a regular one.
I expect you'll find that recipes for carrot 'fries' work for swedes and get closer to the french fry texture you want. They involve coating in oil (+/- various herbs, hard cheeses, etc) and baking.
If you're going so far as to batter-fry vegetables, consider tempura green beans.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.370288
| 2017-09-12T05:51:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84328",
"authors": [
"Erik",
"Joe",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user60513"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83969
|
Xanthan gum 'seeds' in sauce
Update: I managed to properly incorporate the gum without any clumping. I used an immersion blendsr (blade attachment) and mixed it with sugar this time, and it helped.
To thicken a home made tomato sauce, I tried added xanthan gum. While the sauce did thicken (too much in fact, it was mucus like), it resulted in little white 'seeds' floating in the sauce, which was visually unappealing.
First, I placed the sauce in a tall metal cup. I placed my immersion blender (with whisk attachment) inside and turned it on.
With the high speed immersion blender whirring inside, I sprinkled xanthan gum inside, bit by bit.
The xanthan gum powder did not mix well and white 'seeds' could be seen floating in the sauce.
Are the 'seeds' a result of the xanthan gum clumping together? What should I do differently to mix it well to avoid this from happening
I should note that the sauce was quite hot (between 160F- 180F) when I added the gum. The sauce also consisted of mainly vinegar, and some sugar.
I seem to recall that either xanthan gum and/or gum arabic need shear to properly emulsify. Try using the blades of your blender instead of the whisk?
If the "seeds" are small and uniform then the "seeds" are the individual particles slowly hydrating. You have made a well mixed suspension, but the particles themselves are not yet fully hydrated in the center. You can wait a bit for water to diffuse into the particles or speed it up with high speed mixing.
Kevin's answer is close: a slurry is best, but the mechanism and technique are different than starch based thickeners. With starches, the cells explode when heated, but xanthan gum simply needs to be hydrated, and it can be hydrated at any temperature.
Mix a smaller amount of xanthan gum in water in your metal cup, add water, and blend it with your immersion blender. For your slurry, you're looking for a consistency which is much thicker than your sauce, but still thin enough to be able to stir in fairly easily. Like you said, add too much and you'll end up with a pan of tomato snot. A one percent mixture (1 gram of xanthan gum per 100 grams of liquid, by weight) will be pretty thick, even if the starting liquid is water. A little dab will do ya!
Good luck!
Thank you, I will try the slurry. Do I need to let the sauce 'sit' in the fridge for a few hours after mixing, or will the result right after mixing the xanthan gum be it's final texture?
The immediate result will be the final texture at whatever temperature you serve it.
Flour or cornstarch are added to broth to make gravy. The recommended practice here is to mix the thickener with the cold broth and allow the entire mixture to heat together. Adding cornstarch to hot broth will cause clumping because the outside of a clump will gel, trapping any unhydrated starch inside, where it will slowly gel as well into a ball. One way to avoid this when making gravy is to remove some of the thin gravy and allow it to cool. Add the thickener, mix well and incorporate the hydrated starch into the hot mixture.
Your xanthan gum likely behaves in the same manner. If you feel you need to use this procedure in the future, add the thickener to cold liquid and incorporate the slurry into the hot liquid.
I find it dangerous to give advice based on the assumption that "xanthan gum likely behaves in the same manner", because it doesn't. Starch doesn't thicken at all until it has reached its critical temperature, and it also has much less thickening power, so it doesn't clump as easily. I still don't know if it clumps even worse when added to a hot liquid, so it could be that your practical suggestion still has merits, but the assumption behind it is factually wrong.
Indeed. The great thing about xanthan gum is that it doesn't need to be heated to thicken, all it requires is shear force.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.370783
| 2017-08-29T11:44:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83969",
"authors": [
"ChefAndy",
"Stefano",
"goweon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83580",
"millimoose",
"rumtscho",
"user60513"
],
"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
}
|
7764
|
What hot sauce should I use for Buffalo wings sauce?
After watching "The Wing and I" in Good Eats and being the one that always ordered Buffalo wings (I no longer live in the US), I decide to give it a try. The recipe for the sauce is:
butter
garlic
hot sauce
I wonder what exactly is hot sauce. Alton Brown said there are dozens of hot sauces. I tried to use plain tabasco but that doesn't work. Can I make my own?
I did the same thing, and yes, Tabasco doesn't really work that well. There are some good sellers on Ebay UK that can provide better hot sauces.
The original Buffalo Wings are made with Frank's RedHot Sauce. The original recipe is simply equal parts melted butter and hot sauce.
However, you truly can use just about whatever hot sauce you want in even greater ratios if you want more kick. There are also some distributors that specialize in spicy wing sauces. I recommend Defcon 2 if you are adventurous and enjoy a very nice kick of heat.
That's a great answer for the the main question... but what if I can't find any hot sauce? Can I make hot sauce from other sauces?
@Julio: Usually any place that sells tabasco will sell Frank's (usually).
@Aaronut Yes, I remember Frank's being popular, but I haven't been able to find it in Belgium. Tabasco, arrabbiata and curry ketchup, yes, chili or hot sauce, not yet :(
@julio: It's hard to imagine that you can't find hot sauce, but I've never been to Belgium. I did tell you how to make wing sauce -- equal parts hot sauce and butter. I didn't understand your question to mean "How do I make hot sauce?". IMO that belongs in another question -- it has little to do with what hot sauce goes on buffalo wings.
Fair enough, I'll add another question. I was surprised at the beginning, but then remembered food in Europe is not spicy (in general). Tabasco is under foreign food :)
It may not be the most convenient, but if you can't find an appropriate hot sauce locally, you can surely find a vendor online.
I make my own hot sauce fairly frequently using whatever chilli peppers are available locally. A good basic Frank's Red Hot Sauce recipe is here: http://www.food.com/recipe/copycat-franks-red-hot-sauce-494182
I add more peppers than it calls for and I end up with a thicker sauce, which is how I prefer it. You can use this recipe as a template and vary the ingredients to your own preferences. This basic recipe is easy to make and calls for hot peppers, garlic, vinegar, and salt - all ingredients that you should be able to get anywhere.
You make hot sauce by combining peppers and vinegar... you have to figure it out by personal taste past that.
If you want a similar hot sauce to the one used in Buffalo wings, it is possible to make your own. A hot sauce like Frank's largely consists of dried cayenne peppers, soaked in vinegar, water, salt, and garlic. Put it in the blender until it's smooth.
I.m not American so obviously have no idea but saw somewhere you can use sriracha which we can get in France. If you have not had the original I doubt if you would know the difference :)
While I like sriracha, it s a very different flavor than Franks Red Hot or other similar hot sauces. Also, this doesn’t answer their question of what it is and how to make it
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.371108
| 2010-10-02T09:50:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7764",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Julio",
"UnhandledExcepSean",
"cptloop",
"heathenJesus",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9344"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14155
|
Calories in toast vs bread
Does toasting bread change the amount of calories in the bread?
i.e Does a slice of toast have more/less calories that a slice of bread?
I know that some moisture is lost in the toasting process but does the browning of the bread change its characteristics in such a way that it changes the calories?
If you are interested in the theory, the answer is yes, there is a change. If you are interested in dieting, the answer is still yes, but it is quite irrelevant to you.
There are two types of browning reactions, Maillard and caramelization. Both start with highly complicated molecules and end with different kinds of highly complicated molecules. For a very precise answer to your question, one would have to know every possible chemical reaction occuring there, the energy trapped in the precursors and in the resulting molecules, and whether this energy is accessible for the human body (e.g. there is quite a lot of energy in raw petrol, but your body can't extract it if you happen to eat it). As these reactions haven't been studied in this level of detail, it isn't possible to give you a really precise answer.
On the other hand, the tendency would be for the calories (at least the digestible ones) to fall somewhat. First, the calories from amino acids and carbohydrates (which are the inputs for browning) are digestible; some of the reaction products can be digestible, but not all will be. Second, some of the calories will literally disappear in thin air - because some of the products of these reactions are volatile.
But if you are expecting to reduce your dietary calorie intake by eating toasted bread, it will probably make no difference at all. First, the calorie-reducing effects will only occur for a small part of the molecules involved. Second, and more important: even if it did occur for all molecules involved, browning only happens on the surface (theoretically, it could happen on the inside too, if you heated it in the 154°C - 190°C range. Practically, if you are doing that, nobody will want to eat that food). The surface is quite small as opposed to the rest - let's assume a slice with 1 cm thickness and a generous browning of 0.5 milimeter depth. (I know that the part which gets hard is thicker, but it doesn't really get browner). I'll disregard the surface enlargment caused by leavened-bubbles in the crumb (because I'm afraid I might end up with an infinite fractal surface :) ) and then we have ~10% of the slice browned. As I said, there is no chance that all the calories in this part disappear completely, and I doubt that the reduction will be really significant. But even if it was at really high 50%, you only get 5% reduction in total, or 10 calories per slice of white bread, less for diet-friendly breads (and this number is just an inflated best-case guess).
This is a really excellent answer
Great answer! The question was not dieting related at all. Just curiosity. Though I guess even if there was a significant reduction in the calories in the toast, I find that I generally put more butter on toast than on bread because the warm toast melts and absorbs the butter more easily than bread.
@Catch22, try buttering the bread first, toasting second. Same amount of butter as nontoasted bread, tastes much better because the butter browns too. And if you really don't mind the calories, sprincle sugar on the butter before toasting.
Being a chef. I know that the darker I make my roux the less of a thickening capability it has. Because charcoal cannot absorb moisture. So it would make sense that the more you toast a slice of bread the fewer calories it has. How much less that's up for discussion.
The thickening power of roux is not analogous. What would be is if a dark roux had fewer calories than a light roux, given the same initial ingredients. There certainly is a difference in toast, but it is trivially small.
I think theoretical ,that bread will burn off some calories, because of the browning process.However, the molecules, doesn't stand a chance against high heat.The molecules must disappear .
I am sorry, this doesn't make sense. Browning reactions, as in toasting (Maillard and caremlization) are not burning; they are far more complex. Molecules may disappear in that their constituents recombine into new molecules, but how does this help answer the question?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
I think that by Toasting the bread, you are reducing the calories of the piece of bread, from 110 to 30, my doctor suggests i do it for my personal health and the health of others, the more you toast bread, the more you can eat :D
You know the black on the bread from toast, those are all burned calories.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're seriously trying to answer the question, so -1, completely false. As rumtscho already said, there is a difference but it's nowhere near that significant. You and your doctor seem to be a bit misguided. You'd have to have burned 70% of the bread to get a reduction like you're talking about. If you're toasting it in a way that leaves it edible, most of it's unaffected.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.371400
| 2011-04-19T14:26:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14155",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Cascabel",
"Catch22",
"Diggye",
"Jarad DeLorenzo",
"Matthew Read",
"PolGraphic",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"baptx",
"hololeap",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95158",
"nixy ",
"rumtscho",
"user3424554"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1638
|
Is it safe to reheat food in plastic containers?
Is it safe to reheat food in any type of plastic container or are there only some types of plastic ware that are safe to use?
There has been quite a lot of discussion regarding the safety aspects of cooking/reheatin foodstuffs in plastic microwave containers. I'm not sure there is, as yet, any conclusive evidence one way of the other.
If you have to reheat food in plastic containers, make sure they're labelled specifically for that purpose. Personally, I'd use glass or ceramic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.371830
| 2010-07-18T04:19:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1638",
"authors": [
"Paul Biggar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2962"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
971
|
Jello Shots Techniques: Alcohol Concentration
When making jello shots, what proportions do you typically use?
For hard liquor like Gin, Tequila or Vodka, I've been using 1 part hot water to dissolve the jello and then 1 part cold spirits. Some of these seem stronger than others.
For a liqueur like Pama (only 17%), it froze in the freezer and I had to wait for it to thaw. I used 1 part cold Pama, but the general consensus was that the shot needed to be stronger.
The Jello seems to gel just fine.
This is really close to being off-topic for being a mixed-drink question. On the other hand, gelatin use is highly on-topic! I'm inclined to vote to close this one, but recommend rephrasing it as something like "How does alcohol affect gel proportions?" and asking about gelatin vs agar vs etc, etc. Rather than jello shots. :)
I voted to close, but I wouldn't have voted if the question was rephrased to something like Harlan suggested.
It's edible and it involves preparation, not brewing. I think the Prohibition Posse should relax a bit.
What's wrong with mixed drink questions?
@Brendan: A subset of the community thinks they should be banned. See: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121/are-questions-on-alcohol-beverages-allowed/151#151
This question is really well-worded and specific. I think a knowledge of alcohol concentration in a jello shot will only improve my wherewithal as a cook. I would vote anti-close.
You are probably fine with the 1:1 ratio for your likely 80 proof liquors. For weaker liqueurs just add more. You probably want 2:1 if you can get it to work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.371908
| 2010-07-14T17:32:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/971",
"authors": [
"Andres Jaan Tack",
"Brendan Long",
"Cyclops",
"Harlan",
"Jamin",
"Richard C",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"jumoel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1828
|
How much sugar should I put with the fruit in a pie or crumble?
I just made a plum and apple crumble, which was delicious but I was worried it was going to be too sweet because when I was pouring the sugar in straight from the bag, it slipped and I ended up with about 50% more sugar than the recipe called for :-)
In fact, though, it was only just about sweet enough - if I'd put in the amount of sugar the recipe called for it would have been way too tart.
I seem to find this a lot, and I don't have a particularly sweet tooth - I actually like things tarter than many people seem to.
Does it depend on the fruit (if so, which fruits need more sugar?) and/or on whether the fruit was frozen or fresh?
All the fruit that's currently in-season is bursting with sugars already, which means I usually go a bit easier when adding sugar.
When it's mid-winter though, and you get the out-of-season/glasshouse variety fruit, adding a bit more sugar usually works well.
Agreed. It really depends on the fruit that you are using. Some is too sweet, some not sweet enough. Always adjust for the fruit you have.
I've made really wonderful crisps/crumbles/pies with just reducing the natural sugar of the fruit. The last one I made was a end-of-summer stone fruit crisp (plums, peaches, nectarines of all different ripeness) that came out phenomenal without any added sugar. Really depends on the fruit, the ripeness and how you want your final product to be.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.372167
| 2010-07-18T20:21:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1828",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"gustafc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624"
],
"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/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1935
|
Grilled Fish Kebabs
The barbecue season is in full swing, and to take a break from the red-meat heavy traditionals, I decided to try and explore the world for grilled fish. My first attempt was to briefly marinate some pangasius in olive oil, garlic and lemon juice and then stick it on a bamboo stick with thin slices of bacon in between the fish.
It was nice, but something tells me there are better experiences to be had.
How do I make white fish off the grill a memorable experience?
Try marinading chunks (about 4cm square) of haddock in a chermoula for a few hours. Make up skewers with the fish interspersed with pieces of pepper and cherry tomatoes. There are many recipes for chermoula marinade, but I think one with a fair amount of fresh coriander and smoky paprika works well.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I really love fish tacos (Mahi-Mahi is the best in my opinion):
1 fish (or more if they're small)
Lime
Olive Oil
Chili Powder
Cumin
Salsas, guacamole, chilies, cabbage salad, etc. for topping
Squeeze some lime on the fish, and rub down with chili powder and cumin (if you use American Chili Powder, you don't need extra cumin, but I would recommend real chili powder). Massage in oil.
Let stand for a few minutes, up to a few hours.
Toss skin side down on foil over a hot grill, and cook until the flesh separates when poked.
Serve immediately with any salads you like.
Edit:
You could also smoke it.
Brine before hand for a day or so in a simple brine with sugar and salt, spices at your digressions. Remove from brine and let sit, uncovered, in the fridge for 12-24 hours (allows protein to come to the surface and dry, which will later attract smoke). Smoke.
Good Eats had a few episodes on smoking showing how to make a home smoker for a few bucks out of various things (a box, a gym locker, an ammo box and a large clay pot in different episodes).
You can either try some form of a fish cake and make it into a "kofta" meat ball or
you can try meatier fish like tuna marinated in the thai sauce of your choice. Lightly sear the edges and your done.
however, I'm not really sure that you're going to gain more flavor cooking fish that way. if you want bite size pieces, then your alternative is to cut and cook some very small pieces of salmon, put it on some rice crackers, a little bit of wassabi, a drizzle of soy sauce and a bit of chives on top. I think that'll achieve the lightness, the tantalizingness in the fish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.372310
| 2010-07-19T09:14:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1935",
"authors": [
"Bill White",
"Mike",
"Nick",
"Pitto",
"bhamby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3565",
"murisonc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93278
|
Stringy corned beef
When I get a corned beef sandwich at a restaurant usually the meat has a grain and is kind of stringy. However, when I buy corned beef at a supermarket it smooth and looks similar to roast beef. What is the difference?
Are you referring to corned beef sliced (to order) at the deli department?
Corned beef in the USA is a different product than corned beef in the UK. Can you please specify the country or post a photo?
Corned beef quality has also declined drastically in US over past 20 years. Most groceries sell junk. The others want $$$. Plus direction of the cut.
@WayfaringStranger What constitutes quality in corned beef? How is getting lower quality?
@DrisheenColcannon It's generally getting much fattier, up to perhaps 50%. You spend $10, and get 1.5 meals for two around Saint Patrick's day. Around here, that is usually the only time it's available. There is still a better cut. but as I said it's hard to find.
In addition to the direction the corned beef was sliced, you need to boil the corned beef just below a hard simmer -- not on a hard boil. I have relatives who crank the knob to 11 and boil the thing into "stringy meat toothpicks", and that's no matter which way you cut it. I cook a 3 pound corned beef in 1 gallon of water on just a hard simmer for about 4 hours and get fantastic results.
Cooking at a hard boil versus a simmer can affect the stringiness of the surface of the piece of meat (due to the greater mechanical action of the boiling water) but will have absolutely zero impact on the interior. In either case, you're cooking it at 100 degrees Celsius.
This may be due to the direction in which the corned beef was sliced. In order for it to look smooth, it must be sliced against the grain. If you want stringy corned beef ( sometimes called "pulled corned beef"), you cut it along the grain. You can tell which way the grain is by the lines on the top of the whole piece of meat.
A good restaurant's "corned beef" started out as a big piece of meat, was salted and cured for a while, then was cooked and sliced on a slicer. A supermarket's "corned beef" might be that, or it might be a bunch of miscellaneous beef pieces left over from butchering, which are mixed with salt, curing agents, and as much water as allowed by law, formed into loaves and cooked, then sliced. Since they're made from small pieces of beef, there's very little grain or stringiness.
If you want good corned beef from a supermarket, go to the deli counter and make sure they're cutting it from something that looks like it came from an animal. (There are brands of prepackaged corned beef that aren't awful, but they can be difficult to find.)
I like some of the Boars Head stuff.
Nope.! It’s the point cut that is stringy. The flat cut stays together in slices more uniformly. If you like the stringy cut, you just have to be prepared to remove a lot of fat as the point cuts are about 50% fat whereas the flat cut has less fat - I would guess around 1/3.. You can cut it against the grain Still, and the strings will still be evident... they’ll just shorter…As cutting against the grain will cut the strings in intervals. Or if you want long strings i.e. pulled corn beef you would just fork pull it with the grain. Either way a major fat layer will have to be removed, (Unless you’re one of those people who enjoys the fat)but you will have the most tender corn beef after the fact. Any of the tried-and-true three cooking methods will work with either flat or point cut. Yummm
My experience is it can be stringy. But I think how it's cooked and cut is part of it. I've had it at deli's and not be stringy. I have tried different cooking temperatures and cutting across the grain. When I make it I buy a 3 pound piece. When it cools down I can almost the whole thing. LOL
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.372548
| 2018-10-27T00:54:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93278",
"authors": [
"Douglas Held",
"Drisheen Colcannon",
"Preston",
"Sneftel",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98785
|
Will ground sealed pepper have lost it freshness?
From other answers I can see that fine grounded pepper looses its freshness and flavors so freshly ground is better.
Does this apply as much to coarse ground, I imagine when you bite it more parts of the pepper is newly exposed and the flavour will be better?
With some containers of fine ground i notice, after removing the lid there is a seal with foil paper. I imagine the fine grounded it and immediately sealed with foil paper to keep freshness and non exposure to air. Would the foil paper actually make a difference or should I consider finely ground in a bottle with foil paper still to have lost most of its flavour like those in packets?
It's like coffee. Once ground it starts to lose flavour & aroma. You cannot buy ready-ground coffee that's anywhere near as good as fresh-ground, no matter how much some very experienced manufacturers try.
Ground pepper begins to lose it's flavors very quickly. You can try this yourself by grinding your own, then tasting over the course of a couple of days. I find it is always best right after I grind it. Sealing a container of ground pepper might help, but who knows how long between grinding and sealing? Then, once you remove the seal, flavor is degrading further. Again, just compare this pepper to some you have freshly ground. There really is no comparison. If you are a black pepper lover, buy whole and grind in small amounts.
Buy a pepper mill... buy two! One fine for the table & one coarser & faster for cooking. I actually have 4 in my kitchen, I also have one for multi-coloured pepper & another for szechuan.
Buy a corn-mill. Motorize it, or not. Set it on fine setting. Get some Ziyad pepper corns at the Arab store, about $3.50 for 5oz. Put it through your grinder. You'll get excellent quality, fresh ground pepper, plus you'll have the equipment you need to make real corn tortillas.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.372891
| 2019-05-02T23:36:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98785",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114757
|
how to not get burned keto flour pancakes?
I make keto pancakes out of a bought keto flour pancake mix (almond flour and cassava and coconut flours are main components). I mix these with either water or whole milk, making not too thick mixture, and cook on a cast iron pan with a pad of butter placed on heated pan first.
A problem I run into consistently is this: the first pancake cooks very well--well browned outside and cooked inside. But subsequent pancakes come out slightly burned outside while under-cooked inside.
I make sure to keep the pan on medium heat throughout and add butter in between pancakes in order to keep the pan well-greased. I make sure to turn pancake from one side to other when bubbles form. However, that doesn't help it.
Is there something else I can do to make sure to have several pancakes in a row come out well-cooked inside and not burnt outside?
Are you just relying on 'medium', or do you do anything to estimate the temperature of the pan? (I like the Leidenfrost effect when cooking pancakes)
Cast iron is very overrated; stick with bog standard non-stick or steel.
Just make crepes instead of pancakes. More delicious anyway.
See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/81086/4638 and https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/91534/4638, maybe this would be even a duplicate of the second question since the type of food doesn't matter.
Your pan is getting too hot.
Cast iron has a lot of" thermal mass", which means that it takes a good bit of energy (and time) to heat up, then it holds on to that heat and takes time to cool down.
Most likely, your pan is still heating up when you cook your first pancake. It's at the right temperature, but still on the upswing and getting hotter. By the time you get to the other pancakes, the pan is too hot.
There are two easy solutions to try:
turn the heat down a bit, and also wait longer to cook the first pancake. At a lower temperature, it'll take even longer to reach maximum/equilibrium temperature, with the goal to max out at the temperature of your first pancake.
use the same procedure for your first pancake, but once it's in the pan, turn down the heat, just a little. You've hit the ideal temperature, but you need to reduce the heat to maintain it at this temperature, rather than continuing to get hotter.
It'll take a little experimenting on your cooktop to find just the right adjustment of heat, but it should just be a matter of finding a slightly lower temperature.
What I teach my kids: If the first pancake is just right, your temperature is too high... works a charm.
@Stephie, I've never thought of it quite that way, but it's so true! In our house, the first pancake is my "test pancake" that I share with the dog because it's usually splotchy and too light colored to be appreciated by anyone else.
What @AMtwo says! Pancakes are my favorite dish (says a 32-year-old manchild :D). I call the first pancake "chef pancake" because I always eat it while baking the rest of them :)
Give the pan longer to heat initially, but use a lower flame.
It sounds like the temperature is still evening out on the first one & has settled subsequently.
Alternatively, do the first as you normally do, but drop the temperature before the second goes in. 'Medium' is not really an accurate description, & every stove & every pan is different.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.373058
| 2021-03-12T16:58:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114757",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Jan Nash",
"Joe",
"Michael",
"RonJohn",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114876
|
how to make fruit-juice flavored gelatin firm vs watery?
I have been mixing unflavored gelatin with fruit juice to make flavored jello dessert (to have a healthier and more natural, as well as cheaper fruit jello dessert).
I mix the proportions of gelatin to liquid according to instructions. I use hot water mixed with room-temperature juice (making sure proportions of liquid to powder are as needed), mix very thoroughly, and set it overnight in fridge.
However, I cannot seem to get a firm jello result - it's firm at the top but watery at the bottom, even after a night+a day of being in fridge.
Is the fact that I don't boil the juice I use an issue? Should I not be using water at all but just juice?
What kind of gelatin are you using? How are you dissolving it? Could you please elaborate a bit on the process, thanks.
What do you mean by "firm at the top by watery at the bottom"? Is it a layer of gelèe floating on a deep layer of liquid, is it gelled all the way but having a thin layer of "sweat" on the bottom, or do you mean that all of it is gelled, but the bottom is much jigglier than the top? Also, did I read right that you just stir gelatine powder into a liquid of unknown temperature and set that in the fridge right away, are these really the instructions on your package of gelatine?
Does this answer your question? Secrets to making crystal clear gelatin?
First of all, adding more gelatin is not something I would try. If the problem were too little gelatin, you would have a result that is uniformly too-soft or even liquid, not a difference between top and bottom. Also, adding more "just to be sure" is a bad idea in general, since extra gelatin makes for a rather unpleasant rubbery texture and also reduces aroma.
You don't give much information to go on, but I will assume that you meant
I use hot water mixed with room-temperature juice (making sure proportions of liquid to powder are as needed), mix very thoroughly, and set it overnight in fridge.
to be literally your full process. If that's so, then you didn't properly use the gelatin, and it is normal that you are seeing weird results.
The proper way to use gelatin is to bloom it.
Take the powder and let it soak in some tap water - 5% to 10% of the final liquid volume is common. You will recognize it's done when it has swollen up and formed a single wet mass, you can barely recognize the separate grains
Heat your juice to room temperature or slightly above
Stir in the bloomed gelatin into the juice
Warm up the whole mixture, without letting it get too hot, not even simmer. It should be between 50 C and 70 C when you take it off the heat. The gelatin will have dissolved before reaching the temperature, and you will have a uniform liquid.
Pour the mixture into a mold and put it in the fridge for several hours, best overnight.
This is the basic process for gelatin. It has a few variations (e.g. when you are making a whipped-cream mousse), but for your case, this is what will give you a proper juice-based dessert.
This is for gelatin sheets. OP used powdered gelatin.
@Willeke that's for powdered gelatin too, that's how I have always been doing it and how I have seen it described on packages of powdered gelatin. There is also a product called "instant gelatin" which doesn't need this process, but they are rather rare, one usually has to search for them specifically, and they usually have the word "instant" somewhere prominently on the package.
@rumtscho Great advice. Let me ask you, what ratio of juice to gelatin would you recommend?
@John I would recommend the ratio that's printed on your gelatin packaging. Gelatin comes in different strengths, and the manufacturer is in the best position to know how their own product will gel. You usually get small sachets ofgelatin powder on which there is written something like "for 500 ml of liquid".
You could try adding more gelatin to the mix and see how it turns out, though I wouldn't be surprised if your already firm half just ends up too hard then.
I think if you end up with a different consistency throughout your jelly then the gelatin probably didn't dissolve completely/properly. Try to fully dissolve it in the hot water first and then add the fruit juice, maybe that'll help.
I'd also try different kinds of juice to see if you get similar results.
Maybe you can give something like Agar Agar (it's some kind of algae powder) a try. In my experience, it works very well as a substitute to regular gelatin.
It can be tricky though. If you mess up the ratios, you might just end up with something resembling cement made out of jelly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.373353
| 2021-03-18T20:44:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114876",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"John",
"Stephie",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114838
|
Can you add cheese to a veloute?
Nacho time!
The urge to make nachos overtakes you, and you set to make them excellent.
But alas, seems like you've forgotten to get milk! You can't create a proper Mornay (cheese) sauce, since you can't create Bechamel.
You do, however, happen to have a very good stock at hand.
Thus, the question - would you be able to make a veloute sauce (roux + stock) and add the cheese to it to create some form of Mornay? Or would that sauce just not work?
I think this question would benefit from some information on what you consider a cheese sauce that "works". It is, after all, technically possible to make a nacho cheese sauce without béchamel or even roux. It'll clump and start to stiffen as it cools, but it would still be functional as a cheese sauce with occasional heating.
There exist milk-less cheese sauce recipes. A quick search found one that uses a cornstarch slurry, not a roux. But the "light cream cheese" might also be integral to it.
By "work" I mean won't break, fall apart, or just result in cheese suspended in water. Basically, how close can we get to a Mornay without milk :-)
Also, the cornstarch slurry one seems promising, will check it out!
You don't need milk. There are two common ways to help prevent the sauce from splitting on you -- starch (used in mornay), and acid.
When Alton Brown did his "Good Eats: Reloaded", he admitted that his original recipe for fondue was a problem ... he had used a more acidic hard cidre, which meant it worked fine for him, but caused major problems for people trying it at home. His updated fondue recipe calls for both cornstarch and lemon juice.
This also typically means that "processed" cheeses won't break (as they typically contain a little bit of starch and acidic salts), and that pre-shredded cheese has less problems (as they coat it in starch to prevent it from clumping back together). So if someone develops a recipe that works for them, but you shred your own cheese, it might not work.
I suspect that adding cheese to veloute would work, but you want to work the cheese in slowly, over a moderate amount of heat, and you may wish to add a little bit of extra acid for insurance.
Also see https://www.seriouseats.com/2017/01/how-to-use-cornstarch-and-evaporated-milk-to-make-stable-emulsion-cheese-sauce.html .... as they mention some of the "emulsifying salts" that can be used
I use sodium citrate, it works very well, is easy to find and is relatively cheap
Is there any reason to add cornstarch if using a roux? Since the flour (that’s part of the roux) contains about 80% starch, I would assume that also adding cornstarch wouldn’t be necessary.
@runeks: I would think that it would serve the same purpose. Cornstarch typically doesn’t need to be cooked down, so can be added later in recipes if necessary
By coincidence, last night I made a soup involving stock, potatoes, and aged Irish cheddar cheese. While the recipe had milk, it was added after the cheese was completely melted. The cheddar melted and distributed through the soup easily and uniformly before I added the milk.
Based on this experiment, I'd say that veloute' with cheese should be possible, and that the only things required to get good dissolving of the cheese are lots of starch plus the right temperature (85-95C). Acidity is apparently not a requirement, nor is using processed cheese products, if you have enough starch.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.373706
| 2021-03-16T16:21:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114838",
"authors": [
"Gilgoldman",
"Joe",
"LightBender",
"Onyz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91926",
"runeks"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114859
|
Tenderizing vegetables (chili pepper)
I am trying to emulate a hamburger recipe I ate at a restaurant with some green chili pepper (Chile Verde) which I really enjoyed.
My problem relies on how to cook it, if I just use the pan it burns or does not reach the soft consistency I am looking for.
Is there any way I can easily tenderize the chili pepper?
Roast in a hot oven, over grill or direct flame, or in cast iron. Whole...until skin is dark and blistered. Remove from heat carefully. Place in a bowl and cover with plastic. Allow to cool. The peppers will continue to steam as they cool. Wipe off skin. Then de-seed and dice. They will be tender.
This work perfectly. I know it was sort of basic but thanks for your time and knowledge.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.373986
| 2021-03-17T20:48:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114859",
"authors": [
"J. Bringas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91943"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98797
|
How to infuse black layer of peppercorn into an oil?
I am interested in infusing the black layer flavours(not inner white parts) of black pepper into an oil.
I imagine this can be achieved by adding whole black peppercorns to oil and frying a little. Or do you have to add whole black peppercorns to oil then leave it overnight?
If you say you need to grind the peppercorns first, why so? Since I am interested in the black part only would putting it be whole be better it is there some reason flavour would not extract so well like this?
you may need to clarify why only the black part of the peppercorn.
The black parts taste very different to the white and I am only interested in that.
Clearly, white pepper has a flavor that is different from black. But, have you tasted only the black outer layer? How do you know it is the flavor you are looking for? How do you know that the black pepper flavor is only coming from the outer layer, and not from the entire peppercorn? For some infusion tips: https://www.bonappetit.com/test-kitchen/how-to/article/diy-flavored-oil
If you insist on an oil, it can be done by taking black peppercorns, infusing them in high-grade alcohol for a couple of weeks at room temperature and then evaporating 90% of the alcohol and infuse the last 10% of the alcohol into the oil.
The easy way would be to infuse them in the cheapest moon shine vodka you can lay your hands on for 3 months and then using the vodka $instead of oil.*
If you insist on only the outer part, you can use an electric potato grater to peel off the outer skin only and infuse the "black powder" :-) in a neutral oil like grapeseed oil heated to below its smoke point for as long as possible.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.374322
| 2019-05-03T21:02:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98797",
"authors": [
"James Wilson",
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1287
|
How do I clean kale and other leafy vegetables for cooking?
I'm eating a lot of kale and other leafy vegetables lately, and I'm concerned about removing pesticide residue. Is thoroughly rinsing the leaves in cold water enough?
When washing vegetables that can get muddy (Kale, leeks, etc.) I generally recommend first using tepid to slightly warm water to help soften the mud more easily. Leeks should be split down the middle and then can be fanned under warm water which will help wash the dirt out more readily.
For Kale, if it isn't muddy then you can use cold water and give it a soak and agitate as hobodave indicated below. If they're muddy and dirty, then I'd use slightly warmer water to first clean them and then give them a soak in some cold water to help plump them up and increase their turgor pressure to make them nice and crisp.
A good wash in water (universal solvent) should be enough. Most of what I've read on the effectiveness of "vegetable wash sprays" say that they're no better than a good wash with water.
With regard to kale and other leafy greens that are heavily treated with pesticides: Do you happen to know if the pesticides only coat the leaves, or are they absorbed by the vegetables to some degree? I have a friend who insists that all leafy vegetables should be put through seven soakings to leach pesticides out of them, but I can't find anything to substantiate her claim.
Due to the tender nature of greens (including kale although it is sturdy) they would possibly be likely to absorb to some degree. I haven't heard the idea of soaking to leach them out, especially 7 times, so I can't speak to that. The reason I suggest to soak in tepid water is for softening dirt and the cold water is to hydrate the cells and increase turgidity of the greens/vegetables to improve shelf life and quality. If soaking them did help to leach out pesticides there's no way of saying that 7 is the magic number...it will depend on what was sprayed, how much, how frequent, etc.
Also, make sure that you cut off entire stem right up to the top off the leaf, otherwise the consistency of the finished leaf will be a little too chewy...
Leafy greens like kale should be washed in a sink or tub full of cold water. Submerge the leaves in there and agitate them gently. You do not have to worry about pesticides. Your greater concern should be with removing all the sand and dirt from these leaves. Chewing on a rock, no matter how small is not a pleasant experience for you or your guests.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.374485
| 2010-07-17T02:39:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1287",
"authors": [
"Darin Sehnert",
"Gail",
"GoryDetails",
"Iuls",
"SurDin",
"Vilx-",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"melbalini"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93075
|
How to defrost frozen food in fridge
I've read that allowing frozen food to defrost in the fridge or under running water is generally a good idea (compared to leaving it out on the worktop). I'm aware there are some situations where it's not ideal.
As some foods defrost, they release a liquid. My own research suggests this could be full of bad bacteria etc, and the food can spoil.
In my situation, I have some frozen shellfish. This includes crab claw, squid, cuttlefish and prawns. They are all on 1 dinner plate, in my fridge and I've now considered there are 2 problems, which I can summarise as:
They will soon be sitting in each others water!
I have 2 questions, which are relevant to the title:
As the shellfish will be cooked together, is there are any risk of contamination from the defrosted liquid?
Is my technique (or lack of) of letting them defrost on a plate incorrect? For example, should I be defrosting in a colendar with a bowl underneath?
I guess there is a risk of spoiling, if you forget the food and let it sit at room temperature for a long time.
If this is all kept at refrigerator temperatures, then cooked, your health risk is extremely low. However, there is a better method, which you suggest. Place your seafood/shellfish in a colander or strainer. Place that over a container so that the melting liquid can drain off, and so that the product will not be sitting in the liquid. The same set up can be used for fresh fish, and is common in seafood markets. With non-frozen, the seafood can be packed with ice to keep it as cold as possible. Again, with the set-up I describe, the melting ice will be captured below the product.
This same liquid was contained within the food itself. Some of that liquid does not drip out of the food and will be cooked. There is no danger here.
Put your food on a a tray that has hole in it so that the liquid fall to the bottom .
You can use a baking/grill rack with a pan under it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.374860
| 2018-10-20T09:24:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93075",
"authors": [
"danuker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50757"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49560
|
Beer instead of Seltzer in tempura?
I have a tempura recipe I want to try, however it calls for "Very cold seltzer". Since I'm not a fan of seltzer normally, I don't have any on hand. However, I do have a bottle of beer left from when I made Beer-batter fish. Can I use "very cold beer" in lieu of "very cold seltzer"? Will it alter the texture and taste of the tempura too much?
Thanks!
It will produce the same effect, however it might alter the taste (depending on the type of beer), and will almost certainly alter the color of the final product, as beer contains sugars that will increase browning.
I don't much care for heavy beers, so all I have is Sapporo beer in glass bottles, if that makes a difference. (I'll be honest, I don't know what Type of beer Sapporo is. For a long time I was calling it a Pilsner, but then some one told me it was a Pale Ale.. I'm not exactly a beer connoisseur. O_O)
Sapporo is not overly hopped, so you may taste it, but you probably won't even notice. I don't think it will be a bad thing.
Awesome! Thanks, I will give it a try for dinner tomorrow and let you know how it turns out! Now, to figure out how the restaurants get the shrimps to stay straight like sticks. lol.
@Tenshi actually...they use sticks....
... LMAO, Seriously?? I guess that makes sense, I just had never seen holes in the shrimps, so it never occurred to me to use sticks. Plus, wouldn't sticks catch on fire in the oil? (I've never put bamboo sticks in oil, I just assumed that with the lack of water content, it would torch quickly.)
Also, any idea on how long it would take to fry the shrimps so they are fully cooked? I'm always so worried to under cook shrimp that I tend to over cook it instead.
They will not catch on fire in the oil. You will probably only need 2-3 minutes, depends on the size of your shrimp.
@Tenshi Sapporo is a lager, not an ale. The distinction is that lagers are brewed with a yeast that sits on the bottom of the vat, whereas ale is brewed with one that floats on the top.
@Tenshi, any liquid that contains alcohol is a good choice for tempura. Replacing some of the water with alcohol will limit gluten formation and make the resulting tempura lighter. I don't see any reason to use carbonated beverages in tempura (the best places in Japan don't) but alcohol is a good secret ingredient.
I can't wait to hear how it goes for you! It seems like a natural.
Thank you so much every one! @Jolenealaska It came out very interesting! But I think that was due to the recipe I used more than anything. I had found a recipe on Food Network from Robert Irvine, and it came out much thicker than I'm accustomed to, which was ironic, since the whole point of the "bubbly beverage" was to make it light and airy.
Though I have to say at the same time, the batter stuck very well, more so than a normal tempura. I did have to use a lot more liquid than the recipe called for too, so I'm not sure if that was an effect of the beer, or just the recipe was mistaken.
Either way Jolene, keep that in mind if you try beer in your tempura batter, that you may need more than the recipe calls for.
But I also took @Jbaker's advice too; for the added liquid I used sake.
Glad we helped, and thank you for coming back to post an answer based on actual experience - those are always really valuable. I've removed the bit about other things you're making, since this should really just be an answer to the question about beer in tempura, but by all means, please do come back if you have further questions!
I second @Jefromi's comment. Nothing is better here than when the OP returns to let us know how it went.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.375060
| 2014-11-06T12:23:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49560",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"David Richerby",
"Ella-Louise Walkinshaw",
"George Bokern",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mary Lewis",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Sjouke Havenaar",
"Spammer",
"Tenshi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24670
|
Balancing out saffron taste, chlorine/latex taste
I am cooking a chickpea stew and clearly used too much Saffron (high chlorine taste). Does anyone know what I can use to balance out or mask the flavour?
What is chorine?
sorry, Chlorine
ah OK! Thought it was some strange chemical in saffron, but could not find it! :) I've edited it in the question
Since when does Saffron taste like Chlorine? Where are you getting this "saffron"?
Balance out the taste of too much saffron? What kind of alternate dimension is this?
A lot of saffron in the market is adultered....
Searching for information about the taste of saffron, it seems that there are two camps - saffron that tastes of chlorine or plastic, and saffron that tastes/smells indescribably like saffron, perhaps earthy or like hay. Although it can taste bitter when used in larger amounts - e.g. a dash rather than a pinch. Some people find it can taste metallic or "hospital-y" which does match with the chemicals found in saffron, rather than this being a reault of an filler or fake-ness.
From Wikipedia (but they give no references) "Saffron's aroma is often described by connoisseurs as reminiscent of metallic honey with grassy or hay-like notes, while its taste has also been noted as hay-like and sweet."
So yours is possibly mixed with something or not real saffron. Or maybe you are using too much - the amount needed depends on the purity and grade.
Therefore, the way to balance out or mask the flavour is probably to get real saffron or use less. If you are asking how to balance it in a dish you have already made, this is obviously not so useful!
The other thing is that if you want the colour but not the taste, you can use turmeric.
How expensive was yours? And was it powder or threads? It is generally recommended that to get the threads for better taste, and I imagine these are harder to adulterate.
You can tell if you are using too much saffron because you will be broke.
lol, that is also true!
Saffron was not very expensive - seems like that might be the root of the issue.
I'd describe the taste as ... gasoline like but not unpleasant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.375394
| 2012-06-24T16:06:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24670",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Sobachatina",
"Swati",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"nico",
"rackandboneman",
"standgale",
"tgunn"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98899
|
What to do with layer of fat on pork spareribs?
So I got a nice big rack of ribs from an excellent butcher, and it has a fairly thick layer of fat.
Previously when I've bought ribs for smoking/slow cooking, That fat hasn't been there, and the ribs have been ready to receive my spice rub.
So my question is this:
What should/could I do with this fat?
Since I'll be putting it in my Kamado for slowcooking, I'd normally prepare the ribs similar to this video as seen in this picture
Currently I'm thinking of trimming most of the fat off and see how it goes...
Over the course of 4-6 hours, it should rend nicely, but I also want my spice rub on the meat itself...
Suggestions please? :-D
OMG that looks tasty! If you don't want the fat you can ship it to my bitcoin address.
It was very tasty, and was a great success with my guests ;-)
Seems like you get the importance of the fat rendering but still want the spice rub on the meat. I would trim the skin and fat off in one piece, if possible, using a very sharp filet knife. (A small amount of fat left on the meat is okay.)
Then rub your spice mix over all sides of the meat. Place the fat cap back on the meat where you removed it. On the top of the skin/fat season with salt or your spice rub and go to cooking.
The fat will render and you should still end up with well seasoned, moist, tender ribs. Bonus, you should get a well seasoned crispy skin. If the skin doesn't crisp enough with the cooking method, you can remove the fat cap when the ribs are done and place it on a pan under the broiler to finish the crisping.
It might be better to put the fat on a rack above, and let the fat drip down onto the meat ... if the cap's back in place, I suspect the smoke won't penetrate the meat. In an oven, it probably wouldn't make a difference
That is an amazing idea....
I think @Joe has a point about the smoke not penetrating though, so I may have to order an extra rack urgently...
It is a Kamado, so it doesn't have a broiling option either...
@LarsPanzerbjrn : you could probably find some other way to get the fat above the meat ... maybe a few skewers (to either bridge the area where a rack would sit, or to make legs to suspend the fat cap)
I got an extra raised rack, so I will try that, and report back on how it went. Thanks to you both for your suggestions...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.375600
| 2019-05-09T18:49:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98899",
"authors": [
"Captain Giraffe",
"Joe",
"Lars Panzerbjrn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66420",
"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
}
|
116026
|
Non-fat way of preventing legumes from frothing during canning
I have been adding fat to each jar of canned legumes to prevent frothing during processing (pressure canning). The fat looks unappetizing in the final product, especially if the beans are used cold such as in a salad. I have tried oils and solid fats and do not like the results in both.
Is there anything other than fat that I can put into the beans to prevent frothing during processing?
Have you tried onion? Adding raw onion when pre-soaking dried beans is supposed to help break down oligosaccharides that cause flatulence, and I believe the same compounds cause the frothing.
I will try that in the batch I am soaking now.
Please let us know if that helps; if it does, go ahead and write an answer. I'm sure other people with the same problem will appreciate it.
Onions did not help. I tried 2T, 4T & 6T of chopped raw onions. I was sure the 6T jar would stop the foaming, but it did not. 6T was 25% onion , 75% legumes by weight. If it takes more onion than that it would be too much onion in the final product.
Interesting, and also disappointing. Thank you for experimenting and sharing the results. Now I wonder if onions actually reduce the gas-producing components. I've only ever heard that by word-of-mouth, but I've never seen a science-based source say so. Of course, there's a big difference in time and temperature between an overnight soak and a canning bath.
I have finally found a solution to the frothing issue in the USDA recommendations for canning legumes.
In addition to soaking the beans (they add salt to the soak water), par-boil them in plain water for about 15 minutes. Drain the water, then add fresh water to the jars.
I am not sure if it is the fact that they add salt to the soak water or the par-boiling, or both. But the beans did not froth during canning using their method without adding any fat at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.375835
| 2021-06-11T06:10:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116026",
"authors": [
"Bookaholic",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"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
}
|
113315
|
How to bake extra turkey legs along with a whole turkey?
I have bought 4 Turkey turkey legs that I would like to serve at the same time as the rest of the turkey. I am baking the turkey. At what point in time during the baking do I add the additional legs so they are done at the same time?
This is impossible to answer without knowing the size of your turkey, how you intend to cook it, your oven temperature.....it is best to use a thermometer. Are the other legs still attached to the turkey? If so, why wouldn't they all go in together? If not (which is how I would do it), I would start with the legs, and add the breast later (which cooks to a lower temperature).
It's hard to say exactly, it depends on the size of the turkey and the size of the extra legs, and whether the turkey is stuffed or not. I always cut the legs off my turkey so they don't dry out, they take between 1 and 1.5 hours to cook. I usually let the turkey bake for an hour before adding the legs, then I start checking the legs' temperature an hour after that. This generally means the legs and turkey body are done about the same time. I'm usually roasting a 16lb (7kg) turkey though, if yours is smaller you'd probably want to reduce those times somewhat.
do you bake the legs covered or uncovered?
It doesn't matter much with legs @Bookaholic.
This doesn't make sense to me. If you let your breast roast, then add the legs, it seems to me you will have overcooked white meat, and/or under cooked dark meat. It is going to take a lot longer for the legs to "dry out" than the breast.
Legs are much smaller than breasts, have a greater surface area and have a large bone running through the center of the meat so they cook much faster @moscafj.
While I agree with your description of a turkey leg, I can't vouch for your cooking process. It just hasn't worked that way for me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.376019
| 2020-12-23T12:17:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113315",
"authors": [
"Bookaholic",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89618",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113625
|
Commerial-grade packaging (long shelf-life) for my cookie-like pastry
I have a cookie-like pastry that I would like to put in a commercial-grade packaging so that it can sold in stores.
How are products such as dates, nuts and cookies packaged so that they have a shelf-life of months or even years? How are small businesses able to package their products? Do they do it themselves or do they send their product to a "packaging company"? What equipment do I need?
My pastry is basically a no-bake almost-cookie-like pasty. It mostly consist of dry ingredients such as almonds, dried pineapples, and nuts but also has a wet ingredient which is either butter or vegan butter. The closest commercial product that I can think of is Larabar but the consistency and taste are different.
Firat, first, first : look at your local rules and regulation regarding selling food product in your area.
First first : Decide how long you want to have your product to last, this will put restriction on packaging.
First, you need to do a lot of testing with different kind of packaging and see how your product behave over days, weeks and months (whatever long you want to keep the product)
Find a local food laboratory to test your product for safety (bacteria, mold.... ) at different days, weeks...
If/When the product is safe to eat, you also need to test the product to see if it is still good (not stale, loss of flavour...)
After that, look for different packaging solution for your product, most packaging can be done in-house (heat sealed) so you can buy custom printed bags or pouches (for example for granola melange) or paper packaging (for example for chocolat bars)
I've googled for "commercial food packaging" and there are many solutions for this, just look it up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.376199
| 2021-01-07T01:28:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113625",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114079
|
Where can I find strong sharp tasting olive oil in the US?
I was hoping you could all educate me. I remember living in Turkey and travelling around the Mediterranean in general and a lot of the Olive Oil was sharper or you might call it bitter, and I know it was fresh. I loved the taste. In the US where I'm from, all the store bought olive oil that I've purchased is smooth and doesn't have any special kick to it. Why is that?
I assume it's for one of three reasons
I am not always the cheapest but I won't go all out and spend the most on something usually, and I wouldn't know what bottles to choose anyway.
The manufacturers know or think they know their market, and they think, probably correctly, that American's wouldn't go for that.
The process of storing and transporting it either reduces the sharpness or requires they refine it in a way that reduces it.
I'm interested in EVOO of course. I assume the stuff in the Mediterranean I ate was Extra Virgin but if it wasn't, that's fine too. I know it was fresh.
Am I correct with my reasons above, and more importantly where can I find sharp strong olive oil like I remember (including on Amazon)?
Welcome to SA! However, requests for health information are off-topic for this board, so I removed that part of your question. Tackling the rest.
Your best source for quality olive oil with strong flavors in the US is going to be a specialty market, either an upscale "gourmet" one, or an ethnic market, such as a Greek, Arabic, Italian, or Turkish market, or even a specialty olive-oil only store. Farmer's markets can also be a good source of premium olive oil. Once COVID is over, you can even find markets that will let you taste their olive oils, so that you can pick the one with the degree of pungency you're seeking; many producers create a range.
The bitterness you're talking about is hopefully from oleocanthal and is a sign of quality. I say "hopefully" because there is a lot of fake virgin olive oils out there, and the wrong kind of bitterness comes from "deodorizing" low-quality oils. These taste different, but you'd have to try both to recognize it.
You are also right that most Americans don't like pungent or bitter olive oils. That's why the oils you buy in mainstream supermarkets are usually bland, and why you usually need to go outside of them to find better oil.
The fake olive oil problem is why I can't recommend trying to find any high-quality Turkish olive oils here in the the US. While Turkish producers to create very fine olive oils, overwhelmingly what reaches the US is fake olive oil with Turkish labels, and there are no reliable brands available here I've found. So I'd recommend getting an oil from Greece, Lebanon, or Israel instead, since all of those countries do have import channels that follow labelling laws and their oils should be fairly similar to Turkish.
This is also why I'm avoiding the term "extra virgin" in this answer. The US does not enforce conditions on "extra virgin" labelling, so seeing those words on the bottle tells you absolutely nothing. Instead you need to go by producer and recommendations.
Thanks for your detailed answer. I read all of the articles you cited. Basically, one has to do legwork. It's true that sellers will often mislabel, or that price doesn't necessarily mean higher quality. I was excited about buying truffle oil but lost interest when I learned they mostly use artificial flavoring. There might be some EVOO bottles on the shelves somewhere that have the oleocanthalic bite but you wouldn't know because they don't advertise that fact. You almost have to talk to a person who knows and cares. Even at my local co-ops, they don't seem to know or have an interest.
Yeah, you may have to wait for covid to be over so that you can do oil tastings again. Unless you can find a place where the staff care about olive oil and can give you advice. Here's two I can recommend: Carapelli's Il Centennario is decent and has a bit of a bite, and sometimes shows up in supermarkets (that brand also sells some fakes though, so beware). Costco's glass-bottle dated-varietal Italian olive oil is actually quite good, and the 2020 has some bitterness to it. Other stuff I have isn't open, so I can't taste it right now.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.376354
| 2021-02-03T01:47:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114079",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"gcr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90722"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83309
|
How to achieve in my homed-made mayo the same strong 'egg flavor' as in store-bought mayo?
I have been experimenting with home-made mayonnaise recently. My favourite mayonnaise brands like Hellmann's and Hienz have three distinct taste 'points' that I have tried to achieve:
Tangy
Salty
A distinct 'eggy', or egg-like flavor
While I have been able to achieve the tangy-ness and saltiness through vinegar and salt, I have no idea how manufacturers make their mayonnaise taste so eggy. Do they half boil the eggs before emulsifying the mayo? Or is it achieved through a blend of other spices? I tried adding more raw eggs to my recipe but they don't seem to have any effect.
I appreciate any advice on what I could add to achieve this strong egg-like flavor in my home-made mayo.
Edit: Thanks for the answers so far. I will green tick the answer that worked best for me once I have tried them.
Edit 2: The answer that worked for me was the one that suggested home pasteurising the eggs. I pasteurised the eggs at 135 F for 1hr 15 mins as recommended but I couldn't keep the temperature (it kept fluctuating high and low). I used a small metal sauce pan. The final result was a mayo that had the strong eggy flavor I was looking for, but was also too watery. Still, in the context of this question it did work. Will be finding more ways to keep the eggy flavor while making the mayo thick and stable.
Can you describe the "eggy flavor" you experience and/or want? I think eggs consists for 95% of water, fat and protein (with water taking care of 90% of the 95% for sure). Maybe sulfur? Sulfur is a smell/taste I would associate with (at least boiled) eggs, and it's definitely the strongest smell/taste is able to give off.
Have you ever tried Hellmann's mayo? I'm finding it difficult to describe. It's the savoury smell/taste of scrambled eggs, I think. Is there a way to introduce sulfur to foods?
The sulfur content in the distilled white vinegar used in commercial mayo really emphasizes the egg flavor. If you're using a different vinegar, I think that you should switch to see if it does the trick.
The cooked egg flavor you're looking for comes from pasteurizing the eggs for the mayo. If you've got an immersion circulator, you can do a relatively high-temperature pasteurization for whole eggs in their shell, while not actually cooking them through, and use those for the mayo. There are commercially pasteurized shell eggs available from Davidson's Safest Choice, but they don't taste vastly different from regular eggs— I imagine they pasteurize them at a relatively low temperature for a pretty long time specifically to make them as similar to raw eggs as possible.
Without an immersion circulator, you almost certainly won't have the temperature control you need to pasteurize the eggs without cooking them.
Good luck!
Hi there, thank you for your well written answer. You are saying that the key to achieving the flavor is to pasturise the eggs myself as store-bought pasteurized eggs wont taste the same as home pasteurized eggs?
@user60513 the 'egg' flavor in commercial mayonnaise differs from home mayonnaise in that it's got a slightly sulfurous cooked flavor. Commercially pasteurized eggs seem to be purposefully pasteurized at a relatively low temperature to avoid this. If you home pasteurized eggs, I'm sure you could get a balance between a more cooked flavor, and an egg still raw enough to emulsify your oil and acid. Cheers!
Thanks! I don't have a immersion circulator, but I do have a saucepan and a thermometer. Do you think it's still possible to home pasteurise eggs this way?
Many pasteurization how-tos recommend leaving eggs in 140 degree water for 3 min... horse hockey. That's dangerous advice for the immune disordered. Douglas Baldwin— an excellent resource— says 135 for 75 min. I'm not going to tell you it's physically impossible to do with a pan and thermometer, but it would be difficult. The water really needs to stay within a degree or two, and you'd need something to keep the eggs off the bottom of the pan, or the results will be significantly different. Since you're not immunocompromised and just going for flavor though, maybe try some and see?
Wow, this really worked. However, I think I 'over-pasteurised' them because when the eggs came out the whites were really cloudy. When I blended it with grapeseed oil, mustard and lemon juice though, I got a mayo that finally had that eggy flavor I was looking for. However, the mayo was 'broken' and watery, I think because I had over-cooked them.
Good luck finding the right balance! Maybe just adjusting your oil ratio might be the fix you need to get it to emulsify. You might even be able to save your broken mayo with a little water and some powerful blending.
The Organic way:
You're saying that you've tried adding more raw eggs to your recipe, but do not provide any details, so I'm assuming you make mayonnaise with the entire egg (like my aunt does) whereas I only use the yolk of eggs of vegetable and maize-fed chickens and mine tastes much more "eggy" than my aunt's...
So:
Buy your own chickens and feed them stale bread, vegetable scraps from your kitchen and add about a cup of maize per week.
Use organic eggs from a reputable source (local farmer, ask what they feed to their chickens)
Use only the yolk
Use even more yolk if that still isn't "eggy" enough
Disadvantage:
My aunt doesn't like my mayonnaise as it's way too rich for her...
The chemical way:
Just buy some Egg yolk, cooked flavour from the Italian (what else?) company FlavourArt and add one drop of that...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wow, thanks! I will try just adding the yolk, and see if i can buy organic eggs locally.
There is a "cooked egg flavor"? Wow.... or rather "yuck".
@Stephie Maybe it's for people who like eggs but can't eat them for one reason or another?
I tried using only the egg yolks, but I think it didn't emulsify properly. It was very watery. I used two egg yolks..
Go really slow in the beginning and use egg yolk, mustard and oil only and don't use vinegar, but lemon juice.
Use black salt, kala namak. It have a very strong egg flavour and aroma.
Okay, I will try that once I get my hands on it. I think I found an Indian market near me that sells it. Thanks!
I finally managed to get some kala namak and will be trying it out soon. Let you know how it turns out.
Hi, I gave it a try. Added 1/4 teaspoon of black salt (ground with a mortar and pestle until fine) to 1 cup of grapeseed oil and the rest of the ingredients. However, the final product smelt very much like rotten eggs to my other family members and while it did have a strong eggy taste, it was an unpleasant one.. Do you think there's a way to make the flavor less intense? I thought of cooking it on a skillet for a while.
@user60513 You can try adding less black salt (it now always have the same strong taste) or just try to infuse oil with salt first and then try how strong it is.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.376704
| 2017-07-27T09:08:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83309",
"authors": [
"ChefAndy",
"Fabby",
"JAB",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Stephie",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60513",
"user60513"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86473
|
Is berbere supposed to be bitter?
I tried making a popular Ethiopian spice mix, berbere, following a recipe by Marcus Samuelsson. I followed it exactly, only making a few modifications.
4 tsp corainder seeds
2 tsp fenugreek seeds
1/2 tsp allspice berries
12 cardamom pods
8 cloves
1/3 cup onion powder
Dried chiles de árbod
1 tsp nutmeg ground
1 tsp ginger ground
1 tsp cinnamon
2 tsp sea salt
6 tbsp paprika (I used Spanish dulce paprika)
Modifications:
Instead of cloves, I used ground clove, substituting 8 whole cloves for 3/4 tsp of ground clove
I didn't have the chiles, so I used 2 tbsp of cayenne pepper powder instead. I also didn't want it to be too spicy.
Following the recipe, the seeds were toasted on a pan before being mixed using a pestle and mortar with the other spices. However, the end result was pungent and slightly bitter. How is berbere supposed to taste exactly?
I hope it is a typo, the recipe call for "4 whole cloves" not 8.
according to the ingredients, I expect it to be on the bitter side of things
I doubled the recipe actually (but forgot to change the proportions of the fenugreek and corainder written there so it's a typo indeed)
I can't remember ever tasting it straight (and I've never made it from scratch), but I don't recall it being bitter when used in recipes. (maybe it was something in the recipes that balanced it out, though)
I have no idea if it's supposed to be bitter, but fenugreek is quite bitter, and its bitterness increases quickly when toasted.
toasting of spices can make them bitter if the heat is too much, or if you left them on the hot skillet too long. Did you smell some bitterness when grinding them?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.377321
| 2017-12-17T12:44:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86473",
"authors": [
"Andrea Shaitan",
"Joe",
"Max",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user60513"
],
"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
}
|
85743
|
Can I replace casein in a recipe with soy protein?
I wanted to try this veggie burger recipe from ChefSteps. However, it uses sodium caseinate as one of the binding ingredients. Casein is derived from milk, thus making the burger non-vegan.
Would directly substituting (1:1) sodium caseinate with soy protein or pea protein cause any problems?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.377485
| 2017-11-19T14:44:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85743",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85235
|
Does PME activation differ between potato varieties?
Potatoes contain the enzyme pectin-methyl esterase (PME). Par-boiling potatoes at a temperature range between 130F to 140F, activates this enzyme, gelatinising the starch cells in the potato.
According to Dave Arnold's experiments on Cooking Issues, this results in french fries that stay stiffer after frying. In my own testings, I have found that par-boiling potatoes at 140F before cooking them creates fluffier mashed potatoes as well.
Experiments on this enzyme that I have found online seem to test them on french fries, but they don't mention what variety of potatoes they use; high starch, waxy, low-moisture, high-moisture.
High-starch, and low-moisture: Russets, Idahos, Yukon Golds
Waxy and high-moisture: Granolas, Fingerlings, Desirees
My question is, does the temperature range and effects of PME activation differ between varieties of potatoes?
"Boiling" would be an inaccurate term for cooking in 130-140°F water, unless its being done at 35-39,000 feet above sea level, or in a partial vacuum.
@Ecnerwal Yep, I have edited the description.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.377538
| 2017-10-25T13:17:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85235",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60513",
"user60513"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27925
|
Is it possible to extract juice from bok choy and napa cabbage using a blender?
Is it possible to extract juice from these vegetables using a blender? How much would it take to produce 100mL of juice?
Baby bok choy:
Napa cabbage:
Since they're mostly water, wouldn't pureeing them in your blender essentially give you a pitcher full of thick, green liquid? If you didn't want the vegetable matter and fiber, straining that through cheesecloth or coffee filters would give you something of juice consistency.
How many would make 100 ml would vary depending on their individual size and water content if you're straining out the vegetable matter and fiber. If you add a few at a time until you're at the right liquid level you'll eventually be able to eyeball the right amount or at least within range based on how the bunches look when you buy or go to use them.
A auger juicer would do a better job, but a short stint in the blender will do
100 ml of water is 100 gm (isn't the metric system cool!). So expect to get around that
I would imagine the bok choy would be disgusting and slimy, but the cabbage should be great!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.377649
| 2012-10-22T05:11:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27925",
"authors": [
"Andrew Sims",
"Bill Hughes",
"Isaac Lubin",
"Kyle",
"Shirley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64188",
"kathysmith",
"user2071764"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28508
|
How to chill and reheat three layer pork properly
Usually, I put the three layer pork on the table and let it cool before putting it in the fridge to store for later cooking if I could not finish all of them in a meal. (Wonder if I am doing is correct?)
However, when I took them out to cook again, I notice that the there is a layer of oil (that looks like rubber). Should I remove this oil or should I wait until it reaches room temperature? Or should I simply just heat it up or how should I reheat them?
Three Layer Pork
To be clear, are you freezing this dish in the freezer, or chilling it in the fridge?
+1 Thanks Chris, I was just looking for the word chilling. Sorry for my poor Language
It's hard to say from the picture, but pork fat when cooled in a refrigerator does not have the texture of rubber. It is firm but stays deformed when you squish it. What does have the texture of rubber and could have come from the pork is gelatin. When you cool certain cuts of beef, pork, or other meats you break down the connective tissue and dissolve the gelatin in the cooking liquid or meat juices. If you cooked it, cut it, and then chilled the cut pieces they likely let out some of their juices and those juices then set (gelled) in the refrigerator due to the gelatin.
I would just heat it up, and the gelatinized juices will become liquid again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.377773
| 2012-11-19T02:50:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28508",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Jack",
"Patricia Warfield",
"RandomStranger",
"Secespitus",
"Taybah K Bennett",
"Vlmac13",
"abr",
"alphacapture",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8737",
"user65822",
"yinka"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13275
|
What are alternate uses for leftover buttermilk?
Buttermilk is one of those pantry items that I buy for a specific recipe, then don't know what to do with the leftovers (and I think this is not uncommon). In my question about buttermilk in soda bread, the topic of alternate uses came up in the comments. I'd like to make a list of these uses. Here's what I have so far:
pancakes (instead of milk or yogourt)
quick breads, scones (instead of milk)
cakes
mashed potatoes (instead of milk)
low-fat muffins (replacement for oil)
(Note: This should be a community wiki item, rather than a question, but I'm not sure how to flag that.)
@Allison - I don't think this fits our culinary uses guidelines, which is what it would have to be tagged. Voted to close. You can try to edit to see if you can get it there, but buttermilk's a bit too common for that.
@justkt - fair enough. For me it falls into the category of "Things which have a specific (or few) widely recognised uses which may have other uncommon uses." I associate buttermilk mostly with pancakes and muffins, but haven't used it for anything else (most of my list came from your comment in the other question).
25 uses is not a few. And that's just one website's list off google. Others may of course disagree, though!
For me the key phrase was "widely recognized" ... but I guess I don't need a list here, since I can now refer to the one you linked to! :)
I used to do buy buttermilk for specific recipes and then have leftovers but now if the recipe calls for a small amount (1-3 cups) I just use a buttermilk substitute by mixing milk with vinegar and letting it sit for ten minutes.
@justkt and Allison, Check out the new question on meta about where the boundary for these types of questions lies. http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1058/where-do-we-draw-the-line-on-culinary-uses-questions
@yossarian - Thanks for raising this... I think it's a tricky subjective line. And for reference, looking at that list more closely, it's not really 25 things, in my opinion. A lot of the items I would group together (e.g. biscuits and scones are basically the same thing, as are various kinds of cakes). Also, another interesting use I'd add to a list is as a beverage when mixed with OJ, which is a traditional Dutch lunch drink.
I realize this is closed, but I had an answer that's not a "list entry" but a more general solution. Since I also tend to purchase buttermilk for specific purposes, and get frustrated with 1/4 cups going to waste, I tend to stretch recipes to fit the amount of buttermilk I can buy. Add 1/7th to all the other ingredients, or just be happy adding a bit of extra buttermilk to the item. Makes slightly larger batches, slightly richer foods, and no wasted buttermilk.
The most obvious - drink it! Have hot mushed potato on a plate, some meat next to it and cold buttermilk in a glass. Yum.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.377947
| 2011-03-18T17:29:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13275",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"JJimbo",
"Kyra",
"Scivitri",
"System Folder",
"Yulia V",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5060",
"justkt",
"yossarian",
"z-boss"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44946
|
Creating a home "anti-griddle"?
I watched a restaurant documentary last night (Spinning Plates; pretty good!) which featured a modernist chef demonstrating their kitchen's anti-griddle: essentially a large metal plate chilled down to somewhere around -40 degrees (both F and C, oddly enough). It's used to chill and freeze foods that can't be frozen at normal freezer temperatures like olive oil, a bit like dipping or dropping into liquid nitrogen. I've never been much of a fan of molecular gastronomy, but I was absolutely fascinated by this idea, as I'd never seen anything like it before. I'm compelled to give it a try.
The official, professional version of this machine runs about $1200 USD, so that's completely out. These guys created one using a cast-iron skillet submerged in liquid nitrogen, but I'm not buying a massive container of that either. This site suggests that similar results can be had at home by placing a sheet pan on top of a block of dry ice, which sounds more reasonable, at least from a financial perspective. I obtained an estimate for a 10-inch x 10-inch x 2-inch slab of dry ice (about 10 lbs) for $15 USD. EDIT: Responses to date also suggest using a bed of dry ice chips. I'm checking to see if there's a significant price difference, as I'll probably be trying the cheapest method for my first go.
However, before I embark on what sounds like a chemistry lab demonstration in my kitchen, I thought it best to seek some advice. Specifically:
Has anyone actually tried this at home with any success? You'll get automatic bonus points for being braver than I.
Are there particular hazards that I need to be aware of during this exercise in applied insanity? Let's assume that I can guess at some obvious ones like "Don't touch the dry ice with your hands" and "Let the frozen items warm up a little before you eat them".
Would a slab the size of the one described above last long enough to let me experiment a bit, or would it simply sublimate down to a useless size within a matter of minutes?
If anyone's actually worked with a professional-grade anti-griddle before, would a home hack like this produce similar results, or am I just fooling myself?
I look forward to any input that I can get, because I'm really excited by the novelty of this idea! Feel free to completely dash my hopes.
EDIT: Great suggestions so far, thanks all! I'm keeping this open for now since I haven't seen any definitive answers based on experience with this method, and I'll add my own answer once I can give it a try.
I've played with dry ice before, trying to recreate Heston's Dry Ice Icecream. It's not the same as using it as a chilling-pan-element, but do you want me to write up my notes from a using-dry-ice perspective? Actually I also did a dry ice bain marie before! I totally forgot. That pretty much sounds the same.
If I were to do it, I'd probably try building something -- an array of peltier curcuits with a sheet pan on top, with heat sinks & fans underneath. You could probably build something around 12cm x 12cm / 600W for $50, assuming you already had the soldering gear, power supply & fans lying about (which I do, because I'm a pack rat)
@Joe Unfortunately I don't, and I'd probably just wind up hurting myself were I to try without very specific instruction. That seems like it'd be much more of a multitasker though (variable temperature and so on) so I like the idea. Can you give me any pointers to similar DIY devices?
Re dangers; remember that dry ice is frozen CO2, while not toxic it can cause Asphyxiation so use in a well ventalated area if you're using a large amount (although 10inch by 10 inch by 2 probably isn't too dangerous). Since cold CO2 is denser than air this is especially dangerous for pets and children (because they are nearer the ground)
You can touch the dry ice with your hands. What you can't do is hold it for any nontrivial length of time. But you can keep a piece in hand as long as you 'juggle' it around a bit. The Leidenfrost effect is your friend around very cold (or very hot) things.
@RichardTingle what a great idea for plausibly denying why my daughter's annoying cat suddenly died!!! (Just kidding.)
You can get better cooling with less dry ice by using a cooling bath.
Chunks of dry ice mixed with isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol, isopropanol) will give you a liquid with a temperature of -77°C (-106.6 °F). The liquid will transfer heat to the botton of a metal dish far more efficiently than solid or granulated dry ice.
An excellent suggestion. The only practical concern for me is finding a vessel that will let the metal plate maintain direct contact with the solution. Any ideas?
@logophobe Yeah, something with a lip or handles like a 9" x 13" cake pan. Fill one 1/2 full, nest another one inside and on top.
+1 for awsum-factor and likely performance improvement, but that certainly crossed my threshold for proximity of household chemicals to supper! Have you (successfully!) tried such a thing with food?
Wear gloves when you're messing with it!
@hoc_age Did some deep fried ice cream using dry ice/isopropanol bath back in the 80's. It was good, but quite a lot of work for the result. Note that the isopropanol bath gets quite a bit cooler than the commercial units. If you want to mimic one of those (~ -40°C), I expect you could start with an old refrigerator and bend the freezer coils around so as to contact a sheet of steel. It'd be a lot of work, but certainly cheaper than $1200.
Should we be concerned with having open isopropyl alcohol around food?
At -77C it's pretty viscous, and not very smelly, but you do want to keep it out of contact with food. When done with the bath, move it to a safe place out of the kitchen to warm up. Once warm,next day, the isoprop can be put back in bottle for later reuse.
When I made ice cream with a dry ice and alcohol bath, I used 150 proof Everclear in order to stay away from the dangers of isopropyl alcohol.
@mskfisher Everclear will work well, and you don't need to be so careful with it, but have you priced that stuff lately?
I keep Everclear around anyway for bartending applications, and I think it's a great suggestion. I'm thinking about trying both methods so that I can compare how well they work.
I have used dry ice trying to recreate Heston Blumenthal's Dry Ice Ice cream, where you leave the ice cream mixture in a stand mixer that's still mixing, and bit by bit pour powdered dry ice into the mixer, which should sublime evenly and neatly, leaving you with ice cream in five minutes. I also used leftover dry ice to do what I imagined to be something like a dry ice bain-marie.
Touching dry ice was pretty okay for me, I didn't have a problem if I was only handling it for a short amount of time. Because the heat from your hands causes the dry ice to sublime, it doesn't seem to burn the skin very efficiently. Touching dry ice while your hands are wet, however, is a recipe for disaster. To be safe, use gloves. I did find that food prep gloves stuck to the dry ice, which made it a bit annoying to handle. So, using gloves where you then use tongs/a ladel to pick up the pieces of dry ice would be most efficient.
It won't sublimate that quickly, unless you were doing this where the room temperature was crazy hot. To further the life of your dry ice, keep it in an esky. You can go down to iceworks factories (well, that's where I got mine) with your own esky, and they will put it in that for you. If you can somehow keep it in there and work your oven tray on top of it without taking it out of the container, even better.
Sorry, I haven't.
Things to note:
The dry ice bain-marie wasn't really enough for me to "cook" things, the amount of contact the dry ice had to the metal implement wasn't enough to transfer enough chill for me. However, this may be different if you had a flat slab and a flat oven tray touching it. Mine was already in smashed bitties. You may have some better luck using a touch of water to create better contact with the metal sheet, but it also warms it up.
Wear safety glasses, if you don't wear glasses already. It's just a good safety precaution.
Even if it fails miserably, it's still pretty fun and you have an interesting story to tell people about your kitchen escapades.
I get the feeling that 10' x 10' x 2' will not be enough chill, but it really depends on how much stuff you're trying to get done on it. For $15, I'd just try it, take video and pictures, and have fun :)
Good luck!!
Just because there's a lot of reading and it's boring me, so I figure it's boring others, here are some photos I took while I was playing with dry ice.
The few times I've gotten dry ice, you had to bring your own container and gloves. I've found that ski gloves worked well, as do leather fireplace gloves. (the blocks were slabs in bags, so I didn't have to deal with the issue of gloves sticking) ... they charged by weight, as the stuff can sublimate before it gets sold. (this was at a local grocery store; unfortunately, they only sold it for a year or two)
Just a few additional possibly-obvious practical considerations for #2 and #3 that I didn't see in previous discussion, with the caveat that I've not actually tried to anti-griddle before:
Dry ice is carbon dioxide after all, so be sure to have sufficient ventilation; Wikipedia tells me breathing too much results in "hypercapnia";
Make the best use of the coolant by fully cooling equipment (anything that is practical) down as much as possible (e.g., put cast iron pan in the freezer for a few hours) beforehand -- then you'll be further cooling the "griddle" from 0F to -40F rather than starting at 70F. You may or may not want to pre-chill food ingredients (e.g., probably don't want freezer-gelled olive oil)
Insulate around the dry ice so more "cold" can be used for cooking -- you'll probably get the stuff in a foam (e.g., EPS) container, which could also function as an insulator around your anti-cooking surface.
You'll probably have to actively manage frost/condensation on your cooking surface. Perhaps having the cooking surface inside a cooler-like container (like above) that has depth will minimize water vapor.
A quick search (I used "dry ice anti griddle") did reveal a few articles about experiences, but the advertising content was too thick for me to even get through them. If you're braver than I am, see here and here.
And also to amplify: Try it. Have fun. Take pictures. Post here!
Good comments and thanks for the links. The first is the method that I found originally; the second appears to match that suggested by Wayfaring Stranger's answer. Both might be very well worth trying; I'll have to see what's cheaper between slab and crushed dry ice.
An excellent point about the hypercapnia -- I've heard horror stories from pilots about how dangerous it can be. (when you flight voice recorders, where the pilots are acting strangely right before the crash, it's one of the likely causes, as it sneaks up on you, and you get confused, so are less likely to notice it).
Just add raw salt to frozen simple ice in 20:80 ratio mix both and properly crush 20% of the ice into smaller pieces.
Place all contents properly mixed into an metal container which can be sealed. As the ice will melt along with salt, gas will form and the metal touching the contents will give you minus 30 degree. You can use it as anti-griddle.
All costs below 20 dollars. Happy anti griddling .
Hello and welcome to the site! Could you please explain, what gas you expect to form? My chemistry knowledge is limited, but I can't see anything of this kind happening when mixing H2O and NaCl... As we have users from all over the world it is always advisable to give the temperature scale, so either C or F (preferably both...). And speaking of temperature, I doubt that salted ice would give the same results as dry ice (-80 C / -110 F) or liquid nitrogen (-200 C / -330F).
Stephie: You're quite right. There is no gas released from ice and salt.
The temperature is also no where near that of a dry ice slurry (with alcohol as the liquid) or liquid nitrogen.
It is colder than ice in water but not dramatically so.
Doug
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.378222
| 2014-06-18T02:05:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44946",
"authors": [
"All Time Air Conditioning",
"Gnhust Games spam",
"Haley Fleury",
"Jack Bowden",
"Joe",
"Joe Rogers",
"Jolenealaska",
"Ligaciputra",
"Ming",
"Richard Tingle",
"RonJohn",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"Tina Stepp",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"aroth",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jfa",
"logophobe",
"mskfisher",
"nitrous dude",
"user177280"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79649
|
Milk seal didn't break
I had a jug of
Milk todaynand I was trying to open it ... instead of the seal breaking ... the whole lid mechanism popped off. It made a cracking noise so I'm sure the thing was sealed . It wasn't easy to open but for some reason the seal didn't break. Any input as to why or if it is still technically sealed?
Can you add an image? There's lots of different ways to seal milk containers.
Not home at the moment however it just has the lid and the little plastic band that breaks apart from the lid when it is opened ... leaving behind the band on the plastic milk jug. The whole thing came off when I tried to twist versus the two separating... which would have left behind the band when the lid came off . It didn't come off easily .. stil made a click noise so I'm assuming it was still sealed.
Hope that helps without adding a photo
It happens sometimes, no worries.
It could be the perforations that make the band break off were not quite cut correctly, could be the band was just a hair wider than normal (or the plastic softer), could be the neck of the jug was just a bit narrower. All within manufacturing tolerances.
Usually, if you pick at the separated band, you can pry it off the milk-jug neck, its not even that hard. That is essentially all that happened with your jug, the perforations didn't tear when the cap was removed, so the band got yanked off with the cap - probably part of why it wasn't as easy to open, you needed the extra strength to stretch the band loose.
The breakaway band doesn't have anything to do with the milk being "technically sealed" or still sealed or not, the important seal was the airtight suction between the cap and the milk that kept the milk form exposure to air. If that seal was good, then the milk is safe and the band not breaking off isn't a problem. The lid is supposed to be a fairly good cap anyway, to keep the milk fresh while being used.
The band doesn't actually make a difference after the initial opening, it's just supposed to make sure you know the milk wasn't opened before that, during shipping or whatever, maybe prevent the cap from working its way loose or letting you know if it had.
You might want to remove the band if it makes re-capping your milk difficult, but otherwise - it isn't a problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.379224
| 2017-04-05T01:01:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79649",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Jent",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55741"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93033
|
What do you make of these ingredients in Ice Cream?
konjac flour, as well as guar gum, vegetable glycerin, carrageenan gum, and locust-bean gum.
What type of ice cream would this make?
Are you asking what each one of them are responsible for, or the general purpose of these ingredients?
I am asking, if I was to combine them, what would I get, what type of ice cream?
Konjac and Guar Gum will contribute to an elastic and stretchy texture. Glycerin flakes, locust bean gum and carrageenan will act as a stabilizer for the ice-cream, preventing large ice crystal formation.
Thanks for the answer, if I was to only use for example just Konjac and locust bean gum, would it be enough for it to be stretchy and elastic?
If you’re following a custard based ice-cream recipe, only Konjac should be enough to get that effect.
When using your ingredients and "ice cream" in a search Duck Duck Go finds "Dondurma Is the Chewy, Stretchy Ice Cream You Need to Know About", which does have all of the ingredients you list.
No type of "Ice cream" by definition.
Some sort of "Frozen non-dairy dessert", perhaps, but not if those are the only ingredients, IMHO.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.379429
| 2018-10-18T20:04:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93033",
"authors": [
"Jason_Eddy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69959",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71089
|
Can you deep fry a frozen egg? Is it advisable?
I read in a manga (shokugeki no soma chapter 170) the main protagonist froze an egg, then removed the shell and dipped it in tempura batter, making a dish that seems impossible to be created in reality.
Can one achieve that kind of cooking technique in reality?
An answer to this question (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18923/how-can-i-create-a-scotch-egg-with-a-runny-yolk?rq=1) mentions a similar technique for a scotch egg (freezing it first) - but I've no experience to say how it will turn out.
You should give it a try, it could be possible.
Not sure whether it may defrost before the outer edge of the egg white cooks enough to hold it's form. Also timing/ internal temperature of the egg would be another important factor. Would be interested if anyone does try this technique.
It appears to be feasible!
I found this article in which a "cooking expert" gives a specific recipe:
Frozen egg tempura
Remove the shell of a frozen egg and cut the egg in half lengthwise without thawing. A peeled egg is slippery, so put a paper towel on the cutting board before you place the egg on the board. Lightly flour the halves of the egg all over, and dip it in a mixture of three tablespoons of tempura flour and two tablespoons of water. Deep-fry the egg in oil heated at 160 C for about three minutes.
They're not too specific about the results, but I imagine they'd have mentioned if it exploded or anything!
This answer mentions doing essentially the same thing for a scotch egg:
Freeze the raw egg in its shell, de-shell the frozen raw egg and wrap the sausage meat around it whilst it is still frozen. This can be difficult as the egg's albumen defrosts quickly. Coat in flour, egg and breadcrumb. Fry till the scotch egg floats and the crumb is a deep golden brown.
It's the only way I know that gives a soft runny yolk every time.
I don't know what frying temperature was used, and it's got sausage and breading around the egg rather than just tempura batter, but it's a deep-fried egg, starting from raw/frozen, and produces a soft yolk.
160 C surprises me. Cutting in 1/2 would let vapor escape more easily and smaller size would have less thermal stress.
@Paparazzi Plenty of other things help too. It's not in a shell, so it can't build pressure and explode. If it weren't frozen, it'd be able to deform easily, have more surface area in contact with the oil, heat quickly, produce steam, and go everywhere. (Even an egg in a hot pan can splatter plenty.) And once it's thawing, the outside will already be cooked enough to hold its shape, especially with the batter crisping up, so it'll continue to get more moderated heat transfer into the interior.
Good answer +1. I don't want to argue with you but it can build up pressure. The white outer cooks and forms a seal. As heat gets inward water will vaporize and from pressure. The cooked portion is semi porous. In a soft boiled egg the liquid yoke does not escape. If the water vapor cannot escape fast enough it will explode.
@Paparazzi Sure, what you describe is possible. But it seems clear that it's not building up nearly enough to cause any problems, so I'm not sure it's relevant. Especially the soft runny yolk in the second example - not only is it not exploding, it's not even reaching boiling inside. The outer parts will still be plenty hot, of course, there's still steam, but... well, it's working anyway.
Come one man. I acknowledged it is working with 1/2 a egg. The soft runny of soft boiled is an example to show a cooked white is only semi porous. I am clearly talking about a full size with "white outer". I am clearly talking about a full cooked egg with heat inward forming vapor. At 325 F I think a full size egg would rupture. Half with more surface area to volume and the exposed much more porous yoke is different beast. You asserted without a shell it cannot build pressure. I gave a model where it can. At a high enough temp I think it can build enough pressure to rupture.
@Paparazzi The second example, the answer I linked to, is with a whole egg. It doesn't give the temperature, so it might be less than 325F, but it very clearly demonstrates that it's possible to deep-fry a whole frozen egg without the yolk bursting. I understand what you're saying, and I understand that there may be conditions under which a whole frozen egg would rupture. I'm not saying it's impossible for it to rupture, I'm saying it's possible for it to not rupture, i.e. it's possible to do exactly what the OP is asking about.
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
You can do this recipe, I have and it taste wonderful. You can change the batter and coating and eat with vinegar and all other sorts of other options. Do not cut egg in half before frying because will lose the effect and reason Soma did this. You want a raw center soft boiled egg that has thickened from freezing and is an astounding sauce for the seasoned rice. The only unsafe part of his experiment is that he used rather old "bargain" eggs which have a higher chance of containing salmonella and other bacteria if undercooked. Fresher eggs are safer and despite the anime and manga it won't over power the dish (in my opinion). I had to play around with the temperature of the oil and time in because too long in the oil it will cause the coating to burn and too short will leave you with a frozen yolk. Too high a temp will burn the coating and give you a frozen center and too low will overcook the egg or give you soggy non-crisp coating. Just play with it and figure out the best temp and time for you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.379564
| 2016-07-01T04:02:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71089",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Food Lover",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47760",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93032
|
In the light of the confirmed case of BSE in Scotland, is it safe to eat beef?
There have been a number of recent news reports of a case of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or 'mad cow disease') being confirmed in Scotland.
I was wondering if there are any potential risks to human health from eating beef, either in the UK or elsewhere in the world.
I'm voting to close this as it's a medical question, and therefore off-topic.
I don’t know, but I’m not allowed to give blood because of it. Anyone attached to a US military base in the 1980s in Western Europe is banned. (They sold / served British beef)
From the linked article, there is a non-zero risk to human health if eating beef infected with the Mad Cow disease.
"There was nationwide alarm following the confirmation of the first deaths caused by transmission of BSE to humans in 1996. At the time there were fears that hundreds of thousands of people might die as a result of eating infected beef.
As it turned out 178 people have died of the human form of mad cow disease, known as Variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (CJD). It is believed that these individuals were genetically more sensitive to succumbing to the disease than the wider population.
"
If uncertain, make certain your butcher shop has verifiable traceability of all the meat he/she sell, so you can know where the meat comes from.
I think the information should be publicly available at your butcher shop.
Elsewhere, well, in Europe and North America, the standards are very high, so I would not worry that much; I can't say anything about the rest of the world as I don't know enough.
Also from the article: 'Since then, cattle are closely monitored for signs of the disease and it seems that, in this instance, the surveillance system has worked well. The cause is not known at this stage. But if it is an isolated case there is very little if any risk to human health. According to Prof Matthew Baylis, Chair of Veterinary Epidemiology at the University of Liverpool, "BSE in cattle in the UK is largely over but there is still the odd detected case"'
Also worth pointing out that isolated cases pop up around the world
In Europe the standards should be high (and probably usually are) but I do remember the 2013 horse meat scandal. Though mostly likely the beef being sold now was already slaughtered months ago and has been sitting in a freezer for quite a while so the risk should be minimal.
The article isn't quite correct though in that it directly blames all those 178 on the BSE outbreak, which is fundamentally flawed. Nowhere is it proven any of those 178 were cause by eating contaminated meat, and indeed more than a few (maybe even all) were diagnosed well short of the required time for CJD to develop in a human being after exposure to prions, making it impossible for contaminated beef to have been the cause of the disease in the patient.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.379999
| 2018-10-18T19:30:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93032",
"authors": [
"BauerPower",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jwenting",
"yetanothercoder"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82906
|
Are you supposed to stir sauerkraut while it is fermenting?
I am making sauerkraut I have the cabbage and salt in the crock. I mixed it together really well as I did this. I know it takes several days to be ready to can. Do I stir it some more while it is fermenting?
You are not the first user here to wonder about this: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54095/fermenting-sauerkraut-should-i-stir
I do not stir my cabbage once it starts fermenting, but I cannot say whether it would affect the ferment if you stir it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.380270
| 2017-07-10T02:09:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82906",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77367
|
Why did my whole milk go bad faster than skim milk?
Why did my whole milk curdle and get yucky and smell before my skim milk when left out? I thought it was supposed to be the opposite.
Bad luck.
There isn't consensus on which would spoil faster.
Apparently there has been a controlled study that found that skim spoiled faster but the difference was slight. It would have to be in a controlled environment. At home, with all the other variables involved, it would look much more random.
Does whole milk spoil faster than skim milk?
Specifically, spoiling is due to bacterial contamination, so it's all down to what managed to get into the milk when you've opened it, which is completely luck.
Whoever drinks right from the carton likes whole milk...;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.380339
| 2017-01-11T18:09:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77367",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90478
|
My egg roll wraps smell sour. They expire in 2 days. Are they still okay to use?
I'm cooking egg rolls and my egg roll wraps smell sour. They say they expire in 2 days. Are they still okay to use?
noodle dough smelling sour is not a good sign. I personally wouldn't use them. (and there are lots of questionable things that I will typically eat). Had the package been opened? (that'll throw off any dates stamped on it ... as will improper handling (eg, someone leaving it in their shopping cart for an hour, then putting it back when they changed their mind)
That's an answer I'd upvote @Joe
Ingredients that do not smell right or appear to have 'gone off' should be binned!
The dates provided on packaging are not precise. They make excellent guides but too many factors can alter the timeline (as mentioned by @Joe, being mishandled in the market or being previously opened among other things).
As a general rule, if something smells unusual and off, it probably is. I would personally throw them out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.380428
| 2018-06-21T00:36:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90478",
"authors": [
"Cynetta",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554",
"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
}
|
28638
|
Can tomato paste be substituted for tomato purée?
A recipe for meat loaf from an Australian book (apparently terminology differs from country to country) calls for 1 cup (250 mL/8 fl oz) of tomato purée, and 2 tablespoons of tomato sauce.
Wikipedia's article on tomato purée claims that the main difference between purée and paste is the thickness, whereas tomato sauce has a different taste.
Can I substitute tomato paste for the tomato purée? If not, is it because the taste, or the amount of water, differs?
If so, how much "triple concentrated" tomato paste should be substituted for a cup of tomato purée?
Edit: the tomato paste ingredients are: concentrated tomato (98%), salt. Link to the product page.
Read the ingredients label on the can. The international disagreement over what to call the contents make this question unanswerable.
@CareyGregory were you engaging in hyperbole, or totally serious about listing the ingredients?
Totally serious. If the list of ingredients is more than tomatoes (and maybe a preservative) then it's a sauce. You already have one answer referring to marinara, and you refer to ketchup. Those are both way beyond being tomato paste or puree.
I'll weigh in on this one, having extensive cooking experience on both sides of the pond. The terminology is indeed confusing when it comes to tomato products. By tomato sauce they don't mean canned tomato sauce like you get in the states, they actually mean ketchup! As for puree there's two types, one is just what it means, pureed tomatoes in a can, and the other is super-concentrated like what in the US is called tomato paste and comes in a tube.
Given it's this recipe is asking for 250ml of puree they must mean the canned stuff, as adding that much concentrate would be hideous. To replicate UK/AU style tomato puree I'd use a can of tomato sauce with a half mini-can of tomato paste to thicken it up a bit. That still sounds like a bit too much liquid for my taste.
Alternatively you can use my mom's technique and add a can of concentrated tomato soup to the mix, it makes a great meat-loaf!
(Answering as a Canadian here and assuming the terms 'purée' and 'paste' have been clarified in other answers with paste being purely tomatoes and a very thick 'paste'-like consistency...)
1 cup tomato purée = 2 tbsp tomato paste + enough water to make 1 cup total (technically an additional 14 tbsp of water)
I think of tomato sauce as the plain stuff in the cans, and marinara as the seasoned red sauce served on many Italian pasta dishes. But many people use the terms interchangeably it seems, and even many authentic Italian restaurants list tomato sauce on their menus where it's actually the delicious seasoned stuff.
I'm guessing that the Wikipedia article referring to sauce as having a different taste than puree and paste uses tomato sauce in the seasoned sense, like marinara, not the plain-stuff-in-cans sense. If that makes sense...
As to the tomato paste vs. puree, the paste will be thicker and more concentrated in flavor and texture/composition. If you're looking for the closest consistency and flavor to puree to duplicate a recipe, you might start with about 2/1 ratio of puree/paste and tweak from there. If it were me just cooking on the fly like usual, I'd use the paste straight across (but seasoned with fresh herbs) for the more intense flavor, and back it down as and if necessary.
FWIW, I meant "tomato sauce" as in the UK/Australian English sense, which is something like what US English calls ketchup. I didn't realize it had a different meaning in US English.
@AndrewGrimm : I've added tomato products to the list for disambuguation : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/784/67 . feel free to edit it to add or clarify.
In Italy tomato sauce (salsa di pomodoro) refers to the seasoned red sauce and not to canned tomatoes. The term marinara is not used in Italy to indicate tomato sauce.
@Marg, can you use more straightforward terms? I have no idea what you mean by "use the paste straight across" or "back it down". Thanks! :-)
@KristinaLopez: Can't you see me talking with my hands to illustrate the terminology? :^D Seriously,sorry, I'll try to be more clear in the future. Regarding using the tomato paste straight across, I meant substitute an equal amount (in place of the tomato puree) instead of the 2/1 ratio I'd just described for trying to duplicate a specific recipe. By backing it down, I mean if the 1/1 substitution (one cup paste for each one cup of puree) is too strong-tasting and/or too thick, gradually back the ratio down closer to 2/1 (two cups puree/one cup paste)
@MargeGunderson - I can totally see your hands moving and think your TV cooking show would be quite entertaining and informative! Thanks for the clarification! :-)
As a Brit on holiday in Florida, I got one hell of a weird look when I asked the waitress for tomato sauce on my burger.
Yes. Just dilute the paste a little.
Dilute it how much? Since both products are usually used to thicken, a more precise answer would be more helpful.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.380566
| 2012-11-25T04:11:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28638",
"authors": [
"Andrew Calder",
"Carey Gregory",
"Charles Jones",
"Ciaran Wylie",
"Don Davis",
"Erica",
"Gary",
"Golden Cuy",
"Joe",
"Kristina Lopez",
"MargeGunderson",
"Oma",
"Rhonda",
"Robbie Sullivan",
"Salmo3t ",
"fhungolfer",
"heather",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34388
|
How do I prevent tomato making quiche soggy
I have made a simple quiche using a Martha Stewart recipe (http://www.marthastewart.com/336904/spinach-and-gruyere-quiches) several times, sometimes altering the filling to include variously bacon, ham, mushrooms, cheddar, and today, tomato slices with basil leaves.
I typically half the amount of filling and make only one quiche. Usually, this comes out quite well (although sometimes a bit overly fluffy like a souffle) and makes for a quick supper. I use prepared pastry (usually Pillsbury) and it typically comes out well-cooked and not soggy, despite not blind-baking the crust which is apparently something I should be doing based on this question: Why is my quiche soggy?.
Until today, the only time I had a problem was when I used spinach without pressing out some of the moisture, and then the quiche filling and crust were both soggy.
Today, I added sliced plum tomato on the top of the quiche before cooking, but found I had to cook the quiche for an additional 10 minutes and still had a somewhat overly gooey filling (but the crust was basically fine).
Unlike spinach, it seems silly to squeeze out tomato slices so that they don't add additional moisture to the quiche. Is there a strategy to avoid this problem?
You may wish to seed the tomatoes, removing the gelatinous part containing the seeds, which is mostly water, and very little flavor. You want to use only the meaty, fleshy part of the tomato in a quiche.
Depending on the size of your tomatoes, scooping the seeds out with a melon scoop, cutting out the seed sections, or simply squeezing out the seeds will help. The Shiksa in the Kitchen has a very nice article with very clear pictures showing these three different methods of seeding tomatoes.
This will substantially reduce the amount of moisture the tomatoes are adding to your quiche.
Another method you may choose to use, if you have the time, is to roast your tomatoes before using them in the quiche (which may also involve seeding them first). This will reduce the moisture and concentrate the flavor.
The common belief that tomato seeds do not hold much flavour is incorrect. Here is an extract from an article published by the Royal Society of Chemistry: 'It is really interesting from a chef's standpoint. You really want to think very carefully before you start chucking out the centre [of the tomato] because that's one of the most flavourful parts of it.' The article can be found here: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2006/May/05050601.asp. Roasting the tomatoes is a good idea though, but you should always keep the seeds.
This article with no serious references does not constitute much evidence. It doesn't even indicate of the seeds have to be pureed or opened. It doesn't discuss the absolute "umami" levels of the various parts of the tomato, in comparison, to say, cheese. The question was about moisture primarily, and since there is no weight of credible evidence that the pulpy centers are important for flavor, and certainly not that they are important for umami type flavor in comparison to other sources--even if the research is in some way true, texture is key for this question, I stand by my answer.
No serious references? The article is about a scientific study performed at the University of Reading, UK. The study can be found here but you have to pay to read the whole study: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf070791p?journalCode=jafcau. Aside from that I would also consider Heston Blumenthal himself a serious reference. The Fat Duck has three michelin stars. But I agree with you that the original question is about texture. In that context your answer is correct. It is only the part of your answer where you state that the seeds do not contain much flavour that I disagree with.
It was in a science journal/magazine, but in the popular section, with no references and little depth of detail. I recognize who Blumenthal is, but that doesn't mean his taste perceptions translate to the average cook or average taster. Still, hundreds of years of removing the seeds cannot be completely wrong, even if there are contexts where it is not optimal.
Even the abstract in the DOI you provided is far more substantive than the popular piece. I note that it talks only about glutimates and not other flavors, although it implies that they are in the pulp and not the seeds. That is interesting ,as it suggests that, for example, running through a seive and reducing would make a glutimate concentrate. Absolute levels are mentioned, but I would have to compare to other sources to see what that means in terms of practical recipes...
You never can tell how much water a tomato will give off, it depends on the variety, how much water it had when it was grown, how thick you slice it, etc. You're best off hedging your bets by following @saj14saj's advice, and roasting your tomatoes beforehand.
You could also part dry them in the oven over a longer period, for instance while you are at work. I'd do this with any vegetables or mushrooms that I'd want to use in a quiche as it will reduce the water content and prevent runniness.
Alternatively you could add some chopped up sun dried tomatoes, they are packed with flavor, and they actually absorb water when in the oven. They are a good choice to offset non-dried vegetables.
From watching food shows and trying myself. If you cut tomatoes in slices and salt them, let them sit for 20 minutes, it will draw out the extra water. It works for me. Good luck!
Also in edition if using spinach, i always rinse well put in a colander, squeeze, and then squeeze again in a paper towel.that seems to do the trick, also
Hi Paula - just a quick note that if you've got something to add to your post, click the "edit" link underneath. That will let you improve and add to your answer without needing to add a comment, which makes the information easier to find for everyone.
if i use tomatoes in a quiche i tend to slice them and put them on top - maybe half way through the bake if they are a bit juicy. They dry out in the direct heat and add a lot more roasted tomato flavour rather than an inspipid wetness.
I've also found spinach can easily make your dough soggy - aside from wilting them and then squeezing them dry - you may need more egg to make it set well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.381325
| 2013-05-29T05:24:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34388",
"authors": [
"Alex Babababa",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Jeff Hall",
"Jennifer",
"Kelley Uhl",
"Meat Man",
"Mizgo",
"Paula",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tina C",
"babycakes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80114",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85138
|
What is the role of butter in mash gravy?
I am making a gravy for mashed potatoes. Looking at recipes online, I have found that a few of them don't require any butter, while others use them to varying ratios (to broth/water)
What is the role of this ingredient in an excellent gravy for mashed potatoes?
I thought of two:
Fat. Butter is rich in fat, and the increased fat in gravy helps it to coat and stick to the starchy molecules of the potatoes better, so they come together better in each bite.
Thickening. The oil in butter and the broth used in most gravy come together as an emulsion of sorts, like the way mayonnaise is made. This helps to thicken the gravy.
Your question is unclear. Do you mean making a roux gravy, or adding butter at the end to a starch gravy, or something else? If these terms confuse you, you can just post an example of the recipes you mean.
Butter in general is for texture, moisture, and taste. With any dish there will be variations.
@rumtscho I meant a gravy for mashed potatoes, which usually involves butter, flour, beef or vegetable broth and ingredients for flavour, like onions and mushrooms.
@user60513 this is an ingredient list, not a recipe. We cannot tell you anything about the role of the butter without knowing how it is used. You'd have to post a full recipe, including the steps.
The most common purpose of butter in gravy is for a roux, which is a thickener made from cooking flour in fat. Stock/drippings alone would be too runny, so it is thickened to make it more convenient to eat with the mashed potatoes. If the recipe doesn't call for a roux, it probably uses cornstarch as the thickener. Using cornstarch would be a slightly healthier option (no additional fat) and doesn't impart a flavor, while a roux can add a slightly nutty taste depending on how long its cooked.
Thank you. However, couldn't the flour be added immediately to the vegetable broth/water to thicken it into a gravy? Why is it necessary to create a roux first?
Cooking the roux removes the raw flour taste, which you definitely don't want in your gravy. Plain flour will probably clump too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.381957
| 2017-10-21T10:17:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85138",
"authors": [
"Evan Nowak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60513",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho",
"user60513"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83558
|
Is it safe for me to eat a salmon/tuna packet that's been in the car all summer?
Apparently I've had various salmon/tuna packets in the my car for months, likely being heated near 100° F, off and on.
Other info:
Still before the confusing 'BEST IF USED BY' date of August 2018.
Sealed in an aluminum lined packet.
I'm torn between it being sealed and the obvious summer month temperature changes.
Are these things safe to eat in this context?
Welcome! I slightly rephrased your title because it sounded like you were asking us to dare you to do it :D
It's worth opening one or two to inspect for spoilage.
It could still make you sick even if not obviously spoiled.
We use IMPs/MREs in the military that are similar to this. There isn't often a concern about how hot it might have gotten, but they aren't typically stored this way. Can't give a good answer without a better knowledge of the brand. If this was the post-apocalypse, of course, you should risk it.
@Catija: Quite frankly, I always feel these questions have a bit of truth-or-dare feeling to them, and I have to restrain myself to not call "dare" on the OP....
I recently measured the temperature of an item in mar car in the sun, when it was about 90°F out; 130°F+. I'm not certain what plastics they make those packages of, or what their melting points are, but the increased vapor pressure of water on the seal of the bag might well be outside the the limits they used when determining a "best by" date. I'd toss the stuff, and try to check a little more thoroughly each time I bring in my groceries, that I have in fact brought in all my grocd.
The standard processing for this type of "flexible can" or "retort pouch" packaging is a certain amount of time at 250F or so to completely sterilize the contents. There's nothing alive in there to cause spoilage, or the process would not work at all.
As such, I find the comment stream remarkably uninformed - will 130F damage the package? If so, it would never have made it out of the factory...and the widespread precursor to the civilian application of this package (as mentioned in a more informed comment) is the MRE, and you can bet those go through some roasty-toasty temperatures in desert war zones.
If the packages are sealed, they are still sterile. Nothing that happened in your car is anywhere near the temperatures that were used to sterilize the contents in the first place.
I don't know about pouches, but see the quotes in my answer re: old food in cans](https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/47053/67), as I have a quote from Harold McGee : "Store foods at 40 degrees above normal—around 100 degrees—and you can get an idea of a year’s change in just three months. But it’s possible to go further. At 120 degrees, you get a year’s worth of change in six weeks; at 140 degrees, three weeks; at 180 degrees, five days.". (but that article also talks about how some foods become better with age ... but I think they're really talking about pressure cooking in the can)
The short answer is that it's impossible to provide a definitive answer.
The shelf life is highly dependent on the temperature. Being kept in such a warm environment should have shortened the shelf life dramatically. Whether that means that it's unsafe is a difficult question to answer. And even if it's safe, it might not be pleasant to eat.
It's entirely possible that it's safe to eat. MREs, which are similarly packaged, have been shown to be safe to eat after decades. https://beprepared.com/blog/3496/mre-meal-ready-to-eat-shelf-life/ However, that doesn't mean that all old MREs are safe to eat. It also doesn't guarantee that old fish is safe to eat. It just shows that it's plausible that it might be safe.
A car is a rough environment for packaged food. There's a chance that one or more packages were compromised by repeated flexing, abrasion, or high internal pressure from thermal expansion. The result would be unsafe food. I recommend throwing it out.
My answer to your question regarding the salmon and tuna in packets that have been left in the car in hot temperatures DO NOT EAT IT!!! Think about it, we cook in aluminum pots, the pots get hot and cooks the food in that aluminum pot. At 100 degrees, that's hot!!! I live in a hot climate and take a bag with ice packs just to take my foods to my home, it only takes me 20 minutes to get home and I paranoid about spoilage. Didn't want to give a professional, chemically derived answer just an answer to keep you safe.
I think the fish is already cooked and sealed within the pouch - think of the pouch as a softer version of a can. As a new member, let me point you to the [tour] and our [help] and, for future questions of this type, our faq on food safety.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.382175
| 2017-08-07T17:38:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83558",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"James McLeod",
"Joe",
"Quinto",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"Wolfgang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123448
|
What to do with forgotten, uncovered raw chicken in the freezer?
Three weeks ago I bought chicken breasts on sale and froze them uncovered on a pan lined with wax paper.
I meant to come back the next day to vacuum seal them but of course I forgot about them or I wouldn't be posting about it.
Additionally, I don't see any ice build up or noticeable freezer burn.
Here's a picture for reference:
Should I pick up where I left off and continue with the vacuum seal or would that be pointless because of some potential loss of quality or safety issue?
My original intention was to use them for just about anything, but now I'm cautious and am leaning towards boiling them and using them in a pulled chicken recipe to cover any flavor/texture issues.
I'm relatively new to freezing raw meet so any advice will be much appreciated.
@Polygorial that sounds like a good new question. Want to ask it ? I'd make some guesses.
@Criggie surely a question that's specifically about why kraftydevil didn't use a cover would not be on-topic as an independent question.
@Polygorial - I meant to freeze it for a minimal time for which I figured freezer burn would be negligible. I intended to come back in an hour and then vacuum seal it - but alas I got distracted and forgot to finish the job.
There’s no safety issue; frozen is frozen. It’s hard to tell from the colors in the photo but they do look a bit dehydrated. Assuming your freezer doesn’t smell weird, this would cause no taste issues and only minor texture issues. They should be fine for pretty much any preparation method other than steaming (even that would be fine if shredded).
agree...I would thaw in fridge and use, or vac and return to freezer (just wanted to add the -OK to package and return to freezer part).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.382605
| 2023-02-18T20:11:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123448",
"authors": [
"Criggie",
"bdsl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60764",
"kraftydevil",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116369
|
In what order should I put various "masalas" in chicken curry?
In what order, should I put the various masalas (en:spices) in my general Indian-style spicy chicken curry?
I have the following:
Chicken masala
Garam masala
Jeera masala
Chilli powder
Dhaniya masala
Ginger-garlic paste
I usually marinate everything (except Garam masala) together and fry the chicken pieces after the chopped onions get fried.
Extra details:
Oil: Mustard
Type: Thick greavy
I add the amount of onions equal to that of chicken. Chicken pieces are of the size 1.5 inch x 0.5-1 inch. Usually I take legs.
Hard to say, because we don't know exactly what you're making [chicken curry is waaaay too broad a description], nor the precise ingredients of your various masalas. Jeera & Dhaniya could simply be ground cumin & coriander, or a blend. Chicken masala could be just about anything. We need more detail.
Ingredients are listed on the page - https://i.sstatic.net/xNdMg.png - basically it's a blend, with the bulkier aromatics excluded, hence cumin, coriander & the late bloom of garam masala. It still depends on what type of chicken curry you're making… spices need to be heated first, but whether that's by bhuna or bhogar depends on your required end result. btw, if you can get frozen ginger/garlic use that instead, unless you're making Vindaloo, which can use the vinegar taste of canned/jarred paste.
bhuna is a dry fry, bhogar is a 'wet fry'. You could consider adding spices to sweated-down onions as a bhogar-type method. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/109268/42066 for a breakdown of some of the methodology. It kind of covers two basic methods; there's a third which starts by boiling the onions & spices in water & ghee until all the water boils off., then that result is fried in the remaining ghee. Tastes great, needs patience;)
You have too many spice mixes in your recipe. Normal curries use one maybe two different spice mixes. Not four!
@FuzzyChef I think you are right. As pointed out by Tetsujin , I might have been using some spices twice. Chicken masala contains some ingredients which I am using again. I think I need to discard Coriander and Cumin because these are ingredients of Chicken masala packets found in stores.
Oops, I just noticed [years late] I got bhuna & bhogar the wrong way round. Bhuna is wet, bhogar dry.
It sounds like you are on the right track. Most spices are meant to be added towards the beginning of the cooking process because frying the spice helps release the flavorful oils and keeps it from being gritty. Pastes like garlic and ginger paste likewise should be fried off before adding liquids. The only exception to your list is garam masala, which is a finishing spice that should be added at the end of cooking.
Does the same goes for parsley powder (dhaniya powder)?
Dhania powder is Coriander, not parsley. Yes I'd add it at the beginning. If you want to add dried parsley I'd do it mid-way through the cooking, fresh parsley or other green herbs should be added at the end.
Based on the OP & comments so far, a dry curry is required.
I'd go with a bhuna method, especially if you're talking small chicken pieces, reasonably fast cook.
Start with a medium hot pan & ghee, add all your dry spices except the garam masala.
Fry briefly, maybe 2 minutes, don't let it burn.
Add onions - the more finely-chopped the better if you're looking for a quick cook. [If I'm trying to do this quickly, rather than let it simmer all day, I cheat by chopping maybe ¾ of my onions as finely as humanly possible, & the other ¼ quite chunky, so they stay whole in the final sauce.]
Sweat down, stirring frequently until past the point they soften & they start to slightly break down. You're not looking for browning, but some slight colour is perfectly fine. Add ginger/garlic paste & keep sweating until the raw garlic smell goes.
Depending on your chicken cuts, now either:-
For small-cut chicken breast pieces etc… scrape your existing mixture out, add more ghee & flash-fry your chicken. Re-add your paste/gravy & some garam masala. Serve.
For larger cuts or including skin/bone such as thighs etc - drop your chicken pieces to this mix & simmer for at least an hour. Again, add garam masala towards the end.
You can mix & match the methods - you can flash-fry thighs to get some browning on them if that makes you feel it looks better, but you need to give it the hour or so to get thighs to break down properly.
Chicken breast pieces will be over-cooked in 5 minutes, so you can't do that with breast.
If you want some colour on chicken breast… cheat. Marinate in yoghurt & kashmiri mirch, or even just food colouring. Psuedo-tikka.
Note this doesn't use any additional water - your 'curry gravy' is made from your onions & ghee.
The longer you cook this basic gravy before adding your chicken, the better the end result.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.382784
| 2021-07-09T15:38:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116369",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Severus Snape",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88006"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113982
|
Adding xanthin gum to regular flour containing gluten
I'm using regular bread flour and adding additional gluten when making pizza dough to get a nice stretchy dough.
Will adding xanthin gum provide any additional improvements to the texture when using flour containing gluten?
Can't answer your question because I think it's the wrong question: gluten is already very stretchy. If your pizza dough isn't stretchy enough, then there's something wrong with your dough-making technique.
As pizza is pretty much the same thing as bread, I believe this question is already answered here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.383166
| 2021-01-27T18:52:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113982",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"LSchoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"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
}
|
114302
|
Topside chunks still tough after 2 hours cooking?
I've made a Massaman curry with Topside beef. I've cooked the curry for 2 hours now, the meat breaks up when pushed with a spoon but feels very tough and firm and not soft and falling apart like I hoped.
Any idea whats' wrong and if I can fix it somehow?
More details:
I seared the chunks prior to adding them to the curry.
The curry has been cooked on low-to-medium heat for 2 hours
The meat was slightly still frozen when seared (still easy to cut with a knife just a bit icy)
I've cut the meat into chunks of about 2 inches x 2 inches x 1 inches
The meat was advertised as lean top side
Why not just cook it longer? 2 hours seems short even without the meat starting frozen.
Topside is a good cut of beef for slowly braising, which is what you're doing here. I assume you're following a recipe that calls for 2 hours of cooking? Many recipes for braised meat dishes tend to understate the amount of time it needs to be cooked to become tender (just like how they will tell you you can caramelise onions in 20 minutes). 2 hours is a very short time for this kind of dish. I tend to cook braised beef for anywhere between 4 and 6 hours to get it tender enough to fall apart. It takes time for the chemical reactions that you're after to take place. Give it at least another two hours, and it will be much better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.383241
| 2021-02-15T05:48:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114302",
"authors": [
"Alex Reinking",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47544"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81353
|
Should I drink pasteurized milk that has a yellowish colour?
I somehow found a packet of "full cream" pasteurized milk in the fridge. It was in the bottom section, not the freezer. (My fridge has an ice-making compartment at the top, where I generally keep pasteurized milk.) I have no idea how many days ago it was bought.
The milk wasn't frozen, as expected. It was a slightly cool liquid.
When I poured the milk into the pan, I saw it had a yellow tint to it, but no lumps. As the milk was being heated, the corners began to turn a bright white. Slowly and slowly, the white part was increasing and centering the yellowish part. After I took it off the stove, it had again turned a creamy yellow colour. I shook it, and the cream collected on top. The milk below, however, was white.
I find this very odd—pasteurized milk is usually pure clean white. I can't afford to take risks in such matters.
Is the milk spoiled? Should I drink it?
The smell was perfectly alright. I took a sip: the milk tasted very creamy and delicious.
There are 2 terms with milk that often get mixed up, they are pasteurized and homogenized. Pasteurization is a process where milk is heated up to a temperature which kills foodborne microbes, making it safer and keep longer in the refrigerator, homogenization is a separate process where the milk is processed to create an emulsion where the cream is evenly distributed and doesn't separate in long term storage. What it sounds like is that you have bought milk that has been pasteurized but not homogenized, so the cream is separate and floats to the top. If this is the case then it's perfectly safe, and as long as it smells and tastes good it's likely absolutely fine. It may not be to your taste, I personally do not like running into chunks of cream in my milk, but there's nothing wrong with it. It's also possible that your milk has been processed incorrectly, but the label "full cream" seems to indicate that it is meant to be that way.
However, if you have any doubts about it or have health issues which raise concerns then it may be best to not drink it. It's a shame to waste food but it's worse to be in bed with stomach cramps, you have to balance waste with safety.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.383369
| 2017-05-02T09:50:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81353",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81513
|
Flavourless Chocolate/Chocolate Alternative in Fudge
I've just recently gotten into making fudge and have found a recipe that works amazing for almost every flavour I want to make. I use Cocoa Powder or White Chocolate Squares depending on the desired outcome.
But I'm running into a problem when it comes to more delicate flavours (as well as some mixed flavours). The chocolate/white chocolate taste overpowers some of them. (Specifically, so far, Maple Chocolate, Vanilla, and Caramel--but I'm wanting to try fruit flavoured ones and am worried it'll be more of the same)
Is there an alternative to using them? Should I try making a batch without any chocolate of any sort? I'd like to stick with the recipe I have if possible
Thanks in advance
edit
This is the recipe I'm using:
2 cups white sugar
1 cup milk
1/2 cup pure cocoa
4 tbsp butter
1 tsp vanilla
or
2 cups white sugar
1 cup milk
3 oz white baker's chocolate
2 tbsp butter
1-2 tsp of other flavouring
The cocoa is mixed in with the milk and sugar and simmered, while the white chocolate is added after the milk and sugar hit 238oF/114oC--which is why I was wondering if it'd work if I just don't add any chocolate (and add the 4 tbsp of butter rather than the 2 tbsp)
Chocolate is not an ingredient in a standard fudge recipe, so unless making chocolate fudge you should probably start with a recipe that doesn't include it. Or do you mean chocolate fudge icing?
Could we get your current recipe?
I can't think in cups for sugar but the recipe seems very low on butter for the amount of milk. Here's a typical fudge recipe https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/1864665/fudge
Using Google conversions, that makes 1.2 cups of milk to 7 tbsp of butter, which makes it not quite 6 tbsp per cup of milk. Compared to the 4 in the recipe I'm using... That said, most of my family dislikes the buttery aftertaste most 'traditional' fudge has, which is why I love this recipe so much. There isn't any aftertaste (well, other than the ever present chocolate)
In white "chocolate" fudge the white chocolate adds fat, from cocoa butter, sugar and vanilla. White chocolate is mostly about texture and has little flavor of its own. In my opinion white chocolate isn't particularly useful in white fudge because the cocoa butter doesn't enhance the texture much and the sugar and vanilla are more easily (and inexpensively) added separately. In regular, chocolate, fudge there is no cocoa butter and the cocoa powder is used purely for the flavor.
Fudge is a creamy candy. It is creamy, and reminds us to some degree of chocolate, because of the small sugar crystals. The cocoa powder in chocolate fudge doesn't play a significant role in the texture of the candy.
You can leave the cocoa powder out of your chocolate fudge recipe and use other flavorings.
As ChrisH wrote in a comment, it might be easier to simply start with a blank-slate fudge recipe that has no cocoa powder. It will likely be very similar.
As noted by ChrisH in a comment and further discussed in Sobachatina's answer, chocolate is not a necessary ingredient for fudge. If you do not mind a higher-fat recipe, consider using a recipe like the BBC recipe referenced by ChrisH, replacing the butter with one of the suggestions in the Replacing Butter section of this answer.
Executive Summary
If your primary goal is eliminating flavors contributed by white chocolate, the best replacement for white chocolate in your white chocolate fudge recipe is refined coconut oil. This may produce a softer end result.
Start from the white chocolate fudge recipe and replace the white chocolate with refined coconut oil and sugar. The additional sugar can be added with the rest of the sugar, and the coconut oil can be added with the butter.
New ingredient list with butter:
2 and 1/4 cups white sugar
1 cup milk
2 tbsp butter
2 tbsp refined coconut oil
If you want to further reduce the butter flavors in the fudge, replace butter with refined coconut oil.
New ingredient list without butter:
2 and 1/4 cups white sugar
1 cup milk
4 tbsp refined coconut oil
White Chocolate Properties
White chocolate contains
Cocoa Butter
Sugar
Milk Solids
Vanilla and/or vanilla flavors
Emulsifiers
There are a range of possible proportions of ingredients in white chocolate. However, assuming that you are in the United States, there are legal regulations restricting the proportions of some of these ingredients.
Notable FDA requirements:
not less than 20 percent by weight of cacao fat
not less than 14 percent by weight of total milk solids
not more than 55 percent by weight nutritive carbohydrate sweetener
not less than 3.5 percent by weight of milkfat
The following derivation of the proportions of ingredients in white chocolate uses the nutrition data of a
Ghirardelli White Chocolate Baking Bar (Chosen because, anecdotally, it appears to be relatively common in grocery stores on the West coast of the US).
According to the "per 100g" column in the linked source, a Ghirardelli White Chocolate Baking Bar consists of
33.33% (1/3) fat
6.67% (1/15) protein
60% sugar
Further derivation assumes that all protein is from nonfat milk powder (listed as an ingredient for the white chocolate bar), and uses proportions from the same database.
3.16% water
36.16% protein
0.77% fat
51.98% sugars
If ignoring water, fat, and mineral content, nonfat dry milk consists of 41% protein and 59% carbohydrates. Plugging this in to the white chocolate ratios produces
33.33% (1/3) fat
6.67% protein from milk powder
9.6% sugars from milk powder
51.4% other sugars
or
33% fat, mostly cocoa butter with some milkfat
At least 3.5% milkfat
The rest of the fat is cocoa butter (up to 29.5% of the entire bar)
16% nonfat milk powder
51% sugar
Small amounts of lecithin and vanilla
These proportions (1/3 fat, with the rest being mostly sugar) is assumed in the rest of this answer.
White Chocolate's Role in the White Chocolate Fudge Recipe
Adding white chocolate will add cocoa butter, sugar, milk solids, and vanilla to the fudge. The fat, sugar, and milk solids contribute to the fudge's texture, while the vanilla and milk solids contribute to the flavor.
As noted in this white chocolate review by Serious Eats,
Almost all white chocolate is made from deodorized cocoa butter; that is, cocoa butter that's filtered and purified to make it a more neutral base for cosmetics.
This means that cocoa butter's contribution to the flavor and aroma of the final product is relatively subtle. Vanilla or vanilla flavoring may be the strongest contribution to the overall flavor, followed by milk solids.
Given that the recipe with cocoa powder adds another 1 ounce of butter, it is likely that the fat is significant to the structure of the fudge in the white chocolate recipe.
The sugar and milk solids in the white chocolate is used instead of the cocoa powder in the white chocolate recipe. By the ratios calculated earlier in this answer, the 3 ounces of white chocolate contain about 43g sugar and 13g nonfat milk powder. The milk solids are equivalent about 2/3 cups of nonfat milk.
For simplicity, I recommend replacing the milk solids with more sugar for a clean 1 part fat to 2 parts sugar replacement of the white chocolate. This will also further reduce the contribution of milk to the flavor of the fudge. If you have nonfat milk powder on hand, you can attempt a ratio of 1 part nonfat milk powder to 2 parts fat to 3 parts sugar.
Possible Replacements for White Chocolate
For both replacements discussed here, the suggested replacement is
2 oz sugar (About 1/4 cup by volume) and 1 oz fat
as a replacement for 3 oz white chocolate.
Refined Coconut Oil and Sugar
Refined coconut oil is relatively flavorless (similar to neutral oils like canola) and is solid at room temperature. Its texture is closer to butter's texture than cocoa butter's.
If you want to add coconut flavors to a recipe, virgin coconut oil can also be used. It has a texture more or less identical to that of refined coconut oil, but retains a subtle coconut flavor.
Deodorized Cocoa Butter and Sugar
This option may be overkill for this recipe, but you can attempt to closely replicate the texture of white chocolate by using cocoa butter, which likely accounts for the majority of the fat content in the replaced white chocolate.
The cocoa butter must be deodorized; otherwise, it will contribute a significant chocolate flavor. I note this from personal experience tasting white chocolates made with deodorized and non-deodorized cocoa butter side-by-side. Slightly less anecdotally, Serious Eats notes the difference in their review. Relevant quote:
El Rey is one of the few chocolate makers to use less refined undeodorized cocoa butter in their white chocolate, and to some (though notably not all) of our tasters, the cacao pod's wild flavor does come through loud and clear.
Note that deodorized cocoa butter that is not food-grade is used for cosmetics, so be sure to get food-grade cocoa butter if using this option.
Fudge-Specific Considerations
Replacing Butter
most of my family dislikes the buttery aftertaste most 'traditional' fudge has
As noted by ChrisH, and you in your comment, there exist fudge recipes with a higher proportion of fat to sugar. If it is specifically the taste of butter and not the mouthfeel of a higher fat content that your family dislikes, I recommend a 1:1 replacement of butter by one of the described alternatives by weight. Refined coconut oil, my top recommendation, is also close enough in density to butter for a 1:1 replacement by volume to work.
The simplest replacement is replacing each tablespoon of butter with 1 tablespoon of refined coconut oil.
Aside: More general butter replacement
In the United States, butter will have at least 80% milkfat. The rest is primarily water, with some protein and sugars. In many recipes which include sugars and proteins from other sources, I was able to ignore the protein and sugars, and use a 5 to 1 refined coconut oil to water ratio (by weight). I have tested this in caramels, brownies, and pie crust, though I have not tested this substitution with fudge specifically.
For two tablespoons (one ounce) of butter, this means about 23 grams of coconut oil and 5 grams of water. If you do not have a kitchen scale, 22.5 mL (1.5 tablespoons) of coconut oil and 5mL (1 teaspoon) of water is probably close enough of an approximation.
While your answer seems to suggest a wide knowledge base, would you mind letting us know how you know these things? Are there links (beyond the one for butter) that support your statements, or at least offer further explanation? How did you learn about this?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.383563
| 2017-05-09T01:31:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81513",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Stephie",
"amybaker",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81761
|
How to get moist goo in layers of chelsea buns
I'm trying to make chelsea buns like the ones from my home town as I no longer live there so can't get them very often. I've done quite a bit of experimenting and while I'm quite a way off, I have created a bun I am very happy with except for one thing: a gooeyness in between the swirled up layers.
This is obviously something to do with the filling but I can't work out what. All Chelsea recipes use butter, brown sugar and fruit for the filling but the butter and sugar just disappear during cooking, leaving dry bread. In the chelseas from the bakery, there is a thin layer of brown stickiness in-between the rolled up layers. Not much, but enough to be making the buns moist and sweet on the inside.
Does anyone have any idea how to achieve this? It's as if the buns haven't fully cooked in between the layers, leaving a slightly sticky inside, a bit like undercooked dough. I can't figure out what is being put in the filling to achieve this.
I'm trying to get hold of a picture of one of these buns to better illustrate what I mean and will upload as soon as I get it.
Thanks.
EDIT
I've now added the below pictures.
See how the chelsea bun from the bakery (top pic) is still moist in the layers between the rolls and the bread itself looks soft and bendy.
Contrast that with my bun and you can see the butter/sugar mixture I layered up in the middle has disappeared with cooking. It looks dried out. On top of that,
the bun itself seems dry in comparison as you can see it has cracked upon unrolling whereas the bakery bun has not.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to achieve this moistness both in the dough and in between the layers??
**I've just had a thought - all chelsea recipes call for bread flour. Is it possible that plain flour would produce a softer, moister bun?
How did you prove the buns after adding the crème pâtissèrie filling? Too hot and the butter in the dough and filling will all melt together: this might be the cause of the sogginess. One quick thought: as a cheat, you could try creaming sugar, butter and eggs in equal quantities (maybe with a tiny bit of flour) for a sort of almond-free frangipane, and using it as a more robust filling.
I've only made Chelsea buns once. I used a simple melted butter and dried fruit filling (add cinnamon for cinnamon buns) and got a moist but not gooey interior.
Traditional recipes don't seem to aim for goo, and most of the ones you can buy aren't gooey (UK, limited sample of sources). You can try increasing the quantity of spiced, sugared butter (or even mixing a little milk and/or egg in with it) but you may be better off adapting that aspect of another recipe that is supposed to be gooey. You ought to be able to find a cinnamon roll recipe (for example) that states it has such a filling, but swap the cinnamon in the filling for mixed spice. I've been thinking more about this, and about pains au raisin, which tend to have your goo in them. According to Wikipedia they use crème pâtissière.
From my limited experience making Chelsea buns, adjusting the cooking time/temperature won't help - you still want even the middle ones to be cooked through.
Thanks for your suggestion. I've looked a cinnamon roll recipes & they have the same ingredients for the filling so nothing enlightening there. Any 'gooey' recipes for cinnamon or chelsea buns online are only gooey via the addition of a sauce poured over at the end but I do not want this as this is not how it is done in the buns I am trying to replicate. I've added some pics now so you can see the difference between my buns and the bakery ones. Thanks again for your suggestion though. I was already thinking of adding more butter and egg or milk to the filling mix and will try this next time.
I reckon the pain au raisin / creme patissiere suggestion might be better. But it's not easy to make just a little for this, which might explain why bakeries use it (because they use lots in other things) but recipes don't. The pouring over approach tends to give a sticky top which I don't find adds anything.
I already tried the creme patissiere filling in my last experiment with these buns. It made the inside a bit soggy but it was not the same effect (the bakery buns are 'sticky' not 'soggy' on the inside. Plus I know the chelseas from the bakery definitely do not have a creme patissiere filling.
Are you mixing the butter with the sugar and fruit? I spread soft but not melted butter over the dough then spread the sugar, fruit and mixed spice mixture. Came out lovely. Maybe a little more butter?
If you mix unmelted soft butter with your cinnamon/spices with some sugar say 200-300g of each and when you roll it out to put your fruit in spread half over then add your filling on top then roll up, once you roll it and portion it in your tin and prove it use the remaining butter sugar mixture and spoon it over the top of your buns and you get really amazing ooey goey buns it’s taking me a long time to perfect my recipe aswell oh and I find that if you put your buns in a preheated oven at the highest temp it goes for 10 mins then turn down to 170 160 fan for remaining time and use a strong bread flour or OO flour one that’s around 11 12g protein per 100g flour (you’ll find this in the nutrients column) hope that helps. Let me know how you get on.
Interesting. I wonder if the hot start then turning down the oven, or spooning the sugar mix over the top helps to prevent the inner parts from dehydrating or otherwise over-cooking. Do you do anything to test for doneness or just rely on time?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.384370
| 2017-05-17T20:42:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81761",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Crispin",
"Joe",
"Mark Wildon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341"
],
"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
}
|
22514
|
How do kosher food preparation requirements compare with what is known by modern science to make food safe for eating?
As discussed in What are the requirements for a dish to be kosher?, kosher food must follow various rules and procedures. I noticed a pattern in these rules which suggests some consistency with modern food scientists' understanding of food safety and handling.
For example:
Shellfish often contains harmful bacteria which can make one sick. Avoiding this is probably good advice.
Many fish or "creatures of the sea", that do not have scales, contain dangerous poisons and are probably best avoided.
Are there any scientific explanations for why it might be good to avoid the other food? E.g.:
Meat in which the blood has not been drained.
Eating milk together with meat or cooking beef in milk.
Pigs are often fed garbage and other meat, including meat from other pigs. Could this lead to diseases similar to mad cow disease?
What is the point of this question? Who would the answers help and how?
While I find this question interesting from a philosophical standpoint, this question doesn't seem like it's an answerable one.
This question would be better suited for http://judaism.stackexchange.com/?as=1
I have rephrased my question to emphasise my request for a scientific answer and also to elaborate on the value of such knowledge for cooks.
I think it is a very interesting question and I think it can be answered in the 'scientific way' used on this site. The question should be probably accompanied with a list of the basic kosher food preparation rules, so they can be referred one by one.
I don't think that either of your examples are true. Food safety doesn't focus on avoiding bacteria (which does not discriminate by animal species), it focuses on killing it so that the food is safe to eat. And the second example is a downright silly generalization.
I know of hundreds of species of sea life that are both poisonous and scaleless and few that can be eaten without special knowledge of how to prepare them. Do you know of a single sea creature which is kosher, yet naturally poisonous or harmful to humans and is within reach of fishermen's nets?
There was a related question on Skeptics.SE: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2330/is-eating-cloven-hoofed-animals-bottom-feeders-or-ruminants-bad-for-you
@Aaronut Food safety is not just about killing pathogens. It's also about selecting or producing food that is less contaminated (e.g. the elimination of trichinosis from the food supply changes required cooking temperatures), and avoiding contamination in food preparation (which I've heard some Kosher butchering rules help with). The tools needed to measure time and temperature accurately didn't exist, and the times and temperatures required to kill pathogens weren't known. In the absence of that knowledge, avoiding pork and shellfish were helpful food safety rules.
For the record, I voted to close this because it's very, very broad. Kosher rules are complex, and I expect they have a variety of origins. This is the kind of question that you can write books about - and I expect many people have.
I've voted to close. This question belongs on judaism.stackexchange.com. Also, speaking as someone who attended Yeshiva, this question has a long and complex answer even if you restrict yourself entirely to Jewish sources.
Interesting question and I'll try to give an answer to the questions that you state explicitly.
Blood is edible and is eaten in loads of countries. Black sausage comes to mind. However, blood tends to coagulate rather fast and meat needs a fair amount of time to mature. I'm guessing that leaving blood in the meat will give the meat dark spots that are not appealing, therefore the prohibition.
Milk and meat are eaten together at least in Spain. The only reason I can imagine for not mixing them is historical. Originally the Jewish tribes lived in a desert. A hot climate and food... don't go well together. Maybe milk turned sour fast, or it turned into yoghurt, and maybe that was feared...
All this is just guessing, so anybody that finds a valid reference is welcome to post here.
While some of the kosher rules are food-safety rules developed by the Israelite priests (or given by God), the prohibition against mixing meat and milk is because of an ancient ritual that involved cooking the meat of a slaughtered animal in its mother's milk, a religious practice forbidden in Exodus 34:26 "... You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk", part of a passage sometimes known as the ritual decalogue that prescribes the destruction of artifacts of other religions, forbids the creation of idols, and lays out other religious responsibilities.
The laws regarding separation of meat and milk come from the concern that a person might accidentally break this law and boil a kid in its mother's milk if they purchase both meat and milk and prepare them together, or if a residue of milk is left on cooking utensils from a previous dish, which then gets into a dish involving the meat of a slaughtered kid.
The great Jewish thinker Maimonides argued that (basically) all the laws of forbidden foods exist for health/scientific/safety reasons, and he laid out the connections. In Guide for the Perplexed 3:48 he writes the following:
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome.
There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious
character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii.
23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork
contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much
of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids
swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and
its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out
how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how
much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were
allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more
dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of
the Franks. A saying of our Sages declares: "The mouth of a swine is
as dirty as dung itself" (B. T. Ber. 25a).
The fat of the intestines makes us full, interrupts our digestion, and
produces cold and thick blood; it is more fit for fuel [than for human
food].
Blood (Lev. xvii. 12), and nebelah, i.e., the flesh of an animal that
died of itself (Deut. xiv. 21), are indigestible, and injurious as
food; Trefah, an animal in a diseased state (Exod. xxii. 30), is on
the way of becoming a nebelah.
The characteristics given in the Law (Lev. xi., and Deut. xiv.) of the
permitted animals, viz., chewing the cud and divided hoofs for cattle,
and fins and scales for fish, are in themselves neither the cause of
the permission when they are present, nor of the prohibition when they
are absent; but merely signs by which the recommended species of
animals can be discerned from those that are forbidden.
The reason why the sinew that shrank is prohibited is stated in the
Law (Gen. xxxii. 33).
It is prohibited to cut off a limb of a living animal and eat it,
because such act would produce cruelty, and develop it: besides, the
heathen kings used to do it: it was also a kind of idolatrous worship
to cut off a certain limb of a living animal and to eat it.
Meat boiled in milk is undoubtedly gross food, and makes overfull; but
I think that most probably it is also prohibited because it is somehow
connected with idolatry, forming perhaps part of the service, or being
used on some festival of the heathen. I find a support for this view
in the circumstance that the Law mentions the prohibition twice after
the commandment given concerning the festivals "Three times in the
year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God" (Exod. xxiii. 17,
and xxxiv. 73), as if to say, "When you come before me on your
festivals, do not seethe your food in the manner as the heathen used
to do." This I consider as the best reason for the prohibition: but as
far as I have seen the books on Sabean rites, nothing is mentioned of
this custom.
The commandment concerning the killing of animals is necessary,
because the natural food of man consists of vegetables and of the
flesh of animals: the best meat is that of animals permitted to be
used as food. No doctor has any doubts about this. Since, therefore,
the desire of procuring good food necessitates the slaying of animals,
the Law enjoins that the death of the animal should be the easiest. It
is not allowed to torment the animal by cutting the throat in a clumsy
manner, by poleaxing, or by cutting off a limb whilst the animal is
alive. (Friedlander translation)
If any of this seems scientifically questionable, keep in mind that he was writing this with the knowledge of 12th Century science.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.384845
| 2012-03-23T03:12:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22514",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Barb",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"ESultanik",
"Eric Hu",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jacek Konieczny",
"Miss Mochi",
"Theodore Murdock",
"Village",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9519",
"user113771",
"user363087"
],
"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
}
|
33212
|
Room temperature "rest" for fresh mayo?
On the mayonnaise episode of Good Eats, Alton Brown recommends letting homemade mayo sit at room temperature for 4-8 hours before refrigerating. The idea is to let the acid in the mayo kill any bacteria that might have been in the egg yolk. Sound crazy, I know, but I'm not the only one who saw it, so I'm pretty sure that he really did say that. AB has a pretty good track record, so I'm inclined to believe him, but I haven't been able to find similar advice anywhere else -- even Harold McGee fails to mention it.
Is there any evidence to support this idea? And is the acid in lemon juice or vinegar really so much less effective at 38 degrees F than at 68F that it makes sense to bother?
There has been thorough scientific research done on this question. The main problem with Alton Brown's recommendation is that his room temperature "rest" is not long enough, since the scientific literature recommends 24-72 hours at room temperature, depending on acid concentration.
The most common acids used in mayonnaise recipes are acetic acid (vinegar) and citric acid (lemon juice). Vinegar is more effective at killing bacteria, but either can be used. Both acids are less effective at refrigerator temperatures than at room temperature.
For a general review of the literature, as well as specific advice on lemon juice (along with lab results), see this article. The take-home message, which you can see from the data (Table 1 in the link), is that the only successful sterilization of the mayonnaise that eliminated Salmonella bacteria occurred with at least 24 hours at room temperature with reasonable amounts of lemon juice.
The authors determined that the minimum quantity of lemon juice necessary to achieve this result was 20 milliliters (about 4 tsp) per egg yolk for 72 hours at room temperature, or 35 milliliters (about 7 tsp) per egg yolk for 48 hours.
Room temperature was necessary for sterilization: even after a week, all samples stored at refrigerated temperatures still tested positive for Salmonella, even with a high acid content. On the other hand, after a week, no samples at room temperature tested positive, even those that contained only 10 milliliters (2 tsp) of lemon juice.
A previous study concluded that vinegar was also effective (and more effective than lemon juice). Subsequent studies have indicated a dose of at least 20 milliliters (about 4 tsp) of standard white wine vinegar should be effective at 24 hours at room temperature -- though 72 hours was recommended if possible.
Other studies have shown that the addition of garlic and/or mustard will increase the sterilization effect, while salt inhibits it. The type of oil also matters: as documented here, "olive oil with garlic or basil showed the fastest rate of death, followed by soya, grapeseed, rapeseed, groundnut, sunflower, hazelnut and a blended olive oil."
It must be emphasized that all of these studies, without exception, recommend 24 hours at room temperature MINIMUM for effective killing of bacteria.
Before concluding, I suppose I have to address the mistaken assumption that mayonnaise is unsafe at room temperature in general. It is well-known among food safety experts that commercially prepared mayonnaise is perfectly safe at room temperature (for example, see the quotations at the end of this helpful brochure). The acidic environment and previous processing stages are plenty to keep mayonnaise safe -- you refrigerate mayo to keep it fresh longer, not because it is unsafe at room temperature.
In fact, adding sufficient quantities of mayonnaise to meat-based dishes like chicken salad or ham salad can actually slow growth and even kill Salmonella and E. coli on the meat and thus make the dishes safer. In the linked study, meat salads with mayonnaise held at room temperature for five hours had very little growth of Salmonella, compared to what would be expected without mayonnaise. Note that refrigeration in such cases is still recommended, since the meat pieces can still spoil at room temp and the acidic sterilizing effect of mayonnaise is somewhat diluted when mixed with other things. (Mayonnaise--along with any liquid or semisolid food--when handled improperly around contaminated food, can lead to cross-contamination of bacteria in mixtures that dilute its sterilizing effect. But that's not a property unique to mayonnaise at all.)
In the past, homemade mayonnaise did not have the necessary processing to render it safe, which is the impetus behind the many studies I've cited here. These studies show what you need to do to make it safe. After 24-72 hours (depending on factors listed above), the homemade mayonnaise can be safely refrigerated to maintain its quality for longer than storage at room temperature.
[EDIT: One additional corollary to the research above is that homemade mayonnaise is actually the most dangerous when it is fresh. I've occasionally heard people say, "I make homemade mayo, but I always use it right away, so it's safer." In reality, as discussed in the linked articles, the acid will stop Salmonella from further growth and eventually cause it to die off in undiluted mayonnaise, even with significantly less acid than the recommended quantities. Most egg-based food poisoning is caused by contamination from the shell, where Salmonella bacteria is commonly found and will grow once it comes in contact with a liquid medium. This requires time, so fresh egg dishes are generally safer. (Note that in the U.S., unlike almost everywhere else in the world, eggs are washed and their exteriors are disinfected, so Salmonella infection from egg shells is much rarer.) With mayonnaise, though, the growth of small numbers of shell bacteria accidentally introduced into the mixture is inhibited by the acidic conditions. Instead, the concern is the much smaller number of eggs (estimates usually say about 1 in 20,000) where Salmonella is present in the interior of the egg, and the liquid medium may already contain a high enough population of bacteria to make someone sick. Those rare types of eggs will make you sick even when eaten fresh, which is the reason some restaurants have warnings about sunny-side eggs or runny omelets. The average person will only encounter one of these internally infected eggs a few times in his/her lifetime, so the risk is pretty small. But considering that thousands of people probably make homemade mayonnaise worldwide every day, these rare eggs will still occasionally cause sickness. While the acidic recommendations above are well-researched, I personally would still use pasteurized eggs in making homemade mayonnaise for children, elderly people, pregnant women, big parties, etc. On the other hand, if you eat (cooked) runny egg yolks on a regular basis, you shouldn't be concerned about mayonnaise, which actually has a lower risk if it sits for any period of time.]
Great answer! Thanks especially for taking the time to cite references.
Wow. What a fantastic answer. I learned a lot. Thanks.
I was first to upvote, and with you for great research until the last update. How on earth, in the US, are the interior of eggs disinfected? Yes, eggs are washed, but that doesn't effect the contents. Pasteurized or irradiated eggs--techniques which would affect the interior--are the exception, not the norm in the market here.
@SAJ14SAJ Apologies! Simple typo! I meant "exteriors." :)
Okay, that makes a lot more sense :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.385619
| 2013-04-03T06:02:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33212",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Caleb",
"Colin G",
"Ma Putnam",
"Moonsilk",
"PhoenixLies",
"Rodger Guddendorf",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SkullDeath",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephen S",
"Susannah Ernst",
"cpage",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77388",
"stormwild",
"zzz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13982
|
What is the "grated yam" in okonomiyaki?
Wikipedia lists "grated yam" as an ingredient of okonomiyaki. Is it a particular type of yam? Can it be purchased outside of Japan?
== More Info ==
As Mein suggested, I did some more searching on Wikipedia and the internets.
The "yam" in question is Dioscorea opposita or Japanese mountain yam. In Japanese it is known as yamaimo (kanji: 山芋; hiragana: やまいも).
Unlike other yam varieties, dioscorea opposita doesn't need to be cooked before consumption. (Most yams contain harmful substances in their raw state.) The dioscorea opposita still contains "oxalate crystals" in the skin which can irritate the skin.
Image copied from wikipedia
This video shows the yam being grated. I've seen this yam grated before and the grated result was very slimy and gooey.
The grater used for yamaimo is different to western style graters. Oroshigane graters have small spikes on the grating surface.
There may be more than one variety of Japanese mountain yam. I saw a reference (now lost) to a variety with dark skin.
OT: This could be a good recipe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeUHy0A1GF0
It's "a slimy potato" - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioscorea_opposita. It might be available in Asian grocery stores.
You could probably get by without it. Okonomiyaki translates literally as "cook as you like it". It's a savory pancake-like batter, to which is added whatever you want; often whatever you happen to have lying around the kitchen. Much like an omelette, okonomiyaki is a pretty free form thing.
Thanks Katie, I've added your link and some info found there to the question.
You can substitute grated lotus root (renkon in Japanese) in your okanomiyaki if you can't find any yamaimo.
You should have searched a bit more on Wikipedia :)
Yam is not the sweet potato most people know in the US, but a kind of root. For the preparation of okonomiyaki it doesn't really matter which one.
I don't know where you can buy this, but my advise is to ask in your grocery store, market or specialized (African or Asian food) shop.
This is not quite correct: okonomiyaki traditionally uses nagaimo yams, which are very "slimy*, as a binding agent. Substituting a non-slimy yam will not have the same results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.386185
| 2011-04-12T08:58:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13982",
"authors": [
"Rob Browell",
"Shannon",
"Steve",
"daniely",
"dford",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63051",
"klinger",
"lambshaanxy",
"redking",
"rossipedia",
"user29604"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30531
|
How do I prepare arabic coffee in a stone Dallah?
I purchased a lovely stone Dallah from Jordan.
.
The first and obvious question is: is it safe to prepare coffee in?
However, once that question is answered, the pot certainly looks functional. Therefore, using the resources of an Australian household, how do I prepare coffee in one of these strange pots from a different continent?
This is the result of experimentation with Daniele's answer and the resources of a normal Australian household.
Be prepared with a tea towel or other holding-item. Marble has a huge thermal inertia and insulation is a decadent western invention.
On the other hand electric kettles are awesome.
First: Wash everything thoroughly. I boiled a couple litres of water and poured them through the dallah. I then washed everything with soap and hot water, then rinsed with more boiling water. This told me two things: 1) The marble can handle boiling water. (Which was likely... but good to test), and 2) I wasn't going to be drinking any marble dust.
Then, from a good coffee shop that roasts their own beans, get very very very finely ground coffee. Their espresso blend is a good start. While single origin can be better, it requires fine-tuning to find the right single-origin for this taste, especially as...
Buy a satchet of cardamom. If you're going to do true Jordanian coffee (instead of Saudi or Turkish) it's a function of which spice you combine. I've heard of cinnamon and saffron also being acceptable, but the "everyday" spice is cardamom. This is where single-origin will get you if you choose a bean that isn't compatible.
Now here is where I cheated. I've got an electric stovetop (boo, hiss... rental apartment. I kind of have to deal with it unless I want to ask a colleague for a bunsen burner.) I also own an electric kettle. I boiled water in the kettle, then measured 250 mils into the dallah, which I placed on a "hob" on my electric stove. I then turned the stove to medium.
After about 5 minutes of watching, the marble was very warm, but the water never boiled. Technically, this is a good thing. I then added 2 heaping
"standard" scoopfuls (about 20 grams, the scoop that comes with a bodium french press) of coffee mixed with about half a scoop of cardamom. I let that sit on the stove for 4 minutes, stirring the coffee every minute until the crema recombined.
Pour (holding it with a tea-towel) gently into the marble tinytiny cups.
I have to take mine with a few dollops of condensed milk because my word this coffee is strong. Good, but strong.
Taken from Making Coffee the Arabic Way, in a Dallah:
Before you start making Coffee, you need to decide how strong (or
weak) you like it to taste. Below is an indication of how to gauge
this when making any of our Coffees:
1/2 tablespoon per 250ml cup = Weak Flavoured Coffee
1 heaped
tablespoon per 250ml cup = Medium Flavoured Coffee
2 heaped
tablespoons per 250ml cup = Strong Flavoured Coffee.
Once you have the quantities sussed, it's on with the making. In using
a Dallah with our Coffees, we recommended the following preparation
method:
Fill the Dallah with the amount of water you want and place it on a
medium heat on a hob Once the water boils remove the Dallah from the
flame and allow it to cool for just 30 seconds Next add the desired
amount of Coffee to the water in the Dallah and stir well Place the
Dallah back on the hob (but on a low heat) for about 2 minutes and,
carefully, occasionally stir. Only allow the Coffee to simmer gently.
If it threatens to boil just remove the Dallah from the heat (Do not
allow it to boil over as this will burn the Coffee) After the 2
minutes has passed and the Coffee has reached a simmer, turn off the
heat and serve.
Going to your first question, is it safe to prepare coffee in: first of all, if they provide it with small cups, then I bet it can be used to make coffee and drink it.
Trying to be more scientific, at maximum power the kitchen fires reach more or less 1500°C. You should try to understand which kind of stone is your dallah, and then look at its melting point. It should be more than 800°C.
But in my personal opinion if you put it on a very low fire (i.e. much less than 1500°C) it will survive (this is only my opinion, I'm not sure!).
@HichamLEMGHARI Code formatting (backticks) is not for emphasis; that's what bold and italics are for. But the terms you emphasized didn't need emphasis anyway.
@Jefromi : Got it, Just thought it will be 'more clear' for the reading
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.386392
| 2013-01-30T11:04:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30531",
"authors": [
"Andrew Jackson",
"Cascabel",
"Debra Crocker",
"Judy Stein",
"Lisa Bailey Garner",
"Warren McCarthy",
"bowl0stu",
"cyberhicham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71494",
"s.anne.w",
"user3417583",
"zelusp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83854
|
What is the safest way to acquire non-alkalized cocoa powder?
I am looking for a non-alkalized, full-fat cocoa powder to use in recipes. By non-alkalized, I mean cocoa which has not undergone the Dutch process.
The problem in detail: Gourmet grocery stores sell various "raw cacao" powders that fit the bill, however there seem to be safety issues. For example, ConsumerLab shows high levels of lead and cadmium for many of these products. Some products even have a California Proposition 65 warning. One might treat these as a guide, however absence of a bad ConsumerLab result or Prop 65 warning isn't a strong signal, because batches vary and many brands don't even test their product. It would seem likely that the safest cocoa products would come from big brands like Valrhona, Callebaut or Guittard, however their cocoa powder products are all alkalized.
Back to the question: What is the safest way to acquire a high-quality, non-alkalized cocoa powder? UPDATED: I would accept a definition of "safe" from someone with expertise in the area of metals contamination in food, but short of that, here's what would qualify as "safe" for me:
A product from a major producer in the industry.
A product from a company with a specific commitment about metals contamination, such as stated practices or certificates of analysis.
Maybe a home test kit is in order...
Without actually being able to access the ConsumerLab report you mentioned, it's difficult to know what meets your definition of safe.
Scharffen Berger natural cocoa is one option. It has 1g fat per 5g serving, which I believe should meet your definition of "full fat". It is natural (non-alkalized) cocoa powder. It's quite expensive, and I believe normally considered "high quality". Scharffen Berger is now owned by Hershey's, which is definitely a major producer in the chocolate industry.
I highly doubt that Scharffen Berger and Hershey's cocoa are now identical. This is partly based on personal experience (10 years ago, which is not current), but also on the nutritional information for Hershey's (0.5 g fat per ~5 g serving), which I believe does not meet your "full fat" criterion.
Another option is Ghirardelli unsweetened ground cocoa, which is also a large producer.
Not processed with Alkaline/not Dutch processed.
I have no affiliation with Scharffen Berger, Hershey's, Ghirardelli, or any other chocolate producer.
Thanks, this is a very good answer. With regard to expense, it seems that some people who've tried Scharffen Berger natural cocoa insist that it's identical to Hershey's Cocoa 100% Cacao which is substantially less expensive. I'm going to follow up and see if Hershey's had anything specific to say about lead and cadmium, and will report back.
@ruief I tried the Scharffen Berger cocoa ~10 years ago. It was definitely superior to Hershey cocoa at that time.
Hershey's shut down the Scharffen Berger plant in late 2009 after acquiring the company, so there's a good chance that the SB cocoa you tasted 10 years ago is no longer in identical production.
I talked to Hershey's. They don't publish lead/cadmium data for the Hershey's Cocoa 100% Cacao nor for the Scharffen Berger Natural Cocoa, but they do claim to test internally and claim that all products are below the Prop 65 threshold. They also told me that the two products come from different beans, and are processed differently, and noted that the SB has twice the fat content of the Hershey's by weight (meaning the Hershey's is heavily defatted). They also confirmed that both products are NOT processed with alkali.
I wonder if the cocoa sold by Hershey's in Canada is also non-alkalyzed?
@Jude- In the US Hershey's Natural Unsweetened Cocoa Powder is non-alkalized according to their website. I would expect Canada to have similar products.
The following cocoa powders are non-alkalized, and meet the original question's criterion of coming from major producers:
"Hershey's Cocoa 100% Cacao" (10% fat)
Scharffen Berger "Natural Unsweetened Cocoa Powder" (20% fat)
Ghirardelli "100% Unsweetened Ground Cocoa" (25% fat)
Fat percentages are by weight.
(The key product information here came from the answer by user mattm. I wrote this answer to share the information in a more utilitarian form.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.386912
| 2017-08-23T09:26:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83854",
"authors": [
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"Jude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210",
"mattm",
"ruief",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86503
|
Unusual Satay Sauce
A local restaurant serves an unusual satay sauce that I love. Where the satay sauces I see in most places are essentially liquid peanut butter theirs is much lighter on the peanuts, red in color and with some hotness. It also doesn't contain any milk and the consistency is more oily/starchy.
It's also not served with skewered meat but with small loose cuts of meat with some bell peppers, some pineapple and lots of onions.
I was wondering if anyone knew what style of satay this sauce might be and how I could replicate it at home.
The "western shortcut" to satay sauce is often to use peanut butter (a staple in US kitchens, available in many countries), add spices and possibly thin it a bit. It's typically peanut-coloured. Especially if no red chili is added.
The method I learned from a Thai cook is to sweat a base of red chili paste, then add coconut milk, ground peanuts, fish sauce and all the usual fixings. This will give you a nice, creamy sauce that thickens when cooked - you can later adjust the consistency by playing with the ratios. Peanuts thicken, coconut milk or even water make your sauce thinner. The chili paste gives it a reddish or orange tinge.
The kitchn has a no-cook recipe that looks pretty similar to what I do.
Thank you for the recipe. Unfortunately it looks very different from what I'm looking for.
Ground peanuts are definitely the way to go. After that it's indeed just figuring out the ratio's.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.387475
| 2017-12-18T09:46:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86503",
"authors": [
"Kempeth",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61049"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83855
|
Getting veggies to go soft in the oven
A few times now I've been cooking vegetables like butternut squash, sweet potatoes or normal potatoes in the oven and it took ages to get them to soften up.
Usually by the time the recipe says they should be done most pieces are still of the same consistency as when they were raw. Last time (sweet potato, convection 175°C) it took me over an hour to achieve a mostly satisfactory result when the recipe claimed it would take half that time...
So what am I doing wrong? More temperature? More or less stacking? More oil/liquid?
Edit: Yes. Temperature in the recipe and the stove are Celsius. I've cut the sweet potatos into slices of about 0.5-1cm as the recipe called for thick slices. Maybe that's too thick? They were mostly spread out with a bit of overlapping. The recipe taking longer is not a problem in itself but anoying if it's 9 o'clock in the evening and you're still waiting for your dinner...
Update 2: I've retried the recipe last night with the oven at 200 °C the whole time. I've noticed significantly more sizzling after the first phase (20 minutes under the aluminum foil). It took about 20-25 instead of the "official" 15 minutes in phase 2 (without the foil) and was now perfect.
I'm considering a few more changes to the recipe for next time (like extending the steaming time or raising the temp a bit more) but, in essence, raising the temperature did the trick. So I've accepted the answer. Thank you all!
You should get an oven thermometer and confirm the stove is calibrated right. I assume the temperature is in Celsius? Because if the stove is expecting Fahrenheit you are setting it too low.
@Kempeth I see you live in Switzerland, could it be that altitude is extending your cooking times?
175 is a bit low. It depends a bit on exactly how you want them to turn out, but a good start might be to try again at 210+. Generally I think you just found a bad recipe. Try looking at others and see what they say.
@tkmckenzie I live only about 450m above sea level, so I doubt it has this much of an effect... That's about the mean elevation of West Virginia.
@Niall The recipe states for a gas oven you should use 200°C. So maybe I shoud just turn off the fan and increase to that temp? I don't want it to get too dry, so full heat AND fan seems risky to me. but I'm just a beginner...
@Kempeth veg needs a pretty high temperature unless you want to cook it for 90 minutes along with a roast chicken or something. If you want to retain more moisture then cover loosely in tinfoil for the first 2/3 of cooking. Keep the fan on with a minimum of 200, but closer to 220 would be better. In time you can alter things like temperature, cooking time, covering, oil, seasoning etc. to suit different vegetables and your own taste.
@Kempeth Don't worry too much. Getting "perfect" roast veg can be trickery but getting a good results isn't. Just cook them enough, toss occasionally and don't forget about them until they've turned to charcoal.
Which setting are you using your oven on? Top? Bottom? Both? Convection? Most professional recipes ask for a convection oven to be used. (could be as simple as that). Sweet potatoes with a bit of olive oil and a bit of white wine at 175°C convection, 45 minutes should do the trick. 30 minutes is way too little.
More temperature?
If after an hour they haven't softened up at all, and this occurs with different vegetables (so you're certainly not just encountering a batch of old, dried out gourds or something,) the problem is almost certainly an inaccurate oven thermostat. Oven thermostats are notoriously unreliable. Get an oven thermometer and see what temperature your oven really is.
More or less stacking?
for even cooking and optimal browning, you should arrange your vegetables in one layer on the tray. If this were the primary problem, the vegetables on either the top, bottom, and/or in the middle (depending on the intensity and direction of your heat source) would be undercooked while the more exposed parts would be more cooked.
More oil/liquid?
Note, oil and water based liquids affect cooking very differently. Water-based liquids will get the vegetables to soften more quickly than oil because water transfers heat more efficiently than oil, and it can turn to steam which is a good medium for spreading heat evenly on an uneven surface (such as a pile of chopped vegetables.) It also kills any possibility of browning because water doesn't get hotter than 212. Just because it's in the oven, it doesn't mean you aren't steaming your vegetables rather than roasting them. There's nothing wrong with steamed veg, but that's a very different end-product than roasted veg. More oil will create more crispiness, but a thin, even coating over all of the vegetables should be the only thing you need to roast them properly.
Now, about that recipe: 175 is low for roasting those types of vegetables. Even without par-boiling/steaming them (which lets you finish them at a higher temperature for more even browning and crispiness,) I'd still go with something around 220. That said, even if the cut vegetables were heavily refrigerated, you still shouldn't be waiting hours for them to soften up if your oven was actually 175. Get an oven thermometer!
Good luck, and happy roasting!
For hard starchy veggies like potatoes, sweet potatoes, etc., it's a good idea to first boil them whole to get them fairly soft. Then slice or chop them, and bake them in the oven. Make sure the bottom of the baking sheet is oiled and that you don't layer the vegetables. They should be distributed evenly across the pan in a single layer. Then drizzle oil on top (and seasoning if you prefer). As long as you don't overlook, they should turn out soft on the inside and golden-browned with some crisp on the outside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.387639
| 2017-08-23T11:01:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83855",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"James McLeod",
"Kempeth",
"Niall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61049",
"tkmckenzie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114792
|
Isi cream whipper head valve sticks open
I have an isi 1/2 liter cream whipper which I purchased in 2010. It has worked well until recently when the head valve began sticking open. I purchased a new head valve, but the problem remains. It has been thoroughly cleaned and also has a new lid gasket.
I tried to use it today for the first time with the new valve. When I first dispensed some cream, it seemed fine, but when I released the lever, cream continued to ooze out. The valve was not returning to the closed position. This is what it was doing with the old valve. Any suggestions?
Thanks again. As soon as I cleaned everything (again ), the new valve is no longer sticking.
Have you disassembled and cleaned it? The valve comes apart. A small brush (which comes with a new whipper) can be used to clean the inside. Make sure the o-rings are clean and viable. Make sure you reassemble securely. The head needs regular cleaning for proper functioning.
Thanks. I'll give that a try. Not sure why the new one has the same problem, but anyway, we'll see what happens.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.388085
| 2021-03-15T00:20:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114792",
"authors": [
"Dana",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91899"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114940
|
How to scale a recipe for Neapolitan Pizza?
I wanted to hopefully make the best Neapolitan pizza in my modest home. I attached the link which contains the recipe for preparing the pizza.
However, the used amounts are too much for me. I wanted to prepare 2 pizzas, so I wanted to scale down the used amounts by Chef Johnny.
Chef Johnny used 30 g of salt + 1 Kg of flour + 600 ml of water + 1 g of fresh yeast. With these amounts he said in the video he could make up to 8 pizzas.
So should I use a quarter of the amounts?
In general bread formulas are proportional, and can be scaled as necessary.
Yes, using ¼ of everything should work.
As additional improvements for the scaling I also would recommend to measure all ingredients for the dough by weight as this allows to do the whole preparation with a scale only. As a next step you might want to consider to convert the recipe to baker percentages as this makes the scaling even easier.
The recipe is in weight already (considering that for water ml=g). But the advice about baker percentages is good.
I am new to pizza cooking, but I note that the Associazione Verace Pizza Napoletana says that yeast should not be scaled proportionally (ie, that proportionally less yeast is needed as total quantities go up). You can find their "official" recipe, and the commentary on yeast, within these regulations (written in English):
https://www.pizzanapoletana.org/public/pdf/disciplinare%202008%20UK.pdf
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.388195
| 2021-03-24T03:23:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114940",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116373
|
Black spots while ripening store brought mangoes by paper
I live in Delhi where most retail mangoes are ripened using carbide. Therefore, certain stores sell unripe mangoes which are supposed to be ripened before eating. One method that is popular is wrapping individual mangoes in newspapers.
However, most of them develop black spots before ripening which leads to degradation of pulp in many areas in the mango and basically does not allow one to keep it till it ripens completely. There's also some wrinkling happening. What is the reason for this and how does one fix this issue? Hay is not available here so ripening them in boxes is impossible.
Most likely just a sign of ripening and fine to eat: MANGO DEFECT GUIDE
Hay would be nice, but the paper should be keeping the mangoes from dampness causing rot.
An ugly mango can be delicious while an unblemished one tart or bland.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.388330
| 2021-07-09T16:36:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116373",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82175
|
Maintaining drip pans on coil oven hobs
The drip pans under the coil hobs on my standard GE Oven don't look as bas as others I've seen in other apartments but I'd like to keep them functioning well. They are the solid black kind, not the metallic looking ones. I am certain these have a use beyond just catching drips and that it's one of those things people just don't know about.
Can someone tell me...
1. Should liners be used at all? (I've read several times that tin foil should never be used.
2. I know there are also the metallic shiny ones, are they any better than these shiny black ones?
Thanks!!
Liners should not make any difference to performance. They just make life easier when it comes to cleaning. Are you referring to hobs/stoves for sauce pans?
Yes, as I said, the drip pans under the coil hobs.
I've read more than once that actually, these drip pans are also meant to serve as reflectors to bounce back heat and that when they're not shiny from being covered in liners they don't reflect the heat as well causing you to use more energy.
I missed your point about heat completely until you pointed it out.
If you have a textbook-perfect black-body of a drip pan (totally non-reflective, thus not shiny), it will radiate heat in all directions once itself is heated by the coil above it.
If you have a perfect reflector of a drip pan, it would not absorb any heat and simply reflect any heat back up.
A silvery tray is much nearer to being a perfect reflector (still a long way off) than a shiny black one to a perfect black body.
I have no measurements or data of any kind, just as an educated guess, I would lean towards having a shiny silver tray rather than a shiny black one if you are concerned about efficiency. Besides, a silvery foil tray is most likely going to get less hot itself, less heat absorbed. However I am questioning how much of a difference is actually there between the two. I could be wrong on this without any data, but I suspect that would not be your main heat loss, convective losses around the coil (spaces under and along its circumference) and your sauce pan and radiative losses would far outnumber that.
You said they are non-shiny black metal trays. Could they be coated with a catalyst to self-clean any food residues like you have inside self-cleaning ovens?
Edit: you might want to check with the manufacturer about using shiny liners just in case if the coils are not designed to cope with reflected heat.
Flames? Coil hobs makes it sound like electric? I've only ever seen coils on an electric stovetop...
Oops, sorry. Thanks for pointing that out. Will edit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.388430
| 2017-06-05T00:13:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82175",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58357",
"tinpanalley",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84716
|
How can I smoke something without a smoker
I am looking to smoke some meat for my chili, but the problem is, I have no smoker. I understand there are products like liquid smoke, however, this didn't create the taste I wanted or really much of one for that matter (I used a good 1/4 of the bottle too). Is there a way to get your own wood chips and smoke something in a propane grill or even an outdoor firepit? Are there wood solutions or chips you can throw into a crock for chili to provide a smoked flavor? Any help would be appreciated!
EDIT: Found a link that mentions the possibility of using real wood chips in a crockpot to smoke the meat. I am a little skeptical of this. Would this be a possible method?
I'm guessing this is on topic here but I'd definitely be interested in seeing if it was a good question for [lifehacks.se]. Seems like the sort of thing they would do.
in your crockpot method, the wood never burns, so I would call this "wood infused" more than "smoked".
Indoor smoking is apparently a thing - I haven't tried it, but the method seems like it could work.
I have successfully smoked with apple wood chunks wrapped in foil in my outdoor grill. The trick is to find a setting that will maintain ~300 F using 1/2 of the burners. Then place the foil-wrapped chunks on the hot side and the meat on the cool side. The wood will begin to smoke after 10 minutes or so.
Keep checking periodically to maintain 300 F.
I do this with already cooked sous-vide pork. It may need adjustment to cook raw meat while smoking - maybe up the temp to 350 F or so.
I adapted this technique from Kenji: http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/08/food-lab-complete-guide-sous-vide-barbecue-smoked-bbq-brisket.html:
Method 2: Using Live Smoke
If you've got yourself a kettle grill or smoker, then you can enhance your sous vide brisket through a bit of honest-to-goodness smoking. I find that by letting my brisket cool a bit (or even refrigerating it for up to a week), I can place it on the cooler side of a kettle grill that I've heated to around 300°F with charcoal and wood chunks and let it smoke for a good three hours or so before it starts to dry out at all. This is ample time to develop a deep, dark crust and to get some smoky flavor in there.
Is it better to apply that smoke before or after cooking sous vide? Well, according to folks like Meathead Goldwyn, author of the eponymous book on the science of barbecue, the flavorful compounds in smoke will adhere to and penetrate raw meat much better than they will with cooked meat. This is true, but I find that the amount of smoke flavor I get out of a post–sous vide session in the smoker is plenty for my taste buds, and smoking at the end makes the process so much more efficient. I'll stick to the post–sous vide smoke.
Any grill can be used to hot-smoke meat. If OP has a grill, this is what they should do. If not, a "flower pot smoker" is easy to build.
Take a large cardboard box. Lay it so the top is facing a side. Cut a small whole to allow for a plug. Place a electric 5th burner inside. Use a super cheap pan as your wood pan. Put a rack on some rocks to lift it up. Place food on rack. Heat on medium. Tape box closed. You can find videos on YouTube.
This methods sounds absurd. Ignore how it sounds. It works perfectly. It is not a shortcut though, this is full time smoking, but also full smoking flavor. I would add though, use a probe thermometer through the box to maintain the desired temp. Also, if you do no have a rack, a wire coathanger can be used to suspend the meat.
I am having an extremely difficult time picturing what you're describing. Can you find a link to some pictures online to illustrate?
I see chefs using "smoking guns" on food network competitions all the time. It's a tiny "gun" with a heating element. When a small amount of wood is placed in it and it is turned on, the smoke will exit a tube at the end. If food is placed in a plastic bag and twist tied around the tube the smoke can cold-smoke the food.
I would use smoked salt. Since I saw this video
Justin Wilson Oysters and Crabs I'm using it. And man this is the thing.
I was using different "smoked sauces", the thing with smoking the meat in an oven with some wood (similar to the method in your link), liquid smoke.
Nothing can beat the salt trick. It's cheap, easy, you don't add additional taste (it's not salty from this salt) and you can use it to enrich the sauce if you make one from the meat.
So you mix it with meat the put in the chili and if you think it could be more "smoky" you can add a little bit more. Something that is hard to do with other methods.
There are several ways to smoke your meat without a dedicated smoker.
Buy a wood chips box. This is a cast iron box, where you place on top of your ordinary grill, and place smoking chips inside.
Some electric turkey roasters have integrated smoking chip compartments. I once owned one by Oster.
Use a charcoal grill. Setting up the coals in a snake formation, can effectively smoke delicious meat.
If used in moderation, liquid smoke can do the job when none of these other methods are available.
1 heavy wok. Good tight lid. Cast iron is best. 1 round rack in bottom. Heat wok till it smokes. 1 bags tea used then dried well. Drop in tea. turn of high heat. Put duck or chicken on rack. Put on tight lid. Wait till wok cools. 1 tea smoked duck or chicken. Now bake or fix bird. This is best done outside. 1 roasting pan. 1 rack in it. 1 tinfoil pack of charcoal or sawdust. Put in bottom of roasting pan. with 2 tooth pick holes in it. For smoke to escape. Place meat on rack. cover tight with 2 layers tinfoil. Place in hot over 360f or 375. Place on lower rack in oven. Let bake 1 & 1/2 hour. By then sawdust should have smoked off in pan. Remove from oven. Remove tinfoil. Finish baking roast at 325 or 350f. This will smoke up a oven inside. Hard to remove stains inside. But wok smoking is very easy if you have a outside burner. This will smoke up a kitchen. So quick wok smoking. takes a little practice to know how well smoked & time to smoke in wok. Do not remove lid! till cooled. That lets smoke out.
I was going to try to edit this for you but I'm having a lot of trouble understanding your instructions. Could you please edit to clarify? "1 tea smoked duck or chicken" - is this saying that's what you get from the previous instructions? Or the following ones? And then after describing a wok setup you say "now bake or fix bird" and mention a roasting pan with a rack in it. Is that a second, different method for smoking? Or something in combination with the wok? If there's more than one thing, you can clarify by organizing into paragraphs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.388664
| 2017-09-28T22:52:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84716",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Jesse Cohoon",
"Kevin Nowaczyk",
"Nat Bowman",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83074
|
What kind of knife is this?
Found this knife in my Grandmother's collection. None of us can figure out what the semi-circle shape and slots are for (see attached picture). Anyone have any ideas?
How sharply cut are the slots? I have seen multi-purpose tools with slots like that to be used as peelers/graters. The bottle opener at the hilt would also suggest a strange multi-tool.
@sobachatina, the slits aren't sharp at all, they're quite smooth. I guess multi tool makes sense, but I have no idea what the rest could be used for.
Is the spine sharp, making it usable as a mezzaluna?
@rackandboneman No, the spine isn't sharp. Good question though.
If the metal is tempered right to support a serrated edge well, it will probably support sharpening the spine ;)
It is a multi-tool, which appear to have been given out as novelties. The bottle opener and serrated knife are obvious, the slits are there to act as a pot strainer, the semi-circle shape and flat surface allows you to hold it against the edge of a pot and pour out the liquid while keeping solid bits in. I found a few of them on Ebay, the good links (as of this answer) are:
Vintage Farmers Co-op Creamery 1967 Bread Knife
Vintage Multi-Purpose Knife Bottle Opener Strainer Stainless Wood Handle Japan -
Given the nature of Ebay I can't guarantee these links will be good for long
According to the inscriptions on some they were given out by a couple of different Farmer's Co-ops and a Drilling company...does yours have any writing on it?
...and here is a picture of a pot drainer (single purpose) as it would be used.
Ahhh, a pot strainer. That makes sense. We tried a Google image search, but that failed. Guess our Google-fu wasn't as strong as yours! It does have writing on the side, it says "Keller Grain and Feed."
As a 'novelty' item, I would not expect it to work particularly well. On the other hand it looks like you could get $14.95 off of Ebay for it if you want.
Looks handy for camping though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.389297
| 2017-07-18T20:54:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83074",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cos Callis",
"D. Woods",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34293
|
Must rice always be cooked with some oil or lard?
I'm a totally amateur "cook" and I was always taught that before I cook rice, I have to add some oil or lard to it and cook in that.
But why is it necessary? Once I forgot it and everything was the same. Only the bottom layer was burnt just a bit, but I think that was not necessarily because I forgot the oil. Also, I didn't have much left at the time and I needed that to fry.
Oil or fat is absolutely not necessary to cook rice.
I suspect you may have been taught the pilaf method where the rice is first sauteed in oil or butter, and then liquid is added and the rice is fully cooked. The purpose of the pilaf method is to add depth of flavor. When making pilafs, additional herbs, spices, or aromatics (such as onions) are often included.
If you have been taught to add oil without the sauteeing, then the only purpose of it would be to add flavor. It won't really help prevent sticking, and isn't needed for the rice to cook properly.
There are many methods to cook rice in addition to the pilaf method, and many to do not require any fat. Simply boiling or steaming in water is completely traditional in many Asian cuisines.
In some cuisines, the crusty rice that sticks to the bottom of the pot or rice cooker is actually highly prized (see Wikipedia's nurunji article).
You can mitigate the crusting of the rice by making sure to use the lowest flame or heat setting that will keep the rice steaming. I actually prefer to put the whole pot in a moderate oven, rather than do it on the stove top.
You can also use the pasta method of simply boiling the rice in water, and then draining it when it is done to your liking, to completely avoid the crust. This will result in less sticky rice since the surface starches will be left in the boiling water. I understand this method is popular in some parts of India and Pakistan.
I see. Thanks!
PS.: maybe I was a bit confusing: I'm not a chef student, I was taught by my parents about cooking.
Some info for completeness sake:
The method you have been taught is fine. The oil, lard or fat is there to prevent:
Only the bottom layer was burnt only a bit.
the fat at the bottom is there to allow higher temperature from the bottom to generate steam without burning the bottom layer and the oil does that.
Making rice well is not easy so don't be too critical of your result. Many (possibly most) western professional chefs don't understand the complexities of making rice well, and try to invent new methods and shortcuts in making rice with mostly terrible outcome.
Properly done rice has the following qualities:
Individual grains are intact, but soft under teeth ("al dente" is a faux pas with rice).
The rice grains should feel light on the serving spoon and not clump together. When you tilt the spoon the grains should fall off almost like flower petals, not like a chunk of brick mortar (the wall of china bricks are literally held together by cooked rice and egg).
The most common errors in making rice are:
too hard, too soft, or too moist. (moist is ok for risotto).
SAJ14SAJ is correct that in some cuisines where rice is popular, the crispy rice at the bottom is prized. In that context, making rice without the crispy bottom is like making rosti or hash-browns that aren't crispy or brown. More on this later.
I would advise against turning down the heat too low, part of the fluffiness of rice comes from the lift generated by the steam coming from the bottom layers. Turn it too low and you have rice paste.
You can put the whole pot in the oven, generally you get decent lift and light rice except for the top layer that will be either too dry (hard) or the steam will gather in the lid and drip back down on the rice and gets too mushy.
The method to make rice properly:
Wash the rice in cold water until the water is clear (gets rid of ready starch).
Soak for 1/2 to 2 hours. (skip this if the rice is par-boiled already. It usually says on the package)
Boil lots of water and add salt
Add the rice (not the soaking water) to the boiling water (like pasta)
In about a couple of minutes (depending on the rice) you will see that grains have gotten longer and developed knuckles (like finger bands).
Once you see the knuckles, immediately remove the pot and pour into a strainer getting rid of the hot water.
Rinse under cold water to stop the cooking.
Place some oil and a few tablespoons of water at the bottom of the pot and turn on the heat to medium (see the fat substitutions section below)
Once the litter water starts to boil, transfer the rice into the pot and replace the lid (the little boiling water is for immediate lift).
Take a clean kitchen towel and gift-wrap the pot lid and secure with a robber band (as seen in this Tim Carman article in Washington Post. What the cloth does is absorb the extra moisture and prevent it from dripping back down on the rice thereby keeping the rice fluffy. Also the fine cooking site has some good information. These are all similar methods of Indian, Pakistani and Persian Rice. Small towns in Italy also have a similar process for making Risotto rice light and fluffy before the sause is developed.
Method to tell when the rice is done:
The traditional saying is: "don't lift the lid or the rice will be ruined". Similar to a cake. Though recent tests by America's Test Kitchen showed the cake will spring back up so there is a chance the science applies to rice as well. I'd still avoid lifting the lid since the puff of hot steam in your face is not pleasant.
The actual way to tell is to flick a drop of water on the side of the pot high enough to be level with the top of the rice inside the pot. If the water drop sizzles and goes away the rice is cooked (the science is that this indicates the top of the rice is around boiling temperature).
Tips and fat substitutes
It's better to make rice in the wider pot than a taller pot as you get better lift and less likely to burn the bottom before the top is cooked.
The fat at the bottom is there to buffer the heat required to cook the upper layers. You can replace it with other things that burn less easily than rice and are somewhat dry such as pita and general flatbreads, thin sliced potatoes, and possibly even beans like lentils. If you use oil AND add potatoes or bread at the bottom you'll end up with something delicious but not the healthiest. A little bit of oil does go a long way here.
well, I wouldn't call this THE method to make rice properly: there are many different ways to cook rice, and it also depends on the variety of rice you are cooking. What works well with basmati will not work well with originario. Rice can be very soupy, as in congee, moderately sticky, as in risotto, nice, crips and separate... The question is, what do you want to achieve with your rice?
Properly made rice should taste good to the person eating it. I don't think there are really absolutes in what rice - or any food - "should" be... especially with varied techniques, preparations, and expectations all coming into play. Otherwise your answer is quite good and very detailed, it is a fine method for making rice.
Fat is not necessary. Here's an easy way to cook basmati without fat, which never sticks and works pretty well for me:
add one cup of rice for two of water and don't forget to salt
heat up at full power
when it boils, turn off the plate completely
leave it on the plate for 20 minutes with lid on (don't open lid)
You're done !
Someone flagged this as not an answer. I see where they're coming from: you haven't directly addressed whether/why fat would be necessary, or why it'd stick badly. But this method doesn't use fat and won't stick, so I think it does answer the question. Still, your answers will fare better if you address the question more directly.
Thanks, I edited my answer to better address the question.
2:1 is easily too much for many brands of white basmati unless you are cooking partially uncovered or with a very leaky lid, 1:1 + 1/2 cup (make that 1/4 if you rinsed in the pot and there is residual rinse water). And 20 minutes is on the low side, keep it at a slow boil for 10-14 minutes and the give it plenty of time to steam out (30+ min.). BTW, "leave it on the plate" makes the recipe dependent on heat capacity of stove and pot. Try pre-soaking for 30 minutes before turning on the heat too, or try rinsed vs unrinsed (if rice is clean!), all different textures.
I would class cooking rice with fat as an unusual method for all but basmati rice and generally unnecessary. There are many ways to cook rice and many types of rice requiring particular techniques but steaming/simmering is generally the preferred method for all but glutinous (aka sweet or sticky) rice. The easiest method: use a rice cooker. These little contraptions are very nearly fool proof, very inexpensive, and work very well for all but glutinous rice.
Invest in a rice cooker. It doesn't cost very much at all for a small one, and even a large-ish one isn't very exspensive. You can get perfect rice every time with one, unless you are making a specialized dish like congee or something. Most rice cookers can also serve to steam things besides rice in the event that you want to make some steamed veggies or fish, and many modern ones even have slow cooker options
If you want to reduce sticking and crusting try rinsing your rice before cooking to release any excess starch. You may be surprised at the results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.389517
| 2013-05-24T10:09:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34293",
"authors": [
"4thSpace",
"Bernadine Pocknett",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel",
"Harrison W.",
"Joann",
"Johnnie",
"Kellie Heintz",
"Megha",
"Michelle Patker",
"STWLAM",
"Sajitha Verghese",
"Samuel Hay",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"Zoltán Schmidt",
"cheese-making",
"eon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81177",
"macxpat",
"nowox",
"rackandboneman",
"twiz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33031
|
"Cream Biscuit" a little raw in the middle
After having some problems initially, I managed to get my "cream biscuits" to rise by measuring the ingredients correctly according to this recipe.
However, after 15 minutes of baking, the inside is a little bit under-cooked. It still tastes good and is light and fluffy but I felt it could have been cooked more.
Should I simply leave it in the oven longer? Or am I doing something wrong that could cause the inside to be not-so-cooked?
Baking times are never exact, as there can be considerable variance in the product and environment. The three most likely variables to affect total necessary baking time are:
How thick the biscuits were rolled
How moist they dough was
Actual oven temperature accuracy
For this reason, there is normally a test or indicator for doneness. The best possible test is internal temperature of the biscuit, but this recipe does not give that information, and it is difficult to get an accurate reading for something as thin as a biscuit.
The recipe indicates browning as the test, but that does not indicate the state of the interior of the biscuit, only the exterior.
Still, there are several things you can do:
Use an oven thermometer to verify the temperature of your oven
Roll the biscuits so that they are slightly less tall
Be sparing with the cream, adding only as much as necessary to bring the dough together
Of course, bake them a little longer. The trade off here is that you will get more browning on the outside the longer you bake them to get them cooked through to the center. If you are at the max time the recipe indicates already, and are getting sufficient browning, one of the other factors may be in play
Assuming your oven temperature is accurate, the most likely factor is how thick or thin the biscuits are. The cooking time will pretty much directly related to this, all other factors being equal. Even the amount of cream has less effect than you would think, because doneness is related to the internal temperature achieved (the starches will hydrolyze and taste cooked around 195°F / 90.5°C) regardless of moisture level.
I have never tried the toothpick test on a biscuit, but fundamentally, they are quick breads, much like a muffin, so it may be worth trying: stick a wooden toothpick into the biscuit to its center. When it is pulled out, there should be only minimal slightly moist crumbs sticking to the toothpick when it is done. Wet crumbs indicate under baking, perfectly clean indicates over baking.
In the end, biscuit making is a matter of experience, and you will get better at it with more batches.
Thanks. I think it might be because of the cream - I added more than usual and while working with the dough I noticed it is more moist than usual.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.390310
| 2013-03-26T22:44:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33031",
"authors": [
"HinckleyBob",
"Itsame Nwman",
"Legendre",
"ceemoedee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76432",
"user76417"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98761
|
Mold on salami, is it safe?
I took a salami and removed the outer plastic packaging and hung it in my refrigerator to dry. After about a week it got white mold on it. Is this normal/safe? I know that real/fancy salami has molds rubbed on. This salami does not contain any bacteria or fungus (at least it’s not supposed to) ingredients are beef, water, salt, flavorings, sugar, potato starch, sodium phosphate, ascorbic acid, sodium nitrite
I have seen dozens of different size/shape sausages hanging in a gourmet deli at room temperature , all were mostly white with mold. However, I can't say I ate any.
Those are usually a different type of sausage/salami, and they usually have mold on it. This looks like a soft/moist/fresh type of salami that was bought without any mold, so not the same.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.390571
| 2019-05-01T21:04:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98761",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85787
|
Making a test tiny roast
If I am making a corned beef and after 10 days I want to taste it and make sure I got the seasoning right. If not I'll fix it and let it soak for another few days.
So I want to cut off a small piece and cook it. Maybe 4 oz. what would be the best approach for cooking it? Would it follow the normal rules for making a corned beef such as internal temperature which will probably happen pretty fast or does it need a minimum amount of time for some chemical or mechanical processes to happen? Any other ideas?
How are you planning on cooking the larger corned beef roast?
I make a lot of home cured corned beef so the seasonings are pretty set. When I first started, I didn't try to make a soft tiny roast to test the seasoning, instead I sliced off a thicker slice and cooked in slowly on the stovetop until it was done to my liking then tasted it. I wasn't worried about making it soft and tender when I was testing for seasoning.
One of the best ways to make a roast soft and tender is to use a sous-vide immersion circulator. Set it to your final temperature, let the water heat up, put the roast in a plastic bag, remove the air and cook until tender. You can find dozens of resources about sous-vide cooking on-line.
What is important with food safety when cooking meat is to get to a specific minimum safe temperature for the meat being cooked. Sometimes, you must not only reach that temperature, but the meat must also remain at (or above) that point for a period of time to ensure food safety; this is why some meats require a resting period. While the resting period can also have other benefits, those are out of scope for this question, and will not be addressed here.
The following chart gives a brief overview of the issue you are bringing up, although there are more in-depth details available online, if you should wish to look deeper into the matter.
What about for deliciousness?
As far as I am aware, no matter how unappetizing in flavor and/or texture a food may be, the safety of consuming it is unaffected by such properties.
It's always puzzling to me on what science these recommendations are actually based. Germans eat truck loads of raw pork every day ("Mettbroetchen"), Italian Tiramusi contains lots of raw eggs and Carpaccio is raw beef, most people eat oysters raw, etc. All of these are in blatant viloations of these recommendations and people are doing just fine.
The science, and the suggestions, are both based on the temperature needed to reduce the risk of illness. For example, someone could fall 100 feet and live without any issues, but doing so repeatedly continually increases the chances that someone harmful to the person's health will occur. The same idea is presented with food safety. This also has some connection to the large-scale food production seen in many food processing plants, where major, wide-spread contamination could occur, therefore increasing the need for caution and food safety practices.
@Hilmar for some things, the source of the meat matters a lot, and the general rule errs on the safe side in case the meat is questionable. For instance, one of the concerns with pork is killing any parasites. If your pork contains zero parasites, then you don't need to get to a temp high enough to kill them for the pork to be safe to eat. It's like the recommendation to wash your vegetables or even your hands. If they're not contaminated with anything, then you don't need to wash them, but it's safer to always wash them, just in case they're contaminated and you don't know.
@PaulBeverage what I really meant to ask is "how do I cook a tiny roast so that it will be soft and tender?"
@mroll -- I would suggest editing your question in order to make the focal point more clear. As you are more in tune with what you want to receive as an answer, I think your own edit to the question would help you receive the answer you want more-so than another contributor's edit would. For instance, as I read your question, it sounded like more of a food-safety question than a "what is the best approach" question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.390676
| 2017-11-21T04:45:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85787",
"authors": [
"Hilmar",
"Incorporeal Logic",
"Kat",
"MeltedPez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"mroll"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.