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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
112888
|
Resting meat - room temperature and bacteria
Many cooks/chefs recommend resting meat. There's a saying of "rest for the same length of time it was cooked".
For steaks this is fine, a 6 or so min cooking time means 6 mins at room temp is okay. But what about a full chicken or turkey? Depending on the size, they're cooked for 2-3 hours or more. Surely it's not safe to let those sit at room temperature for 2-3 hours?
It could rest at room temperature, for example, one hour, then the remaining time in the fridge, but this makes the meat cold, and in fact loses the "freshly cooked" essence to a degree.
So if you want to rest a chicken or turkey for the 3 hours of cooking time, must half of that be in the fridge to avoid bacteria growth? Or is there a better way than the fridge which seems to make chicken/turkey a little tougher after it's been cooled?
Do you have a source for resting a bird for three hours?
Just as said, chefs. Gordon Ramsey said it in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBPsATAziOw&feature=youtu.be&t=92
There is a rule of thumb
This is not the full story
A cooked turkey should be at 72C. When you take it out of the oven it will start cooling down. As it cools into the 40s bacteria will have good conditions to grow. The turkey is sterile because of cooking but bacteria can attach to exposed surfaces. Cutting the turkey will expose more, and probably your hands will spread bacteria.
It follows that a whole turkey is safer, especially if it is covered, since the inside of the bird will have no bacteria, only the outside.
So the 2 hour rule, which states a turkey rested for 3 hours must be eaten and not refrigerated is not really a one size fits all fact. But it's a rule of thumb when you don't have a lab and culture tests. Ignoring such rules is at your own risk but you can use common sense.
At home you might happily rest a turkey for 3 hours but in a commercial setting this could violate local laws if you kept the leftovers and someone got sick, you wouldn't have a defence and could be criminally liable for failing to follow defined rules. Most commercial health and safety rules err on the side of being more conservative than is necessary, because a dry turkey is better than people getting sick and suing you. Remember that bacteriology is about numbers and we might talk about 6.5D reductions (10^6.5) and McDonalds might use a higher level, and an expensive restaurant is almost certainly on a lower level as shown by many food poisoning cases in fancy restaurants. That's because McDonalds have a huge number of customers so even 1 in 10 million getting sick might be too much for their lawyers, whereas if you are cooking at home then you won't even eat that many meals in your whole life, so probably follow less stringent standards and get sick rarely.
Thanks that pretty much answers it. I was wanting the food safety side but also wondering how cooks (e.g. Gordon Ramsey as he said 3 hours to rest a turkey) manage it. I guess Gordon only does this at home or the restaurants have specialist warmers or something. So either rest for 3 hours and discard any leftovers after eating it with the meal, or put in the fridge after say 1.5 hours and remove what it needed for the meal and can still use for a few days. I'm still not convinced about rest for as long as cooked, but that's another question. Thanks :)
I don't think there is a consensus on how long you should rest meat, be it a turkey, chicken or steak or other meats.
Personally, I think the 3 hours is a little bit on the extreme side of it, but I don't see anything wrong or unsafe if the turkey was cooked to a good temperature.
Remember that meat will continue to carry the heat for a while and that a bigger piece of meat will keep the temperature for a longer time than a small one.
In the case of a turkey, it can keep warm (above bacteria temperature) for a while ( in a normal temperature kitchen, YMMV if you have a really cold temperature)
Anecdotal, I usually let my chicken rest for 5, 10 minutes in the cooking pan while I prepare the rest of the meal (finish up veggies, prepare the sauce...)
(disclaimer, I've not done a thorough search) USDA and the CDC don't talk about bacteria that much except when storing leftovers.
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/11/22/how-cook-thanksgiving-turkey
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/poultry-preparation/lets-talk-turkey/CT_Index
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2011/05/25/cooking-meat-check-new-recommended-temperatures#:~:text=%E2%80%9CRest%20time%E2%80%9D%20is%20the%20amount,rise%2C%20which%20destroys%20harmful%20bacteria.
https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/communication/holiday-turkey.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.421464
| 2020-11-29T18:28:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112888",
"authors": [
"James",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20465",
"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
}
|
125210
|
How to cook perennial kale?
This year I started growing perennial kale, more precisely, I obtained some plants of the old Taunton Deane variety. While using the leaves for cooking the first time I noted that my recipes for regular kale won't work - the leaves are too hard.
What do I need to adjust to get softer kale?
Are you selecting from newer (thus usually smaller and more tender) leaves, or older (and tougher and larger) leaves?
In my experience, the people who write the cooking time guidelines found in recipes involving kale don't actually like cooked kale. Certainly if you follow their guidelines, what you end up with is not actually cooked by any usual definition. If you triple or quadruple the time, then there's some chance of ending up with something that's suitable for humans instead of rabbits. If your kale is even tougher than usual, you'll just need to cook for a very long time - forget the quick saute in oil, since that doesn't even work for young kale, despite what the recipe-writers try to tell you.
I don’t know how well it would work for this variety, but occasionally you will see a suggestion for a massage: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hzCwZVRoknE
Your recipes will probably work fine if you increase the cooking time significantly and prepare the leaves right. Depending on how thick the stalks are you may want to prepare them differently or leave them out altogether. This advice would work for any thick leaved type of greens.
Preparation: thick stalks may take longer to cook than the leaves themselves, you can end up with mushy leaves but stalks that you can't get a tooth in. So cut the stalks off and keep them separate from the leaves. Leave the stalks whole or at least in good sized chunks
Cooking method: If the stalks are tough then start cooking them first until they start to soften, then add the leaves and cook them until they are all done. The timing to this depends in the type of leaf, how thick the stems are, etc. It may take 10 minutes or even more for some stalks to be cooked enough to add the leaves. Some stalks are so thick that they may never become palatable, that's why you leave them in large pieces - they will be easy to pick out
Cooking time: thick leaves can take a long time to cook, baby spinach can take 3 minutes, thick leaves can take 30 or longer. Just keep simmering and test them until they are done. Just don't let them dry out!
I haven’t dealt with this type of kale, but for greens in general, I dice up stems and cook them into pickle relish
I never use the stalks. I cut them out. I don't like kale either, and can't wait for them to die down so I can pull the plants out and plant something more edible.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.421821
| 2023-09-11T19:59:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125210",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"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
}
|
112696
|
Baking bread with a firm texture that doesn't grow mold
I bake large quantities of bread like 50kg a day. People are complaining that the butter bread, when I slice it, is like a sponge in texture and gets moldy in three days. How can I get a firmer texture and delay mold growth? The ingredients I use are margarine, flour, milk, nutmeg, yeast, vanilla extract, sugar and salt. I don't add eggs.
Welcome to the site! I'm sorry to say I don't understand your question. What do you mean by 'when I slide is like sponge' ?
@GdD probably “slice”. But we need more details anyway.
This might be more an issue with setting expectations, so people know what the texture and shelf-life of your bread and aren't surprised. If you want to change the texture so it's less spongy, you might try cooking it slightly longer so it's drier inside. This might also increase the time before it molds, but home-baked bread is never going to compete with factory made bread with preservatives and such. But see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/7804/67
Mold grows on bread because mold spores in the air, or on hands or other surfaces, get transferred to the bread. Bread has plenty of nutrients for these spores to grow. Mold growth is enhanced by temperatures over 70 degrees F (21C). Humidity and moisture also favor mold growth.
There are a couple of things you can recommend or do to reduce mold growth.
Bread should be handled with clean hands.
Bread should be kept well wrapped.
Refrigeration dramatically slows mold growth.
Freezing virtually stops mold growth.
If not freezing, consume bread as soon as possible.
Margarine and milk help keep the texture soft, and reduce staling. If you want a firmer texture, you might consider a formula without these ingredients.
Moist breads will get moldy faster than dryer breads, and moister breads also are more open, i.e. a have spongier texture, so reducing the milk in your recipe may help resolve both of those complaints. I would suggest you reduce the milk by 5% and see how that improves the situation, then keep reducing it by 5% until you get the texture you want. Reducing the moisture will make the bread less open, if it gets too tight add a bit more milk.
Take notes on the changes you do so you remember what works and what does not for your recipe.
There are answers about how to use preservatives in bread here.
When you recommend reducing the milk, are you suggesting simply leaving it out, or replacing it with water? (leaving it out will remove moisture, but it going to change the dough more significantly)
Reducing the milk means leaving some of it out @Joe. The point it to change the texture of the dough.
You're still going to change it by moving to water. (less sugar, for one)
@Joe, changing from milk to water will make other changes, that's not what I'm saying to do in my answer though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.422079
| 2020-11-17T13:00:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112696",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117405
|
How many tablespoons of butter are in a tablespoon of butter?
The title may sound silly, but the question is serious:
When I buy butter, the package says Net Wt. 16oz, and I trust this because the authorities regulate such things.
Inside the package, each stick is divided evenly into 8 tablespoons. Now, although a fluid ounce of water might weigh almost exactly a 1/16 of a lb., butter is like 80% fats. There's no way a fluid ounce of butter (exactly 2 tablespoons) weighs 1/16 of a lb.
So, how many tablespoons of butter are there in a "tablespoon" (per the package marking) of butter?
Pretty sure this is just the density of butter in fl.oz./oz.
1 fluid ounce of water weighs 28.4131g. 1 tablespoon of water weighs 17.7582g. I am not sure how this matches your calculations.
@Him Inverted that value, as you're searching for things of equal volume, not weight.
The only way I can make sense of this question is if the 16oz package contains 4 sticks. Is that the case, or have I misunderstood? That's not the way butter is packaged in my country.
Dawood: yes, packaging like that is common in the USA.
@DawoodibnKareem the whole "stick of butter" concept is an American thing. Here it's a block of 250g with approximate 50g markings on the wrapper
Chris: also in the US we have two different sizes for sticks, depending on where you live.
Makes sense. I've seen recipes that call for "1 stick of butter" or "1/2 stick of butter" or whatever, and had no idea how much that is.
@DawoodibnKareem 1 stick of butter is about 10% more than 100g of butter, for future reference.
16 fluid ounces of water do not weigh one pound, they weigh a little more (about 1.05lbs), because the US fluid ounce is not based on water, unlike the liter.
You are correct that 16 weight ounces of butter aren't equivalent to 16 fluid ounces either, but they're pretty close. 1 fluid ounce of butter is 99% of one weight ounce. So if you're getting 16 weight ounces of butter, you're actually getting an extra 1% over 16 fluid ounces.
And who's going to complain about 1% extra butter?
So, your answer is approximately 1.01 tablespoons.
I'm sure that this volume/weight mismatch is well within the error in most cooking implement measurements.
@bob1 especially trying to measure a bulk solid with a spoon.
The error in the fluid ounce - weight ounce conversion (for water) and the difference in density between water and butter have opposite effects and are of similar magnitude, so they almost cancel. I'm not sure about the US, but in the EU this would all be within the allowable error for packaged foods.
For this answer I went down the rabbit hole of "what substance IS the US fluid oz based on" and the answer seems to be "history". If there's any liquid where 1floz == 1ozwt, it's accidental.
"And who's going to complain about 1% extra butter?" Only a fool. It's like good times, and friends, hard to have too much of
In what way is the liter "based on water"? The liter is based on length (i.e. "volume") not on mass or weight. (It was originally based on the volume of 1 kilogram of water under specified conditions, but that definition is now obsolete).
It's still almost exactly 1kg of water. And it was originally based on water.
@FuzzyChef TIL that history is a liquid!
No, the litre was NOT ever based on water. A litre has ALWAYS been defined as a 1000th of a cubic metre. A kilogram was originally defined as the mass of one litre of water under certain conditions. It's not defined that way any more.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.422335
| 2021-10-05T00:15:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117405",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Dave",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"FuzzyChef",
"Him",
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"TCooper",
"Vesper",
"alephzero",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95852"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66935
|
Eating cookie dough
How can I eat cookie dough safely? I want to make cookie dough ice-cream like the Ben and Jerry's range, however I don't want salmonella.
How do Ben and Jerry's sell make theirs, assuming they don't sell it raw?
Is it possible to cook the egg or dough without changing the raw uncooked feel of cookie dough?
Is there a good substitute? (I have tried banana)
Related question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62235/is-eating-cookie-dough-without-egg-safe
To make cookie dough to eat raw you have a couple of choices:
Leave the eggs out
Use pasteurized eggs
I'm not sure how Ben and Jerry's make theirs, but I suspect it is by pasteurizing at some point in the manufacturing process. Leaving the egg(s) out is the simplest method and doesn't make a big difference in the final product (when you are not going to bake the dough). If you want to use pasteurized eggs, they are generally available in supermarkets or you can do it yourself at home. Here is one example of instructions I found through searching the web - How to Pasteurize Eggs
Stovetop pasteurization like that will definitely work... but it sounds like a huge pain to hold the temperature there. Doesn't take too much extra heat to start cooking the eggs. If you do have a sous vide circulator, it makes it a lot easier.
@Jefromi "generally available in supermarkets" comes right before how to do it yourself, and will take the huge pain out of it, converting that to a small pain in the wallet.
For large scale commercial applications irradiation is another feasible technique. But I don't recommend you scavenging radioactive materials form your smoke detector to make cookie dough :)
There's also the option of deep freezing the dough for a couple of weeks to kill all the bugs, but you need a special freezer for that.
Pasteurization probalby isn't sufficient -- as long as the egg is still liquid it still has the capacity for salmonella. The fact is there is no need whatsoever for eggs in a raw cooke-dough recipe, it is there to change texture when cooking. So just adapt to moisture ratio.
As I recently learned and mention at https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/117077/45194 , eggs are not the only problem. The flour is a risk, too.
Dry powdered eggs is a good option. Not the freeze dried scrambled style eggs you might take on a camping trip into the back country. I see the product commonly in the baking aisle of the grocers, near the yeasts and baking powder.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.422649
| 2016-02-28T17:02:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66935",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Duraisingam Velu",
"Ecnerwal",
"Elise",
"GdD",
"Jennifer Pomeroy",
"Jo Mendelson",
"Laura Denney",
"Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen",
"Ryan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62514",
"kijuan little",
"margaret Fleming",
"slebetman"
],
"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
}
|
88135
|
Hot chicken soup takes hours to cool
I made a big pot of a very hot chicken soup. I put it in my small extra fridge at 11 PM, and it was still warm 9 hours later, at 8 AM.
Do I need to throw it away?
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/16540/67
I'm curious how big the pot was and how thick the pot was. It is possible that you introduced a great deal of warm thermal mass into this fridge!
There are people that are going to argue that yes, you do. And if you're immune compromised, that's probably best.
However, if it had been boiling, and there's a layer of fat to seal the top, then it's at a lower (although not non-existant) risk. You have to judge for yourself if it's worth it.
Personally, I'd bring it back up to a boil for 30+ minutes, then use other techniques to cool it back down:
Pour into shallow pans, without lids to maximize surface area & evaporative cooling. Stir every few minutes until it starts to cool down.
Place the pot in a sink filled with cold water & ice, and stir every few minutes, possibly changing out the water & ice if necessary
Put ice, freezer pack or similar into a ziplock bag, put it into the pot, and stir
If you're ever in the situation where it's getting late, and you have a large pot to go into the fridge, I'll either leave it on warm overnight. (making sure there's nothing near the stove that might be dangerous. But I have an electric stove, not gas), or I'd do what cooling I can (pot in sink ice bath + stirring), move it into multiple smaller containers, and put them in the fridge without lids on them (so we have some evaportative cooling in the fridge)
What does reboil accomplish here? If bad stuff stuff happened you are not going to kill it.
Not agreeing with expose to air for evaporation. To 140 F you are safe and not as much evaporation heat loss under 140 F. You trade that for maximum opportunity to come in contact with bad stuff.
+1 to cooling options #2 and #3. Frozen 12 oz and 500ml. disposable water bottles you keep in the freezer in can the power goes out will really help to cool the soup.
@Paparazzi : you won't necessarily kill it, i.e., it won't help for botulism if you added fresh garlic at the last minute. It will kill off many bacteria and denature some of the byproducts, thus lowering the risk. 140°F for a significant time (pasteurization) helps with killing bacteria, but not as good at denaturing what they create.
And I bet you have off shore ocean front property to sale me.
Was it between 140 F and 40 F for more than 4 hours? If so it is in the danger zone.
You also have a possible problem of warming the fridge to over 40 F.
The problem with a large vessel is a larger volume (heat) to surface ratio. This causes it to cool more slowly.
Break the soup down into smaller (like 1-4 quart) covered non-insulated containers before placing in fridge. Need the cover as in the fridge the vapor puts extra load on the condenser and significantly reduce cold produced by the refrigerator.
I would even cool on the counter with a covered to to keep the top surface closer to the temp of the middle.
Let the soup cool towards 140 F before you place it in the fridge to reduce the load you put on the fridge. 140 F is about when you can pick it up with your bare hands. You can let it cool to under 140 F but that is just time in the danger zone. Since the fridge has limited capacity letting if cool to like 120 F if it will do that in less than 30 minutes is probably closer to optimal.
Even in small containers your extra small fridge may not have the capacity to cool the large volume of soup fast enough.
Using cold water (in the sink or some other large container) and then eventually (don't waste it when things are still very hot) ice to cool the smaller containers is a good "at home" technique. Commercial kitchens use "Ice paddles" in the pot if they don't spread it out in hotel (flat, covered) pans to cool. Cold water can relatively quickly cool to near the temperature of the incoming cold water, greatly reducing the demand for ice at the end and the load on your fridge, while not letting the food sit long periods. Stirring the container will also speed cooling, in this case.
I was brought here from another post flagged as a duplicate that asked about cooling LARGE amounts of soup. I take that as not just one pot of soup. This method will work and cool the liquid to the ambient temperature in minutes. I am a brewer of beer and as such, got tired of cooling my boiled beer (wort) in the sink filled with ice. I just don't have that much ice. So a wort cooler works. It attaches to your sink then a hose goes to a copper coiled tube then water is expelled the other end. You would insert this tube in your liquid and presto I can take liquid from 150 F down to whatever the temperature of my cold water is from the sink. This is standard practice for brewing beer, and would certainly work for any other liquid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.422916
| 2018-03-04T13:10:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88135",
"authors": [
"Behacad",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"RonJohn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo"
],
"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
}
|
110077
|
Will my lasagna be ruined because I forgot to put the white sauce on the lasagna sheets
I was making lasagna and put in the meat and the lasagna sheets but then I realized (after I had finish the layers and the cheese top), I forgot to put the white sauce on top of each layer of lasagna sheets, will this ruin the lasagna?
Hi, and welcome to SA! Have a look at the Tour and Help Center when you get a chance. The answer to this question will depend on what you consider 'ruined'; in general it is always helpful if you could share the recipe you used.
No.
Anecdotal, I rarely use white sauce in lasagna and it always rocks.
Might be worth adding that you need enough moisture in your meat/bolognese for the lasagna sheets to cook properly and not become dried up sheets of rock.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.423426
| 2020-08-07T18:12:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110077",
"authors": [
"LSchoon",
"ThePainfull",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76441"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81897
|
How do you prevent your lasagne from being watery?
As you can see there is a lot of liquid that assembles at the sides. This lasagne has bechamel and marinara sauce. The bechamel is reduced, with a chunky (but watery) red sauce. The lasagne sheets were boiled and drained (but not pat dried).
What could be done to reduce the liquidity of the lasagne and make it more gooey and stable?
Please give us more information. How are you making your lasagne? Are you using conventional dry noodles that you boil first, are you using fresh pasta? No boil noodles? What type of sauce base are you using (tomato or bechamel?) Please give us more information!!!
Do you have a guess as to where the moisture is coming from?
@Catija edited + pics!
As @moscafj mentioned, resting is important ... but also drying the pasta would've reduced the amount of liquid your're starting with. And you want a thick sauce, typically. My great grandmother would use a ragù that's cooked down 'til it's closer to slightly wet meat & vegetables, rather than a marinara sauce. When I've done tomato sauce, I've gone with something thick with the tomato pectin activated. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/63780/67
I don't focus too much on whether the ingredients are too wet. My rule of thumb is cooking low and slow. Cover with foil (tented by toothpicks) for a long time, remove foil to brown.
Moisture comes from several source. Meat, cheese, sauce, noodles (if preboiled). There a variety of things you can do to address each of these. As mentioned in my answer to your previous question, letting the lasagna rest prior to service will help. So too, using dry noodles, without boiling, will cause the noodles to absorb some of the liquid, leaving you with a still firmer result.
Lasagna is a dish with such a wide variety of recipes that there is no 'one' answer to resolve your issue. But, in addition to the input from your other recent lasagna questions I would add these points to address, in general terms, your question:
To deal with 'water'(or myoglobin) from the meats, brown the meat separately and thoroughly so as to 'boil off' these liquids.
If your meats are particularly 'oily' (say 70/30 ground beef or sausage) you can add some flour (2-3 tablespoons) after the water is boiled off and continue to cook the browned meat to for at least two more minutes while stirring the meat. This will form a roux on the meat that will both absorb the oils and then thicken the sauce as it cooks into it. Then build your sauce on top of your meats. Once your roux is formed begin to add the sauce elements to the meat. First add any broth, wine (or beer) to the meat pot to deglaze the pot and get up those wonderful bits of flavor that have caramelized to the bottom of the pan. After that add your tomatoes followed by the seasonings.
(note: do NOT rinse/strain your meats, this will carry away far too much flavor)
For moisture coming from the sauce (tomatoes, broth, wine...)allow your sauce to simmer longer before adding it to the lasagna dish. Again this 'reduces' the sauce and will leave you with less liquid at the end.
Cheeses, choose well aged cheeses over some of the cheaper alternatives. (Ricotta over cottage, real mozzarella over that pregrated stuff in a bag, etc.) these cheeses are 'relatively' drier and will leave you with less liquid at the end.
On more thing... if you still want to tighten up your lasagna some more, add a quarter to a half cup of panko to the sauce just before you begin to construct the lasagna. This will help absorb some of that moisture as well.
(a word of caution: your milage may vary...use these techniques sparingly to reach your desired outcome. If you over do it, you will end up with a 'too dry' dish)
Vegetables can also give off a lot of liquid, so it might be worth adding a section for that to your answer, too :)
good point, but I would include the liquid that veggies give off as 'water' if the veggies are included in the sauce then the same instructions apply. If you are using the veggies to 'replace' the noodles then the panko may be the best alternative, though I consider that to be a last resort.
When I bake a lasagna, I begin with the pan covered with foil. 350 - 375F for 45 minutes. Then remove the foil. Bake another 15 -25 minutes so that the surface browns and edges crisp. Remove from the oven. Rest for 30 - 45 minutes (this is critical for your specific question). Portion and serve.
If you still find the end product runny, reduce the amount of condiment in the lasagna.
Doesn't covering with foil trap steam, keeping moisture in the lasagna? That seems to be the opposite of what the OP is looking for.
@senschen sure. I don't think anyone wants a dried out lasagna. I want my lasagna to heat through and cook before the outermost layer browns/crisps too much. Thus the two step process. It does take some practice, but in time one learns how much condiment to layer into a lasagna so that it is not too watery...then this problem becomes less of an issue.
Sounds like we have different starting points then-- I simply start out with the right amount of sauce that I don't need foil to prevent dryness. A few minutes under the broiler at the end of cooking browns and bubbles the top nicely-- I've never had an issue with the top getting too brown.
If the sauce is to wet. I add some dry fine ground cheese to absorb the extra water in the sauce. Cheaper sauces seem to be more water. Also dry spice added will absorb some.
How sharp should the ground cheese be?
'dry spice' may absorb some moisture, but at the expense of flavor. IMHO a bad trade-off.
That is up to you. I use the ends of cheese that part dry out in the fridge. Then dry them & grind them. Save to use. There is some different in cheese. Our cheese is drier than in America. Usually farm made. From waterbufflo milk. So a little extra moisture in the sauce is needed here to melt the cheese right. Sharp or type of cheese is up to you make as you like,
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.423537
| 2017-05-22T19:20:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81897",
"authors": [
"Bar Akiva",
"Brian Colavito",
"Catija",
"Cos Callis",
"J Bergen",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"senschen"
],
"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
}
|
87602
|
What are Omaha Steaks "Potatoes Au Gratin" actually?
Over the holidays my uncle sent my parents steaks from a website called Omaha Steaks. Included with the steaks were, among other things, some potato appetizers, that the packaging called "Potatoes Au Gratin". Now I've had Potatoes Au Gratin before and these things are quite dissimilar. A cursory web search also reveals that these are not Potatoes Au Gratin.
I'd like to make these myself but without knowing what they are it is pretty hard to look up a recipe. What are they called?
Here is a picture from their website:
and here is the order page. The description reads:
These make a unique appetizer or an elegant side dish! Creamy shredded potatoes in a light breading prebrowned to a delicate golden brown. Available in individual servings. Just bake, serve and enjoy!
Welcome! Recipe requests are off topic. However, if you search for recipes for Au Gratin Potato Balls you should find what you're looking for.
@Cindy Thank you. I wasn't looking for the recipe, only the name. It seems that you are correct in that measure. If you would like to write that as an answer I would be happy to accept it.
@Cindy While Omaha Steaks isn't exactly a 'restaurant' it is (especially where something like this is concerned) prepared food which I would think should be covered under the restaurant mimicry rule.
These are very similar to potato croquettes, for which there are tons of recipes. Those are usually made with mashed potatoes instead of shredded, but otherwise pretty much the same deal. You can find recipes with varying amounts of creamy things and cheese; I'm guessing the Omaha Steaks ones are on the higher end of that.
If you want to try to match the shredded texture better, you can probably start with a potato croquette recipe and just bake and grate/shred the potatoes instead of mashing them.
As Cindy noted, you can also find recipes by searching for "au gratin potato balls", plenty of which are mimicking the Omaha Steaks ones. I might be inclined to use a croquette recipe, because it's a more common name so it's easier to find obviously trustworthy recipes, but you'll probably be fine either way.
While they look very similar to potato croquettes, I would say that they are actually something called 'pommes noisettes' (<-- French wikipedia) which translates to hazelnut apples/potatoes.
Pommes noisettes images
These are a variant of the many potato balls, such as Pommes dauphine, Duchess potatoes, and Pommes soufflées.
To search recipes, I'd suggest dropping the au gratin from other comments and just google 'potato balls recipe'. For interesting variants, add 'loaded' to the search.
From the photos. Potato balls made with riced potatoes. But have not seen a potato ricer for many years. Do not know if still made. Look on line for one. What the breading is no idea. You make them from left over baked potatoes. Remove skin then rice them in the ricer. Spice form ball. bread & fry them.
Thanks for the answer. I actually happen to own a potato ricer so I know that they are still made. I also don't think the potatoes are actually breaded, it's not apparent from the picture but the outer layer seems to just be a crispier layer of the filling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.424066
| 2018-02-07T18:39:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87602",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Cos Callis",
"Sriotchilism O'Zaic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64991"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87767
|
Final failure mode of Cosori electric pressure cooker when lid is left unlocked?
One reason I prefer an electronic pressure cooker to a regular stove for safety is that it won't start without setting the count-down timer to turn it back off. (I am forgetful, and have 3 times fallen asleep with something on the stove.)
Well, unfortunately, my new Cosori electronic pressure cooker's count-down timer does not start until pressure is reached, but pressure will never be reached if you forget to twist the pressure lid to lock in the pressure. The damn thing doesn't warn you by beeping or refusing to start or anything if you forget to twist the lid to lock.
Have any Cosori users here ever forgotten to seal the lid and observed in practice what the final failure mode is after all the water boils off?
If the manufacturer's customer support can't answer a legit safety question like that, they are not the kind of maker I would want to buy potentially dangerous equipment from again. I would, though, bet that the final safety mechanism is found in the manual, in a statement of "do not run it unattended". Do not rely on anecdotal evidence of exact behaviours of complex electronics - a device like that is likely software controlled internally, and software gets changed by makers without any change in appearance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.424355
| 2018-02-15T17:44:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87767",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55111
|
Making Pumpkin Preserve
I have ate the most wonderful pumpkin preserves (in chunks about 1-2 inches). I have bought very small jars from Armenia and Russian stores in the US and the preserves were very expensive, but delicious. Here is my problem. I do not need a recipe as I have made good preserves of many fruits, whole and chunks, for over 35 years. My problem with the pumpkin is should I take off the skin by peeling it and then cutting it, or, should I first cut it, clean the insides, quick boil it for a few minutes, then peel it and then continue on to preserve it? It's a long process either way, but our hearts want it, so Mama gonna make it. HELP
Russian pumpkin preserves are generally made from roasted pumpkin. You'll lose a bit of flavor by boiling.
Actually boiling does not really lose the flavor is done in the correct amount of water because after skimming of the "dirt" of the pumpkin, you use that water to make the syrup for the pumpkin. Unfortunately, baking does something to the texture. I still have to boil it in the syrup to get it nice and firm, not mushy.
you aren't losing flavor from the boiling your losing the flavors that you get from roasting. Dry heat will impart different flavors to the food.
This site recommends washing, slicing in half, removing seeds, slicing into 1 inch slices, peeling the skin, then chunking, and giving each chunk a brief boil for 2 minutes. Then going on to pressure can the product. It cannot be safely preserved with out pressure.
http://nchfp.uga.edu/tips/fall/pumpkins.html
And I hope you save the seeds and roast them! One of my favorite fall treats.
I read the link you have in your answer but disagree with what they say. I have read other articles on "candied" pumpkin which is almost what I am doing and boiling is what I am doing along with many other people who have done this for ages and ages. Thank you for thinking of our safety.
@ user33210, if you're planning on making small batches and eating the preserves right away (within a week or two), then you don't need to worry about pressure canning. But (at least) in the US, pumpkin (of any kind) requires pressure canning to ensure it's safely preserved.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.424486
| 2015-02-25T11:03:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55111",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Darren Watson",
"Elizabeth Eubanks",
"Emma Schneekloth",
"Gill Armstrong",
"Gregory Meyer",
"Haley Flom",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49792
|
Thai curry cooking
In Thai cooking, for curries I notice two different methods. One is where the coconut cream is put to boil and then the curry paste is added and rest of the ingredients are added. The other way is oil is heated up and then the paste is added and cooked and then the rest of the ingredients follow. Is there a right way,does the dish come out different.
The second method is FAR more preferable. When you add the curry paste to hot oil on the pan, it releases a lot more of the flavour & aromas, and also cooks out the raw-ness of many of the harsher ingredients such as onions, garlic and galangal (or ginger if you used that instead).
When you add these ingredients to boiling coconut cream, you are not releasing all the flavourss to the fullest extent because the heat that the ingredients are exposed to is significantly lower. I can imagine this being a lot more viable for pre-made curry paste (say in a can) versus curry paste from scratch. Curry made this way will be less flavoursome and aromatic.
It may also taste very strongly of onion and the coconut will be over powering. The coconut is meant to supplement the paste, which is the heart of the curry. By doing it this way, the paste is now supplementing the coconut.
"boiling coconut cream" might indicate you either using an adulterated coconut cream with an emulsifier, or undercooking it - see the post on "cracking the cream" below.
There is more to it actually than just boiling the coconut milk; there is the traditional Thai technique referred to as "cracking the cream". By taking the thicker part of the coconut milk that rises to the top of the can (known in Thailand and some other places in the world as "the cream") and heating it, you can cause the fat in the cream to separate out. You can then saute the spices of the curry in that fat. I get more into it here: Why does my coconut sauce lack a strong coconut taste?
I find that technique to be preferable to any other way to make Thai curry.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.424736
| 2014-11-15T12:12:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49792",
"authors": [
"Damalia Upshaw",
"Douglas Maras",
"Marty Redenius",
"Rebekah McGovern",
"Stacie Daisy Wixom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"pat moody",
"phillip columbus",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128408
|
Spots and gray residue on stainless steel pot after boiling water
This is new stainless steel pot, before I start using it I boiled water and get those spots in the bottom of pots. I removed them by napkin and it was dark. I boiled water again and second results wasn't like fist but Spots come out again. I'm sanding both first and second results. Is it safe to use those spots?
I can't uploaded photos and I'm sanding drive folded.
Link:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13oqIRKqvZtScnYoxUnJ9s9adLWXBakuu
Did you wash the pot before you used it for the first time? The residue looks like what's leftover when you polish a metal. Perhaps it's polishing residue from the factory.
I'm not sure if I wash it. Thanks.
To me, the spots in the pan look like harmless water spots but the dark gray residue on the paper towels looks like more of an issue.
Water contains numerous minerals and particulates. When you heat the water, these contaminants can leave spots on the surface of the heating vessel. This can commonly be seen inside kettles used to heat water, where there is often a residue of calcium carbonate build-up. It's nothing to worry about. It can make your water taste bad but other than that, it's only really a cosmetic issue.
The gray residue is a different matter. If you're sure your pot is stainless steel, as opposed to aluminium (in which case it could be aluminium oxide), then I'd suspect that it's a residue left over from the final polishing step of the manufacturing process. My advice would be to wash the pot on warm soapy water and then try wiping it again with some paper towel. If you get the same residue, repeat the washing process.
If repeated washes don't make a difference, then that would seam to indicate that it's some kind of oxidation or mineral deposit that's forming. Something like Bar Keeper's Friend should help in that situation but I've also read that certain cleaning products and sponges can actually cause oxidation. So you could also try using a different type of sponge or cloth to wash the pot. If the residue disappears at first but comes back at a later date, that would also indicate that it's oxidation.
Having just done a quick search, I've also found this thread that looks like it's relevant to your issue - Stainless Steel Pan -- gray bottom. Why?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.424992
| 2024-05-26T17:01:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128408",
"authors": [
"Erekle Mamaladze",
"Hollis Hurlbut",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63671"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128237
|
What's wrong with cooking shakshuka eggs separately?
If I fry/poach eggs for shakshuka (essentially fried tomato paste with spices) separately, not in tomato sauce dips, will it make any difference to the final result?
In more detail: there is already a question about how to make shashuka and get the eggs cooked without burning the tomato base. I am used to making my shashuka cooking stress-free by cooking the eggs separately. Is there any disadvantage to my method (does it affect the flavour, or perhaps something else I am missing)?
(The image is for the illustration of what this dish looks like. In all three pictures, eggs were cooked in the dips.)
I'm curious, how do you cook the eggs? hard boil, fry, poach, something else?
There is nothing wrong with this approach. In fact, it is a sensible way to ensure the eggs are cooked to your liking...just add them at the end. The only disadvantage is that you have another cooking vessel to clean.
Another difference would be that there is less mixing between the eggs and the tomato sauce. Whether that is a disadvantage or relevant is up to personal preference.
Aside from cleanup, the difference is that you don't get the same end result. Shakshuka, like other eggs-poached-in-sauce dishes (e.g. eggs Florentine, oeufs en meurette), results in egg whites that have mingled with the sauce some and spread out while cooking. This integrates the egg better with the sauce: the sauce is eggier and the eggs are more seasoned.
That's a difference, and not a "disadvantage" though; it sounds like you like your eggs to be more separate. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just different.
I would quibble (with respect)...Since eggs are only added at the last minute, I wonder how much flavor difference you would actually perceive. You are going to eat egg and sauce together either way. It would make an interest triangle test.
The eggs are cooked in the sauce for 4-7 minutes, so that's plenty of time for them to integrate. While I've never done a comparison, I've eaten and made shakshuka many times and the result tastes different from "cooked eggs on top of something" to me. A blind taste test would certainly be interesting though.
IMO the main difference is textural. The acid and the relatively long cooking give the white more firmness and chewiness, even as it spreads out. Fluffy rather than custardy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.425207
| 2024-04-28T12:02:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128237",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Luciano",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"moscafj",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115722
|
Making how much batter will result in over-mixing?
This page, tip #9 "Don’t Double the Recipe" suggests that making too much batter results in over-mixing, and, consequently, in a dense (as opposed to fluffy) cake.
Is it correct? Could you give some guidelines on how much batter is too much? E.g. for crepes mixture? Or for flour:sugar:sunflower oil:milk 1:1:1:1 batter, 1 egg per 50g of flour, batter?
The amount is only restricted by the capacity of the tools you have at hand. The point is, don't mix too much. If you have a bowl, filled to the brim, you will have to mix a lot more to get all of the ingredients incorporated. If that same bowl is half full, a few quick strokes is all it takes to mix. Over-mixing risks building the gluten structure too much, which results in a "tougher", less light, final product. Bakeries, restaurants, and catering services probably do more at once than most people do at home...it is just that they have larger capacity tools.
I was referring to #9 in the link I have provided: "9. Don’t Double the Recipe"
Bakeries, restaurants, and catering services also use powdered milk, powdered eggs etc. to make baking more efficient. When we bake at home, we can afford to spend a bit more time and effort, hoping for a better result. At least, this is my idea :)
@YuliaV I think what moscafj is getting at is that "Don't double the recipe" would be more accurately phrased as "Don't increase the size of the recipe beyond what you have the ability to mix quickly". That doesn't roll off the tongue as well though
The question in your title has no answer, even though the information you found is, by itself, correct.
The article is correct in that, when attempting to make too large batches of cake batter, you may paint yourself into a corner where you have no other options but to overmix. But in reality, there is no strict "if you do X, you will certainly overmix, if you do Y, you will certainly not overmix" border - and the site is not claiming that there is either, they just suggest to make each cake layer separately, to reduce the potential for introducing mixing problems.
The best guideline I can give you is sadly vague: if you find that you have to add flour in more than three batches, with an acceptable amount of mixing per batch, then you are making too much batter at once. This makes it dependent on many factors:
The exact cake recipe
How "willingly" the batter takes in the flour you are stirring in
What size tools you have. With an industrial-sized mixer, you could probably sieve a kilogram of flour over an egg mixture and have it stirred in with 3-4 slow turns of the paddle.
Your experience as a baker. The better you are at incorporating flour, the more batter you can make at once without problems. Also, it is what allows you to recognize what amount of mixing per batch is "acceptable" while you observe how the batter acts to the flour addition.
A much more practicable idea is to do exactly what the site suggests that you do: follow the recipe you have without doubling it. A good recipe has been tested to work, without overmixing or other problems. If it is a recipe for a single layer, mix your cake one layer at a time.
The whole article is about cakes. It doesn't apply to crepe batters.
For a cake made with flour:sugar:sunflower oil:milk 1:1:1:1, I wouldn't worry about optimal mixing. Such a cake won't give you an especially fine texture anyway, and you won't notice the effects of minimal mixing in it. And you likely want it to develop a bit of gluten too, because it has no eggs to hold it together. Just dump everything into the bowl, mix until smooth, and bake away (muffin method). You might want to stir the leavener into the flour first, to avoid it from clumping.
for flour:sugar:sunflower oil:milk 1:1:1:1, there are actually eggs, 1 egg per 50g of flour etc., I beat whites to soft peaks and this gives fairly fluffy texture without soda or equivalents. It does mix very quickly and easily (no lumps) until I add egg whites (takes like 3-5 min to make sure there are no isolated blobs of egg white foam in the batter)
"don't double" is not a very good guideline, I scale to fit the form I have got anyway. In my case, for 2 layers it would be x1.5- ing :)
@YuliaV from the tone in your various comments I am wondering - is your post really a question asking for input by the community here, or rather a veiled attempt at saying “I disagree with the advice on that website”? Especially as you just now clarified (e.g. tip #9, there are eggs in your recipe etc.) and then corrected the answerers.
@YuliaV If the goal is to have a guideline which is easy to follow and prevents overmixing, "don't double" is a great guideline. If you also add the goal of "if I don't follow the guideline, I will certainly overmix" then it is impossible to create any guideline at all. I would always prefer a partially-meets-goals-but-works guideline over a non-existent optimal guideline :)
@Stephie neither :) receipts are made by people, sometimes by amateurs, sometimes as a function of baking tins they have, rather than technical constraints like would-be dryness from overmixing.
@rumtscho : this one not doubles, it triples, compared to the recipe I am using! Yet, based on the comments, it works out well. So, as above, "don't double" does not seem to be universal https://www.iamcook.ru/showrecipe/12683
@YuliaV You and I have different criteria on what constitutes a good guideline. This is absolutely fine, the world is full of people who disagree and still work well together :) I am pretty sure I understood what expectations you have of a guideline, given your original question and your examples; if I could give you a guideline that meets your criteria, I would love to. I am afraid that not only don't I have such a guideline, I am also convinced that nobody, not even the best baker in the world, can create such a guideline, because it cannot exist.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.425441
| 2021-05-19T10:28:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115722",
"authors": [
"BThompson",
"Stephie",
"Yulia V",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87238",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116466
|
For what dishes I should wash starch off red lentils?
I usually wash grains and beans before using them. I wonder how/for what dishes I should wash red lentils?
When I washed them, the water looks "soapy" (lots of foam) until I change it cr. 8 times.
According to this blog, this is a correct procedure, I should wash the lentils until the water runs clean (i.e. no foam).
But obviously, it takes time, and starch (?) is sometimes beneficial for the dishes.
So my question is: for what dishes I should wash red lentils until the water becomes clean, and for what I should wash just once or twice, to wash off the dust?
Dished I have used red lentils so far are red lentil burgers (cooking them in boiling water, mashing, forming patties, and then pan-cooking them), and Dal Adas (soup).
I would like to use the occasion to remind potential answerers that the site doesn't work for big-list questions. So answers which just name a dish (or a few dishes) will be removed. A good answer would not list random dishes, but describe how to recognize which dishes need the full washing and which don't.
The main reason why you rinse lentils and beans is to remove debris or shriveled lentils. Also for hygiene reasons, depending on where and what lentils you bought, they might include little stones, sand, or dust.
In general, if you don't rinse your lentils/beans they will foam more while cooking. The foam is caused by starch and denatured protein from the beans.
Rising your beans or lentils does reduce the foaming.
As a result for dishes where you’re not planning on draining the lentils (for example, you want to add extra veggies to make a tasty lentil soup), you probably don’t want to have foam floating on top and I would recommend to rise and/or soak your beans and lentils.
For dishes where you're just cooking lentils on their own, you’ll probably end up draining the liquid away once they’re cooked, so the majority of the foam will be drained away anyway and you don't necessarily need to rinse your beans/lentils.
Some people say that rinsing or soaking the beans/lentils also helps against flatulence, etc. but there is no real evidence for that as it seems. I only have been able to found a roughly related study from Harvard here.
I hope this helps! I found a lot of forum/chats and blog articles that argue the pros and cons of rinsing but the reason above seems to be receptively the main reason and is also my own experience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.426006
| 2021-07-20T07:16:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116466",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23012
|
Does the Philips Air-fryer work as well as a standard deep-fryer?
I've seen commercial ads about the Philips Air-fryer:
I'd like to hear answers from someone who actually tried it..
Does the outcome taste the same as if it was fried in a normal deep fryer?
Does the outcome have the same crispness? (or better or worse?)
Is it worth its price? (around $248)
Health questions are off-topic as per the [faq], so I removed this bullet point from your question. As for "worth", it is quite subjective and wouldn't have stayed on its own, but I think we can leave it in along with the other points, and anybody who answers them can add their opinion on that one.
Looks like nothing but a miniature convection oven with a gimmicky name to me, so I'd have to say "no" on all counts. But, I haven't used it personally.
@Aaronut I'd say the same thing, but without trying, it's not fair to pre-judge
I've tasted the fries from a convection oven, not this gadget, and it needs pre-fried food and it doesn't taste exactly the same, nor is crispness exactly the same. If you're going to fry a lot, maybe it's worth it, but that's very subjective. I wouldn't spend my money on it.
For this kind of query, I like to check reviews at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00D7N43UA It got 4.5 stars of 419 reviews (as of today). That's allot of reviews, it should help you decide.
I personally haven't used it. Lifehacker did a review on this when it came out though. Basically, it's more like a convection oven, as people have mentioned. They bascially said if you don't own a convection oven and eat a lot of fries it's worth it, but it really is baking them, not frying.
For home-made fries, the results are better than with a convection oven.
I am not really a connoisseur of French fries, but here is what I felt:
They taste very similar to deep-fried French fries
They were crisp on the outside and soft on the inside
You save quite a bit on oil (about one tablespoon for 1lb of potatoes), so it may be worth it if you eat a lot of French fries.
Some other thoughts:
We are able to use better quality oil (cold pressed virgin sesame oil, for example).
We also it to air-fry vegetables (Zucchini with olive oil and paprika), which was pretty good. But I can't say I have eaten deep-fried Zucchini.
We made Paneer Shashlik out of the Indian recipe book. This was really no better than what we could have skewered in the oven.
I have tried an air fryer. It is very convenient, but if it is the ultimate taste you want (whether it's fried food or roasted food, health/oil issues aside) then no, it can't beat deep fat frying or oven roasting.
Having said that, it is a good speedy compromise when in a hurry.
In a word: no. Fries used in this machine taste a lot like oven fries. If you like oven fries, I guess that's perfect. If you don't, it's probably less than perfect.
The air fryer dries meat out and in my opinion, not that tasty. The air fryer might be suitable for certain things like fries.
I'm not clear from your answer, have you used it? What makes you think it might be suitable for fries?
I have the automatic version. It tastes same like deep fries (even better). Initial experiments are required with oil level to judge what/how you need. Don't go by the books. Taste is like as if deep fries have been done on tissue paper to remove oil. Browning is very uniform and excellent, as you can pause and monitor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.426240
| 2012-04-14T12:58:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23012",
"authors": [
"AIDA Jaafar",
"Aaronut",
"Amritanshu Prasad",
"BaffledCook",
"Carey Tomkins",
"DJMcMayhem",
"Danielsmith",
"John C",
"Joy ",
"Madonna Cole",
"Paulb",
"Sev",
"Steph",
"Suraj Rao",
"TuanNV",
"Yourmomj",
"evilReiko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89630",
"jasmine",
"rumtscho",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14783
|
cooking fresh pasta
Possible Duplicate:
Why does my homemade pasta stick to itself whilst cooking?
I have just made fresh pasta for the first time and although nice it was sticking together. Do you need to leave it after rolling for a period of time or can you use it straight away?
Related (and probably a duplicate): Why does my homemade pasta stick to itself whilst cooking?
You should dry the pasta for ten minutes or so before cooking. You can get purpose-built driers that are essentially a series of arms on a pole, or you can improvise with a couple of wooden spoons, draping the pasta over the handles.
Getting the cooking water to a rolling boil helps to keep the pasta moving and prevent sticking also.
I think it is customary to dust the noodles with flour to avoid them clumping together before they are cooked, but as long as there is enough water in the pot I believe they can be used straight away.
I always cooked them straight away without any problem, but maybe I was lucky. Be sure, though, to dust them with flour, so they won't stick while you put them in the boiling water. I generally use rice flour for dusting my freshly made pasta. I don't know whether it's true or not, but in my opinion it does a better job in preventing stickiness, even if you plan to consume them at a later time.
As a final note if you can't hang your pasta you can still dry it a bit by lying your fettuccine in a wooden board for a while, and keeping the board in a dry place.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.426556
| 2011-05-14T16:45:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14783",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"El'endia Starman",
"Jennifer",
"betty bayne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"kirk cantrelle",
"user31146"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56394
|
Why do my pre-cooked hams always take way longer than they should?
My ham is 8.5lbs half-ham and was refridgerated, but not frozen. Here are the instructions that were with it.
Here's what I did:
Preheated the oven to 275.
Removed all packaging and put the ham face down on the pan.
Wrapped the pan in foil. This covered the ham too.
It's been baking for 3 hours (so well past the recommended 2.25 hours) and is only at 71F degrees. I've been shooting for about 140F since that's what I've seen online sites recommend. I have this problem with every ham I try to make. They all end up taking like 6-7 hours. What am I doing wrong?
I've tested with two different meat thermometers so I doubt they're in error. Also, when I leave the meat thermometer in there but not in the ham (I don't have an oven thermometer) it reads as 250F so even if the oven isn't quite at the temp it thinks it is, it doesn't seem significantly off.
Is that 71 degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit?
What kind of pan (pyrex/metal/other)? "Wrapped the pan in foil." means only the top, right? I would not put foil anywhere underneath the ham. Also have you checked the oven temp with an oven thermometer?
I do have foil underneath the ham. Maybe that's the problem. Not sure what the pan material is.
How hot are you trying to cook the ham?
Since you evidently do actually use your oven, add an oven thermometer to your grocery list. The people that use the oven to store shoes or sweaters don't need one, but if you cook with it, you should own one.
Apparently the results you're getting are more or less by design. The How to Bake a Ham page on Smithfield's website gives similar instructions to the one you're following:
Preparation
Genuine Smithfield and Country Hams (Cooked)
If you have selected a fully cooked ham, further preparation is unnecessary. Simply slice
and serve. If you prefer, reheat in aluminum foil on low heat (275 degrees) until
slightly warm.
So if you want it significantly hotter than slightly warm you're going to have to do something different than what they suggest. You could try raising the temperature, the USDA recommends a temperature of not less than 325F in order obtain an internal temperature of 140F.
...Or slice it and microwave one layer of slices.
If your ham went directly from the refrigerator to oven then the ham's core temp would have been around 35-38 degrees. This would add significant cooking time and probably account for the 6-7 hour cook time at 275. I just cooked a fully cooked, bone in country ham that was 7.34 lbs. Before cooking I filled a large bowl with 110 degree water and submerged the ham (plastic removed) for 30 minutes. I repeated the process for another 30 minutes. The ham rested in the pan for 30 min while the oven preheated. The temp of the ham's core was 71 degrees when I put it into a 275 degree oven. I cooked it for a total of 2.5 hours with the last 10-15 min at 400 to crisp up the skin. I took the thermometer out before a 30 min rest and the ham was 130 at that point. With carry over the ham probably reached 135-140. It was moist and delicious.
That are degrees F?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.426733
| 2015-04-05T15:27:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56394",
"authors": [
"Dianna Culp",
"Ecnerwal",
"Janet Morrow",
"Jeff Jeruss",
"John Clarke",
"Joni Sacher",
"Kay Lambert",
"Ross Ridge",
"Sterno",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9526",
"t s",
"user3169"
],
"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
}
|
15041
|
Theoretical: why there's no gradient of doneness in bread?
I was always wondering, why there's no gradient of doneness visible on the cuts of bigger breads. For example:
This one was made in the baking form, it has a thin visible crust, but after that the texture is absolutely uniform. How is that happens that temperature is distributed so evenly in the bread mass? Dough is not circulating like liquids do, so I'm puzzled. Could anybody shed the light on that?
Essentially, the exterior crust and the interior evenness are both side effects of the distribution of water.
The Maillard Reaction - the chemical reaction responsible for the brown crust - happens at about 150° C. Generally you're baking at a much higher temperature than this - say 200° C.
The first question one might ask is, why is the crust only on the outside? And the answer is because only the outside gets dry enough; as the small amount of water on the surface evaporates, the temperature is allowed to rise to ambient oven temperature.
The reason it doesn't happen on the inside is precisely the opposite; water boils at 100° C, so as long as there's still water in liquid form (and bread is, to a large extent, water), the temperature can't get any higher than that. The interior of the bread is always regulated at approximately 100° C, and since the baking temperature is uniform, so is the finished product. It's almost like poaching an egg or a piece of meat; no part of it is able to get any hotter than the liquid around it, so the longer you cook it, the more uniform the temperature gets.
If you continued to bake the bread until all of the interior water evaporated into steam, then it would eventually start to undergo the same process as the steam slowly escaped. But we usually don't bake bread that long, so it doesn't happen. As commenter Ray points out, there are some types of darker bread such as pumpernickel which involve intentional "overbaking", but obviously not to the point of burning it.
Note: There may also be a certain element of the process that is due to steam being trapped inside; the water vapor, like any gas, expands and distributes itself fairly uniformly throughout its container. However, the bread is porous, so this steam eventually has to escape; if it didn't, you'd end up with a very damp interior after cooldown from all the condensation. If you measure, you'll also notice that the weight of a fully-baked bread is about 10% less than the original dough weight. So the steam doesn't stick around indefinitely, but the continuous evaporation coupled with the temperature self-regulation (due to the boiling point) keeps the temperature relatively constant.
Continuing to bake the bread is how pumpernickel is traditionally made, and what gives it its characteristic dark color.
Excellent answer. There is a long discussion of precisely this topic in volume 1 of Modernist Cuisine (http://amzn.to/m1b6lX), by the way. You've summarized it very nicely - in essence there are 3 zones - the evaporation zone (crust), the boiling zone (a thin layer right under the crust) and the conduction zone (the whole remaining interior, at roughly the same temp once it reaches equilibrium).
@Ray, I doubt pumpernickel gets up to 150C in the crumb, as it would get far too dry, so therefore the browning of the crumb that occurs wouldn't be caused by the Maillard reaction. Can anyone confirm?
The Maillard reaction can occur at lower temperatures: it just takes longer. So, while the center of a pumpernickel loaf will stay around 100C, over the course of a 12 to 24 hour steam bake, it will gradually brown. 150C is where the Maillard reaction starts to be noticeable (i.e., if you stare at it for a couple minutes, you will actually see it turn brown). Caramelization, on the other hand, only really occurs at temperatures above boiling, so while both Maillard and caramelization can play a role in crust color and flavor, the center of pumpernickel is due to Maillard.
@Athanasius: [citation needed]. AFAIK, 154° C is in fact the minimum and the only way to achieve it at a lower temperature is to raise the pH (which is well-known for foods like pretzels). Bread gets more than dry enough during baking to reach that minimum - what you're calling a "steam bake" is almost certainly well above 100° C - it is, after all, steam, not water.
@Aaronut: [citation needed]. I have no idea where you got that number. It even occurs at room temperature, one of the reasons soil is brown. Do a Google search for "Maillard reaction room temperature" or something -- you'll come up with hundreds of scientific papers talking about it. It can also happen in long-term storage of foods at room temperature. Also, steam temperatures above 100C require pressurization. I'm willing to admit the pressure inside bread is slightly above normal, it's nowhere near enough for the temp to rise to 154C, roughly 5.5 atmospheres! Your bread would explode!
@Athanasius: Water temperatures above 100° C require pressurization. Steam is always above 100° C and can be any temperature above that, right up to plasma temperatures at around 150,000° C. You've got it backwards; high pressure causes condensation, low pressure causes evaporation.
@Aaronut - by the way, I've actually baked pumpernickel bread for ~18 hours in an oven. You use a covered pan to keep the moisture in (hence, "steam bake"). Since the oven temperature started out at 250F for the beginning and was turned down to 225F after the first hour or so, there's no way it ever reached 154C (309F). Yet, the center was still browned quite a bit.
@Aaronut: let me try this a different way: can we agree that boiling water can't get above 100C at normal pressure? As long as bread has more than a bit of water (and good pumpernickel bread is certainly not dried out like a cracker), water will be boiling out inside of it. That boiling water will be coming out of the dough at 100C, effectively keeping the interior temp at that point. For water exiting the dough to be at 154C, you'd need pressure of about 5.5 atmospheres. Thus, 154C could only occur in completely dried out conditions, by which point the bread would be crispy, not pumpernickel.
@Aaronut - To help you see what I mean, I've found some good photos of pumpernickel that was baked 24 hours at 250F. You can see the significant difference in color between the dough before baking vs. the center of the bread after baking. The dough clearly did not reach 154C (309F).
I'm still not sure why you are still arguing that Maillard can only occur at 154C and above. @Aaronut is trying to say that in order for your assumption to be correct (154C minimum) then you would need 5.5 atmospheres but since this is clearly untrue (the photos that athanasius linked) we have to assume that the maillard is occurring at a lower temp due to other factors such as alkalinity, length of time exposed to heat, etc.
The Maillard reaction, like many reactions, is actually stochastic and time/temperature dependent. It does occur at lower temperatures, but much more slowly. There is not a precise cutoff.
I may be wrong here as I can't find any definitive answer, but this is probably due to our old friend the Maillard Reaction. This is what causes food to brown - it is often mistakenly called caramelization, which is an entirely different process.
The Maillard Reaction requires surface water to completely vaporize. When you put bread into a hot oven, the water evaporates from the surface rapidly and the Maillard Reaction occurs. This forms a partial 'seal' that prevents too much moisture loss from the rest of the loaf, though this seal isn't perfect - bread still goes stale after a day or two.
Incidentally, it's often thought that having steam in the oven helps form a crust. This is not the case. Steam in the oven in fact prevents a crust from forming, which lets the bread rise more, before the steam evaporates and the crust forms.
Steam doesn't evaporate. Steam, by definition, is water that has already evaporated. However, it does make sense that steam would prevent a crust from forming, which is the opposite of what I've read right up until this moment!
True - the steam doesn't evaporate, it merely escapes from the oven.
When the bread is baking the water in the bread turns to steam that, along with the CO2 from the yeast, inflates the gluten network.
The crust is able to brown because it is exposed to much high heat from the oven air than the interior. If you were to take the bread out early before the proteins had set you would also be able to see a gradient- the dough would become progressively more doughy toward the center.
Bread recipes cite 190F-200F as internal temperatures for baked bread. After 212F the bread starts to burn.
My suspicion, therefore, is that the steam regulates the interior temperature until all the protein has set- at that point you take the bread out of the oven. If it continued to bake and the steam all escaped you would start to see a more pronounced gradient but it wouldn't be edible anymore.
In my non-scientific experience, the outer portion of the bread is exposed to more heat than the interior but the difference between the two isn't enough to dry it out or burn it as long as there is steam left.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.427295
| 2011-05-25T19:47:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15041",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Athanasius",
"Brendan",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Highly Irregular",
"Michael Natkin",
"Ray",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6767"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15113
|
How to make garlic oil in a safe way...tomorrow
I am planning on making some garlic oil for a friend of mine as a birthday present. Her birthday is tomorrow, so this question is a bit urgent.
I've read a few of the posts that indicate that botulism is a real risk when doing this.
Is there a way to make garlic oil without the risks?
A couple thoughts:
make the oil, then remove the garlic
use vinegar to prep the garlic (but how, and with what kind of vinegar? How does this affect the taste?)
heat up the garlic and oil to above 250 degrees, then place in a sanitized vessel.
Any solutions? Having garlic oil on hand is quite useful.
I make garlic-infused oil on the spot - a cup or two of olive oil, a few cloves of smashed garlic and a sprig of rosemary. Simmer the garlic and rosemary (not deep-fry, don't let the oil get that hot), and use immediately. This is a fairly common technique. I'm not certain a garlic-infused oil will be a good gift, bearing that in mind.
According to research conducted at the University of Idaho and published in 2014 in the journal Food Protection Trends, there are now consumer guidelines to process garlic (and certain herbs) safely through acidification before adding to oil.
I would read the first link thoroughly to understand the necessary process. To ensure safety, follow the steps precisely. (The second link provides the original scientific paper with detailed data and testing protocols.)
To summarize the procedure:
Peel and chop garlic so that pieces are no more than 1/4" long in any dimension. (Whole cloves or larger pieces are NOT acceptable, since the acid needs to penetrate fully.)
Make a 3% solution of citric acid by combining 1 level Tablespoon of granular citric acid with 2 cups of water. (Note that other acids, lemon juice, vinegars, etc. have NOT been verified and tested for safe home use in this step.)
Combine chopped garlic with a 3% solution of citric acid in a ratio of 1 part garlic to 3 parts citric acid by weight. This is about 2/3 cup of chopped garlic, if you use the amount of acid in step (2).
Let garlic soak in the acid for 24 hours. (This is a minimum to ensure safety; a longer soak may be used, but it could degrade the flavor.)
Drain the acidified garlic well. Combine the acidified garlic with oil, and infuse. A ratio of 1 part garlic to 10 parts oil by weight is recommended, but the ratio can be varied from this to achieve appropriate flavor.
While the procedure recommends removing the garlic once appropriate flavor has been achieved (generally in 1 to 10 days), there is no food safety risk if the garlic is kept in the oil for longer.
As for storage, they write: "Refrigeration of these infused oils is recommended for quality, but not required for safety." And later:
While oils infused with flavors from acidified garlic, basil, oregano,
and rosemary can be safely stored at room temperature, oil flavor
quality is maintained for a longer period of time with refrigerator or
freezer storage. It is also best to protect infused oils from light
by storing them in dark-colored bottles. Make sure the bottles are
clean and food grade. All vegetable oils retain quality better at
cold temperatures and when protected from light.
The scientific paper also notes that the taste and quality of the infused oil produced using this home method was not less than infused commercial oil:
Since panelists were not able to distinguish olive oil infused with
garlic that was acidified with citric acid from the same olive oil
infused with commercially acidified garlic (acidified with phosphoric
acid), the acceptability of citric acid for use in consumer
acidification of garlic and herbs for the production of infused oils
was verified.
Note that acidification is the essential step here and is the only method tested for home use so far to ensure safety for longer storage. The paper specifically notes that there are no approved procedures for pressure canning garlic in oil at home, and non-acidified garlic in oil mixtures must be refrigerated (and used within 2 to 4 days) or frozen.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Food preservation is not to be taken lightly, particularly in situations that are known risks for botulism. People who are familiar with home canning recipes already know that one should only use approved recipes and procedures that have been thoroughly tested; this procedure is no exception. Botulism risks are generally low, but the consequences of deviating can be severe.
If you are not willing to go through this detailed procedure (or another one approved by a reputable food safety and preservation organization), be sure to store any garlic-infused oils in the refrigerator and use within 2-4 days or freeze.
Based on this (and common knowledge of cooked garlic) I'm guessing the lack of approved pressure canning is more because the result wouldn't be that great than because it's hard to make it safe.
I recommend you have a look at this:
GARLIC: Safe Methods to Store, Preserve, and Enjoy
To summarize the salient points, there are three safe methods of preserving garlic at home:
Freezing
Drying (dehydrating)
Pickling (storing in wine or vinegar)
Note that "preparing" garlic in acid is not pickling. It has to be stored that way; the botulism spores cannot grow in acid, but they will not necessarily be killed either. Also note that you'll eventually see mold with this method (much sooner at room temperature). Anyway, this doesn't involve any oil, so it is probably not what you want.
Making the oil and then removing the garlic is also clearly not a solution here; the bacteria and spores can very easily migrate from the garlic to the oil in less time than it takes you to actually infuse any flavour.
It is true that cooking garlic to 121° C / 250° F for no less than 3 minutes will kill all of the bacteria and spores, but this will also kill most of the flavour, and even then, it's difficult (actually, it's impossible without a lab) to be certain that you were successful - and that's assuming it doesn't get recontaminated on its way to the jar.
Garlic is a low-acid food and the oil provides an anaerobic environment. Combined with room or even refrigerator temperatures, this is precisely the environment that C.botulinum bacteria and spores grow best in. Even if you manage to kill it all, you then have to take steps to prevent recontamination.
Commercially-bottled garlic in oil is not only pressure-canned to guarantee immediate safety, but also has strong acids (i.e. phosphoric) and usually some other preservatives added in order to prevent any future contamination. And even then, they generally recommend that it be stored in the refrigerator, not at room temperature.
If you are experienced with home pressure canning (and I cannot emphasize the word experienced enough here) then you could probably use a method similar to that of pickling peppers; the risks are about the same (peppers are also low-acid), and you are acidifying the mixture at the same time as the canning. This, obviously, will affect the flavour, but it will be reasonably safe. And again, home-canned vegetables should always be stored in the refrigerator, never at room temperature.
Another option is to dry the garlic first, then store it in the oil. The bacteria need water (not oil) to survive and multiply, so if the moisture level is down to 6% or lower, the risk of contamination is extremely low. As mentioned above, you can use this method at home; the downside is of course that dried garlic won't infuse as well, but at least it won't have a pickled/acid taste.
So in a nutshell, your options for making garlic oil at home are either (a) don't do it, (b) dehydrate the garlic first, or (c) pressure-can it with an acid. Of those, I would pick (a), but if you're dead-set on following through with this, then make sure you follow the instructions very carefully.
Thanks for the very complete answer. I'm still confused though. If I cook the garlic for a few minutes (as is recommended in recipes like this one), then remove the garlic, won't the oil be delicious, and won't all of the undead botulism be removed? I assume storing oil at room temperature with nothing in it is fine, right (everybody does this)?
@mlissner: Why do you think that the bacteria and spores are permanently attached to the garlic? It doesn't work that way - bacteria are mobile. Note the obvious warnings posted in Emeril's recipe: Use within 24 hours, or store in a sterilized container in the refrigerator for up to 1 week. A quick fry will probably kill off most of the bacteria and make it safe for immediate consumption but it is not safe for long-term storage; for that you need to use one of the approaches above.
my theory is that removing the garlic removes the source of the botulism, and that anything that was cooked in the oil ought to be dead. If that's true, then it seems like removing the garlic would do the trick. I'm not trying to be contradictory - I really don't understand why that wouldn't work.
@mlissner: If you shake somebody's hand, then rub your eyes, and then find out that they had a bacterial infection, do you think that washing your hands afterward and keeping away from that person is going to keep you safe? The damage is already done. Bacteria spread extremely quickly on contact, and you really only need a few bacteria or spores to end up in the oil for it to be dangerous. There's a very good reason why none of the recipes or canning guides say that this is OK.
@Aaronut et al. Surely it can't be that lethal? Heck even Martha Steward's doing it. http://www.marthastewart.com/852369/garlic-oil Various health authorities also seem to suggest it's ok to keep garlic oil for as long as I'd keep most things in the fridge.
Health Canada http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/food-aliment/garlic-ail-eng.php
WebMD http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/food-poisoning/tc/botulism-topic-overview
NIH http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2240308
CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/divisions/dfbmd/diseases/botulism/#prevent
@LeeK-B: Perhaps you've missed the majority of the dialogue here. People are expecting that simply frying/cooking the garlic makes it safe to put in oil and store at room temperature indefinitely, hence the notion of giving it as a gift. All of the recipes, including everything you just linked to in your comment, caution the reader to always refrigerate and consume within 1 week. You can put garlic in oil, you just can't preserve it that way, or store it for a long period. What's "lethal" is when you fail to stay within those guidelines and potentially end up with lethal botulism.
@Aaronut Quite correct although I myself give perishable gifts quite often. Wouldn't a better answer then be, go ahead and heat the garlic, give it to your friend, but be absolutely sure to mention that it must be refrigerated (or even put in the freezer) and consumed within a week or two? I'm not trying to refute you here, caution is needed. I'm just wondering if the reality merits such a high level of caution, given the typical advice from supposedly trustworthy sources.
@LeeK-B: I think if you really read the question reasonably carefully, you'll see that has nothing to do with what's being asked. The OP asked if there is a way to make garlic oil without any risks, and gives 3 very specific suggestions that, safety-wise, are identical to just throwing some garlic in some oil, but that the OP clearly thinks add some safety margin. The very first link in the 2nd line of my answer explains short-term storage/consumption options, but that's definitely not what the question is asking about.
@Aaronut For the scenario of (1) cooking some garlic in oil, (2) removing the garlic from the oil, and (3) storing just the oil, I'm not entirely clear on the ongoing risk. I am imagining that the low-acidity, moisture-containing garlic provides an environment that the Botulism causing bacteria can thrive in. Given that we are talking about a scenario of removing the garlic after cooking its flavor out into the oil, wouldn't this remove the dangerous environment? I'm trying to understand how you can have a risky environment if you have only cooked-out-garlic-essence and oil, and no moisture.
Unless you cook with surgically cleaned equipment (pans, utensils, and containers), with masks, gloves, and in a germ free room (Good Luck on that) bacteria and germs are everywhere. The fact that our bodies deal with it every second of every day is what builds up internal antibodies in our bodies to fight the next onslaught. Get Real for your own sake. Learn how to macerate your garlic oil. Very easy and safe. Not to mention incredibly cheaper. PS. DON'T forget to WASH your hands!!!
Unfortunately, the problem with garlic in oil isn't microorganisms directly. It's the toxin produced by clostridium botulinum. Since it'a toxin, your immune system will be SOL.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.428029
| 2011-05-29T01:46:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15113",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Benjo Galang",
"Cascabel",
"Krash Turner",
"Lee K-B",
"Liz Holland",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"SourDoh",
"Steve Bennett",
"ahains",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96450",
"mlissner"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53407
|
Possible dangers of home fermentation of vegetables
I bought this FARMcurious Fermentation kit on Kickstarter. Once I got it and started making it I found their claims of it being "super easy" were a little exaggerated. When looking around online I found that other people recommended weighing your salt instead of measuring by volume and that it absolutely did matter what kind of salt you used (so I rinsed the veggies off and started over).
I started them fermenting in August and was supposed to check them in October. Well, it's now January and I've just been too afraid to try them.
There is no mold growing, they've been in a dark room in my basement. The airlocks are all intact. Nothing "looks gross". I opened up one that had cucumbers, carrots, and celery in it and it just smelled vaguely "pickly" (not bad at all). I tasted one and it was just sort of soft-ish and very salty. It's been 2 hours and I'm not dead or sick or anything.
My question is... What are the dangers here? How would I "know" if it "didn't work" or if it "went bad"? This person tested PH and looked at it under a microscope. What would I look for exactly (I happen to have the exact same microscope)? What would happen if they were bad and how long would it take to happen (if I ate some)?
Most stuff I've seen online claims that if it were dangerous it would smell so bad you couldn't even eat it and that this is the absolute most safest method of preservation.
Got some PH test strips and tested them. They are around a 3. I tried the one with all the celery in it (third from the left) and it tasted... krauty. Kinda good, but milder than kraut normally is. The green beans had a very small amount of white stuff (mold?) floating on top, haven't tried yet. It's PH was the same as the others, so, not sure how it got the white stuff...
Mold can't grow in the brine. It can grow on top, where there's oxygen. This is why the food must stay submerged. And why you simply skim the mold off and discard it, with the rest being fine.
Been eating for 10 days now and am fine.
How much salt did you use?
Fermenting vegetables is a pretty safe procedure, in fact, if done properly, fermented veggies are probably safer than raw. Really, little can go wrong if handled properly. The process is literally thousands of years old. In fact, your biggest concern is contamination after the process is complete. Of course you need to use safe food handling procedures to begin with (clean product, clean hands, clean containers...etc). Then you need to use the proper level of salt for the product you are fermenting--2.25% by volume up to 13 or 14% depending on the vegetable. The idea is to bring the product to a pH level of 4.6 or lower. Basically, using the correct amount of salt, at the correct temperature, for the correct amount of time achieves this. There are lots of online resources. Probably the foremost expert on ferments is Sandor Katz. He has an excellent book and an informative website.
If you can verify that your product was handled correctly (cleanliness, salt, temperature, time), there should be no reason that it is not safe.
Explain what pH is and how it relates to bacterial growth.
http://www.foodsafetysite.com/educators/competencies/general/bacteria/bac3.html
The tartness or sour taste of grapefruit, sauerkraut, yogurt, and
pickles is the result of the intensity of acidity in these products.
The acidity of foods has been used for centuries to preserve foods.
Acidity plays a primary role in the preservation of fermented foods
and combined with other factors such as heat, water activity, and
chemical preservatives acts to prevent food deterioration and
spoilage.
The acidity of a food may occur naturally as in citrus fruits, apples,
tomatoes and strawberries or it may be produced in foods through
microbial fermentation. Selected acid producing bacterial cultures
added directly to foods can produce desirable products like yogurt,
buttermilk and fermented meat products. Acid may also be added
directly to a food; an example is the addition of acetic acid to fish
and vegetables, lactic acid to Spanish-type olives and citric acid to
beverages.
The intensity of acidity of a food is expressed by its pH value. The
pH of a food is one of several important factors that determine the
survival and growth of microorganisms during processing, storage and
distribution. Consequently, food processors are interested in
determining the pH of foods and in maintaining pH at certain levels to
control microbial growth and prevent product deterioration and
spoilage.
The pH scale was developed from mathematical calculations based on the
dissociation temporary breakdown) of water. These complex calculations
allow us to measure pH on a scale that runs from 0 to 14. The values
that are less than 7 are acidic, while those greater than 7 are
alkaline. A pH value of 7 is neither acid or alkaline and is
considered neutral. Pure water has a pH of 7 and is neutral. The pH
scale is based on the hydrogen ions concentration [H+] in the food.
The more hydrogen ions present, the more acid the food and the lower
In food pH is used to control microorganisms by: (1) directly
inhibiting microbial growth, and (2) reducing the heat resistance of
the microbes.
Most fruits are naturally acid and may be given a mild heat process in
which the temperature does not exceed 212°F and does not require
pressure. Vegetables are predominately low-acid foods and require a
severe heat process to destroy all spores of Clostridium botulinum.
For foods that may be acidified like cucumbers, artichokes,
cauliflower, peppers and fish, it is essential that the pH be allowed
to equilibrate (stabilize) thoroughly before the heat treatment. This
involves the addition of sufficient acid, proper mixing, and enough
time for the pH to fall to 4.6 or below, at the center of solid foods.
Every microorganism has a minimum, an optimum and a maximum pH for
growth. Most microorganisms grow best at pH values around 7.0 while
only a few grow below pH 4.0. Yeasts and molds are generally more acid
tolerant than bacteria and can grow at lower pH values. Foods with pH
values below 4.5 are usually not easily spoiled by bacteria but are
more susceptible to spoilage by yeasts and molds. Microorganisms can
grow in wide pH ranges and these ranges are probably the difference
between different bacterial strains, types of food or growth medium
and the type of acid or base used to adjust pH.
This is a good primer on using pH to inhibit microbial growth, but I don't know that it directly answers the question. Would recommend summarizing and talking through how this applies to fermentation specifically.
Edit: See my question here. I plan to update this answer after I get an answer to that question.
I've read that if it's done correctly, it shouldn't taste salty after it has fermented, but rather acidic. However, that doesn't mean it'll kill you. You probably just salt cured them instead, if you used too much salt. My quart of rhubarb pickles didn't taste salty to me after 6 days of fermentation with two tablespoons of pickling salt and a chewable probiotic, stored at 69 to 73° F. or so, in a dark room. It tasted like dill pickles, with the brine at the bottom where the probiotic was tasting more like sauerkraut.
So, I'm thinking that your pickles didn't ferment properly, but it was still preserved, but I don't know how much salt you used, yet. It's also possible that your storage area was too cold. That would slow down fermentation. Ideal temperatures are somewhat less than I used, but what I used can work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.429106
| 2015-01-08T18:55:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53407",
"authors": [
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Garry Pollard",
"Jason Smith",
"MARLIN NAIDOO",
"Nandhini J",
"Neville Kirkland",
"STEVEN ADAMSON",
"cmcculloh",
"gbarry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6325",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32095
|
How do I mimic trader Joe's (dark) Chocolate covered Espresso Beans?
I'm trying to mimic the thick, rich, dark chocolate covered espresso beans made by Trader Joes. These sweet morsels have a thick chocolate coating that easily gives in when bitten. The beans inside shatter into the chocolate when under any pressure, and don't have an imposing taste. In my own tests the espresso beans have had too significant a bitter taste and the chocolate hasn't clung to the bean.
I see a need to reduce the bitterness of the bean and increase the clumpiness of the chocolate.
Were your beans totally dry when you coated them in chocolate?
Some observations that may help:
There is no such thing as an espresso bean. There is only coffee, which is available in many different varieties and roasts. You will want to experiment to find one that you like as the center of your candy, based on its flavor.
For candy, you definitely will want an Arabica, I think, not a Robusta variety. Additionally, you want a single variety of coffee, not a blend, so that you have essentially the same flavor for each piece. If you don't already know a quality roaster, there are many on the Internet who will ship.
All properly roasted coffee should be pretty brittle and frangible, and crush when bitten.
You can double-dip or even triple-dip your beans to get the thickness of coating that you like. I cannot say why the chocolate may not be "clinging" without more information--but make sure you are using (and probably tempering, which is a entire discusion on its own) real, quality chocolate or coverture.
According to this source, professional candy makers use a rotating drum like a cement mixer, in a process called panning to coat the coffee bean in chocolate. The objects to be coated are added, followed by a small amount of melted chocolate. Once the items are coated, a blast of cold air hardens the chocolate and the process is repeated. For a small, asymmetric object like a coffee bean, it can take many coatings to get the nice round look that commercial beans would have. A final layer of edible FDA approved shellac (not from your local paint store) in the machine will provide the shiny finish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.429744
| 2013-02-21T06:29:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32095",
"authors": [
"Barbara ",
"Ben Clawson",
"Ellen",
"Jacqueline Soller",
"Kweku Amfoh",
"Mien",
"RFlack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73854",
"yoshi"
],
"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
}
|
115028
|
Should leftover meat be stored in cooking juices?
I put some pork shoulder in the slow cooker along with water, lime juice, apple cider vinegar, and spices. I then cooked it until it was falling apart. There's enough to last about a week.
Should the leftover meat be stored in the juices, or will the acids break it down too much? Would it be better to store the liquid in a separate container, and just spoon some over the meat before reheating?
I don't actually 'know the answer' to this in the strictest sense, but I'd compare it to whether you would lift all the meat out of anything that could be termed a 'stew' for similar reasons.
A week is iffy when it comes to food safety - please consider freezing some or sharing it. See our generic post on the subject.
If not consuming right away, it is often recommended to allow meat that was braised to cool, and be refrigerated in its juices. For this reason, many recipes suggest making a braise a day ahead for better flavor. I don't think your concern is break down of the protein, as much as it is shelf life. If you are not going to fully consume the product within 3 - 4 days, freeze a portion of it.
Your braising liquid is now a delicious stock. Congrats! You certainly can store the meat and stock together, but the meat has no color and the result is too wet I find. The meat still has plenty of fat to be succulent on its own. I reserve the stock in the fridge and separate the lard. With the remaining stock I cook black beans. When I reheat the pork, I reverse sear the pork in the reserved lard. The meat simply won't dry out, it's too fatty.
I usually keep a part of the meat in the juices and reheat it that way the next day.
Sometimes I divide the meat and liquid and have one portion in the fridge and one in the freezer.
If I have enough meat, I will take some out of the juices and cool and/or freeze separately. Depending on the meat it can be used as is or has to go in a dish with a lot of liquid.
You can see from that I feel you can do both, in and out of the juices and fridge as well as freezer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.429969
| 2021-03-30T14:17:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115028",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"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
}
|
115038
|
Why is vinegar not applied to rice used for onigiri like rice for sushi?
So sushi and onigiri (rice balls) are similar to a naive eye to me wherein there's some shaped rice.
Sushi usually gets some vinegar for taste and to help it stick to my understanding.
Yet onigiri doesn't? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onigiri At most the rice gets plainly salted?
I was wondering if there are particular reasons whether for construction, taste etc for the difference in handling. Both can be eaten hand held so my possible theory of sticky vinegar undesired for onigiri doesn't make sense.
Is it a cultural or traditional reason?
I'm not sure I trust that article, vinegar is in most of the onigiri recipes I've seen.
The stickiness is not from the vinegar, but from the rice itself. The vinegar is really onlt there for flavour.
Not a Japanese chef, but I do homemade nori rolls and onigiri:
The purpose of the vinegar in sushi rice is to flavor it, not to make it more sticky. If anything, the vinegar makes it less sticky due to adding a little acidity and moisture. Sushi rice is supposed to be delicate and "crumble" when you bite into it. In contrast, onigiri rice should be tough and springy, almost like a dough, so you want to maximize stickiness.
For this reason, while sushi rice is specifically cooled to room temperature before being formed, onigiri rice is not; it's best to make the balls with the rice still warm from the cooker. Mixing the vinegar into the rice would cool it, and make it harder to form firm balls that hold up to being stuffed into a lunch sack.
Thanks! This actually helped me a lot with my Onigiri troubles. I’ve been making sushi rice for it and struggling. Now I now why :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.430190
| 2021-03-31T00:20:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115038",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"GdD",
"Kevin Glynn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116380
|
Really pink Chinese BBQ Pork (Char Siu): Safe to eat?
I know Chinese BBQ Pork is definitely red/pink on the outside extending into the meat somewhat, and I know that the USDA now says that pink pork is safe to eat (another taboo from my youth gone) - but is this package safe? I've seen pink Chinese BBQ pork but not really this pink all the way through. Normal or not?
How was it made? Or where did you buy it from?
@AnastasiaZendaya - Bought it packaged from a store (still in its shrinkwrap, as photographed), claimed to be made by that store's deli/meat dept.
There is no way we can tell you if this is safe or not, based on the information provided. Additionally, color is not a useful indicator, especially if a cure was added, which is entirely possible. Whether or not this particular product is "normal", would also require more information...and someone with local knowledge.
@davidbak Okay... what is the name of the store?
@moscafj - so, I could ask if they "cure" it in some way?
...you could...I would still not be comfortable stating whether or not the product is safe, based on a photo and limited description provided.
Have you bought char siu in this store before? Or if others also look that pink? Coz the outside is really bright red.. not sure what kind of food coloring. But I heard that the inside pink might be the case that the pork has been frozen for a long time before cooking.
Chinese char siu is commonly colored with red food coloring. It should be safe to eat.
The pink color there is clearly not the result of red food coloring (which has dyed the outer bits but not penetrated very far).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.430349
| 2021-07-09T23:55:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116380",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Ryan",
"Sneftel",
"davidbak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67372
|
Store bought frozen coconut milk
For how long can you keep store bought packaged frozen coconut milk in the refrigerator after it's been thawed?
I've never seen frozen coconut milk available for sale at my local stores -- is there a brand name on it that we might be able to do some digging into? (or is it just generic packaging, like the grocery store did it themselves?)
you can keep the coconut milk for 3 more days and that's the maximum after this time you find that it begins to coagulate and that smells fowl. i bought coconut milk for a prawn recipe for valentines day http://www.mariellasmenu.com.ng/2016/02/tiger-prawns-in-coconut-milk-valentines.html and i had some left over, , even though it was in the freezer, it had gone bad
While I believe that coconut milk could go bad in a few days, it's pretty unlikely that it went bad in the freezer - it was probably the time it spent outside the freezer beforehand, or the time after thawing.
Yes i agree with you, it was the time it spent outside the freezer. once this happens there is no redemption even if you put it back. you have to toss it
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.430616
| 2016-03-13T11:06:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67372",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Joyce Cassidy",
"Linda Hissom",
"Mariah Adeboboye",
"Richard Ripley",
"Shelly Sieger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44278",
"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
}
|
114024
|
Should I have been able to melt white chocolate and marshmallows together?
My daughter and I were making cake pops, and were a little short of white chocolate for the coating. We thought we'd try a white chocolate/marshmallow coating instead. I didn't weigh the marshmallows but they were no more than 25% of the total.
I used a bowl over a pan of simmering water as I usually do for melting chocolate. The white chocolate had mostly melted when I stirred in the marshmallows that were on top. They started to melt then the whole lot seized solid. Further heating didn't help. I was left with something that could be shaped like fondant icing
I've had that happen when heating white chocolate (alone) in the microwave, and always assumed it was local overheating, hence using the bain marie this time.
Now it's cooled, I'm left with something resembling out of date or badly stored white chocolate - grainy rather than creamy.
Is such a coating possible? Should I have gone about it differently? Or is there too much water in marshmallows?
FWIW, one of the contestants a few years ago on the Great British Baking show used marshmallows (and powdered sugar, but no other ingredients, if I recall correctly) to make fondant.
Sounds like you made a fudge essentially, though without reaching the boiling point of sugar. The gelatin in the marshmallow would have added the flexibility. Looks like marshmallow has about 20% water, which I wouldn't have thought was too much.
Judging by your observations of the results alone, it seems like the chocolate seized due to the water in the marshmallows.
@stan, maybe. Melting white chocolate is problematic anyway; I've had trouble in the microwave due to local overheating, or possibly stirring. That's why I do it the old-fashioned way
@ChrisH, definitely possible. I usually melt chocolate in the microwave in small batches (200g or less at a time), stop to stir every 10s, and stop the microwaving process when it's 80% melted (mostly but with some chunks), and just stir the last 100% using the residual heat in the bowl. This method has worked for me for all kinds of chocolate.
@stan possible yes, but I have a 1kW microwave which is a bit uneven with small quantities. 10s can be too long for 100-200g of white, but that's the minimum time unless I stop it manually. I could experiment with lower power, and mine's an inverter model so I wouldn't get the all-or-nothing that you used to with defrost settings, but by that point it's easier to do it on the stove with a bain marie (plus, a small person interrupting makes everything harder but she can stir on the stove)
@ChrisH, I'm curious, are you using a ceramic bowl, glass or silicon container to microwave your chocolate? I use a ceramic one with a high thermal mass that absorbs a lot of the heat. I suspect the container used may also make a difference. Nonetheless, a bain marie sounds like the right solution in your case.
@stan A Pyrex (proper borosilicate Pyrex) mixing bowl or ceramic cereal bowl normally. I tend to use ceramic mugs for melting small quantities but normally need more chocolate than that. Anyway, the double-boiler approach is proven (and I have a nice ceramic pie dish that sits securely above the water in a small pan so splashing isn't a worry)
... white is far less forgiving than milk or dark IME. This was supermarket own white cooking chocolate, which is normally fine.
This is definitely possible, though I should add that the addition of melted butter would be crucial.
Do not simply toss "raw" marshmallows into the melted white chocolate, as they will start to cool down the chocolate more than you'd think (I once tucked my hand into a bag of marshmallows, it was relatively cold in temperature).
Here is how I would do it:
Melt some butter in a pan (don't skimp!).
Toss in your marshmallows and constantly stir them, until all melted and silky.
Pour the melted white chocolate into the melted marshmallow & butter, and continue to heat and stir for a few minutes.
Thats interesting because I was concerned more with overheating the chocolate if I added it to hot marshmallows, rather than with cooling it
Why is the butter crucial? Why not just pre-melt the marshmallows without butter if temperature is the issue?
I suspect the butter is crucial because the chocolate would sieze due to the water in the marshmallows, adding the butter (fat) mitigates that problem.
@stan the reason I'm not completely convinced by this is that butter and marshmallow have very similar water contents: 15%-20%. I'd be more convinced by a call for pure fat
@ChrisH it seems to be debated around here if butter and chocolate are a good idea, see this answer and comments: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/3019/76918
It seems like pre-melting the butter makes it less likely to sieze the chocolate.
The adding butter and the recipe in the comments is similar to Rice crispies without the crispies. Not sure why it works but from experience with making rice crispies it makes sense.
As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.430764
| 2021-01-30T15:59:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114024",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Community",
"bob1",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"stanri"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119799
|
When corn starch is added to icing sugar, has it been cooked?
My icing (powdered) sugar has 97% sugar and 3% "maize starch".
Answers to a recent question accidentally ate raw corn starch say that corn starch, like wheat flour, is meant to be cooked before eating, but icing sugar isn't usually heated. Does this mean the starch is pre-cooked (or otherwise processed to kill any bacteria) or that this isn't really a worry?
Sugar itself is good at inhibiting bacteria so it might be that the 97% sugar content plays a role here.
@dbmag9 I would expect packed corn starch to be dry enough to prevent bacterial growth but the answers at the linked question are more concerned with pre-existing contamination of the starch
It's raw.
Raw cornstarch generally shouldn't be eaten raw, due to risks of causing digestive issues . But it's relatively low-risk when consumed in micro-quantities.
Here's a recipe on YouTube on how to make icing sugar, and it uses 1 cup of sugar and 1 tsp of raw cornstarch: How To Make Icing Sugar At Home
Many other store-bought items also use cornstarch as an anti-caking agent, such as candies and shredded cheeses (some brands, not all).
In a very brief Google search and Wikipedia, I have not been able to find an authoritative source that claims there is any danger from bacteria or other health issues.
In addition, the water activity in non-cooked applications of icing sugar is generally too low to support bacterial growth (though it won't kill some type of pathogens), so you tend to get less risk of a high inoculum and as a consequence lower chance of disease. Icing has about 0.78 and most bacteria need over 0.9 to grow according to Bakerpedia
@Rob Updated to reflect your comment; you're right, the sites that stated it weren't necessarily reputable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.431199
| 2022-02-09T06:42:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119799",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Chris H",
"Rob",
"bob1",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115853
|
What to use on top of a baking stone: parchment paper, a silicone sheet or a thin steel tray?
According to the top-rated answer to this question, you cannot wash the baking stone (or else you can, using baking soda and a lot of care and time, which is not practical). I am mostly interested in baking at the temperatures of cr. 180°C (360°F), although sometimes I use 450°F (230°C) regime.
I wanted to compare three options that could potentially be put on top of a baking stone, to avoid hygiene concerns:
Silicone sheet - it's stated to be safe for temperatures up to 500°F (260°C), but I have read that the safety of silicone at high temperatures is disputed. Other than safety concerns, I see no downside;
Baking paper - it's stated to be safe for temperatures up to 420°F-450°F (210°C-230°C), and is single-use;
Thin steel tray - I have made it up myself, it's obviously safe, but does it negate the advantages of baking stone?
Is my analysis correct? What am I missing? What are your recommendations?
As per this webpage, a lot of people are using parchment paper to avoid sticking, and discuss silicone as an alternative.
I've never used any of these on my baking stone. What do you mean by hygiene concerns?
@moscafj: I guess bits of food or dust can make it dirty with time?
A simple wipe with a cloth (when cool) or use of a bench scraper usually does the trick.
@moscafj: could I ask how you use your baking stone: do you just keep it in the oven all the time? Do you clean it at all?
In oven all of the time. I don't clean, other than my suggestions above...a wipe or scrape on occasion, when necessary.
@moscafj: thanks! You have answered my questions before I have asked it :)
What do you plan on baking? I could see a sheet of parchment being helpful under a sourdough, or wet dough. That is not usually necessary for pizza. That said, I have baked plenty of loaves with no paper.
@moscafj: it's not for me, for a granny. I guess it will mostly be bread and pies, pies can be stuffed with jam, jam can run out...
Ideally you'd use nothing. Direct contact with the hot stone delivers the heat to the food best. Spilt food on the pizza stone can be scraped off when cold and any residue will be sterilised when the stone is preheated, as it should be for some time. It's best to leave the stone in the oven after removing the pizza (or put it back in) as the considerable residual heat will help char the residue to a loose charcoal/ash mix that can be brushed off, leaving what's effectively a seasoned surface.
Although I store mine in the oven, I usually take it out when I'm using the oven and not the stone, as it's 5kg of granite and that takes a lot of preheating, slowing my cooking and increasing energy consumption. If I'm not planning to use it for a while, or haven't used it for a while, I might leave it in while baking bread, being sure to preheat generously. You can also bake off residue by putting the already-hot stone under the grill (broiler). This can get a bit smoky though.
Having said all that, I have been known to use non-stick cooking liner, when I want to cook something on the stone but don't want to risk imparting a flavour to it (or picking up a flavour from it), or when cooking a really sticky dough like naan.
Could I ask what non-stick cooking liner you are using is made of? Silicone?
@YuliaV this one ("PTFE-coated fabric"), or a similar but unbranded product, as bought it more than once, and cut it to fit some favourite containers
FYI, I use my baking parchment multiple times—until it crumbles in my hands. I’ve never used it on my pizza stone, tho. As for cleanliness, my pizza stone is almost black (I figure from grease and oil in what I bake on it) and things that bake on to it (cheese, etc) scrape off with a plastic scraper I have.
I am not sure if the black substance you describe is food-safe. This could be a good question actually, if it has not been asked yet :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.431377
| 2021-05-27T11:42:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115853",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Yulia V",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27549",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116359
|
How to season home-made cheese?
I have made my first ever cheese (a very basic recipe: heat the milk to 95C, add citric acid, drain the whey, press together - see below), now I need to season it.
I definitely need to add some salt. For this, I can add some salt to whey and soak my cheese in it - this is simple enough. But I wonder if it would be a good idea to combine salting cheese with marinating it like it's done with feta (the usual marinade is olive oil with rosemary, lemon rind, and chilies).
Woult it be a good idea to add salt to the marinade I have described above and to marinate and salt the cheese in one go?
Source of the recipe:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://finecooking.ru/recipe/adygejskij-syr-v-domashnih-usloviyah
uperbasic? Did you mean "uberbasic" or "super basic"?
Brine first, marinate in oil after.
Brining will firm up and you can decide when salty enough.
EVOO with added herbs/chillies can better be used in recipes without tasting overly salty.
That recipe is very similar to Indian paneer. The downside of salting the whey is that most of the salt gets poured away, so you have to use lots (or soak in a small amount of whey.
When making paneer, one good approach is to salt the curds after draining (though before pressing out the last of the whey). These acid-set cheeses tend to not keep very well, and become too soft for many purposes if kept in the whey, so they're normally stored dry in the fridge, and for only a few days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.431691
| 2021-07-09T09:28:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116359",
"authors": [
"Kevin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5576"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115474
|
Why adding soda without vinegar to the cake batter?
I have this well-rated chocolate cake recipe that I have not baked yet.
It's ingredients (among others) are
175g self-raising flour
1 tsp bicarbonate of soda
My understanding is that soda is needed to make the cake fulffier, and it only works when it is dissolved in vinegar (or there is something acid in the batter, e.g. kefir). And there are no acidic ingredients in this recipe (sunflower oil, self-raising flour, cocoa powder, bicarbonate of soda, caster sugar, golden syrup, eggs, semi-skimmed milk).
So what's its purpose here?
I'm not a baker but a chemist, sodium bicarbonate can release CO2 under acidic conditions, but it also decomposes if heated.
Two-in-one questions are discouraged here, so I would recommend you remove the bonus question and ask it separately (although my one-line suggestion would be to look up a substitution for self-raising flour and apply this, considering it separately to the soda in the recipe).
Both cocoa powder and milk are acidic, and will be reacting with the soda here. Bicarbonate of soda will react with any acid, not only vinegar.
There is also a process called thermal decomposition, where the soda releases CO2 under high temperature without needing an acid, although less than it would in a reaction with an acid and leaving a compound with an unpleasant flavour. See Wikipedia for more detail:
Heat can also by itself cause sodium bicarbonate to act as a raising
agent in baking because of thermal decomposition, releasing carbon
dioxide at temperatures above 80 °C (180 °F), as follows:[16]
2 NaHCO3 → Na2CO3 + H2O + CO2
When used this way on its own, without
the presence of an acidic component (whether in the batter or by the
use of a baking powder containing acid), only half the available CO2
is released (one CO2 molecule is formed for every two equivalents of
NaHCO3). Additionally, in the absence of acid, thermal decomposition
of sodium bicarbonate also produces sodium carbonate, which is
strongly alkaline and gives the baked product a bitter, "soapy" taste
and a yellow color.
In your recipe, I imagine the soda reacts with the acidic ingredients to avoid this important taste.
Thank you! Would you have any guidelines for what the temperature/quantity of acidic ingredients should be, to avoid unpleasant metallic taste?
No idea, I'm afraid. I would just aim to follow a recipe which someone else has tried successfully.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.431827
| 2021-04-30T13:27:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115474",
"authors": [
"Yulia V",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81350",
"xngtng"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115112
|
Electric cooktop for sous vide-level precision?
Yes, I know, but bear with me here.
I've been thinking about getting an electric cooktop, and reading about them online a lot of people seem to mention that on some of the low settings, their cooktop will keep water at a constant boiling/simmering temperatures, like, say, 90 C (194 F)
In order for that to happen, it must mean that the heating element itself is only heating up to that temperature, high? And thus of course the temperature cannot get higher than the hot plate itself.
By that logic, if an electric cooktop happened to have a setting that would leave it at around 74 C (165 F), does that mean I could use it to cook some chicken breast precisely to its safe internal temperature?
Would be like a sous vide - no risk of over- or undercooking it! Right? Or am I missing something?
EDIT: For further clarification, when I say electric, I mean traditional ones with a solid plate burner. Sorry!
EDIT 2: Okay, so not sous vide-level precision. I've learned a lot from your wonderful answers, and my new plan is to lower my standards and attempt the following:
Putting a pot of water with a lid on the electric coil cooker (so it's an enclosed space filled with a great thermal conductor)
Cycle the device on and off figure out a rate for, erhm... manual time modulation that would keep the coil at X+Y Celsius (where X is the temp I want and Y is however many more degrees it needs to be to compensate for heat loss, which I would need to figure out for that setup as well)
Turn it on and off again at regular intervals according to the rate I found (yeah impractical but I could get a smart outlet to do it for me if it works!)
Maybe I could get a large pot (more thermal mass, less temp variation) and exclusively use it for this (more consistent setup, less temp variation), and figure out a reliable duty cycle that keeps it at a given temperature for three different quantities of water (such as a third, two thirds, and nearly full capacity).
Hopefully I can end up with water consistently at maybe +-4 C of a target temperature, and finally achieve hands-off, dummy-proof cooking! (useful since I can be a bit of a dummy sometimes). If you're wondering why I don't get a circulator, I've made a comment down below to clarify.
What kind of "electric cooktop" ? induction ? coils or ceramic ?
I meant a traditional one with a coil burner. My bad! I edited the question to add it, is that all right? It's my first post here so I'm still getting the hang of it ^^'
I don't know of any coil-based electric that has that kind of precision. Induction burners, sure, but coils? No.
I used to have a halogen that had one specifically low simmer ring. It would go low enough to slow-cook, 8-12 hrs for a chilli etc. I never checked its actual temperature, but it was below 'bubbling'. I've never known an old-style coil ring that could do it.
For those wondering why I don't just get an immersion circulator for this:
I live in a developing country where they are rare and cost at least $250, and $250 is significally more money when adjusted for the living standards here.
This is the same reason why it's not super easy for me to find or rig a temperature controller to the cooktop.
I don't really want to sous vide, I just want some degree of control over temperature when cooking stuff in water the normal way. I don't think the circulator would react well to me placing food straight in the water, bagless.
Whoops. I'm not a native English speaker and got my terms confused: I meant a solid plate electric cooktop, not coil. I've updated the question, although I don't think it's super relevant for what I'm trying to accomplish.
"Dutch oven", "slow cooker", even "bain marie". You're somewhat limited to cooking the types of food that are good for cooking that way, but if you're OK with a more limited number of dishes they are pretty fool-proof.
The solid plate type makes it far harder, because the plate itself ha a lot of thermal mass (thermal mass of liquid that you're cooking in is good, at the heat source it's bad). Your best bet is going to be a large pot and a thermometer: when the temperature rises towards what you want, turn the heat off, when it falls towards what you want, turn it on again. The various settings on the dial of the hotplate can be used to speed up or slow down this feedback loop, and if you cook similar quantities regularly you'll get a feel for it. Lowest power may even be just cool enough.
Absolutely not, this cannot be built. There is a reason sous vide is called sous vide and not sous PID. Cooktops are, by design, a device that emits a constant amount of energy (oversimplified) into the surrounding space, which is the opposite of what you need for keeping a constant internal temperature in a chicken breast.
If you would build a cooktop with a heat element that would stay constantly at 74 C, then put a pot of water on it, the pot would constantly sit at (74 - X) C due to thermal loss. X will vary for each combination of pot and water volume you use. And the water is a special case which you can keep at a constant temperature that way, not a chicken breast. So even if somebody were to put in the expense and effort to build such a heater (and nobody does, both resistive and induction heaters are time modulated), you still wouldn't get what you want.
If you do want your food to stay at a constant temperature, you first have to put it in an enclosed space, then heat the fluid in that space to a constant temperature. The traditional way to do it is with an oven. Keeping an oven at constant 74 C is possible, but if you put a naked chicken breast in it, it would take too many hours to get to be 74 C internally. So the next logical step is to surround it not with a great insulator like air, but a great thermal conductor like water - and then you have built the simplest device suitable for the task, which is a sous vide.
For completeness, there are cooktops with a probe that goes into the food, although they are niche and expensive, or you could rig one yourself. They would work for the pot of water, but for frying a chicken breast, the element will be working just like an old-fashioned heat element and heat to much over 74 C, until the breast itself reaches 74 C, at which time the cook would remove the breast instead of letting it sit there, so the controller would never even get a chance to start working and the situation is equivalent to sticking an external probe in the breast.
Update in response to your Edit 2:
If all you want is to keep a pot of soup/stew in a not-too-precise temperature range, all you need is to take a standard cooktop and put the dial at the proper setting, "proper" being something you learn by trial-and-error for your combination of stovetop, pot and batch size, fine adjusted by observation during cooking. You may have to readjust a bit over time, but only rarely. This is not some new method though, this is the way everybody cooks on stovetop. I don't see why you would complicate things by trying to overcompensate (and introduce new errors) by manually turning on and off on a preset schedule. That would mean both more work and worse results than the normal way of cooking.
I suspect the ones with a probe to go in a pot of liquid just turn the element on and off, deficit could be copied. A similar method to the slow cooker sous vide probe/controller could be used with a basic plug-in coil, halogen, or induction ring, (i.e. one without much thermal mass) but it wouldn't be very good even under a pan of water. A lab hotplate using this method and a small container of water is only slightly less precise than a sous vide circulator.
@ChrisH sure, if you want to heat soup and have a plate that agrees with being controlled, that would work well (portable induction units usually don't turn on after capping and then resupplying the electricity). Or if you want the chicken breast sous vide, the same principle but with an immersion heater and pump works. Although these days, the sticks are cheaper than buying heater, controller and pump. But of course it works, it is the same setup as inside a stick, just not in one neat package.
I reckon it would have to be a cheap hotplate, to not be too clever, but mine has too much thermal mass (the resistive type that doesn't glow)
@ChrisH on a side note, do you ever use the chatrooms? I would have a few questions unsuitable for the main page, and your experience with both lab equipment and cooking would be very valuable, so I would want to ask you about them.
Very rarely - my time zone and schedule don't seem to align with many people's so the discussion has normally moved on by the time I get back to it. I'm not sure if @ mentions work fully there, but if they do, I'm happy to get involved
@ChrisH I am in Europe, so that should be only 1 hour time difference, I believe. (So is Stephie, who is also active in our chat) And @ mentions do work in chat, at least for several days after a user has been in the room. I couldn't @ you there before you have joined though. (OK, I personally could have, with my mod superpowers, but I shouldn't be using them for a mere desire for personal chat). So if you would like to join us in the Frying pan, you are welcome!
Thank you both for all your help! @ChrisH I can see how the thermal mass would be a problem for the probe setup, but this makes me think it could be beneficial if I were to control temperature by cycling the device on and off! My aim is to keep the burner at a somewhat constant temperature, and if I were to do that by doing some time modulation manually, too little would make it fluctuate wildly, while too much would even it out and allow me to keep constant without too short a cycle! Am I on the right track here?
@rumtscho Thanks a lot for the answer! Pardon my stubbornness, but by your description I'm thinking I could get a decent result with some compromise. I've lowered my standards a bit and described a new method in the question. Do you think that would be more attainable? Thanks again!
That's not how it works. Most electrics are induction these days, which heat through magnetic fields. They impart energy to the metal of the pan, heating the metal directly. Traditional heating coils or halogens create actual heat, the temperature that food or water reaches in any electric system including induction varies significantly on the:
Size and shape of the pan
Pan material
How much food or water is in the pan
So there's no 74°C setting, you select an amount of power to impart on the pan. Also, cooktops are missing some things sous vide systems have:
A temperature sensor in the water to keep it exactly where it needs to be. Without a sensor in the water there's no data on how much heat is needed and you'll be over or under temperature. When you put food into a sous vide bath the temperature is going to drop, the energy level needs to increase to compensate, then drop again
A pump to circulate the water around to keep heat even: without the pump you'll get hot and cold spots which could lead to your food being unsafe
That's not to say you can't get close, once you get to know your cooktop and your pans you'll be able to set it up so that you get a relatively consistent temperature and be able to leave it for awhile, but it won't be that 'set it and forget it' sous vide precision.
That quite surprised me [not that I've been looking for a new hob recently & I prefer gas anyway] but a quick scroll through one of the UK's largest box-shifters does show maybe 60-70% induction, the others ceramic. Out of hundreds, only 4 [all the same make] were old-style solid plate, none were 'coiled' plate. Edit: I found the stats in the sidebar - https://i.sstatic.net/kQB4Z.png [I hadn't been through every single page]
Induction is hugely popular for some reason @Tetsujin, personally I'm not a fan. Pans skate around, you can't use many pans and the electronics are fragile, pull a hot pan over the controls and they're fried! I'm gas all the way. That sounds wrong.
I grew up with solid plate at my parents'. When I bought my first home I got a halogen, which I did quite like. Since then I've always had gas & wouldn't dream of going back to electric. Especially the new touch systems. Horrible to work with, can't tell if a ring is on or off… not for me at all.
I agree @Tetsujin, induction is like cooking on an ipad.
That did actually make me laugh out loud ;))
@GdD Big reason induction is popular: Not piping explosive, noxious gases into your home and burning them, creating other noxious gases and the possibility of an explosion that will level my house and kill me and my neighbors.
My gas hob has automatic cut-off valves if a flame goes out @DanC. Problem solved.
@GdD Even when it's working correctly, burning gas in your cooktop creates air pollution in your house. And your cut-off won't help when someone doing work in the street accidentally cuts a gas line that later explodes, something which happened in my neighborhood not long ago, destroying three houses and killing two people.
Sorry to hear that @DanC!
@GdD First, there are many countries where houses are not supplied with gas lines, and there are also not many indoors-intended cooktops. People sometimes use camping stoves inside, which is dangerous for its own reasons. And I hate the ipad feeling too, but it is not related to gas, nowadays all electric technologies beside metal-covered resistives come with these controls. I must say I love the ceran concept, so easy to push pots around, I just wish the controls were separate and more haptic.
Yeah, you both touch on the reasons why I'm going for electric, specifically solid plate. Not super comfortable with gas, and I imagine cooking on a glass surface to be unpleasant. I generally avoid glass in my life since it's heavy and breaks. Solid plate is the best of both worlds if you don't hate its slow response times, which I'm thinking won't be that big of a problem for my application.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.432041
| 2021-04-04T23:00:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115112",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Dan C",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Max",
"MrSimplemaker",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93266",
"rumtscho",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116391
|
Is cake donut mix the same as all purpose flour?
Was gifted a 50lb bag of cake donut mix and my kids wanted to learn how to make donuts. All the recipes we've researched call for all purpose flour and I couldn't find a definitive if this cake mix can be a 100% replacement for all purpose flour or if cake mix was an equivalent to bisquick which contains a multitude of ingredients.
So my question is: can cake donut mix be a replacement for all purpose flour, or do I need to remove something along with it?
Do you have information on what brand the cake donut mix is? It's possible that it could be "just add water" mix, but the answer for how to use your mix would vary depending on brand/manufacturer
This is it: https://www.webstaurantstore.com/pillsbury-50-lb-elite-raised-donut-mix/108991505.html
The link points to raised donut mix, which is different from cake donut mix. But the description contains the directions for use: water, yeast, and the mix. There's additionally a link on that page to nutrition information that includes the ingredient list for everything contained in the mix.
What are the ingredients on the bag?
The link you posted points to a page with a PDF called "nutrition" that has not only the ingredients, but cooking instructions
Short answer: No, this mix is not the same as all-purpose flour.
This product is meant to be the whole of your dry ingredients in the donut recipe and is designed to be used with water, as it contains powdered whey and milk powders, as well as fats. It does not seem to include leaveners and so requires either baking powder/soda or yeast, which the instructions mention.
Following the instructions provided with the product is a good bet your first time, however, you should be able to elaborate on the recipe if you like, adding filled ingredients like cream or jam and things that get mixed into your dough, like blueberries or chocolate chips, etc...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.433195
| 2021-07-12T00:38:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116391",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"user9447"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116291
|
Is it a good idea to put desiccant packs in the freezer?
Is it a good idea to put desiccant packs, like those you get shipped with electronics, into a working freezer to help prevent it from frosting up inside?
I open our freezer quite often, and the humid air getting closed in there seems to be causing it to frost up quite quickly. I know the contents of those packs are toxic — so that’s a worry — but if they’re sealed, they should be OK, right? I presume for a volume the size of a freezer, you’d need a few and have to replace them regularly...
If your freezer is frosting up, the first troubleshooting step is to examine the seals. It's unlikely that any residential freezer is accessed enough to make a difference, but a poor seal can constantly let in a small stream of air, and that matters.
If they're SEALED, they won't do what you want them to do.
You would need a tremendous amount of desiccant to make any significant temporary impact on ice build-up in a freezer. The only major drawback of ice build-up is that it takes up space in the freezer… and the desiccant would take up more space.
BTW, the normal material used as a desiccant is silica gel, which is non-toxic.
Ice build-up can reduce cooling efficiency, and can play havoc with auto-defrost cycles (when those don't prevent icing). Silica gel is a choking hazard and can cause internal blockages; the uncommon coloured types can be toxic. But it can hold very little moisture, so this answer is correct, it wouldn't be much use
Even worse, I'd be wary of that stuff freezing, expanding, bursting and shedding silica dust all over the food :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.433379
| 2021-07-03T13:49:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116291",
"authors": [
"Billy left SE for Codidact",
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90303",
"rackandboneman",
"user3757614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62017
|
Rabbit that looks and tastes like chicken?
OK, I know saying such & such a type of meat tastes like chicken is a total stereotype, but bear with me.
I am not a frequent eater of rabbit but I'd say have it 1-2 times a year, so I feel like I have a rough idea of the taste and appearance. All the rabbit I've ever eaten prior to last night I would describe as dark in appearance, somewhat tough, and slightly gamy.
Last night I went to supper at one of my favorite restaurants and ordered a dish that was "Rabbit five ways." The dish consisted of a total of a half rabbit done in the following ways: leg confit, saddle done sous vide porchetta style, cabbage rolls stuffed with rabbit, a liver mousse, and head cheese. The cabbage rolls and head cheese contained meat I would say was very rabbit like: dark, a little gamy, and a bit tough.
Now, I know that there's the (IMO, philosophical) opinion that all rabbit meat is white meat due to its leanness. However, the leg confit and sous vide saddle were unusual to me in that they looked, smelled, and tasted like chicken. To be clear, I mean the meat was very white, like almost the color of a sheet of paper, like a chicken breast on the whiter end of the spectrum would be. And, as I mentioned, it also tasted a surprising amount like chicken.
Anyway, I guess I'm wondering is this restaurant trying to pass off poultry as rabbit? That seems unlikely since it's a mid-sized, non-chain, mid-high end place with a good reputation. The small monetary savings don't seem worth the risk that a restaurant reviewer spots what you're up to and trashes you in a review.
However, if it really was rabbit, then I'm curious under what conditions rabbit would come out being indistinguishable from chicken? Are certain breeds and/or cuts more like white poultry meat? Or is it some combination of cut and cooking method that would give this result?
It wouldn't be the first time that a high-end restaurant has passed off more expensive ingredients as cheaper ingredients, but it's pretty unlikely. What is the most probable reason is that you had farmed rabbit as opposed to wild rabbits, which have very different flavors and textures due to diet and lifestyle.
Wild rabbits eat lots of grass and flowers which give their meat that gaminess, and they get lots of exercise running around so their texture is tougher and color darker. Farmed rabbits are given a mostly grain diet which is bland and makes the meat bland, and don't get much exercise so they are more tender.
Battery and grain feed duck is also bland sameness as same chicken and rabbit
Very true @TFD, I tend to buy free range so it tastes like something.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.433862
| 2015-09-24T16:24:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62017",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Karena Neho-Popata",
"Keith Jones",
"Sharon Sakcriska",
"TFD",
"Yusuf MD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203"
],
"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
}
|
125671
|
How can I prevent curdling when adding fruit to milk?
I've recently started making simple desserts consisting of milk, sugar, flavoring and gelatin. Last time I tried using frozen raspberries as flavoring (around 1:10 raspberries to milk by weight) and the milk curdled. It still tasted good, but the presentation was less than appealing. Is there some ingredient I can add to the mix or some special technique I can use to prevent curdling?
As long as the last step is "bring to boil, mix in gelatin and set aside", I think, that any process will work.
One obvious solution I want to avoid is neutralizing the acid with a base. I don't like this, because I would need to adjust the amount of the base to the acidity of the flavoring: if I overdo it, then milk will curdle from the alkalinity, if I underdo it, then it will still curdle from acid. It's too precise for my liking if there is another solution available.
This was my experience using soy milk, but I've found people on the Internet saying it happened to them with cow's milk, so "milk" in this question refers to both cow's and plant milk. I use both soy and cow's, so I'm interested in answers for both.
Re "I would need to adjust the amount of the base to the acidity of the flavoring: if I overdo it, then milk will curdle from the alkalinity, if I underdo it, then it will still curdle from acid": In chemistry, that is what buffers are for. I don't know if it applies here. Baking soda would seem to be close.
All you have to do is to make sure you don't acidify your milk. It curdles with acid; the procedure you describe (adding fruit that exudes acidic juice, then bringing to a boil) is basically a recipe for paneer.
This means that you have to pick your ingredients carefully. Frozen raspberries are not suitable for what you have in mind. Their juice will flow out while they warm up.
Instead, you should use fresh raspberries. Prepare the milk with the gelatine and sugar (no need for boiling, 40-50 C is sufficient and even preferred for gelatine), add your never-frozen fruit to the cups, and then pour the still warm milk-gelatine mixture over it. This will create the dessert without curdling of the milk and without your fruit changing its taste from boiling.
Other kinds of fruit besides raspberries will work similarly with this procedure, there are very few which aren't feasible at all.
There are a few flavors which will work better if boiled, e.g. pumpkin, spices, or herbal extractions. For those, you can keep the boiling procedure - they shouldn't curdle the milk anyway.
If you really don't want to use fresh fruit and want to add something, you can add more sugar. Especially if you cook the fruit into a jam first (just standard sugar-and-fruit preserve, no pectin added), it won't curdle the milk when mixed with it. A base isn't optimal. I don't think it would curdle the milk, but it will change the taste in unpleasant ways.
Thank you, I didn't know that about frozen fruit. I'll try experimenting with the jam method. Frozen fruits are much cheaper and easier to keep, I always throw out fresh fruit before I use them all.
When you are adding the acidic ingredient is not clear from your description, but curdling usually happens when the acidic ingredient is added to a dessert base that is 145F (63C) or hotter. Either add the acidic ingredient when everything is cold or cool the heated ingredients below the indicated temperature. That should keep things from curdling.
Worth a shot, but I've certainly experienced cold milk straight from the refrigerator curdling when an acidic mixture was added to it. It matched the "looks revolting, tasted OK" the question mentions, but I've also tried to avoid repeating that experience from when I was 12 or so...(when drinking the revolting looking result anyway was partly because I knew it wasn't spoiled, despite how it looked, and partly because it weirded out the other 12 year olds because it looked revolting.) But I didn't choose to repeat the experience even then.
If you object to neutralizing the acid, the only other solutions I can imagine are:
"Use less fruit" so that there is less acid relative to the overall mixture.
"Change from milk to yogurt" (or make the milk into yogurt) so
acidity and a (generally considered) more appealing form of "curdling" have already been
taken care of.
There is another option I've seen mentioned but couldn't find more about on my own (hence this question). Apparently strawberries have anti-coagulating properties and adding them to milk drink as a base will prevent curdling. I was hoping this anti-coagulant can be bought in a form of powder or something similar. When I try to find it on my own, all the search results are related to blood-thinning medicine.
I prepare orange milk pudding and the milk does not curdle. The thickened milk has to be cooled completely and then we add orange juice and pulp into the milk. The milk does not curdle.
If the orange is too sour or any fruit in your case, add sugar to the fruit and keep till it melts. Then you add.
Another person mentioned that temperature might be the problem, not the acid. Your answer seem to support that so maybe I should try using colder milk as well. Do you also use gelatin? I thought that gelatin needs to be added to a warm liquid for it to set.
Is something missing at the end?
Another solution is that You may add citrate to milk to increase it's salt balance which will give it resistance from spoilage
Could you elaborate a bit, please?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.434127
| 2023-10-29T13:02:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125671",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Peter Mortensen",
"Reverent Lapwing",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119667
|
How can oak leaves be made edible?
Based on some research, it seems the leaves contain tannins and so I imagine some number of rounds of boiling are required to extract those/reduce them to an acceptable level.
But the texture of oak leaves isn't ideal for eating based on what I remember as a kid. So I'm curious how to deal with that issue. Some type of fermentation seems necessary to break down the leaf compounds into softer/more edible compounds, and maybe even just pickling with vinegar might help?
I was curious if anyone has tried this before and had success rendering oak leaves edible.
Is there any particular reason you want to do this, or a goal you are trying to achieve?
@dbmag9 I guess more concretely I was looking for alternatives to grape leaves and so exploring the space of leaves seemed interesting
Fig leaves are an excellent alternative to grape leaves, as are maple leaves.
Simple. Feed the oak leaves to tent caterpillars, then feed the caterpillars to chickadees, then eat the chickadees.
Depending on the location, elm leaves (or perhaps the bark) is another alternative. There are still a lot of them around, typically below 2-3 meters height.
Fresh birch leaves can be boiled and eaten, as can the shoots from pine trees.
Mulberry leaf is another good grapeleaf alternative.
Sounds like XY Problem, leaves are apparently toxic and unpleasant. A much better question would be "What are good alternatives to grape leaves?"
I once ate oak leaves which went through lactic acid fermentation together with bitter lactarius mushrooms. The quantity I ate was quite small (several leaves), so I cannot say whether it is safe. They were not disgusting to eat though, and just like the lactarius mushrooms, they've lost their bitterness, which makes me think that maybe the fermentation process breaks down the tannins. The texture was still rather unpleasant though (kinda like bay leaves), so I suggest you harvest different foliage instead.
I cannot find any internet source that recommends eating oak leaves, however treated. The level of tannins in oak leaves isn't just bad-tasting; it's sufficiently strong to cause kidney or liver failure. This is probably why there are extensive records of Native Americans tribes eating acorns but none of them eating oak leaves.
It's dubious that any amount of soaking of oak leaves could remove sufficient tannins to render them safe. Some recipes for Oak Leaf Wine involve soaking them for 5 days. If that actually leached the majority of the tannins, the wine would be toxic, and there's no evidence that it is.
So my overall answer is: you cannot eat them, use something else instead.
If you wanna make some kind of use of the leaves, though, Oak Leaf Wine seems to be where it's at.
I make wine, have oaks, and have eaten the acorns. Even I'm not tempted by oak leaf wine
I'm not either, but I'm not the OP.
Take the oak leaves.
Feed to a goat. (mix in some other feedstuffs: hay or grass).
Eat the goat (or drink its milk)
Goats are browsers, and have a gut, kidneys and liver that can deal with oak leaves, in fact a moderate amount of leaves can avoid diarrhoea in goats. Using animals to process inedible vegetation, like leaves or grasses, to edible meat, milk and eggs is one of the foundations of farming.
I like the way you think!
... and if you can't keep goats, compost the leaves and use as a growing medium. Some forms of cabbage will provide suitable leaves to replace vine leaves
A good indicator of whether there is a way to make something edible is whether it was recorded as a famine food. (Wikipedia) There are records of people eating dried lichen, tree bark, books, and machine oil in these horrible times. I can't see anything for oak leaves. Probably not possible to eat it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.434579
| 2022-01-28T18:18:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119667",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"FuzzyChef",
"JohnEye",
"Peter Mortensen",
"Richard",
"Sidharth Ghoshal",
"Steven Gubkin",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"papirtiger"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121426
|
Can you shred raw potatoes to make mashed potatoes?
When cooking sous vide, will shredding the potatoes, instead of cubing them, work just as well or could it have unintentional consequences?
Context:
I am trying to improve my mashed potato recipe to get more consistent results. Unfortunately, I don't have a ricer, so I have to mash them by hand. I have previously tried mashing them in the bag, but I ended up missing several cubes of potatoes. By simply starting out with them shredded, would it make it easier in the end? But I'm also concerned it might change the texture negatively. I figure it would also allow them to cook more evenly.
What kitchen equipment or tools other than a sous vide machine do you have available? Given that boiling potatoes whole, in a pot, and mashing them by hand (or with multiple types of machine or hand tool - mixer, food processor, potato-masher) works perfectly well, it feels like an over-complication of a simple process.
Well over-blending makes mashed potatoes gummy. So the food processor and blender are out. I do have a handheld masher which I was planning on using with the shredded potatoes. Also the sous vide machine gives me more flexibility and consistently perfect results. Also it means once they are done, they are already sealed in a bag with just the right amount of moisture and won't dry out. So they may be able to produce the same result, but one is easier for me with other added benefits.
I have previously tried mashing them in the bag, but ended up missing several cubes of potatoes. Have you considered this but using a rolling pin instead of a manual potato masher?
Is your goal to have a sealed bag of mashed potatoes at the end, or is cooking the potatoes simply more convenient for you by that method (even if there is a post-sous-vide mashing step)?
The benefits of sous vide mashed potatoes are 1) no added cooking water as potatoes already contain sufficient water to fully gelatinise all the starches present, and 2) gasses are trapped, preventing loss of volatile flavour compounds - leading to improved texture without waterlogging and stronger potato flavour. @mcalex's suggestion to use a rolling pin is probably the best option if available, you'd just need more vacuum bag length to allow for thorough squeezing.
Even if you don’t have a River. You might be able to push them through a coarse sieve to get a similar effect
Shredding the potatoes raw will release too much calcium and disrupt too many cells, similar to pureeing them.
You can definitely give it a try, though the end result will likely have a firmer gelled texture more suitable for latkes or hash browns. On the plus side, you can salvage the results for those uses.
You could try passing the cooked potatoes through a coarse strainer or sieve if you have those - not as fine, but will prevent major chunks.
The science behind it
Raw potatoes will have certain enzymes active (pectin methyl esterases, 'PMEs') that convert pectins in the potato cell walls from one general state to another - high methoxyl to low methoxyl.
PMEs and calcium naturally present in potatoes are released when the cells are disrupted from cutting, blending, shredding, etc. The pectins get converted and the low methoxyl pectins readily bind with the calcium, forming strong calcium pectinate gels.
Heating inactivates the PMEs, with full inactivation around 80C, which is why cooked potatoes usually do not gum when mashed.
Resources to look into:
Potato tuber pectin structure is influenced by pectin methyl esterase activity and impacts on cooked potato texture, Heather A. Ross, Kathryn M. Wright, Gordon J. McDougall, Alison G. Roberts, Sean N. Chapman, Wayne L. Morris, Robert D. Hancock, Derek Stewart, Gregory A. Tucker, Euan K. James, Mark A. Taylor, https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq280
Optimization of calcium pectinate gel production from high methoxyl pectin, Hanying Duan,Xiaoyun Wang,Nima Azarakhsh,Chao Wang,Meng Li,Guiming Fu,Xuesong Huang, https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.11409
Pectin methylesterase catalyzed firming effects on low temperature blanched vegetables, Li Ni, Daniel Lin, Diane M. Barrett, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2004.10.009
Extraction and characterization of pectin methylesterase from Alyanak apricot (Prunus armeniaca L), M. Ümit Ünal and Aysun Şener, https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs13197-013-1099-3
Great answer. I love it when people add the science.
Beside what borkymcfood said about the gluey part, I wouldn't go around increasing the surface area of the potatoes before cooking them for mash.
Whole boiled potatoes are thirsty. When you cook them whole, the starch stays much less hydrated than when they are cut up in small pieces. Then you use a ricer to break them apart while hot (which is easy at that point, the cell walls separate of their own accord) and add the milk. The milk binds well with the starch, and makes a nice cohesive texture.
You can get away with cubed potatoes too, but not as well as with whole ones. But if you shred them first, they might get soggy. I am not entirely sure if this will be the case if you make them in a sealed bag, but there will be juice getting out of the vacuoles, and it might be enough to make them waterlogged in the bag. If you cook shredded potatoes directly in water, they will go soggy for sure. And soggy potatoes do not make smooth, nice mash.
In the end, people rice potatoes because it works. Depending on how frequently you make them, you can decide if you want to invest in a more complex hinged ricer, to stay with a simple stamping one, or just use a fork. You will still get better mash with less effort than cubing or shredding, then doing sous vide, then trying to puree them without blunt force.
The prickly dry sensation is not physical drying on the tongue, it's the sensation of astringency from compounds naturally present in the potatoes themselves, including solanine - https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.0c04853
@borkymcfood interesting - do you happen to know why it only happens when the potato is prepared with minimal water contact, such as being cooked or baked whole, and not in other preparations?
absolutely - glycoalkaloids/saponins, of which solanine is a specific compound, are present mainly in the thin layer at and under potato skins, which are left on when baked whole and typically removed for mashing. The premise that minimal water contact leads to astringency from starch is erroneous. Consider French fries, specifically any varieties with the peel on - cooked in a completely water-free environment with the only water source being intracellular, and you'll notice bitter/astringent/slightly acid sour taste focused at the peel sections and not the centre sections.
I love my potato ricer. I boil potatoes cut in half, then rice them hot with the cut-side down, the skin is left behind. It's far quicker than peeling, cubing, etc. etc. Just be sure to wash the ricer before the potato starch hardens.
If you shred them, or even cut them too small, before boiling your finished product will resemble glue more than fluffy mashed potatoes.
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.434924
| 2022-08-21T23:09:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121426",
"authors": [
"Community",
"DotCounter",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"Kingsley",
"Nicholas Summers",
"borkymcfood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99917",
"mcalex",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100063
|
What is the measurable difference between dry basil and fresh?
What is the measurable difference between dry basil and fresh?
Is cooking with fresh herbs different than cooking with dry herbs?
Dry and fresh herbs are significantly different. What do you mean by measurable?
Do you mean like 2 teaspoons fresh equals 1 teaspoon dried?
Possible duplicate of When, if ever, are dried herbs preferable to fresh herbs?
In addition to the great answer by M.K: Most industrially dried and fresh herbs are not even of the same exact kind.
Taking basil as an example: Most basil species don't preserve their aroma well during the drying process. So while you can use any kind of basil for fresh use, you can maybe only use certain kinds for drying, because they preserve the aroma a little bit better. This will of course lead to a different flavor profile, because they are different kinds of basil.
You can basically divide herbs kind of into "hard" and "soft". "Hard" herbs would be something like rosemary and thyme, which are quite dry and hard, even when fresh. They preserve very well during the drying process and can be used almost identical fresh and dried. "Soft" herbs, on the other hand, wilt easily and many of them become almost tasteless during the drying process. This includes basil, chives, certain kinds of oregano, and to a certain extend parsley. For these herbs freezing is a better preserving method!
Fun fact: there are plants that only get fragrant when dried. Woodruff is a common example of that (although, no one would call that a herb as far as i know). It starts giving of its distinct flavor only when wilting.
With basil, I'd go even further... Fresh, "omg, amazing, wow, aroma!" Dried, "did I put any in? Can't tell." ;)
Wow. I always assumed it was that certain chemical compounds were lost while drying ... but if it's different varieties, that'd make even more sense.
Well, i guess those two things are not mutually exclusive. A flavor is always composed of different chemicals and some of them are more evasive than others. So the basil for drying just has a higher amount of those chemicals that are preserved during drying. Or at least that's what I think. I'm no expert on this! :P
Dry herbs in general last longer and have the "advantage" of better conservation. But they take more time to release their flavours, so you want to cook them earlier and for longer time (for example, adding dry oregano when you are cooking onions, later on adding the tomato sauce, as liquids will also help to release flavour).
With fresh herbs, you want to add them as lastly as possible to the dish. Check out this answer on dry herbs. For a pizza, for example, you want to add your fresh basil (or fresh herbs) right after its out of the oven, while the dry herbs, you want to add them while cooking the sauce or behind the tomato layer sauce, so they get all the flavour out and don't burn out.
IN TERMS OF MEASURING: Use less dried herbs than you would with fresh, because they are more concentrated when cooked.
If — by "measurable" — you are referring to a quantified chemical analysis, then sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L) consists of 26 different compounds, of which terpenoids
linalool and 1,8-cineole make up the majority of them1. I haven't seen any research data that specifically quantifies the impact of dehydration process on aroma profile, but this paper appears to quantify differences between various processing methods; I don't have a subscription to the journal myself and am unable to see the full text, but there may potentially be further data relevant to your inquiry.
If you mean quantifiable difference, the salient difference between fresh and dry basil is the amount (parts per million) of fragile, aromatic organic compounds (including some volatile organics; these are what you smell.) In basil (in the mint family), I distantly recall reading that those tasty chemicals are mainly terpenes. A chemist could quantify which ones using chromatography -- and even tell the difference between Italian and Thai basil(!) If you want more perhaps ask on Chemistry/biochemistry stacks?
Just to turn my rather frivolous comment into a bit of an answer...
Expanding on the soft vs hard herbs - basil has got to be one of the 'softest'.
Dried, you can barely tell you put any in the food. Fresh is so punchy it can transform any dish from average to wow.
Try a really simple Tricolore, or Caprese salad. It has only three ingredients, tomato, mozzarella & basil. Dress with a small amount of oil & vinegar [ideally balsamic but any will do at a push].
With fresh basil it's one of the most amazing salads you could make. With dried... it isn't.
pic from tablespoon.com
The same for herbs like coriander [cilantro] & parsley.
4 tomatoes, one onion, chunk & drop in a bowl. Add a little oil & vinegar.
Then add either coriander or flat-leaf parsley for a taste explosion.
You can buy all these in supermarkets - growing in pots.
Keep the soil damp & put them on a sunny window-sill. Coriander & parsley you can keep a week or three that way, basically until you've used it up. Every stalk you cut means really the end of life for that stalk. It's theoretically possible to keep it growing, but in practice it's quite hard to achieve.
Basil, on the other hand, if you only ever cut just above the third leaf-pair down each stalk, you can keep it growing for years. I've got supermarket basil I've had for over 3 years now. If I can do it, anyone can.
"Dried, you can barely tell you put any in the food." -- How true! Also hunger-inducing photo.
Lacking fresh Basil, try dried Oregano. It's not the same but it's better than nothing.
Interesting that after new answers propping up the 'measurable differences' my anecdotal difference - ie the one you can actually taste - seems to now be attracting down-votes. It would be more interesting if some of the down-voters may care to explain why...
This is just my conjecture, but the entire industry — in all sectors, i.e., especially retail and industrial — has been undergoing a paradigm shift long overdue: quantified risk management & quality practices, actioned through evidence-based practices. As a natural result, the import of quantifiable data has become more apparent, especially with current industry practices and certification requirements. As for your answer in particular, I did not down vote but if I had to guess, I would say it's simply too subjective, even down to the sensory descriptors used (to linguistic relativity)
. Don't get me wrong though, I'm aware there's an entire field of science focused on a subset of sensory sciences specifically in regards to foods. There's also the application of Fuzzy Set Logic to quantify inputs in subsequent analysis, but I think in a general sense, industry perception has changed to favor more technical and measurable data & vernacular overall?
well the most obvious easily measurable difference would be water content.
Whilst being a focussed answer to an unfocused question, I'm not sure it really gets the spirit of the whole idea.
In a sense, that is correct though. From a commercial/industrial standpoint, something like sensory profile like this would fall under quality management (as opposed to product safety), and the most obvious characteristic to quantify as well as measure and control would be water activity, it'd almost certainly be a CQP in a Quality Management HACCP plan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.435535
| 2019-07-08T18:56:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100063",
"authors": [
"Arctiic",
"Catalyst",
"Erica",
"Gretel_f",
"Hugo",
"Joe",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76000",
"moscafj",
"nigel222"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119310
|
How can I increase white wine shelf life specifically bought for cooking?
In the answers to the popular question What defines cooking wine? one common recommendation seems to be to simply use regular wine.
However, it seems that wine goes bad in a few days. I don't consume wine, except for cooking wine, which from the answers to the above question seems to be a suboptimal choice.
Hence the follow-up question: How can I increase the shelf life of regular wine? Is it possible that a wine that has gone bad/sour is still useful for cooking while it is unfit for drinking?
The closest answer I could find is linked below. There the recommendation is vermouth. But that perhaps is a preference. I am curious if there's a simple answer to elongate shelf life where a wine can be used for months for cooking.
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/3034/33912
My primary use case is Adam Ragusea's veg soup recipe. Currently I am using cooking wine (with a fair bit of salt as well as potassium sorbate and potassium metabisulfite).
I can tell you what I do. When I open a bottle, I use one of those simple wine savers to reseal the bottle and keep it in the fridge. I've got a bottle that I've been using for around a month. It still tastes ok.
It does not answer the question but it may be relevant to the issue you're facing: here in France, cooking wine is sometimes sold in smaller bottles than regular wine - 20 or 30 cl instead of the regular 75cl . They are in cheaper material (plastic or cardboard) and closer to the quantities usually required for cooking. I do not know if this is the case everywhere.
I buy screw-top, cheap supermarket table wine to cook with. The opened bottle goes back in my wine rack with no other precaution or consideration. I've never had one go vinegary, even after a couple of months or so.
I always figured you drink it while cooking. If you wouldn't drink it then why are you cooking with it?
@MonkeyZeus perhaps because drinking most of a bottle of wine in one go isn't always a good idea, especially if for whatever reason there's no one to share it with. Many recipes use only a glass in a recipe for 1-2 people. Personally I freeze some and have a small glass on 2 nights - that's the absolute most I'll drink alone.
@SylvainD when I visit France from the UK the multi-packs of little cooking wine bottles or cartons are one thing I bring home. For those that haven't seen them they're unadulterated but very cheap table wine. We don't have an equivalent in supermarkets here - our mini bottles are overpriced and definitely meant for drinking. Online I could get Celliers des Dauphins 25cl for a sensible price but that's really meant for drinking at least when sold in France. I've mainly had that on the ferry
I usually buy wines in glass+cork bottles and, after using it, I simply gently hammer the cork back to the bottle and keep it in my pantry, which is closed (= dark) most of the time, and they last a month or more.
Freeze it in cubes and use it as required. Wine should be low-alcohol enough to freeze in a regular freezer, although you might find you get 'slushier' parts – if you do, these will have a higher alcohol concentration – so be careful about the container you use.
To answer your other questions, wine going 'bad' is a taste issue rather than a food safety issue, so if the wine tastes fine to you it is fine to cook with and if it tastes bad to you I wouldn't cook with it. Sure, you might put sour wine into a recipe and notice the sourness less than if you just drank it, but it's certainly not improving your food at that point and I wouldn't use it.
I will say that when people say wine lasts only a few days they're often taking from the perspective of someone with a very particular palette, and if you're aiming at 'tastes like wine' you'll likely be fine for at least a week, keeping it sealed in the fridge to slow oxidation.
Have you tried this wine freezing trick, dbmag9? It is a new one to me.
@Willk No, I like drinking wine and when I don't want to open a whole bottle I usually use a substitute. But I've done this with stock (which also doesn't freeze perfectly, for different reasons) and it worked fine.
If you add the wine for a sour note, wine that has gone off for drinking can do well in food.
Agreed on the point about palette-specific taste being the main issue. Personally when I read the linked suggestion about Vermouth it made me gag - I can't stand it after just a few days.
Note that it will probably not work with salted "cooking" wine. One of the reasons I never buy "cooking wine".
+1 but: IME red (being a bit stronger than white) doesn't freeze quite solid - it looks solid but still flows and stains the inside of the fridge if it leaks. I prefer to use individual lidded containers of around 100-200ml, then I can defrost a pot or two rather than half a tray of ice cubes. (@Willk it works very well)
@Mołot it works better with the salted rubbish sold round here than with normal red - there's nowhere near enough salt to affect the freezing point and cooking wines I've seen are partially de-alcoholised
@ChrisH where I live, cooking wines are full strength and awfully salted. Didn't know that there are different kinds. Thanks, I learned something! Guess the world is a big, varied place.
Small bottles.
These bottles are 187 ml which is 6 ounces each. This 4 pack costs $2. You will use one bottle to cook and discard what you don't use from that bottle. The other 3 will wait their turn and stay good while they do.
You will not find fancy wine in 6 oz bottles. You will find cheap wine. That is the kind of wine you should be cooking with.
What you find in small bottles and what price depends on where you are, here the small bottles often cost as much as the cheap full size bottles.
@Willeke - Road trip!
It is the air/oxygen in the headspace that makes the wine go bad, so the smaller head space keeps it good longer. You can also re-use these small bottles to save a bit of wine. The small wine boxes will work too, and since the boxes are flexible, you can squeeze out excess air from a partially used box easier than you can with a small bottle.
There are 'bag in box' wine packages around, easy to find in some places but harder to find in others.
With those no air comes into the container keeping the wine good for a much longer time.
They were almost standard in Australia when/where I visited back in 2005, I am not sure how much they have spread around the world.
These will keep for 3-4 weeks - much longer than a bottle - but they also tend to come in large packages (I don't know about elsewhere but most of the ones sold in the UK and Germany are 3l or 5l boxes). My guess is that for someone like the OP who doesn't drink wine that means it will end up being no better than a bottle in their use case.
For the sake of posterity, I'm going to make one more suggestion here:
Buy moderately priced wine with a screw cap, use what you need, and leave the rest, tightly closed, in the pantry.
If your pantry is kept temperate (15-24C), the half-used bottle of wine will keep for months to a couple of years. It won't be good enough to drink, but it will be OK to cook with.
Occasionally wine turns to vinegar or goes strongly off in ways that prevent cooking with it. I find that it's sufficient to keep a backup bottle of cooking wine for that. Yes, freezing wine, refrigerating it, or vac-packing it will allow it to keep for longer, but frankly aren't necessary unless you live somewhere tropical.
I drink wine, and keep leftover half-bottles to cook with, and have been doing the above for years without real issues.
I don't disagree with this in general but I think there's definitely variability between wines. I've had bottles of red that I've kept sealed in the fridge and still weren't enjoyable (to the extent I wouldn't want to cook with) after a week or so, and I don't have a very refined palate for wine.
Yeah, we could go into selecting a good cooking wine but that's a completely different question ...
Alcohol that is exposed to oxygen in the air will turn to vinegar, this is what stops it being drinkable. A bottle at room temperature can be left open for 12-48 hours, depending on a person's taste for tart vinegary things. If you close a partially drunk bottle, it should be fine to drink for 2-7 days on the same vinegar taste preference basis. Refrigeration will push everything here significantly longer, and anything that either prevents new air getting to the wine (any kind of lid), or sucks out air (like a vacuum pump cap) will also significantly extend the life span.
Wine that has turned to vinegar (but kept closed) should actually keep for quite a long time. I often have a closed half bottle of wine knocking around the kitchen for over a month before using it. If the wine goes bad, it should be visibly cloudy or have an obvious off smell (more than vinegar). If you really need to be sure, adding salt to the wine should make it last longer, say at the rate of 1/2 -3 tspn to a full bottle (3 is pretty damned salty). The problem with adding salt to the wine is that a) you have to remember & adjust future recipes based on this, and b) any recipes that call for reducing cooking wine will be very very salty.
I happen to like tart or vinegary food, but I do not at all like tart wine. This means that I often have & happily use old wine in cooking and have maybe only once in my life thrown away wine.
Final note : the reason why cheap /low quality wine is used for cooking is that the "fine flavours" of top notch wine evaporate very easily. This is both why low alcohol wine is difficult to make very good, and why good vs bad wine for cooking makes little difference.
"A bottle at room temperature can be left open for 12-48 hours, depending on a person's taste for tart vinegary things." Er, what? Wine turns to vinegar in 2 days? What's the ambient temperature of your kitchen?
@FuzzyChef It doesn't have to all turn to vinegar, just enough to be unpalatable. Having left a few accidentally uncorked wine bottles around, I know that overnight uncorked wine is OK for me but not my girlfriend, and that 2 day uncorked wine has in the past tasted off to me. As I wrote this I think this may say more about the cheap wine I had than my flats temperature
Ciaran: are you just leaving these bottles open, without closing them in any way?
@FuzzyChef yes, hence "an open bottle" will keep 12-48hrs, and in the next sentence a closed but partially empty bottle will keep 2-7 days. Obviously I mostly close the bottle in my own home. I was trying to give a comprehensive answer, though I obviously haven't made that clear.
Edited my answer to be slightly clearer
Wine goes off because it oxidises, you can avoid this by pumping the air out of the bottle using something like Vacu Vin (I presume cheaper alternatives are now available and probably work fine, that's just the brand I've used). These devices consists of a rubber "cork" with a valve that goes into the wine bottle, and a pump which allows you to pump (most) of the air out of the bottle. Thus pumped and sealed the wine will keep for weeks without noticeably degrading, especially when refrigerated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.436214
| 2021-12-25T08:59:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119310",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Chris H",
"Ciaran Haines",
"Darren",
"Dave X",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jack Aidley",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Mołot",
"Pedro V. G.",
"SylvainD",
"Tetsujin",
"Willeke",
"Willk",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91208"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86889
|
Sous vide power issue. Food safety
first I read the post that is similar but doesn’t answer my question.
Last night my power won’t out for a few hours.
I was cooking London broil for about 4-5 hours @125. Around 2am the power went out. I woke up at 4 and noticed the power was out. I then checked the water bath with one of my instant read thermometers, turned out the water was about 118-121. I then took it out immediately and put it in the refrigerator since I didn’t know when the power would come back on. This morning I out it back in the bath @125 again to finish it for this evening.
Questions are. Since it really only takes about 2 hours to cook normally, Can I assume it was already cooked to rare, when I put it in the fridge?
Can I also assume it sitting in the water bath for approximately 2 hours at about 118-121 then the meat is fine?
Last me putting it back in the water bath this morning will everything turn out the same as if I hadn’t lost power and it would have been a 18 hour cook? Vs the 5 hours of cook, 2 hours at 120, 4 hours of fridge and now about 7 hours @125?
Can you include a link to the similar post you read? (Just so people don't refer you again to something you already tried!)
7 hours at 125°F seems like a bad idea, no matter what happened before.
If the food is not being pasteurized (as is the case with fish and rare meat), it is important that the food come up to temperature and be served within four hours.
... which is why cooking times over four hours are not shown for temperatures below 131°F (55°C). [emphasis added] http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Cooking
Douglas Baldwin's guide should be mandatory reading before attempting sous vide. It's a great resource!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.437088
| 2018-01-04T15:59:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86889",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87532
|
How do I get the slimy clumps out of my bisque?
I used potato starch instead of cornstarch, as a thickener and forgot to make a slurry first. Unfortunately, the bisque isn't a pureed bisque, it's mushroom, celery and onion.
After I realized my mistake, I then added more as a slurry and was able to properly thicken it.
But it still has the slimy clumps, very unappetizing. How do I get the slimy clumps out without pureeing the whole thing?
Emily, there is no question here. If you would like a response, please edit your post so that it is in the form of a question. You might also try to search first (using the search bar above), to see if your question was previously asked.
One possible option might be to pick out as many of the vegetable chunks as you feel reasonable, then puree the rest. You'll end up with a thicker soup body, and fewer vegetable chunks, but it might not be a bad tradeoff to get rid of the lumps.
Or (depending on amount and proportion of liquid to vegetable) strain the liquid out, manually add the vegetable chunks from your strainer to the soup, and either discard lumps left in the strainer or puree them with leftover vegetable chunks (depending on how much patience you have for sorting) with reserved liquid.
Last option - if the lumps are pretty visible, you can pick them out when you see them - for example, when serving from a pot into a dish, or each time you pull it out of the fridge. If the soup is liquidy you could try scooping up spoonfuls of broth with as many lumps as you can, and ladling them into a strainer held right over the pot, so the liquid will flow right back in and only the lumps get held back.
These last are really annoying, and a lot of work, but if it's really bothering you it does help... I did something similar with a dish once, though it was for woody herb bits, since I didn't want to waste a pot-full of food.
Those are great suggestions. I have a lot of patience, so I may portion it out and see which works best. At first I thought it was little bits of mushroom, but I knew I had sliced them larger because that's my preference. Thank you!
You have two options, neither of which will be all that helpful given your situation. In general, you can attempt to strain out the lumps, or puree the liquid. Otherwise, chalk it up to a lesson learned.
I didn't thicken it a whole lot, so I think I may be able to strain the bulk of them out. I would've never thought to strain it. I was so dismayed because I made a gallon. I've made the recipe so many times, it's second nature, so the mistake was just me not paying attention. Thank you!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.437264
| 2018-02-04T21:39:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87532",
"authors": [
"Emily",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64924",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87665
|
Make quinoa sticky like rice?
I make a nice curry, and for presentation I would like to place the quiona on top of curry as shown in this picture:
But to be able to do that, my quiona needs to be sticky (I think it's the starch in the rice that allows it to hold its shape)
Any of you cooking geniuses can think of a way that I can have my quinoa hold its shape without affecting the flavor greatly?
Edit: My standard cooking technique, is to wash the quinoa thoroughly (I'm told this is a necessity), then simmer in two parts water to one part Quinoa.
Can you tell us, in the question, how you are cooking/preparing your quinoa?
Standard cooking process. Wash first, then boil in two parts water to one part Quinoa. Thanks
Cook it as usual nice and fluffy.
No one appreciates doughy quinoa.
Two choices:
A.at holding-temp, weigh down with a plate to just fit inside pan. scoop out servings carefully.
B. when just finished cooking. pack into ramekins etc tightly and rewarm. oiling may be necessary for ease of release.
You could... maybe add some starch?
Like add a touch of flour maybe? Maybe toast that flour a little to give it some flavour?
To make it sticky, I would cook it with coconut milk.
Try with different ratio of water and coconut milk to get the perfect consistency and taste (to you).
Next week I'll give it a try. Will report back my findings.
Wow, i was just googling the opposit. I was so happy to buy cheaper quinoa a costco (ottawa) yesterday and they have this new brand from canada. It happens to be "glutinous" quinoa. Best for hot dishes as it sticks. It was great in mexican food but not the best in my salad since i prefer dry quinoa in salads. I'm not sure where you are from but if you can get your hands on it, it would make the ball in the picture. I can send you a picture of the bag if you want.
I use my instant pot to make it but the bag says to simply boil it like pasta.
You said that you found quinoa that cooked up sticky, but how can the OP (original post) find the same or similar? What kind of quinoa was it? Or did the packaging state that it "sticky"? Or, did you acheive this by your cooking method?
While the quinoa is still steamy hot, use an ice cream scoop to portion out "balls", packing as much inside as you can.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.437495
| 2018-02-10T17:41:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87665",
"authors": [
"Spagirl",
"aName",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65058",
"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
}
|
123503
|
Is there any notable difference to take into account when roasting Cicer arietinum vs. Pisum sativum?
I recently got a freebie bag of snacks that according to the ingredient list included
Pisum sativum ('doperwt' in Dutch). But since buying these snacks in the store seems pretty overpriced compared to the price of a can of Pisum sativum, some spices and some electricity for roasting, I was thinking of making my own.
While looking for recipes, I came across loads of recipes for roasted Cicer arietinum ('kikkererwt' in Dutch). Even when searching specifically for 'geroosterde doperwten recept' (instead of just 'geroosterde erwt') and 'Pisum sativum roosteren', I only get recipes that use Cicer arietinum or that are about roasting an entirely different vegetable, served in combination with regularly cooked Pisum sativum. Which makes me wonder if the regular Pisum sativum may be unsuited to being roasted in an oven at home.
Are there any notable differences between the two when used in cooking, specifically roasting? Would I be better off just following a recipe using Cicer arietinum, or can I just replace the Cicer arietinum with Pisum sativum while making no changes to the rest of the recipe?
You will get much better results if you put the English words for these. Pisum Sativum is a Green Pea and Cicer Arietinum is a Chickpea.
There's a recipe for roasted green peas in English here
Instead of buying canned peas, buy the dry ones (whole, not split) and soak them for 8-24h before roasting. You'll get better results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.437717
| 2023-02-27T09:02:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123503",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"GdD",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56221
|
Bread doesn't split at the score
I've got to the point where my bread springs beautifully (I can see it grow). Unfortunately, no matter how I score it, the score always spreads open gently, then hardens along with the rest of the crust. Then, 5 minutes later, the bread splits open at the side.
I usually bake a batard shape, with 80% hydration. I make a single score, using a kitchen knife, about 0.5 to 1 cm deep cut straight down. I spray the oven walls three or four times with a plant sprayer after I put the loaf in.
What can I do to get better results? Should I invest in a razor, should I angle the cut a bit more?
Since the answer is a combination of the things mentioned, I'd thought I'd edit the question to summarize my findings. I've tried most of the things mentioned below. The following things stand out:
It's perfectly possible to get a properly opening score without a lamé.
There's a spectrum ranging from doughs that immediately open up when you cut them, and those that stay firm and re-seal immediately. This mostly depends on hydration. If you have the first, you'll want to make very horizontal cuts. This gives you a kind of flap that holds the cut closed long enough to keep it from hardening during the first minutes of the oven spring. This is why the score looks asymmetrical after baking.
I resisted the method of putting a dutch oven inside my oven for a long time. I have a small oven and this reduces the effective space a lot. Also I can't watch the dough spring anymore, which I find the most magical part of baking bread. But I tried it and, holy cow, what a difference it makes. Of all the tricks mentioned, this one made by far the biggest difference.
Try multiple slashes.
Sounds like your slash is very shallow. 0.5 to 1 cm is really not that much. I typically slash mine almost an inch down. I also second what @Optionparty says about multiple slashes.
I agree with many elements of the previous answers -- it could be due to the wet dough "resealing" and/or to the crust hardening too early and preventing further expansion. Doing a more horizontal slash than a vertical one is helpful to get good "ears," and extra moisture will keep the crust softer for a little longer to get more oven spring.
Frankly, although I did it for years, I don't find the plant sprayer method to do very much -- and if you're opening the oven periodically to spray in the first few minutes, you could be losing significant heat that could actually reduce oven spring. I concur with the steam pan method or using an enclosed pot. Note that pots don't have to be cast iron: any enclosed pot will significantly improve your crust as long as it is oven-safe at the baking temperature.
That said, I think this particular problem is difficult to troubleshoot without observing your specific loaves and slashing technique. Slashing deeper (whether vertically or horizontally) is definitely NOT always the answer and can actually deflate your loaves significantly if done incorrectly. With proper hydration, shaping, and oven steaming, it's very possible for quite shallow slashes to lead to great expansion. (As an aside, serrated knives are also about preference -- if you don't keep your straight-edge knives very sharp, serrated may be a better choice. However, they can leave your slashes jagged on the final loaf, which may not be as pretty and may result in unevenness for shallower cuts. I keep some of my straight-edge kitchen knives really sharp so they can be used for things like this.)
A lot of it depends on shaping and the stage of proofing your dough is in when you bake it, as well as the hydration. If you do a very thorough shaping (i.e., preshaping, bench rest, then very tight shaping of the final loaves), the outermost skin of the loaf may be very taut. Even a shallow slash could be enough to allow the loaves to open up significantly. If, on the other hand, you do a very gently shaping (little or no pre-shaping, trying very hard not to deflate the dough at all), the "skin" will not have the same characteristics and deeper slashes may be necessary. (As an example of this, you might consult the different advice given by Peter Reinhard and Jeffrey Hamelman -- the latter emphasizes detailed and tight shaping and thus advocates very shallow slashing; the former encourages gentle handling when shaping and advocates somewhat deeper cuts.)
The stage of proofing is also critical here: a loaf that is somewhat underproofed will likely have a more taut skin but will also hold its shape better even with deeper slashes. If the loaves are somewhat overproofed, they have a better chance of deflating or at least losing height with deeper slashing. The apparent moisture of the dough and its susceptibility to "reseal" the cut will also change depending on proofing stage.
Again, there are a lot of factors to consider. I would pay particular attention to the behavior of the loaves right after you slash them. Do the slashes spread significantly immediately (indicating a taut surface)? Or do they just remain close together (and thus risk re-sealing)? If you slash more deeply, does the loaf deflate? And if it does so, does it seem to reinflate in the oven, or do your permanently lose height? These observations can help troubleshoot the exact issue. A final concern -- sometimes if the dough is likely to reseal, waiting too long between slashing and getting the loaf into the oven can be a problem. A few seconds should not be an issue, but if you're taking a few minutes to slash and load a few loaves before getting them to the oven, that can be enough time for some cuts to close up again.
Thanks for the thorough answer. Most recently, with the high-hydration ones, the cut opens up very wide immediately after slashing. It's the polar opposite of re-sealing. Then the opened up part just hardens along with the rest of the crust, and a few minutes later the split happens in a random place. So far I've tried cutting deeper, but then I do lose some height.
@Peter - based on your comment, I might try a few things: (1) use more intense steam (either steam pan or bake in pot), which might keep the crust softer for a slightly longer time, (2) the dough may be slightly underproofed -- try waiting a little longer before baking, (3) shaping technique may be off -- either the dough isn't shaped thoroughly and doesn't have an adequate "skin" to prevent bursting OR the shaping could be too tight leading to the gluten breaking apart when stretched in the oven.
@Peter - also, have you tried varying the location and/or number of your slashes? Sometimes one central slash isn't enough, and making a series of parallel cuts or four cuts in a square (depending on loaf shape) or something could help release the extra tension. (I find more cuts often works better than just slashing deeper.)
The combination of a dutch oven and a more thorough shaping did the trick. I'm varying between one big cut, or three smaller ones. The first works perfectly, the second requires a bit more practice to achieve the proper look, but the bread doesn't split at the side any more, however I cut.
What seems a straight cut at the finished batard often started as horizontal deep cut:
Hold the blade almost horizontally and make a cut that basically creates a flap of dough or "overlap" of 1.5 cm or more. Oven spring expands the overlap, giving these wide "bands" on the surface.
High hydration doughs are a bit "sticky", so vertical cuts are prone to be re-sealed by expanding dough: the cut is not "weak" enough to open. With horizontal cuts the pressure is way less, leaving it open or " expandable".
If you want to experiment with a lamé de boulanger, get a razor blade (the old-fashioned rectangular refills with the odd-shaped holes down the center), bend it slightly cross-wise and stick a thin chopstick or skewer through the outer holes. Handling it needs a bit of practise.
My preferred knife is a really sharp serrated one, sold as "tomato knife", but every knife that's reasonably sharp should do. A wet blade sometimes helps with sticky dough.
The top right picture on the first answer here shows a baguette that was obviously slashed horizontally with a wide opening of the cut during baking. Note the "ear" on the higher side. This Q/A discusses the influences of diferent slash patterns nicely.
What's happening is that your bread crust is hardening before the expansion is done, and the crust splits at the weakest point. You need moisture to keep it soft and pliable until it stops expanding. The options are:
Put a pan of boiling water in your oven at the start of your bake, then remove the pan once your bread stops expanding
Put your bread in a large cast-iron pan with a lid, I bake my crusty breads in a large le creuset pot for 25 minutes, then remove the lid. The lid keeps the steam in, removing it then allows the crust to harden
It's a good problem to have really as it shows you have a good, moist dough, and it's easily solved.
I use the otherwise rarely used enameled roasting pan that came with the oven, and have done a few test runs so I know how much water to put in so it just boils dry after 15 minutes or so. Just watch out for the first burst of steam when you open the door if you've done the time and volume of water to start while the oven is preheating - and then don't open the oven until after it's done steaming.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.437880
| 2015-03-30T21:39:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56221",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Christopher Ford",
"Cindy Shore Wadness",
"Ecnerwal",
"Ipek Savun",
"Louise Bush",
"Lucia Hutter",
"Optionparty",
"Peter",
"Shena Leigh",
"Stephie",
"Tyrone Baxter",
"fred cox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95563
|
How can I make a large amount of caramelized onions for a french onion soup?
I am looking to make a large amount of French Onion soup (for ~16 servings), and rather than spend hours in front of a skillet (as I would have to do several batches), I am looking for an easier way:
could I bake a large amount (~20 onions) in an oven to achieve a similar effect?
should I put them in a pressure cooker?
are there even better alternatives?
In particular if anyone has advice as far as what else or details as to how to make it work (temperatures for ovens, convection/broil, pressure to cook at, etc. (I already read this, which while it would help, aims mostly at speeding it up & not doing a large amount which is more along the lines of what I am thinking) I would be interested, as I don't want to experiment with a large quantity of onions several times in order to get it right
P.S. - I am using yellow onions, although I'd imagine this would apply to all onions
P.S. #2 - what do restaurants do?
see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/6222/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/5681/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/88019/67
You can caramelize onions in the oven to do large quantities. This isn't less effort, and it actually takes longer, but it does allow you to do really large quantities; I did 20lbs of caramelized onions for one Polish dinner I was serving this way. Since I haven't been able to find a website with this method, here it is:
heat oven to 325F/160C
fill a hotel pan or baking pan with sliced onions to a depth of about 3/4"/2cm
toss the sliced onions with vegetable oil or melted butter and a little salt (and optionally a little sugar)
cook, uncovered, in oven for 1 hour to 90 minutes, stirring every 10 minutes.
The reason for the 2cm depth of onions is to keep them from burning in the oven, which they tend to do if spread thinner. Also, if you have a gas rather than electric oven, you may need to add a little water occasionally to prevent burning.
Althernately, Kenji of Serious Eats has a formula for cooking caramelized onions over high heat, and thus cooking each batch faster, without losing flavor. This would allow you to jump through several batches.
The oven method was given to me by a professional caterer, so I suspect that at least some restaurants use it.
Use a pressure cooker if you have one. I saw this in modernist cuisine but the above mentioned kenji (legend) has a discussion. The total cooking time is under 30 minutes.
Can you incorporate the minimum necessary information into the answer such that it's not dependant on the link?
Quick note that Kenji's pressure cooker method results in a lot of liquid, which is great for soup. The big advantage is time and not having to watch over the cooking.
Caramelizing onions works great in a slow cooker. Slice 5 extra large sweet onions in half, then in fairly thin half moon slices. Place them in a 6 qt (5.7 liters) slow cooker with a splash of water for 12 to 15 hours. Like magic they turn brown. Stir regularly after they have cooked several hours to even out the browning process. This also produces a small amount of onion stock which will go well in your soup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.438763
| 2019-01-11T17:25:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95563",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8864",
"mike",
"user2813274"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115127
|
On preserving dried ginger
Based on my reading, preserving dried ginger is the same as preserving fresh ginger I.e airtight and in the fridge.
Is there anything more that can be done to preserve the dried version. After dehydrating it, will not grounding it immediately and instead grounding it at the point of use make a significant difference?
you could probably vacuum it for longer preservation.
Dried ginger can be kept at room temperature, in any cool dark place (like your pantry), for months to years:
Dried, ground, or crystallized ginger should be stored in a cool dark pantry in a sealed container. Spices with the moisture removed do not really go bad (unless they get wet), but they lose their potency over time and will no longer add flavor to food. If the aroma is gone, the flavor is most likely also gone from the dried ginger.
That's the whole point of drying it; so that it lasts longer without refrigeration.
Is it better to grind the dried version at point of use or will it be loosing its aroma as you say when dried regardless of whether you ground it therefore ground dried ginger is the same as just dried ginger if they are the same age? Thanks
For any dried spice, it keeps longer the bigger the pieces are. So you'd want to wait to grind it if you can.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.439016
| 2021-04-05T17:52:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115127",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"James Wilson",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114679
|
Can you replicate grill or roasting on a stove?
I love fish and courgettes, tomato etc. don't in an oven. I'm gonna be on holiday in a third world country where people do not have ovens in their home and just usually use a stove of some sort.
How do people in this countries get food cooked, like an oven, grill etc. or are my only options stove top frying and wet heat methods?
If the area doesn't have cooking tools that you're used to -- learn from the natives how to use their tools. You can sauté courgettes, make pot roast, etc.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/60149/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/19351/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/58251/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/22889/67
Out of curiosity: which country / countries would be those?
Maybe they don't. You can't replicate roasting on a stove top. With a grill pan, you can get in the ball park of grilling, but you would miss the major flavor contributor resulting from drippings hitting hot coals or grill burners.
Rather than trying to replicate something you do at home, I would suggest, that when on holiday, you embrace the culture of the place you are visiting. Leave your favorites from home behind, learn about the culture of the place you are going, participate, and learn something new. You can return to the methods you use when you come home.
This is wrong and a bit ignorant. Not all "third world countries" are alike.
Most countries have an "oven" of some form in their traditional kitchens: it's just not a branded appliance with an electric element, temperature setting, timer, or glass door.
If you're staying in guest accommodations, you won't have anything to cook with - exactly what you'd also expect in the West. I would recommend regardless that you take up some kind of cooking class to learn how to make the traditional food with the traditional ingredients in the traditional kitchen.
If you get an oven, you'll probably be dealing with a clay oven fueled by charcoal or wood. This is arguably the superior way to cook because the temperatures are far greater, the natural humidity, circulating air, and the excellent heat distribution and retention due to their shape. Alternately, should you be so lucky to try tagine cooking, you might discovery the sublime flavor of braising fish and vegetables in their own juices.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.439152
| 2021-03-08T18:24:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114679",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"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
}
|
114725
|
Are these courgettes overcooked, if so how can I avoid it?
I set the double oven(I think) to 150 and left thinly sliced courgettes in there for about 20 minutes.
The skin of the courgette looked a bit dark to me and it tasted a bit dry:
How can one know if it is overcooked and how can I avoid this?
"Overcooked" is subjective. If you don't like the way your courgettes turned out, you can certainly try cooking them for less time and seeing if you like them better.
Did you add any oil? or put them in dry?
I personally don't find that thinly cut summer squash holds up well to cooking. I either cut about 8-10mm thick slabs and oil then grill it, or cut bite-sized half-moons or quarter moons and sauté it.
quick question , 150F or C?
@Austin759 i don’t know as it wasn’t it’s was in a hostel and the c or f is not marked.
@LightBender I put them in dry. But I’ve done it previously on another cooker it came out fine even though I put them in dry.
@Austin759 with some browning visible it would have to be C (unless that one localised spot is damage rather than browned by the cooking)
I think the biggest issue is you're baking them instead of roasting them. In order to roast them, you'll need a much higher temperature. 230c or 450f is about right. As Joe pointed out, the pieces are a bit thin for roasting. Spears or large chunks will serve you better. Roast them skin side down and brushing on a little olive oil will prevent the skins from drying out.
As in everything, you should keep an eye on what you are cooking; cooking is not an exact science.
Following timing instructions when baking/roasting is sometime problematic because each oven is slightly different and each ingredient will be slightly different from region to region (and season to season...).
So to answer the question, it depends.
If you feel they are overcooked, just cook them less next time or change the oven temperature or change recipe or cooking method.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.439342
| 2021-03-10T20:53:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114725",
"authors": [
"Austin759",
"Chris H",
"James Wilson",
"Joe",
"LightBender",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91692",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114800
|
Can you boil vegetables along with eggs?
When boiling eggs if you also want to boil vegetables it might be more efficient to boil them with the eggs rather then use more water and another pan.
Is it safe to do this or should one boil the vegetables in another pot?
How do you ensure the egg shells are clean enough?
Yes, you can do this. Be aware that:
if you add lots of cool items to boiling water it will take longer to start boiling again, which may impact cooking time a little.
I can imagine vegetables with very strong colour (beetroot) or flavour (garlic?) might diffuse through the eggshell and give you a pink or slightly garlicky egg.
Mmmm, garlic flavored hard boiled egg. I might have to test this theory
If you want a garlic-flavoured hard-boiled egg I'd just put a few drops of garlic oil on the finished egg once it's out of its shell – but if you do end up trying to boil some garlic with eggs I'd be interested to know what the outcome is!
As most ways** of cooking eggs call for cooking by time, I wouldn't recommend it.
There's nothing, however, to stop you from fishing out the eggs after they're done, and then warming the water back up to cook your vegetables.
This is easier than than trying to remove one item while leaving the other to continue cooking, or experimenting with correct timing on when to add the second item to have two items done at the same time. (which I do with brocolli florets and pasta, adding the brocolli about 2-3 minutes before the time mentioned on the pasta box ... but I'm also eating the two together, so there's no need to separate them)
**There are some devices that you can keep with your eggs, and then add to the water and they'll beep to alert when they're at various temperatures that correspond to soft boiled, hard boiled, or dipping eggs. I've never used them, but I have one that I was given as a gift last year. You still run into the other problems, however.
My mother used to put the eggs in a plastic bag in with the potatoes.
If you want hard boiled eggs, as she did, you can put them in with the cold patatoes and cold water. Take them out 10 minutes after the pot comes to the boil.
The plastic bag in case the eggs cracked. And because our eggs can be dirty, it also keeps the eggs from getting the veggies on them.
It's pretty safe.
Just boil each element the amount of time it requires, and if the eggs go in after the vegetables are already in, make sure that the eggs are at least room-temperature in order to prevent the water from stop boiling.
It's actually a thing to hard boil eggs in a hot pot, which as you know, is usually enjoyed with a variety of different vegetables.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.439538
| 2021-03-15T12:56:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114800",
"authors": [
"Kevin",
"Luciano",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5576"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114936
|
Is it possible to have a keto stew?
Is it possible to have a keto stew?
I would guess no since you need a starch eg a fair quantity of onions and carrots?
Is there anyway it can be accomplished?
What do you define as 'stew'? https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/20958/67
I'd submit that meat cooked in water with no other ingredients could be called stew. Maybe you can refine your question by adding some of the qualities you're looking for in a stew.
@juhasz I believe I asked a similar question before a related question before and the answer seem to be that to have a stew you need to have a starch otherwise it’s just a soup.
@JamesWilson, not everyone believes that a stew must have starch. For example, here's a list of Persian stews, most of which have no, or low starch. And, or course, many "soups" have a lot of starch (chicken noodle soup, potato leek soup, pho, etc). If you define a stew as a soupy dish with starch, that's fine, and it would be useful to include that information in the question. That way, we;ll know that we're supposed to be suggesting ways to make your starchy stews less starchy.
There are literally keto stew recipes when you search keto stew on google.
From
Delish.com:
When making keto stew:
choose low carb vegetables
replace potatoes with less starchy root vegetables
use onions and garlic judiciously
small amounts of colorful vegetables add visual appeal
add the vegetables at the last 40-60 minutes of cook time
Also, you can add heavy cream to your stew as the thickening element.
Some ideas
1: It seems like garlic or onions are needed for a stew. But some south Indian curries substitute asafoetida for garlic / onions. Those curries are delicious. You could look for a curry using asafoetida.
2: I made a duck cassoulet that used unflavored gelatin as the thickener. That would be good keto.
3: When I tried keto, peppers did not make me break ketosis. You would not want to slow cook peppers with the meat but you could add them at the end.
4: Crucifers supposedly are low carb. Broccoli did not make me break keto so probably not cauliflower either. I would not cook those with the meat either. Rutabegas are crucifers but I have to think they have more carbs. They stand up to slow cooking. I did not try those during keto.
No wine as cooking fluid. Just broth. A tablespoon of tomato paste probably would not be so much carb as to break the keto.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.439788
| 2021-03-23T22:33:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114936",
"authors": [
"James Wilson",
"Joe",
"Juhasz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115347
|
How to preserve this alcohol free herbal bitter?
I have an alcohol free herbal liquid bitter. The ingredients are:
“Vegetable Glycerin, Purified Water, Astragalus Root, Centaury Aerial Parts, Gentian Root, Ginger Root, Rosemary Leaves, Fennel Seed, Cardamon Seed (210mg).”
I know alcohol based bitters can last for a long time. After opening this what factors can lead this bitter to go bad and how long can I expect it to last?
It is not that it is going to turn bad, the issue is that the interesting components of this bitter are mostly volatile. Volatiles and the flavor components of bitters are more easily "dissolved" into/preserved by alcohol. Water is terrible for this. So, the best you can do is purchase or make small amounts, be sure to keep it tightly sealed, and keep it away from direct light. It's hard to say how long it will last once opened...days maybe, but I can promise it is much less time than a bitter made with alcohol.
Glycerine acts as the stabilizer.
Glycerine is in fact an alcohol, ist has even three alcoholic groups. There are techniques that use glycerine to extract substances from plants, so I suspect that a ethanol less bitter might be possible. As glycerine is sweet itself the resulting bitter is likely milder than an ethanol based one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.439992
| 2021-04-20T20:21:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115347",
"authors": [
"CobaltHex",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26369",
"jmk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121183
|
My silicone mold got moldy. Can I clean it or should I throw it away?
I've tried to google for an answer, but it's hard because mold has two meanings and in this case I'm using both. Some dessert got left in a silicone mold (shaping device) in the back of the fridge, and when I discovered it the dessert had gotten moldy (fungal growth). I washed the silicone as well as I could with soap and water, but it's still discolored. Is it possible to clean it enough to be food safe or do I need to throw it away?
If it is possible to clean it, what is the best way?
Is the discoloration caused by (possibly remaining) mold? Or is it an aftermath of removing the mold from the mold?
I'm pretty sure it's from mold since there's still a bit of smell.
Do you mean that you left some sand in the mold and that it got moldy? or did you mean to use the word "dessert"?
If the mold (shaping device) is actually silicone rubber, you should be able to kill any mold (fungal growth) quite easily.
I use silicone bread pans that are rated to 450 °F / 232°C (correction, poor memory and I never use them this hot - 500 °F/ 250 °C) in the oven, and that will kill fungal growth (and any others) in a matter of minutes or less. You could also put it into a pressure cooker, if it will fit.
Now, I also have some sort of rubber ice cube trays that are not actually silicone, and I expect those would melt into a stinky puddle and/or catch fire.
You can also run it though the dishwasher on "sanitize" if you have a dishwasher and it has that cycle option. You might look for a marking on the shaping device indicating a safe temperature range or limit (often right next to the food-safe cup and fork icon marking.)
My worry would be that silicone hangs on to flavours quite well. So if the mould has left an unpleasant flavour behind it will still be detectable even once sterilised. I'd still clean it and use it, but not for anything special the first time.
Most flavor compounds are fairly volatile, so baking the empty mold at 450/232 for a while would get rid of the vast majority of those as well. Running through the dishwasher (if available,) soaking in hot water and baking soda, and/or other typical cleaning steps could be applied as well if desired. Color may not ever go back to what it was (my heavily used silicone bread pans are nearly black. My lightly used silicone muffin / roll pan is blue. As far as I recall they started more or less the same color blue, when new.
Hopefully that's the case. I froze ginger&garlic puree in a silicone ice cube tray and couldn't get the smell out by dishwasher, covering with oil then using the dishwasher, boiling with detergent... I didn't try the oven as being meant for ice it had no maximum temperature listed
Discoloration of silicone is common, and it isn't a safety issue. Silicone is porous, and so yours absorbed coloring, most likely from the dessert as it was left in there awhile. Cleaning it thoroughly may restore the original color, but if it doesn't it's still safe to use.
As for cleaning it just use good old soapy water, and as for the discoloration wiping some a small amount of baking soda paste (baking soda with just enough water to make a paste) and letting it sit for a few minutes before washing it out may restore the color. If it doesn't it's still usable, just maybe not that attractive.
"Silicone is porous" reminds me of an answer I read somewhere about why tumblers still tasted of soap after thoroughly cleaning them with hot water, and the answer was because the soap was deep within the pore of the plastic. The solution to remove it was to use vinegar (although I don't think it works to get rid of the mold).
Vinegar is a good option to get rid of flavors and smells from plastic and silicone @Clockwork, not so much discoloration.
Boil them in water!
10 minutes of boiling will do, unless you are at elevations not usually inhabitated.
This is THE method. The time-honored (used for thousands of years), traditional way to kill any microbial life. Works also for getting the smell out.
If the smell persists, a small amount of baking soda (~0.1%) in the boiling water may help.
How other possible methods may fail (they may as well work, but require more controlled process):
Chemicals (including, but not limited to, bleach, other chlorine-based disinfectants and alcohol)
They may not penetrate deep enough into the material. Well, given time and shaking, they will eventually penetrate everywhere, but now you have the task to get them out. For glass, metal or porcelain the chemical disinfection is quite good, for soft and porous materials - not really.
Dry heating (in an oven)
As we all know from our baking experience, the temperature over the whole container may vary a lot. On the other hand, when dry, some forms of the microbial life (e.g. spores) survive well above 100C. An oven with circulating air will perform better, but be sure to reach at least 200C for 10 minutes or more. Be also sure not to heat them above their rated temperature.
Without using a pressure cooker at 15PSI/1bar, this does not kill any microbial life, just some microbial life.
Yes, heat transfer from liquid is more efficient than air.
It is not the heat transfer only. It is also the water that gets poisonous at these temperatures.
@fraxinus what is your source for "water getting poisonous at these temperatures"? The only difference between tap water and water in a boiling pot is temperature, it is no more "poisonous" to microbes, just hotter.
It is water that denaturates and hydrolyses proteins when heated. Dry proteins are much more stable .
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.440132
| 2022-07-29T16:08:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121183",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Clockwork",
"Ecnerwal",
"Esther",
"GdD",
"Nzall",
"aslum",
"beausmith",
"fraxinus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81301"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55482
|
How does a pinch of salt make a difference to a recipe?
Many recipes ask for a pinch of salt. How can such a small amount of salt make any difference to the taste of the recipe?
The simple answer is: people can taste (and smell, when the substance in question has a smell) substances in very low concentrations. A pinch of salt is not a small amount at all, it is a sufficient amount to be tasted.
I added 100mg salt to 100, 200 and 300ml of water and compared the taste to fresh water. I could easily detect the salty taste in both the 100 and 200ml samples. I fancy I could taste it in the 300ml sample, but it would require a blind tasting to be sure. Anyhow, 100mg is the smallest amount I'm willing to call a "pinch". The largest two-finger pinch I could muster was 900mg which is enough to alter the taste of 1.8l water. A three-finger pinch (people do that right?) measured at 1.8g would be noticeable in 3.6l water.
@ChrisSteinbach Yeah, I don't think it's usually meant to be a tiny two-finger pinch. And plenty of people just have a salt shaker so they never pinch, they just shake what seems like the right amount in.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.440909
| 2015-03-07T13:20:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55482",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Debbie McMullen",
"Fernando",
"Hannah Oh",
"Kathy Davis",
"Luz Íñiguez",
"Tanya Hennen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65614
|
Can I use a whole uncut green pepper that I accidentally froze or is it garbage?
I accidentally froze a whole uncut green pepper. I haven't tried anything with it except take it out of freezer. Is this still usable or is it now garbage?
It is certainly still safe to use.
Freezing vegetables will cause the the texture to soften, so it wouldn't provide a very enjoyable crunch, depending on how you plan on using it.
It would be well suited for use in something like a pasta sauce, stew or chili.
You can also use it for making stock (where you'd throw away the spent vegetables). I keep a bag in my freezer of vegetables that have gotten a bit sad but not spoiled, parsley stocks, etc. to use when making stock.
Yes, you can use it.
As renesis wrote, the texture will change; so it will much better cooked than raw.
Chop it up and use it in a pasta sauce or a soup, sauce or stew.
I'd do a sofrito with it as a base for a lot of things.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.441052
| 2016-01-19T17:29:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65614",
"authors": [
"David Morris",
"Hassan Nor ABDULLAH",
"Jason Hauser",
"Joe",
"Kay Deel",
"Terri Terry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"shirley hanson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116460
|
Rescuing a tough brisket roast
I let brine overnight a 450 g piece of point cut beef breast. Then I dry rubbed it with spices and put in my small crock pot with 150 ml of Guinness, a couple of carrots and baby potatoes on LOW for some hours.
I stuck a probe thermometer in the meat and set an alarm at 65 °C (having in mind the target temperature of 72 °C and thinking of carryover cooking).
It must be said that the meat was not submerged in liquid as the vegetables were on the bottom.
But I didn't hear the alarm and the temperature went beyond 72 °C. After about 8 hours, the meat was shortly broiled and, after some rest, sliced.
Tough as a rock.
Now I'm not very sure I know how the graph tenderness vs temperature goes for this kind of meat.
Hence some questions:
How would have my meat been if I took it out when the alarm sounded?
If I wanted a roast, did I "miss my train" by not hearing the alarm and what I have now is an overcooked roast?
Is it now an undercooked braise so a way to rescue it is to let it cook again partially submerged in liquid? (still got some gravy that could be watered up)
Which internal temperature should I aim for? I was thinking to use the crock pot again since my stove burners are too aggressive, and it sounds like it's going to be some more hours on LOW.
it quite difficult to over-cook slow-cooked beef. You can get it at a tender sous-vide stage early (with some cuts/temps), but almost anything will get tender if done, say, overnight.
Brisket is not a roasting cut; you didn't miss your train, it never left the station. Brisket is a very tough cut because of the presence of collagen, which breaks down at 72°C, and needs the presence of liquid, so roasting is not a good technique for this cut. If you'd taken it out when the alarm sounded it would be even tougher.
You can't roast things in a crock-pot, you have to have food mostly submerged in liquid for it to heat. There's no real target temperature for brisket in a crock pot in the sense of 'when it hits this temperature it's done' because you need to get it to at least 72°C and keep it there for hours so the collagen breaks down. If you use a temperature probe 72°C is when the cooking clock starts.
As for what to do now I would put all the brisket in an oven dish with a lid, put in some stock to about 2/3 of the way up and then braise it for at least 3 hours at about 145°C. Braise it until it starts to get tender, then braise it for a bit longer.
So the error was not to partially submerge the meat in the liquid at the first cooking. But given the size of the leftovers I think it'd be an overkill to use the oven, does it still make sense to use the crockpot? (this time submerge the meat!)
There's nothing overkill about ovens @DavidP, it's how braising is often done. They give you complete control. I'm also assuming the poster probably wants to speed things up a bit.
not really speed up, I'm OK to wait all afternoon for the slow cooker to do its job
In that case another 8 hours in the crock pot may work for you.
Brisket isn't the greatest cut for roasting, but it is possible. If you haven't fully sliced it, you can submerge it 2/3 in stock and cook it at 140 °C for about three hours or until tender. Then retrieve it and coat it in your favorite BBQ sauce and a rub, then roast at 180 °C for about 30 minutes, or until it looks shiny and somewhat caramelized.
If you have fully sliced it, I'd suggest cubing the meat and placing it into a stew. Allow the stew to simmer for about four hours and you'll have a very tender treat.
I haven't had hard brisket (which I usually boil), but I've had hard beef roast, and I added a little water to a frying pan (with whatever bits were in the original pan) and broke down the roast gradually into small bits as it softened, adding more water as needed. The meat got moister and was fantastic, and the liquid reduced and was flavorful for dipping into. I've since done this with leftover roast beef, too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.441182
| 2021-07-19T18:19:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116460",
"authors": [
"David P",
"GdD",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29703
|
How to pop a tiny champagne cork?
I know how to uncork champagne. However, I just got a bottle of prosecco with a tiny cork, and I'm not sure how to pop it. I can't grab it like with a normal cork, and I'm worried about putting a cork screw in there if everything is under pressure.
Here's a picture of what the cork looks like:
I was totally expecting to see a tiny bottle of champagne. If it were me (based on some Google searching), I would go with a corkscrew and some care.
According to CA Wine Merchants and Ask Meta Filter, you simply open it with a corkscrew, as per regular wine.
Evidently, it is not so effevescent or pressurized that it needs the special cork that true champaign requires.
Good to know, I'll try that out when I'm ready to drink it. In the past I've had Prosecco with a normal cork. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.441506
| 2013-01-03T21:23:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29703",
"authors": [
"Elon Satoshi",
"Gary ROHWER",
"JoeFish",
"Kenny Rogers",
"guyfrommilan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"lemontwist"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
31938
|
How should I clean this mess at the bottom of my wok?
I've been using my wok for about a year now, and recently it's developed a kind of patina around the bottom of the cooking surface.
I've tried to follow the care instructions as best I can, taking care to wipe it down after use, and only scrubbing it with cleaning fluid when it gets really dirty. If I have to scrub it down I typically wipe some oil over it whilst heating very gently in order to "re coat" the wok. I don't know if this is typical wok care procedure, but I'm following the care guide that came with this particular wok.
The wok is made of cast iron, and is sold by Le Creusset, information here.
The patina has gradually become more noticeable over time, but it is not flaky, cannot be removed easily by scrubbing and/or washing up liquid. It doesn't impart any kind of negative flavour into the cooking, so it hasn't put me off using it.
Does anyone know what this is, and how best to remove it?
I've seen people use bricks to clean their woks. Could try that
A patina that "is not flaky, cannot be removed easily by scrubbing and/or washing up liquid. It doesn't impart any kind of negative flavour into the cooking" is just what you want!
Could this be ...not patina, but LACK of patina, where an acidic food destroyed the seasoning?
A patina is expected in this type of cookware. Even the Le Creuset web site discusses it at this link:
http://www.lecreuset.co.uk/Help-Advice/Care--Use/Care--Use-Cast-Iron-Satin-Black-Enamel/
Don't try to remove it. It's the sign of a seasoned pan and is helping, not hurting.
If you really feel the need to try to remove it, Le Creuset makes a cleaner for their enamel cookware you could try. We've used it on our pots and it works quite well.
http://www.crateandbarrel.com/le-creuset-enameled-cast-iron-cookware-cleaner/s242309
I hadn't considered the possibility that the colouration was a good thing, but you're absolutely right; from your link: "Allow the brownish black patina to build over the cooking surface as this greatly enhances the cooking and release performance of foods from the surface."
So I'll just be leaving it where it is.
Some years back I cooked on a friend's Le Creusset but it had a teflon coating. Sure yours doesn't?
If it is bare metal then changes in color and carbon accumulation are normal especially in the area that receives highest heat.
Cleaning would be as per your wok/cast iron protocols -leave it hot and dry and lightly oiled- but looking new is not desirable.
So sorry, no advice how to remove marks but if you allow the wok to mature without aggressive scrubbing, it will eventually go nicely dark again (but never new looking)
I have one of these woks, the interior is black enamel.
I'm sure a lot of people will be aghast at this solution but it works a charm.
I use Easy Off oven cleaner. Just spray it on and wait 1/2 hour or so, then use an old toothbrush to remove the buildup, and wash very well.
It will not harm the enamel. I use it on the outside too, to remove the baked on stuff. It will just take a couple of squirts, for your job. Comes out like new.
It will remove any seasoning. Not really necessary on enamel.
I have at least a dozen LC pieces and use this method all the time and have always had perfect results. Just clean very well, before use.
Its hard to tell from the picture, exactly what the surface of the wok is, and the website doesn't provide much help either. It seems that it is coated with something; Le Creusset seems to do enamel and teflon nonstick coatings. Both of these coatings are common and provide a nonstick effect, but neither work terribly well for high temperature stir-frying, which is traditionally done in an uncoated steel pan. If you are sure that it is a patina, on the surface, and that the surface is not being damaged, you should be fine to cook on it. Perhaps you could carefully use a scotch-brite pad to remove the residue, but I would only do this if the pan were enamel coated, and still very carefully. In fact, I would advise against trying to remove the residue, and instead remember to use a fairly liberal amount of oil, and to preheat the oil before adding food to the pan.
Traditional steel woks can, as mentioned, be cleaned with a harsh abrasive such as sand or a stone. I would not recommend treating your pan this way, however, unless you want to risk stripping the coating.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.441627
| 2013-02-15T09:30:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/31938",
"authors": [
"Andy F",
"Lorraine",
"Nomad Wizard",
"PeeEss",
"Raheema",
"TFD",
"User101",
"elssar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73471",
"martinsarif",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99321
|
Dehydrator potato chips
I am trying to make potato chips using my dehydrator, but the keep coming out hard and plastic like. They are to hard to eat. I cut them at 1/16 of and inch and blanched them.
I used a low setting too.
Did you actually cook them at any point (beyond blanching)?
Indeed, they should be cooked in oil. Othervise the result would be very bland.
I'm not clear on what you are trying to achieve with the dehydrator. I see three options for you. Option 1: no dehydrator, just deep fry in oil. This is probably the most traditional. Option 2: use the dehydrator briefly (a matter of 10 - 30 minutes) to dry the potato slices. This would create less splattering when frying. Option 3: Cook the potato slices (this will gelatanize the starch), dehydrate until "plastic like", then fry. This should allow the potatoes to puff when fried. In all scenarios, the potato must be cooked at some point to crisp them, which will not happen in the dehydrator.
Potatoes need to be cooked before they are edible (or at least palatable). Dehydrators only remove water from food, it does not cook the food.
So if you want to crisp potato chips, without frying it in oil, you might try steaming potato slices (slice them thicker than normal so that they will hold shape after steaming. About 10 minutes of strong steaming should do the job. Then dry the chips a bit before seasoning with salt and pepper. The dehydrator should produce better results for you.
I have not tried this method myself (I prefer deep fried chips), but this is how I would do it. If you try it, do let us know how it worked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.441993
| 2019-06-02T18:06:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99321",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Thor Elvin Valø",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75831"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97198
|
Why do recipes have the instruction to fry in olive oil?
Can someone please tell me, why do cooking instructions have you frying in olive oil? That doesn't make any sense as olive oil has a very low smoking point.
I deleted the second question as it was unrelated to the first. If you still wish to ask it as a question we ask that you make it a separate question. Only one question per um question please. As to your first question, can you give any specific examples? Were the instructions explicit as to the temperature the oil should be at for frying?
Do they refer to deep frying or fairly gentle shallow frying? Do they specify the type of olive oil? Refined has a higher smoke point
What's the recipe?
I'm voting to close at the moment because the question is unclear, and will lead to speculation. It's also too broad, there's many reasons a recipe may call for olive oil, not all of them right, unless the recipe is posted there's no way to focus an answer.
I would suggest three reasons:
The smoke point of olive oil, while lower than many oils, is higher than most items you would deep fry (375 - 490 F or 190 - 255C, depending on the olive oil).
Tradition - if it is the oil that is most plentiful, it is the oil that is used.
Flavor - olive oil imparts a distinct flavor (as other oils do).
I would make a distinction between frying, in all its variants, and sweating. A lot of recipes do not.
If you're sweating, say, a mirepoix, then there is enough energy going into boiling and evaporating the water in the vegetables. The temperature doesn't reach the smoke-point of an olive oil until the water has gone and browning begins, at which point, you start frying. Sweating in olive oil does yield a different base flavor, from other fats.
But even then, I wouldn't use a high-quality, cold-pressed Extra Virgin olive oil for sweating, either. Not because it would reach its smoke-point, but because all the lighter, more volatile fragrances on which its quality depends would be driven off, leaving it 'flat'. Those oils are best appreciated raw.
There are people who are very bothered by eating oil that has been taken to the smoke point. There are those to whom it doesn't matter at all. And there are those who don't even know that this happens.
The first group tries to sell their preference as having universal validity. But in reality, there is no law saying that oil should never be taken to its smoke point. The recipes you have found are written and enjoyed by the second and third group of people.
There are two reasons that come to mind. First, as Chris said, very refined olive oils have a higher smoke point than say extra virgin olive oil and can be used to sweat onions and similar things.
Since you don't specify which recipe, it's also relevant to point out that many recipes are not that good. There is no qualification needed to post recipes on a blog or videos on Instagram or Pintrest. Whoever wrote the recipe might simply not know any better. After all, many popular recipe blogs are run by enthusiastic home cooks, not professional chefs. With the way social media works, styling mediocre food and taking good pictures of it is rewarded more than a good but not photogenic recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.442167
| 2019-04-01T02:45:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97198",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Summer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95437
|
When making batter/dough, why is it really bad to clean your spoon by hitting it on the edge of the bowl a few times?
Mom and I were looking at a holiday cooking tv-show a few weeks back, and during the part where the host made the dough for the oliebollen, he hit his spoon a few times against the bowl, to get rid of excess stuck to the spoon. Apparently, this was bad enough that mom felt she had to comment on that out loud (NOOO! You fool!).
According to her, when making oliebollen (or any other kind of dough/batter which includes yeast), you should never hit your spoon on the bowl, as this will prevent the dough from rising properly. I've tried to look this up on the internet, but found no such claims/instructions nor any explanation of why hitting a spoon on the edge of the bowl would prevent the dough from rising properly.
So, when making batter/dough, is it really bad to clean your spoon by hitting the edge of a bowl? If it is, why would doing so prevent the dough from rising properly?
Oh, those cooking myths!
Whenever you think you have heard them all, there's a new one. In a yeasted dough, the yeast is perfectly fine with being tossed, beaten and generally mangled. The little yeast cells couldn't care less about what you do in the initial stage of mixing and kneading. (That's obviously different when you consider the dough after the bulk raise: You want to keep the existing bubbles, sometimes more - think baguette or ciabatta - sometimes less, when you punch out the larger ones for a smoother texture, but I digress.)
What is an issue, is the kind of air that didn't come from yeast digestion and is safely entrapped in a gluten network, but the air that was beaten into the batter mechanically. In the oliebollen recipe I have, you make a fairly liquid yeasted batter and finally add beaten egg whites. Now, thats a material that doesn't take well to being jostled around. Just consider how carefully the egg whites are usually incorporated: There's even a cooking term for the method, you fold them in, instead of stirring like crazy.
Many bakers will handle a batter with incorporated egg whites very carefully, because they don't want to burst those precious bubbles1. But unless I am working with something super delicate, a gentle tap of the filled pan can help too-large bubbles rise to the top (and subsequently be pierced) instead of creating unsightly cavities or worse, darkened patches on the surface.
The kitchen rule of "don't bang the spoon on the bowl" may well originate from there - but then the rule applies to all kinds of batter with stiff egg whites. You can be on the very safe side and desist, but I am quite sure that it won't really matter if you tap gently. On the other hand, wiping the spoon with your finger or a spatula means you get all batter in your bowl, and not in the sink, which the frugal me appreciates.
Not tapping the spoon will also prevent chipping the mixing bowl, which in the past was often made of clay or ceramics, and avoid splattering.
1 That's something that fires back in macaron making, where you have to purposefully destroy some of the bubbles...
That applies not only to batter with stiff egg whites, but stiff cream as well (or more generally: any batter without an active rising agent)
So, I just asked about our recipe, and it doesn't include egg whites :(. Mom remains adamant that hitting the bowl will shock the dough and have it rise less/badly. I do know that they used enamel coated utensils when she was a kid (she regularly talks about wanting a large pan/bucket like that for making oliebollen). Perhaps the story originated from there, like you said, as enamel can crack or chip.
@Tinkeringbell my gran (and even more so my great-gran) also were very protective of their enameled bowls etc. There are lots of “myths” about yeast, many of which are untrue.
And some of my basic kitchen instructions included “don’t bang the spoon on the bowl” as well, but the reasons I was given were: a) can damage the bowl b) can make a mess and splatter c) won’t give you a clean spoon anyway.
@Tinkeringbell - I'm inclined to think it's a myth too but it would be trivial for your mother to prove her point (or otherwise) with a controlled trial.
@Turkeyphant Sure. Perhaps I'll do one myself. The only thing is... oliebollen are only made for New Year's Eve over here XD. So you might have to wait a bit for the results.
It's also hard on the spoon. I bang my spoon on the bowl all the time, and you can see where my wooden spoons are chewed up on one side.
reminds me of the story about cutting both ends off the ham, and just knowing not to do it. (spoiler: many relatives are asked, just to find out that the next level relative up had always done it.. only to find that great grandmother's pan was too small for her hams :) )
When I make yeast dough (where any entrapped air originates from the yeast), I even let it rise, then slam it on the kitchen counter a few times, and let it rise again. You can repeat this procedure multiple times to get a finer texture. This works because yeasts are microorganisms which produce air as long as they live, and will even multiply. It’s a different matter if the dough/batter contains stiff egg whites, whipped cream or the like, and to an extent also with “dead” rising agents (e.g. soda), which get consumed as the dough rises.
There may be a few batters that are sensitive to shocks or loud noises, but most will not be (see Stephie's answer for more detail).
In my household, the real reason for not beating the spoon was always clearly about protecting the dishes, not the food. Mixing bowls can chip, crack, or dent (depending on the material). If the bowl has a lid, then damage to the lip of the bowl can prevent the lid from fitting. If the bowl is ceramic or plastic, an impact may crack the bowl, which may even get shards of bowl material in the batter.
For cooks that like their cookware to last (my mother's pots and pans are older than I am), banging a spoon on the bowl is unthinkable. You either scrape the batter of with another spoon, or you flick the spoon into the bowl without making contact (the motion is similar to the one used for banging the spoon on the bowl).
Much less common, but the spoon can get also get dented if its wood or something rare. We have a porcelain cake slice which is fragile, and I've shattered a ceramic knife blade once.
Another reason not named so far, that applies even to combinations of spoon and bowl/pot that are mechanically perfectly fine with hitting and vibration-insensitive contents:
Not banging safes the nerves of everyone else in the house.
Keep in mind that sound transmitted through solids travels surprisingly well and table or sink can act as sound board... So, extra points if the kitchen table touches the radiator or some pipe or if the bowl/pot is in the sink (= mechanically connected to the water piping).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.442457
| 2019-01-07T14:50:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95437",
"authors": [
"Criggie",
"Elmy",
"FuzzyChef",
"Stephie",
"Tinkeringbell",
"Turkeyphant",
"ebwb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71956",
"user149408"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117067
|
How to properly brown cut-up chicken breast pieces?
Yesterday I was trying to cook "Chicken Tonight". The jar instructs to cut 400 grams of chicken breast in "small" pieces (we use two jars, so I end up with 800 grams), then to brown those pieces in a pan.
No matter what I try, I can't get the chicken to brown: I've got the pan as hot as it can reasonably go. I'm using an induction stove, I put that on 'boost' and leave the pan for minutes, just heating up. As soon as I add fat (sometimes butter, sometimes olive oil) to the hot pan, it starts showing small bubbles/sizzling almost immediately, and I need to drop in the chicken or it will start to smell burnt.
But no matter what I do, the chicken won't brown. Instead, it starts losing a lot of what I think is water rather quickly, and then it will be more like it ends up cooking in that water. Here's a picture of what I ended up with yesterday, there's a solid half cm of water on the bottom of the entire pan. This usually happens in a matter of seconds, and at that point I take the pan of the heat source. At this point, the chicken pieces are completely done, but except for maybe a slight brown edge on a few pieces, they're also all completely white. I just get rid of the fluid, add the sauce from the jars, and leave that to simmer at this point, because further attempts at getting the chicken to brown will end up with more fluid and drier meat, but no brown.
What do I need to change to properly brown small pieces of chicken breast?
Frame challenge: you don't need the chicken to brown, just to be cooked through. I use those kinds of jarred sauces (and homemade equivalents) quite a bit and I have never tried to do anything other than cook the chicken. I interpreted "brown the chicken" on the instructions as "make sure it's cooked before you add the sauce".
Brown? Chicken breast? I assume "browning" here is a more generic term for sufficient cooking
Another tactic would be to brown whole breasts and then cube them.
Welcome to the age of meat injected with water to increase the weight you're buying..
Also, think on the last time you ate chicken-in-some-sauce in any restaurant context - was it browned?
@CaiusJard That last time would've been... never, unless you count chicken nuggets and ketchup :P I don't go to a restaurant to eat chicken-in-some-sauce, I can cook that at home :D
"I put that on 'boost' and leave the pan for minutes" If that pan has any kind of fancy no-stick coating, say goodbye to the pan.
@Tinkeringbell you've only ever eaten dry chicken dishes from any Indian, Chinese, Thai, French, Italian... ? OK, you can lean on my experience then; I don't recall ever eating browned chicken breast chunks as part of a chicken-in-some-sauce dish. I get the feeling that the makers of your chicken sauce put the "brown it" advice in to help ensure the user doesn't give themselves salmonella poisoning rather than any particular "it won't be haute cuisine without it"
You have overcrowded your pan. All you have to do is to brown it in batches.
Each batch should be so small that you have only one layer of chicken cubes on the pan bottom. The pieces will still lose their water, but it will evaporate quickly, leaving them dry, and they will brown on the bottom. Wait long enough that the first side is browned (don't stir even if you are itching to do something), then stir once until most pieces have fallen on a new side. Repeat until they are generally uniformly browned.
When the batch is ready, empty the chicken pieces into a bowl. You don't have to wash the pan, but you will likely have to add fat again before the next batch goes in.
The pan should be fairly hot, but induction with boost on will be too much. You have to make sure that the meat has enough time for the browning to happen, before it gets too overcooked. "happens in a matter of seconds" means the pan is way too hot.
Important to add: pat the chicken dry with a clean kitchen towel (paper or fabric) before tossing them in, it helps immensely. And you can always cheat by adding some carbs (flour / cornstarch)
+1 for "don't stir even if you are itching to do something" - this is the part I've always had trouble with :-)
Use the widest, lowest-rim pan you have available. One more thing you can do -- if you have a range hood fan, turn it up. It'll help draw off water vapor as the chicken gives up moisture. It's a small factor, but it's a factor.
First of all, chicken breast doesn't brown well, because it's low in fat. Additionally, in places like the US, supermarket chicken tends to be heavily brined, retaining a lot of extra water which comes back out when heated. So temper your expectations.
As rumtscho said, your pan is overcrowded, and working in batches will help. But particularly with pieces that small, by the time they're significantly browned, they will be overcooked by modern standards. There's literally nothing you can do about this: You can't rush Maillard browning (or it'll be burnt instead of browned), which means you would need to somehow hold the outside surface around 150C for a few minutes without heating the interior (mere millimeters away) above 75C or so. That is not going to happen.
So: browned pieces, small pieces, moist pieces. Pick two; you can't have all three.
Oh, one other thing: fond. If you were to take the chicken pieces out when they're "fully cooked" (by whatever standard, but not yet browned), leave the liquid in, and keep cooking it, it will reduce and brown nicely. For chicken stewed in a sauce, that'll be a fine substitute. You just need to give the liquid time to cook down by itself.
Acutally, you can "rush" Maillard browning. One would need to increase the number of available carbohydrates, and the pH. The pH is easier, with a pinch of bicarbonate (but warning, it can give a slight soapy or metallic off taste, not everybody likes it) and the carbohydrate part works by the good old technique of flouring.
Also, if you watch the commercials linked from the Wikipedia page (eg https://youtu.be/_GdiNk3-IPE?t=20) you will see that the "small" pieces are much larger than in the picture in the question. This lets them keep more of their water while browning. If you want very small pieces of chicken in your dinner, it's probably best not to try browning them. Or you could brown them while they are large, then cut them up smaller just before adding the sauce.
@KateGregory I can't really make out how big the pieces are in the commercial, it's too blurry for that. But looking at e.g. this page on their own website and the picture there, the pieces should be slightly smaller that pineapple parts... which they are. They might look tiny in the picture, but they're still quite big, a single one of them is basically a mouth full.
at the 20 second mark (which I linked to) there are 5 pieces of chicken in the entire pan. That's a lot bigger than your pieces.
@KateGregory That would indeed be a lot bigger then, yes. Also, it would not be in line with the instructions on the specific jar I used, which says to 'cut up in small pieces' quite clearly. So that makes either the instructions wrong, or the commercial misleading, or both :-P
Can't trust commercials. Probably involves lies and foodstylists :D
@KateGregory The commercial shown is from the 1990's - and actually shows entire chicken legs/drumsticks. Nowadays the suggestion is to use diced chicken breast therefore you can't compare sizes of chicken pieces between the two.
I’ve browned chicken breasts many times using olive oil, but they were whole breasts and not cubes. Using high quality breasts helps (lower water content) and by the time they are actually brown the outside layers are usually dry, so it’s not always the best way to cook a breast.
It could be that what you perceive as water is in fact ... water. Unfortunately the practice of 'plumping' chicken with saltwater is pretty common in the industry as it bulks up weight cheaply. The industry says this makes chicken more juicy when cooked, I'm not convinced on this myself. Whether it's a good thing or not the upshot of plumping is that the water squeezes out when the meat is cooked, which is why you have so much in the pan.
If you can find un-plumped chicken then there will be less water, but I would suggest instead you change your method and brown the chicken as a single piece before cutting it up. Cutting your chicken up into small pieces creates a lot of surface area for water to escape, keeping it as a single piece will keep more moisture in the chicken and will give you a better result.
Luckily, adding water to unprocessed chicken, like chicken breast, is not allowed in The Netherlands without labelling it as e.g. 'chicken breast with added water'. (Source, only in Dutch, sorry). As for browning, then cutting up... that sounds to me like I would end up with quite a few pieces that are only browned on 1 side, or not at all for the thicker end of the breast?
There are plenty of illegal or 'dodgy' things that happen in the food industry, remember the horse meat scandal? Answering your question I'd suggest that browning well on one side is the best you'll get, if you brown both sides you're likely to end up with dry chicken. The browning is for flavor development, so one side is fine, once you cut it up and add the sauce it will finish cooking.
Heh, fair point about the scandals. I can of course only hope that the packaging is 'correct'. And thanks for explaining that last bit!
@Tinkeringbell FWIW, it's required that "plumped" poultry be labelled in the US, too. It will usually have something similar to "may have up to 5% solution added" somewhere on the package, but the exact wording differs. That said, if it's repackaged for sale by the grocer or butcher, it may not always be labelled correctly or where you can see it, especially if it's in a meat case and wrapped to order. And of course, some unscrupulous vendors will get away with not labelling it properly. If it's the cheaper option, it's probably been injected with brine, as salt and water are cheap.
Try a different source for your meat, like a specialist poultry seller or a different chain of supermarkets. Or buy precut chicken, just to test.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.443203
| 2021-09-02T11:30:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117067",
"authors": [
"Bloodgain",
"Caius Jard",
"EdHunter",
"GdD",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kryten",
"Nobody",
"PcMan",
"Russell Borogove",
"Tinkeringbell",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Vicky",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94739",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49337
|
Is sealed raw meat left out on counter for 3+ hours safe to cook and eat?
Left a lb of ground chuck, still sealed, out on the counter after coming home from buying groceries. It just slipped by me, everything else went into the freezer. It's been about 3 hrs and some change. Still good or should I suck it up and buy another lb? The store is kinda far and huge and a pain in the buns.
I understand that the toxins released by bacteria will still be present after being cooked, but it's still sealed so am I good?
Thanks!
It's one of those round cylindrical packages that are twisted off at the ends. It was not frozen when I bought it, just chilled.
It's not vacuum-sealed or anything, is it? Just wrapped up in a package? And was it frozen when you bought it?
Yup, in that case, this is a duplicate of the previous one - it's potentially dangerous since it was well over two hours, and ground meat is one of the more perishable things.
I don't consider this a duplicate because of the specifics of the questions and answers, such as it being sealed but not Vacuum sealed, and not frozen when purchased. Previous question doesn't address whether the meat was exposed to air.
The previous question is about the general case, and your case fits within that. Your meat is in the danger zone (it wasn't frozen in the store, and it had a long car ride home and then 3+ hours), and it's not specially preserved in any way (the package is not airtight).
That said, if you want to ask about any of the details there, please feel free to edit your question and perhaps we can reopen it! We're not trying to stop questions from being asked, we just don't want another copy of "is meat left on the counter safe".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.444117
| 2014-10-28T22:17:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49337",
"authors": [
"Amanda",
"Carly Aquino",
"Cascabel",
"Megan Owens",
"Suzette Gunderson",
"Teresa Hylton",
"Y G",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28953"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49502
|
What green tea has the highest caffeine content?
How do these teas rank by caffeine content: Japanese dragon pearls, Matcha organic green tea, and gyokura imperial green tea? Is there any green tea with more than the ones in that list?
PS: Is it possible to get an antioxidant rating too? ie these teas rated by antioxidant levels, and if there are any other teas with stronger antioxidant levels, thanks!
Are you asking about flavor? Caffeine? Isn't there enough variation within each of those that no single one would be strongest, anyway?
clarification is about caffeine, thanks. Is there an order for these green teas, strongest to least among these teas, and if there is any other green tea stronger then any of these, info is appreciated.
I have no idea about what the absolute strongest teas are, but all three of the things you mentioned appear to have caffeine and antioxidant ratings here: Gyokuro Imperial Green Tea Jasmine Dragon Phoenix Pearls Green Tea Matcha Japanese Green Tea
I suppose that establishes a rough ordering - matcha is strong, the imperial green is next, and the pearls are last. But I'd take it all with big spoonful of salt; there's tons of variation even within a specific variety, and you can get lots of different kinds of matcha, lots of kinds of tea made into pearls, and so on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.444328
| 2014-11-04T00:10:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49502",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Eman Ahmed",
"Geller Benjamin LLP",
"IntheGarage",
"Kristin Refford",
"Rasha Moenis",
"Spammer",
"elle smith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29071",
"user29071"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97337
|
Bisquick waffle surface is inconsistent. Likely equipment or recipe problem?
I've been using the same waffle recipe and waffle maker for about 10 years. Lately, my waffles have changed a bit.
Waffle iron takes quite a bit longer to indicate done. Previously I'd expect it to be ready a few seconds after a 5 minute timer went off. Now it can be closer to a minute afterward.
Surface of waffles is no longer as uniform. The center has often either collapsed or otherwise not stuck to the upper iron, leaving an undercooked "divot". (But not 100% of the time. I can still get a good surface occasionally)
It's a 10-year-old Black & Decker that has worked well. The grilles have no obvious damage to the surface, but I can believe that something related to them has changed. I wouldn't be too upset to replace it. (Replacing the removable grilles appears to cost more than replacing the unit). There's only a single ring-shaped heating element in each half. So I don't think the heating is the problem. I'd expect a consistent hot-spot or a consistent cold spot away from the center. Neither of those seem to be happening.
My worry is that replacing would be useless because something is off with the recipe. In my case it's just Bisquick (mainly because I never do any prep the day before, I won't have buttermilk or yeast, and it's worked great previously). This is the only thing I use Bisquick in, and I'm concerned that a change in the product could be the issue instead. My double-batch as made:
576g Bisquick
2 eggs
4 Tbs vegetable oil
2 2/3 cup milk
Each waffle is made with a shy 1-cup batter poured into center.
While I normally try to apply a spray oil before every batch, I do occasionally forget. When that happens, I haven't noticed it being significantly better or worse.
Anyone know if these craters are an indication of a problem with surface of the iron?
While it could be a lack of heat, it looks to me more like the batter in the center is not sticking or otherwise remaining in contact with the upper surface. I'm supposing the grille is hot, but that there's an air gap to the batter. Seems odd that it's always the center where it pulls away.
It does look like an issue with getting the heat to the middle. Are there any screws you can tighten up?
Maybe "batter poured into center" is cooling the center to much.
Could be. It seems to me like rather than the iron not being hot enough, it's more a problem with the batter not remaining in contact.
In the years since I posted this, the waffle recipe on boxes of Bisquick has changed. Not sure if the product has or not.
But, (with that same waffle iron), I am now getting much more consistent results.
My main suspicion is that it was the brand of spray oil I was using. I think that enough is left behind that even when I accidentally made a batch with no oil didn't change anything. But after I got a different kind of spray oil, this really hasn't happened. (The old kind was a product that used to be available at Trader Joe's, but they've long since changed it out).
Compared to the old recipe I was using, I have doubled the eggs and added more milk for a slightly thinner batter. But the timing of it makes it appear that the spray oil was the more important change.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.444533
| 2019-04-06T23:09:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97337",
"authors": [
"BowlOfRed",
"Chris H",
"Optionparty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29322"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75894
|
What are the ingredients that make vegan meat taste like real meat?
I tried making a vegan burger in my kitchen before, and it turned out all right. However, when I taste a vegan burger or a vegan hot dog at restaurants or in frozen foods, it seems much closer to the real taste.
So I was wondering, what are the ingredients that make vegan meat taste like real meat?
Vegan meat is an oxymoron.
@NeilMeyer http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/
I was wondering that myself. Definitely some kind of nature identical flavor is being used, but I've no idea where to get some of it or how to make it. I usually prefer mushrooms and veggies though.
http://www.beefresearch.org/cmdocs/beefresearch/the%20chemistry%20of%20beef%20flavor.pdf
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/15475/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/12351/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/3540/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/35461/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/13086/67
Because restaurants cook vegan burgers on the same grill as delicious meaty burgers. ;)
The meaty taste is Umami. It is the flavour of monosodium glutamate, in the same way that salty is the flavour of salt.
Both mushrooms and tomatoes of the right variety are quite rich in it, as is yeast extract. You can also just buy the stuff commercially.
Don't worry about the stigma attached to it, it's not actually toxic or anything.
Also, soy sauces (some have added MSG but it is not needed), doenjang, miso, sufu...
Lots of yeast extracts are rich in glutamates and nucleotides as well.
@SourDoh, I mentioned yeast extract in my answer. It's true that also miso and other fermented soy products have it too, but it was just a quick answer and hardly an exhaustive list.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.444836
| 2016-11-26T11:21:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75894",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Ivan Anishchuk",
"Joe",
"Nathron",
"Neil Meyer",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"soundslikefiziks"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110063
|
Why store food in an airtight container when it's in the fridge?
The common wisdom for storing prepared food for later is to store it in an airtight container and put it in the fridge, the temperature of which should be at or below 40 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celcius). I understand the purpose of the temperature is to slow the growth of bacteria to prolong the shelf life, but what about the airtight container? Is that also to slow bacteria growth, is it more about preservation of quality by preventing oxidation, or is it something else?
For the purposes of this question, I am more interested in the food I am storing itself, from a food safety and quality stand point. I get why you would want to store something pungent in an airtight container lest its odor get into any of your other items in the fridge or if you trying to prevent cross contamination between raw and cooked items. I simply would like to know what effect the airtight container has on the food itself vs. if I stored it in a non-airtight container.
The inside of a fridge is quite dry (it's why they frost up; water in the fridge air condenses on the cooling plate, and then is ejected from the fridge separately) which can have a detrimental effect on moist foods that have been refrigerated
@CaiusJard yep - it is possible to use a fridge as a dehydrator, if you cut the food thin enough and can expose top and bottom using some kind of rack.
Is 4°C American? Fridges around here (Europe, Germany, etc.) run at about 7°C (~~ 45°F) by default, I think.
@Martin, here in Denmark usual and recommended fridge temperature is 5 deg Celsius (but my fridge can only be set to even temperatures, so I chose 4 deg.)
A sealed container in a fridge will reduce the rate of dehydration. | Depending on the air volume present it may also reduce food oxidation - in some cases substantially.
Wait, fridges in Europe can be set by temperature!?! Admittedly I'm not exactly rocking high-tech appliances, but I've never in my life had or seen a fridge with any more precise temperature control than a "Cooling" dial that goes from Off to ...well, usually 9, oddly enough. Though I think my current fridge stops at 7 or 8. (Higher numbers == colder, so it's definitely not
a temp control.)
Airtight packaging doesn't slow down bacteria growth. There are a few myths about them which don't apply in practice:
Bacteria are not kept out, despite popular belief – the air within the container has as many bacteria as the air outside. The food in the container also has bacteria – cooking doesn't sterilize food! – so you cannot keep the bacteria out that way.
The container is still full of oxygen. You don't get the effect of lowered-oxygen atmosphere that is sometimes used in packaging from industrial food producers.
These two hold whether your food is in the fridge or not – so storing the food in an airtight container outside of the fridge doesn't change anything about its safety either. *
The one way it helps with food safety is an edge case: if you forget something until it molds or spoils, the now-high levels of pathogens won't contaminate something else, exposing it to more than the normal "background" level.
The airtight container doesn't help with food safety, but it is quite good for food quality and has other convenience aspects:
if you put fresh fruit or vegetables in it, or cheese, you get a nice level of humidity, and vegetables stay crisp longer/cheese and other stuff doesn't dry out
many foods either emit or soak up smells. The airtight container prevents it.
if you have a mishap and drop something in the fridge, or a fermenting bottle of something spills over, it won't land in an open bowl of something else
modern containers have an almost-rectangular shape, which uses up the space in the fridge very efficiently, and allows stacking.
modern containers, as well as humble jars, are mostly transparent – so if you store the food in them as opposed to the pot in which you prepared it, it is easier to see what is where without opening lids
if you prepared food in a reactive pan (or even something not-very-reactive like seasoned cast iron) and store the leftovers in it, you are giving the pan time to react with the food and corrode and/or change the taste of the food. Food storage containers are nonreactive.
So the airtight containers are best practice for quality reasons. And non-air-tight containers, which have a loosely fitting lid (no visible holes, but also no gasket, such as a stock pot or a skillet covered with a lid) will give you about 80-90% of the desired effect.
* to be pedantic, it can interfere in one way: if you intend to store hot non-shelf-stable food outside for a short time, and are afraid it will enter the danger zone, a closed lid will slow down the time it cools down. But I suppose not many people keep a wireless temperature probe in their airtight container, so the point is quite moot in practice.
"The container is still full of oxygen." - What if you have an airtight container that also allows you to make a vacuum by removing the air inside? Would that create an "even safer" environment for the food?
@GrumpyCrouton it will reduce the growth of aerobic bacteria and increase the growth of anaerobic ones, especially raising the risk for botulism growth. So no, vacuum packing is not a viable way of food preservation at home.
Thanks for the quick response. So when you mention "lowered-oxygen atmosphere that is sometimes used in packaging from industrial food producers," how do they achieve this atmosphere and how does that differ from a vacuum?
@GrumpyCrouton They achieve the atmosphere by changing the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen, at least I believe that is what is typically done - they may be using some more specialized gas mixtures. It differs from vacuum, because they are filling the container (or the volume of it not occupied with food) with an atmosphere, while vaccum would be the absence of an atmosphere.
I fear you won't get much upvotes simply because majority of people don't know any better than to put stuff in containers or cover it up so "you can't possibly be right". I got a gf from another country and I'm not sure if it's the country, culture or maybe just her familiy, but she doesn't cover up stuff in the fridge and at first I was also kind of appaled by it but it really turned out to work just as fine. Although things do get drier much faster.
"the air within the container has as many bacteria as the air outside" that will depend a lot on how clean you keep your fridge. Especially many molds like to grow there, so the amount of spores in fridge air could easily be higher than amount in the room air that gets put into the container.
@IvoBeckers I'm very much accustomed to 1) people's personal beliefs about food safety being based on wrong information and 2) people holding one to "the one true way of doing things" where there are multiple ways which work either alone or in combination (personally, I sometimes use sealed containers and sometimes don't bother). This doesn't stop me from writing answers which reflect the best of my knowledge :)
Yeah, cross-contamination with molds and other such bacteria between different foods is definitely an issue, and even if you get rid of moldy food, it would take some miracle to get rid of all the spores already scattered all over the fridge, so the container definitely helps with that - both ways, if you leave it too long and gets moldy it won't send its spores all over the fridge either.
@SF That doesn't necessarily require a strictly air tight container, though. I've definitely seen instances where a cardboard box or other fairly closed but definitely not airtight container contained mold.
@user3067860 The more it's airtight the lesser the chance the spores will get in. On the other hand, it's pretty rare to be able to tell authoritatively the food wasn't exposed to spores before being put in the packaging, so while this limits spread, it won't make your food magically mold-proof.
cooking doesn't sterilize food - I'll quibble with that [hardboiling eggs certainly sterilizes them, though odds are they don't remain sterile for nearly anyone after] - but otherwise a great answer.
Additionally to all of this, certain foods will retain flavor longer in an airtight container due to not outgassing as much (because of the physics surrounding the concept of the equilibrium vapor pressure). This is especially true of raw freshly ground spices and foods which have a strong smell that's an important part of their flavor profile.
Another benefit for your list: efficiency. Cold air in the fridge flows out and is replaced by warm air whenever the door opens. Air in a container won't, so the fridge will operate (slightly) more efficiently and the food in the container will maintain a more even temperature. The more frequently the door is opened, the bigger the difference.
I don't disagree that an airtight container will contain oxygen, but it contains a finite amount. As the oxygen reacts with the food, the container will end up at a lower concentration of oxygen than it started, and therefore continued oxidation should slow down. Conversely, a container allowing air to flow freely will maintain a similar oxygen concentration the entire time even as it reacts with the food (as it has a larger volume of air to draw upon that regularly gets exchanged with the outside atmosphere). Thought experiment: how long would a candle burn in and out of a container?
@Robert Given the miniscule volume of air inside any given container, relative to the total free air volume inside of a typical fridge, I can't imagine any impact on efficiency would be significant enough that it's even measurable. Unless you're in the habit of packing your fridge with tightly-stacked airtight bricks, or something.
@FeRD At present, ~20% of the volume of my fridge is occupied by airtight containers. Your fridge may be different.
"cooking doesn't sterilize food" I thought Clostridium botulinum is the only common harmful bacteria which (at least its spores) can survive 100°C? But since it’s sensitive to acid it still works fine for things like jam. So heating acidic food up to 100°C in an airtight container for a couple of minutes should preserve it quite nicely.
tldr; Use containers to control humidity and odours, also to save space.
@fyrepenguin By the time the oxygen has gone down sufficiently to make any difference for anything, your food will be so rancid you wouldn't want to eat it.
@Michael sure, there are methods for preserving food by heating in a hermetic container - they are known under the common name "canning". Normally cooking a random meal, then placing it in an airtight container, is not a preservation method.
I see no mention of water/moisture loss. A sealed container in a fridge will reduce the rate of dehydration.
@RussellMcMahon it is the first point on my list of advantages - if it is unclearly written, feel free to suggest a better formulation.
@rumtscho are you sure about that? There are a number of foods that tend to oxidize relatively quickly (apples, guacamole, etc.) that I would expect that limiting the volume of available oxygen would significantly reduce the overall oxidation. I'm tempted to do an experiment now, with various fill levels of container (which will provide different starting quantities of oxygen) along with something not in a container and compare the relative stages of oxidation
@fyrepenguin you seem to think that there is so little oxygen in the container that it will be "used up" before the phenoles in your apple are used up. I am pretty certain that this is not the case - first, you won't be able to reduce the oxygen content enough to make a difference, it doesn't matter if you have 21% or 20.5%, second the reaction is not actually limited by the presence of oxygen but by the presence of free enzymes, and third, the process you are hoping will use your oxygen is the one you want to prevent in the first place.
@rumtscho Nah - that's OK - I must be getting blinder than I thought in my old age :-).
In addition to keeping odors contained and limiting the possibility of cross-contamination, oxygen degrades the quality of food. Oxygen also supports aerobic spoilage organisms. So, limiting air keeps your food fresher longer. Sealing up your food also limits dehydration. These containers are beneficial for both quality and safety.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.445028
| 2020-08-07T00:41:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110063",
"authors": [
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"Caius Jard",
"Criggie",
"FeRD",
"GrumpyCrouton",
"Ivo",
"J...",
"Joe M",
"Martin",
"Michael",
"Robert",
"Russell McMahon",
"SF.",
"Stefan",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87042",
"jpa",
"rumtscho",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91350
|
What is a 'parmigiano pearl'?
I've read the following dish description in a wedding buffet menu:
Truffle essence potato soup with parmigiano pearl
I can't seem to find any relevant results using Google Search.
For this question and the other about dressing, could you possibly contact the venue(s) and ask them. They should be able to tell you. If you can, I would be most interested to know what you learn,
This is a translation from the Italian of perle di parmigiano. It is a mixture of egg whites and grated parmigiano formed into balls ("pearls") and deep or shallow fried. Youtube recipes (in Italian) are shallow fried here and deep fried here.
Parmigiana pearls are crystals that form in certain aged cheeses, in this case Parmigiano-Reggiano. They are crunchy and delectable. Think ultimate umami.
From this published scientific paper on SpringerLink :
In studies of Parmigiano-Reggiano and long-aged Gouda, PXRD has confirmed that hard (crunchy) crystals that form abundantly within these cheeses consist of tyrosine. Furthermore, PXRD has tentatively identified the presence of an unusual form of crystalline leucine in large (up to 6 mm in diameter) spherical entities, or “pearls”, that occur abundantly in 2-year-old Parmigiano Reggiano and long-aged Gouda cheeses, and on the surface of rindless hard Italian-type cheese. Ongoing investigations into the nature of these “pearls” are providing new insight into the roles that crystals play in the visual appearance and texture of long-aged cheeses.
*PXRD = Powder x-ray diffractometry
Unfortunately, people often mistakenly think these crystals are mold.
These delicious tidbits are a treat for those who get to break down wheels of well aged cheeses.
I have a feeling that the menu description probably refers to the deep-fried balls of cheese mentioned in the other answer, but either one would be a nice addition to truffle potato soup.
Probably a Parmesan flavored Reverse Spherification of some sort.
(edit)
Or maybe, cheaper, agar-agar Parmesan flavored pearls.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.446067
| 2018-07-31T10:44:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91350",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Joshua Engel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94034
|
Why is putting hot milk in a thermos not recommended?
A colleague of mine just got a new thermos (inox), this model, and actually read all instruction, and we were surprised to read that it is not recommended to pour hot milk in the thermos.
My opinion was that:
Unlike tea of coffee, a lot of micro-organisms live in milk, will end up being a favorable place for those micro-organisms to generate a culture (which will be more and more difficult to get rid off, and will contaminate any other fluid poured in the thermos)
If you don't wash it straight away, it will really stink.
The milk being full of water-insoluble proteins/fat, it will "coat" the internal thermos walls (gross!) - I've already seeing that "coat" forming in plastic containers, and I guess it won't be any different in inox containers.
I've actually not found an answer online, so I thought that here I could find some experts. I realize this could be a cross-question for Biology SE, but I felt it more food-related.
@J.Doe please don’t post answers in the comments. It bypasses quality control measures such as downvoting. Thanks!
It depends on the design. Some can't be washed properly, and milky liquids are much harder to clean off by rinsing than water or most water-based drinks
My genuine Thermos brand flask wouldn't be a problem because all the surfaces that come into contact with the food are accessible.
My previous small cheap flask had a pouring system in the lid that meant the contents passed through a non-washable chamber (clipped together in a way that wasn't designed to be opened). I eventually forced it open to find it full of hot chocolate residue. My flask is mainly used for kayaking, it has to be made up beforehand as fiddling about with powders when on a riverbank in the pouring rain doesn't tend to get you a hot drink when you need it. At that point it would have gone in the bin even if I hadn't just broken it.
A point mentioned in the comments is that the instructions for one particular Thermos say This product must NOT be used for keeping milk products or baby food warm or cool, to avoid the possibility of bacterial growth. This is the only reference to warm contents in these instructions; the word used elsewhere is hot (excluding washing-up instructions). Warm implies attempting to maintain temperatures in the danger zone. (for completeness as comments don't always last)
makes sense! I added a link to the model of the thermos I am talking about. true that in out case the chamber seems to be fairly accessible, but the top is very hard to disassemble and clean, thus milk can be stuck in there if you pour it through that top (what usually people do)
Yes, inside the inner lid is a hard-to-get-at incubator for all sorts of unpleasant life forms.
FWIW, "my genuine Thermos brand flask" would be a problem since it has one of those "pouring systems" in the lid that is not entirely washable.
@MrWhite mine might be quite old. I don't know as I obtained it by accidentally swapping with another the same size and shape a few years ago. That had a pouring system but you could get into it. Next time I'm buying one I'll look for one that doesn't, or disable it. The pouring system has one advantage - it reduces cooling of the remaining contents while serving.
The cleaning is one thing (there are flasks without hidden crevices that can be easily cleaned), but there’s also another point to consider:
A thermos flask that is doing its job will keep food warm, or rather, slow down the cooling process. Even if you fill it with fairly hot liquid, it will slowly cool. If you do that with a perishable food like milk, you will easily create an environment in the upper range of the danger zone, where food will become unsafe after as little as two hours.
Yes, you can argue that you are filling hot milk in a clean container, but in the end, it’ll be not safe by food safety standards. (What you make of that is obviously your choice.) The manufacturer’s warning will protect the end users from food poisoning.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
"...will keep food warm" - or cold.
We often used make hot chocolate for the kids when we go out, as well as a flask of tea for ourselves. Twice, after quite a lengthy drive (>3 Hrs), we tipped out lumpy brown sludge. The first time, I put it down to contamination of the poorly-designed pop-up lid (hard to wash properly), so we got a new flask and then it happened again. I finally realised that what was really happening was this. Now we make milk-shake, and put ice-cubes in for good measure!
Another aspect might be the engineering behind thermoses.
A thermos has a layer of vacuum between two layers of glass(At least back in the day it used to be like this),
This meant that the glass will break in case of rapid expansion due to hot liquids poured immediately. Milk has a higher heat capacity compared to diluted beverages, so that means it can hurt the flask even more.
Maybe they have engineered this problem away, but might be one of the reasons!
-BD.
This is the reason why my grandma used to put a metal spoon in any glass she would pour any hot liquid into (tea, coffee...), to avoid it to be broke by the hot liquid. However i see here that milk has lower specific heat than water ( https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-fluids-d_151.html) - is this what you are referring to?
Plus, nowadays the thermos (at least the model that I linked to in the question) are not made of glass anymore (safety issues I guess)
The glass in an old thermos was very thin, and could easily take boiling water being poured in (thinner means less thermal stress). The specific heat capacity of milk is very close to that of water, given that milk is 88% water, and the other components are nothing remarkable. In fact it's a tiny bit less
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.446270
| 2018-11-19T11:32:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94034",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"MrWhite",
"SiHa",
"Tim",
"aechchiki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70766",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115308
|
How to preserve ground spices?
As soon as you grind a spice, it gets exposed to air and starts to lose its potency. I'm trying to figure out how I can grind them and reduce/prevent this from happening.
I guess you could put them in an airtight jar, but wouldn't the air in the jar cause oxidation?
Would putting the powder in capsules help, like medical tablets?
Are there plastic bags or any bags where you can suck the air out?
I can't do a fresh one daily, but need potency after time. What methods are there to preserve powder from getting oxidized?
Just to note the spices in question are black pepper, long pepper and dried ginger. I guess the former two can be finely ground daily however I couldn't additionally dehydrate and grind ginger daily.
Oxygen absorber packets: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=oxygen+absorbers&t=ffsb&ia=web You can also flush jars with carbon dioxide or nitrogen. A good seal is harder to get than you might think.
Usually when I've seem videos of vacuum sealing devices, they're being used to seal larger items, like a steak or chunks of vegetables. I wonder if they would work on a fine powder like ground spices, or if the suction of the vacuum will suck out the spices as well as the air.
I am closing this as a duplicate of another question about the best container for storing spices. Of course the common solution is imperfect - if a better one existed, that would be the common one.
@csk yes, this exists, you just have to put the powder in a hard-walled container and do the vacuuming in a chamber. There are youtube videos demonstrating the technique, if you are interested.
@rumtscho Okay, that makes sense. I was picturing the type that seals stuff in bags, like for sous vide cooking.
If you have a chamber vacuum sealer, you could vacuum seal your spices and extend the shelf life. Oxidation is the problem here. Ground spices are just limited by surface area exposure. Whole spices, ground as needed, will always be superior. Your best solutions are to purchase (or grind) small amounts, and use them relatively quickly...or, use a coffee grinder or mortar and pestle to grind whole spices as needed.
I have just added a bit more details - the spices in question. When you say ‘relatively quickly’ what sort of time would the spices in question last. I’m mostly concerned about the dried ginger as I don’t want to do that often.
Ginger should last longer, especially if you are dehydrating and drying your own. Most spice companies will tell you that their ground products are good for one to two years, but all you have to do is grind spices from whole to know that there is a significant difference...even after weeks, if not days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.446752
| 2021-04-18T00:12:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115308",
"authors": [
"James Wilson",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114970
|
Can you bake or grill well done lamb chops that are also soft?
I bought some grilled lamb chops from the shop and they were soft, juicy and medium rare.
I reheated them and quite quickly the outside browned and went crusty and the inside got cooked. The result was tougher meat with a not soft surface.
Is it possible to have soft, tender lam chops by grilling or baking while having it well done too?
Not from a supermarket.
No, you absolutely cannot. "Well done" is primarily a description of texture, and that texture is not soft and juicy. When you bake meat (or any other protein), it goes through many different stages, depending on the temperature, and you stop when you have reached the desired texture. If you stop at the texture of "well done", you can never return back to the soft texture of "medium rare".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.447236
| 2021-03-25T21:34:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114970",
"authors": [
"Johannes_B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115596
|
What are the reasons for using an egg whisk to cook scrambled eggs?
When cooking scrambled eggs in the frypan I use a spatula to gather the egg together. To me this doesn't damage the pan, and avoids the egg forming 'nodules'. It also saves the time-consuming hassle of cleaning cooked egg off the egg whisk, and possibly saves the hygiene risk of not properly cleaning all of the egg off the egg whisk.
Now I could be completely wrong or have missed something. I know of people who are strongly in favour of using an egg whisk to cook scrambled eggs.
My question is: What are the reasons for using an egg whisk to cook scrambled eggs?
I think, like several questions on this site about scrambled eggs, this comes down to ones preferred curd size. There are many different ways of making scrambled eggs: at one extreme one heats very slowly, stirring gently with a spatula, and getting very large curds. Some people say this gives a sloppy texture, others prefer the smooth mouth feel. At the other extreme, one heats quickly and whisks, breaking up the curds entirely, and giving a fluffy mousse like texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.447330
| 2021-05-10T04:45:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115596",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115473
|
Can I rescue an old cake mix?
I have some ~year out of date dry cake mix in a sealed bag.
According to Does it Go Bad it's still good to use, but it wont' rise the same.
The dry mix usually contains baking powder or some other leavening agents, and these gradually lose potency. So while an ancient one might be perfectly safe to use, the cake will most likely turn out flat.
Emphasis mine.
Would adding extra raising agents help? What can I do to 'rescue' it?
How something has been stored is almost as important as how long it's been stored. If the packaging is intact, and it was stored in a cool, dark place, odds are that it will still rise just fine.
If you want to take some extra precautions to ensure a rise, there are two simple things that you can do:
Add a little extra baking powder (not baking soda) to the mix. Maybe 1/4 to 1/2 tsp, as it's not really all that old.
Add extra air. If it's a cake mix that calls for eggs, separate the eggs, whip the egg whites (in a clean, non-plastic bowl), and then fold that into everything else (that's already been mixed together).
You do risk ending up with a cake that might be a bit too light -- more chiffon / souffle like, rather than the standard texture.
You can also use the cake mix as an ingredient in other dishes. Besides the various 'dump cake' recipes out there, as it's mostly sugar and flour, you can add oatmeal and butter to it to make a streusel topping.
It's also worth noting that a 'flat cake' generally isn't that bad. Forgetting to add leavening to a chocolate cake was supposedly the origins of the brownie. Even the worst cake can be used as layers in a trifle, be dried and crumbled over ice cream or a parfait, or used to make a bread pudding (but avoid sugar in the custard so it's not overly sweet)
Ten-year-old gingerbread mix found this morning tucked in the back of the fruit room shelves, where it’s quite cool year round. Tried an experiment . . . What did I have to lose? Stirred it up according to directions. Yuck. Added 1 tsp vanilla, 1 1/2 tsp ground ginger, 1/2 tsp baking powder, 1/4 tsp baking soda, a few shakes of salt and 2 Tbsp flour. Passed the taste test. Baked according to directions. Turned out fabulous - just as high as I would have expected from a fresh mix, plus the taste was spot on. An egg-yolk based lemon sauce that I cooked while the gingerbread baked, made it even better. I’ve had great luck with two old angel food cake mixes, without alterations, but this is the first time for a different kind of cake mix. Probably won’t ever need to do this again, as I am better at dating and rotating now, but it’s nice to know I could if I needed to. Grandma of Nine in Utah
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
I think that this is an answer - it lists some what can be added so the old mix will bake normally
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.447451
| 2021-04-30T13:23:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115473",
"authors": [
"L.Dutch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119775
|
Trying to recreate my grandmother's buttermilk biscuits
My grandmother made the best biscuits in the world. She made them 7 days a week, and cooked them on a cast iron skillet without any sides. They were always perfectly browned and the bread inside was "stretchy" (they were not layered).
I've been working on this for several years and I've gotten to this point from my childhood memories and a fair amount of experimentation:
2.5 cups flour. (not sure if she had self rising, but that's not really an option for me in Mexico)
around 1/2 cup Crisco shortening (I'm having to use Grasa Vegetal because Crisco isn't available). Cut in until the flour is sort of grainy/crumbly. Pretty sure she just used her fingers from vague memories as a child.
1 cup of buttermilk (Here I use one lemon and fill the cup with whole milk, nata is hard to come by and buttermilk is non-existent in the stores here)
3 Tbsp of baking powder (yea, it's a lot, but I'm literally in a boat at sea level and it seems to need that much)
1 Tsp each of sugar and salt
To get the stretchy part, I replaced part of the "butter" milk with an egg white, then with 2 egg whites, still don't have the stretch I'm looking for.
To get the browning I painted the tops with the yellow from the egg that I got the white from.
The browning is about the right color but appears painted on, something hers never did. The stretchy is proving very elusive and I'm curious how to get that. Her biscuits had a lot of air in them, they were super light, my mother never could reproduce them either.
Grandma's been gone for 30 years and even when I asked her to write down the recipe she didn't. I've come to understand that she was probably illiterate considering when and where she was born and the fact that farm women in the south in the early 1900s were not encouraged to be literate.
I do remember she kept her flour in a giant bowl and would mix "in the flour", then lift the dough up onto the powdered counter to cut and finish the biscuits (hence her lack of measurements).
What will give me stretch that was close to a sponge cake and yet still leave me with a biscuit? She had no fancy ingredients available to her but she might have substituted lard for Crisco.
For browning of the dough itself rather than 'painting it on', my instinct would be that this could be improved by increasing the sugar or changing how they are baked. I think bases can help browning as well but it sounds like you already have plenty of baking powder.
For 'stretchiness', my instinct would be this could be affected by kneading; you don't describe what you do with the ingredients after combining the flour and shortening, but you could experiment with kneading a little more than you currently do and seeing what affect that has.
I also suspect kneading or even stirring the flour and milk together to get some gluten development. And for anyone wanting to preserve their family’s recipes, I highly recommend asking them to show you, and record it (audio or video, but set it off to the side so you’re bot distracting them) and then ask lots of questions and/or make statements about your observations as you work.
I would try it with leaf lard (not the standard lard you find in most groceries) and see how it turns out, you will never get the same results with crisco (and crisco is terrible for you anyway). Pretty much every "why can't I make this baked good like my grams did" has to do with them using lard, and usually a specific type of lard.
"real" buttermilk and acidified mik/buttermilk are very different creatures. Can you get greek style yogurt, dilute it to buttermilk consistancy and try that? - It might be closer
The cooking method (on a cast iron griddle) makes it sound more like English muffins or crumpets, but both of those use yeast for leavening and have little to no fat. If you cut fat into the flour, that's very likely to give you flaky layers, which doesn't sound like the result you're looking for.
A more random thought— was there any yeast involved? Because mentioning airy, stretchy in the middle, and cooked on a griddle would also be a description of English muffins if you didn’t use a ring to form them
Miscellaneous thoughts:
Egg whites are not going to give you "stretch" in a biscuit. The fat will interfere with that. The elasticity will come from the gluten. That means at least a little bit of kneading; it means not using "cake" or "biscuit" flour; and it means keeping the fat level under control. (Half a cup sounds reasonable, but try it with less, and don't blend it in too finely.) Better gluten formation will also lead to more of a rise. You might try mixing in some tortilla flour, actually.
Buttermilk would ordinarily be used with baking soda, not baking powder (or at least, not just with baking powder). Using baking powder and lemon juice together may be pushing the pH too low, weakening the dough. If you're using baking powder, leave out the lemon juice.
Egg yolks will always give you a "painted on" glazed look. If you want more of a browned look, put the yolks in the dough, and perhaps increase the sugar. You can also brush the tops with milk, that'll give more of a matte look than egg yolks.
Without having made biscuits myself, one of my trusted go-to authors, Shirley Corriher, claims to have discovered the secrets of great buttermilk biscuits. For her, these are low-protein flour, and a very wet dough.
Note especially this step in her recipe:
In a large mixing bowl, stir together the self-rising flour, sugar, and salt. Work the shortening in
with your fingers until there are no large lumps. Gently stir in the cream, then some of the buttermilk.
Continue stirring in buttermilk until THE DOUGH RESEMBLES COTTAGE CHEESE. It should be a
wet mess—not soup, but cottage-cheese texture. If you are not using a low-protein flour, this may
require considerably more than 1 cup (237 ml) of buttermilk.
By the way, she is using these 237 ml of buttermilk for 255 g of flour, not your 300 g. And additionally, she uses 158 ml of heavy cream. Else the amount of fat should be comparable, 45 g for her recipe.
Her recipe also requires the shaping you describe from observing your grandmother - since the dough is so wet, you have to scoop out a wet piece and dip it in flour, to get it to be self-contained.
Her technique also requires you to
place each shaped biscuit SCRUNCHED UP AGAINST ITS
NEIGHBOR so that the biscuits rise up and don’t spread out
There is no egg white in her recipe, and egg whites don't give stretchiness, they make a dough that sits drier after baking, which is not something you want in biscuits.
I advise you to exercise her technique, which should hopefully get you some very good biscuits. If it turns out that they don't have something from your grandmother's biscuits, for example the stretchiness, you will at least have a good base from which to continue exploring.
As for the browning, it comes from a dough which is somewhat alkaline. Here I agree with Sneftel, you should leaven with baking soda, not baking powder. You will probably need more grams of baking powder than you are using now for baking soda, you can look that up easily. Also, instead of trying to fiddle with lemon and milk, you can simply use yogurt, which has a similar consistency to buttermilk, and you know it has not been oversoured. The second factor is sugar, some more sugar will help, if you don't mind the extra sweetness.
OP's description about working the dough "in the flour" lines up with something I've heard from other folks chasing their ancestor's perfect biscuits, where the dough was much wetter than realized, but comes out of that bowl coated in flour, and looks dryer. So I think you're spot on with that aspect. The extra moisture may also help improve oven spring, and would explain why OP is having to add extra leavener.
"biscuits... in the south..."
I seem to recall an article about Southerners leaving Dixie and finding they can't recreate their meemaws' recipes no matter how hard they try... until coming back home and buying the local all-purpose flour.
If I remember correctly it has something to do with Southern flour brands (White Lily most famously) using soft red winter wheat whereas the most common nation-wide brands use a hard wheat of some kind, and the protein differences (including both gluten and non-gluten proteins) are what makes the main difference. In other words, not all "all-purpose flour" is created equal, and you might have to try blending some pastry flour to make your current "all-purpose flour" more like "Southern U.S. all-purpose flour". (But at least you now know to look specifically for soft wheat!)
That being said, this article refutes the above anecdote a bit (at least in terms of not fawning over one brand fanatically) and places more emphasis on technique... like making sure to chill your butter/lard/margarine before mixing.
Since Sneftler already talked about gluten, i'll throw in another idea :
I would consider using brown sugar instead of white. It gives a more chewy texture and in my experience it tends to brown better. I think the amount of sugar you used might be a bit small as well, compared to the amount of flour. I'd experiment with one tablespoon and try to go up from there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.447714
| 2022-02-07T22:08:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119775",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Joe",
"Journeyman Geek",
"cimmanon",
"dbmag9",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113540
|
What did European/American historical cooks do with the egg whites?
I do some historical cooking out of old cookbooks, like Amelia Simmons' American Cookery or The Art Of Cookery Made Plain and Easy. One thing I've noticed is that these cookbooks use way more egg yolks than whites. For example, I prepared an 18th century feast one night and ended up with 10 leftover egg whites in a jar.
This left me wondering, what did they do with the egg whites? Given the extreme frugality of cooks centuries ago, which included using every scrap of stale bread and every bit of a pig including the oink, I find it impossible to believe that they were wasted. They must have used them for something ... but that's not in the recipes I have. So, questions:
Are the cookbooks we have simply not representative of actual cookery of the 15th-18th century? That is, are they purely posh cookery and as a result did actually waste the egg whites?
Or were the egg whites used for some other purpose that required a lot of whites, maybe even a non-culinary purpose?
Help me solve this mystery. Thanks!
What comes to my mind first would be pastry.
Not quite an answer, but this history of meringue begins in 17th century England. It may be useful to finding/formulating a complete answer
I'm sure there were non-culinary uses for whites, though egg tempera paint used just the yolk. You can of course throw an odd half egg into an omelette or scrambled eggs, but that requires using yet more eggs.
Egg whites can be used for fining, i.e. removing impurities, especially bitter acidic impurities, from stocks, which would surely have been required in a large quantities. They can be used in a similar way in brewing: a large country house might perhaps have brewed its own beer.
And like @MarkWildon said for beer, they were also used for wine.
@MarkWildon that's a good point, I'd thought about brewing but not in stock - I assume you don't mind me adding a mention to my answer
Looks like meringues (or similar) were documented from the early 17th century - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meringue#History - 1604
@abligh that's only an answer if you can find evidence of 18th-century Europeans eating lots of merangues.
@FuzzyChef hence it is a comment, not an answer.
One thing I'm not clear about from the question is what sort of household we're taking about. Clearly the poor would eat anything, but these books weren't for the poor given the ingredients and the cover price. I've assumed in my answer you could be thinking of anything from a successful farming (for example) family to a grand establishment, but is that right? In particular I've assumed a domestic rather than commercial situation
"Are the cookbooks we have simply not representative of actual cookery of the 15th-18th century?" You seem to expect that a given cookbook answers the question "how to use all of my ingredients", but in reality recipes tend to focus on the outcome (the dish), not the start (the ingredients) and thus answers the question "how do I make this dish?". You can't just assume that because a given set of recipes doesn't include a particular ingredient, that this invariably means that those ingredients must have been thrown out.
Personally I often add eggs (or just egg whites) to stews, casseroles, noodles, roasted potatoes, porridge etc. where they are not strictly required. I imagine they just did the same.
Chris: given the nature of 16th-18th century cookbooks, we're talking about a large weathy household, with servants. Not necessarily noble, but well-off enough to prepare fancy recipes.
Flater: great, if you can find some 16th-18th century cookbooks that use lots of egg whites, then you have a potential answer.
While I'm sure food waste was very scarce in poorer households, I'm not so convinced that was the case in wealthier ones. Considering the enormous portion sizes some 18th century cookbooks suggest, I suspect more well-off households did waste more food than we might suppose, especially when entertaining guests. But that's more a question for History.SE.
Portion sizes in wealthy households were large partly because the servants got to eat the leftovers.
Another high-volume specialist use for egg white was mortar. Specifically, it was used very frequently in the Middle Ages, in the standard lime and sand mortar: a 2017 study suggests that 6% egg albumen (I assume by weight) provides the strongest mortar.
It was not the only binding agent available to construction, but at least in the Middle East and in Europe, it was one of the most easily procured. Its role is to aerate the mortar, which is essential in preventing thermal contraction damage (ice or heat), and modify its hydration (usually by allowing a lower water-to-cement ratio, increasing strength and water resistance while still being workable).
The use of egg white in construction persisted into the late 19th century in the colonial Philippines. According to one report, this use of egg white in the buildings transformed native Filipino desserts.
That's interesting because unlike my non-culinary suggestions it would use decent quantities - rather a lot in fact, all in one place and at one time, leading to almost the reverse problem
@ChrisH Which is probably why people were looking for uses of egg yolk ;)
Oh, wow, interesting. And even when the medieval church-building spree ended, the habit of making things with egg yolks would have continued, becuase that's the the recipes they had. OK, picking your answer simply because it shows a substantial use of egg whites and you cited all your sources.
They could use the yolks for paint if the glut went the other way - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera
As child I was told that egg white is an important part of the infill for timber framed houses: wikipedia/timber-framing I found it on the german wikipedia page "for better lasting against weather" but not on the english page...
There were certainly uses for egg whites that didn't involve eating them:
Clearing beer and wine (using egg white as finings). This isn't common any more, and anyway only uses one egg white to six gallons.
As an adhesive in bookbinding and gilding, and as a size.
In makeup:
Wikipedia - ancient nail polish
Royal Museums Greeenwich - as a skin treatment
also various sources say as a base for rouge, foundation and other preparations, or to conceal wrinkles.
None of these would use a lot, of course.
I suspect that most leftover whites would have been used up in cooking. Apart from the obvious meringues of various types, they can be used:
As an egg wash on pastry.
In place of whole egg before coating something in breadcrumbs
Finings are also used in clarifying stock (link is to an alternative method proposed by Heston Blumenthal). Consommé was probably popular around that time; certainly Mrs Beeton, writing in England in the 19th century included several recipes. While she mentioned that clarifying may be required, her consommé recipes don't call for the use of egg. Fannie Farmer's Boston Cooking-School Cook Book (1896) does explain this method, though without quantities.
Or simply added to many things that use beaten egg (I use up half eggs, either half, in an omelette with whole eggs). In fancy households that could mean servants' food - after all there are many low-effort ways of preparing egg. In a smaller household, everyday meals could use them up, though quickly without refrigeration
They can also be fed to many domestic animals, but given that most animals probably lived on scraps, this is effectively discarding them.
Thanks for all of the ideas! For a complete answer, can you provide citations/reasons why any or several of the above uses would have consumed a lot more egg whites in 1796 than they do today?
TBH I don't think the non-culinary uses would have used up huge amounts, at least not within even large domestic establishments. That's why I reckon my last bullet would account for most, but I'll add one point to it
which do you mean by "last bullet"?
@FuzzyChef the last bullet point, starting "or simply added to many things that use beaten egg"
Alternatively they might have just consumed the unused half egg part raw. My grandfather would, at least, do that for breakfast.
Chris: that's possible, but I don't see how it would be provable, unless you can find text somewhere that says "feed the egg whites to the servants".
I've seen text saying that servants at least sometimes had to make do with basic food and leftovers, though not recently. That's probably not specific enough anyway. I might have one more look later, as this leads to some quite interesting reading, but I might have to settle for writing a (hopefully) interesting answer rather than a definitive one.
One of my grand-mothers, who certainly wasn't a servant, would eat raw eggs by putting a pin-hole on one end of the shell, a larger pin-hole in the other, and sucking out the contents through the larger one. Raw egg white is (well, was) not only food for the staff.
@simonatrcl of course - raw egg could be consumed by choice or by necessity by a wide range of people. I was assuming the staff or members of a small household as in my answer probably cooked it anyway
Just the other day I was watching an episode of the Great British Baking Show (sorry, don't remember which one), and they mentioned that egg whites were often used to stiffen clothing, something we'd do with starch today. That left an excess of egg yolks, which was supposed to be the explanation for why so many recipes back then used egg yolks.
Isn’t that how some Portuguese pastry came to be? Using up leftover yolks from the whites that went to the monastery’s laundry?
Yep - Pastéis de nata.
Hmmm, intriguing. Got a link for this?
@FuzzyChef https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastel_de_nata
Not for that, for the clothing thing.
@FuzzyChef From the linked Wikipedia article: "At the time, convents and monasteries used large quantities of egg-whites for starching clothes, such as friars and nuns' religious habits."
The bakers made pastéis de nata in Series 8, and I have a vague recollection of them doing one of their (now-rare) historical context segments about them. That may be the episode you watched.
Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article doesn't give a source for that information. Thus it's not possible for me to assess whether egg-white-starching was a widespread practice, or limited to the Phillipines.
Starching clothes was also probably a substantial eggwhite using activity, but without citations I decided to pick the answer that involved churches.
Apparently divided culinary uses for eggs were not uncommon, in addition to industrial uses for egg whites mentioned by others. (Filipino egg-yolk cookies, among other things, are attributed to the massive use of egg whites in the cement for local churches, and egg whites made medieval cement water-resistant.)
Egg whites were reportedly used to make egg white omelettes and egg white pasta in the first printed cookbook, 1465's De honesta voluptate et valetudine from Italy.
My first thought "was make an omelette with them". That's what I'd do if I had ten egg whites and was hungry
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.448564
| 2021-01-02T07:02:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113540",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Allerleirauh",
"Chris H",
"Crazymoomin",
"Flater",
"FuzzyChef",
"Johannes_B",
"Luaan",
"Mark Wildon",
"Michael",
"Michael Seifert",
"Richard",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Willeke",
"abligh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89269",
"njuffa",
"simon at rcl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125295
|
Can I use a French press to get more juice out of my ginger root?
I like to make ginger beer, but I was feel like there's a lot of juice that doesn't get extracted out of the root after I grind it up and boil it. I have a French press, which I barely ever use because I tend to wind up doing instant coffee. Would it make sense for me to put the crushed ginger root in the press and then push down to extract more of the juice to pour out?
Are you sure you are not extracting all the juice? I think you could make an experiment. After boiling it and letting it rest for a while try to press manually the pulp in a sieve. Then leave the pressed pulp in hot water for some time and see if there was something left or not.
Aren't french presses typically made of glass? I certainly wouldn't want to be pushing down hard on that!
Put the ginger in a blender and filter the slush.
@Peter-ReinstateMonica: I have been doing that, but the slush always seems full of the ginger flavor. So far, I've just been using the filtered mush as a side snack.
Am I missing something? Despite its name, a "French press" is really just a filter, it's not a press in the same sense as a citrus press. You can use a French press to filter the ground root from its juice, but you can't actually use it to press the root.
@Stef: I think I was just confused. I have purchased a juicer.
Is a French press not just a cafetière? Either way it's hard to see how using one might hurt, yet it seems equally hard to see what such a gentle implement might contribute…
While pressing the ginger root the extract more juice is a good idea, I doubt your French press will allow you to exert enough force to help you. If this is something you do regularly, you might consider investing in a juicer.
Given that I snapped the handle on a garlic press trying to do something similar on a smaller scale, there's no way it would work
I find the term “press” always a bit misleading considering the fragility of a French press.
@ChrisH I regularly use a garlic press for ginger, and never had problems. I even push the whole thing to shred it, not just for the juice. But I use a model with a cylinder and a solid handle, not one of those whose receptacle looks like a wide, rounded wedge, they are more fragile.
@rumtscho this wasn't as good as the oxo I replaced it with, but neither was it very cheap. But it did have small holes with big gaps in between which might not have helped. And I'd roughly chopped the ginger first. But it's good to know I wasn't being stupid trying it
@ChrisH I have a cheap piece from Ikea, and it works great for ginger, if you don't load it with huge pieces. The size of a medium or small garlic clove goes through, you might have to spend some time with a toothpick cleaning afterwards.
@Stephie Agreed - something like "piston filter" would be more precise. It doesn't (or shouldn't) actually squeeze the grounds, it just holds them at the bottom while you pour the coffee off the top.
For what it is worth, I bought a juicer, and it hasn't worked like I expected. I suspect that the actual amount of juice in the roots is minimal, and that what I actually need to do is, as you stated in the comments, try the garlic press.
I don't think a french press will help a lot here. I'm sieving the ginger through a cheese cloth and then wring that out with my hands to get as much as possible out of it.
A French press will not allow you to exert enough force to extract more juice from the ginger. However, there are some other common tools that would:
a garlic press
a citrus squeezer
a ricer
a mortar & pestle
a bowl or pot and a potato masher
The last two options will also require you to strain the results.
I'd remind readers that relatively robust devices like fruit presses often require that apples etc. be boiled first. You'd do better investigating whether the essence could be extracted using a suitable solvent, i.e. alcohol, olive oil and so on.
An Aeropress might be a good tool for this -- but I would probably just use cheesecloth.
oooh, yeah, didn't think Aeropress. That might work. Might ruin it for making espresso though.
@ScottSeidman: I find it hard to believe that an Aeropress will be significantly more effective than just putting your hand directly on the root and pressing on it (e.g. in a bowl or something). The Aeropress does not provide any mechanical advantage, nor will it create a positive pressure environment as it does in normal operation (you won't have filled it with water, so you won't have an airtight seal).
The Screen in a french press will (very likely) not withstand the pressure when applied to ginger. It may partially work if the ginger is run through a processor or blender before pressing. I would suggest trying a potato ricer. I have successfully used one for extracting extra juice out of macerated citrus peels.
P.S.: Don't go cheap! Cheap ones will have a bent handle even used on potatoes.
a French Press is not a really a press, it will break, don't do it.
A French Press is not designed to squeeze liquid out of the coffee grounds, only to separate the free flowing liquid from the floating bits of bean.
If you look at your French Press you will see that the sieve plate does not go all the way to the base of the container, see example image, so there is an absolute limit on how much compression you could achieve (assuming you have a steel or plastic press that would stand a chance of withstanding the outward pressure - I’ve been in the splash zone of an over enthusiastically depressed cafetière, it isn’t a great place to be). I’ve no idea of the quantities of ginger you are processing at a time, but it is possible that a small amount in a large cafetière, you would get no significant compression at all.
To squeeze more juice out of your pulp, I suggest wrapping it in muslin and placing it on a shallow metal baking tray, then place a metal saucepan on top and bear down on that with all your weight.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.449492
| 2023-09-23T00:36:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125295",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FluidCode",
"FuzzyChef",
"Kevin",
"Mark Morgan Lloyd",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"Scott Seidman",
"Sean Duggan",
"Stef",
"Stephie",
"Todd Wilcox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98106",
"preferred_anon",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88525
|
How do I reheat previously-cooked frozen sausage?
This probably has an obvious answer I'm missing. To make a long story short, my mother helped us out with an event several months back involving having to serve breakfast to a large number of people including breakfast sausage, a mix of links and patties. Afterwards, as is her habit, she packaged up the leftovers in a plastic bag and handed them over to us. We set them in the chest freezer and frankly forgot about them for some time. We now have about 3-4 lbs of precooked sausage in a single frozen lump. I've tried breaking them off and cooking then in my cast-iron skillet in the mornings, but the patties break apart more than break off of the main mass, and when the patties are just about to turn into hockey pucks, the links are still frozen on the inside.
I'm a bit hesitant to thaw the mass because we'd just be refreezing it again, and my understanding is that it's a bad idea to repeatedly thaw and freeze meat. Is there a better way to handle this that doesn't involve us trying to eat a few pounds of processed meat at once or risk wasting it?
One option: reheat slowly in the microwave and until it is barely unfrozen enough to break apart. Then break it down into meal-sized portions, take the part you want for now and wrap the remaining bits in cellophane so they don't freeze together again. (My advice as a self-judged microwave expert is to heat it up at low power in 3 minute increments at first, then 2 minute increments. Fairly early, you will find that some parts thaw faster than others. Once this temperature difference becomes apparent, you can wait like 5 minutes in between bouts of heating it up to allow the heat to even out over the lump.)
Given that the freezing and thawing will probably not do anything good for the texture, you might consider breaking the sausage up and adding it to something like sawmill gravy or strata (or just scrambled eggs) where you won't be eating it in large chunks.
I would do my best to break off a good-sized lump, and defrost that in the fridge (which might take a couple of days but the outer parts should be usable before that). Then plan on eating that over a few days. If you pick a time when you've got more mouths to feed for at least one meal, that will alleviate the boredom. Chunks of cooked sausage can be used up in a casserole with lots of veg, where they won't be so similar to eating sausages.
I wouldn't mess about with microwaving as that seems like a recipe for getting some parts warm while the rest is still frozen, and sitting warm isn't good (that's when the bad things breed). It would probably be better to defrost the whole lot in the fridge and refreeze some, rather than warming. The texture of sausage shouldn't suffer too much, unlike pieces of meat.
You've learnt a lesson by the sound of things: freeze in manageable portions.
Despite what you may have heard, multiple thawings and refreezings are safe, as long as the cumulative time spent at over 4 Celsius stays within the 2 hour limit. Also, the quality loss in thawing ground and cooked meat is much less pronounced than the quality loss in refreezing something like a steak.
So, I would defrost the whole lump in a bowl in the fridge (to avoid entering the danger zone at 4 C). Then repackage in single portions and freeze again. Then defrost single pieces as needed. It's not as great as it would have been if single-frozen from the beginning, but it is the best you can do now, and will still be quite good in quality.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.449999
| 2018-03-22T14:36:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88525",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88639
|
6 hour cooling contradicts 2/4 hour food use rule
When potentially hazardous foods are cooked, it is said that cooling from 60 to 21 C should happen in 2 hours and from 21 to 5 C in 4 hours, does this not contradict the 2/4 hour rule which states that if food is in temperature danger zone should be discarded if its more than 4 hours. Reference http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/safety/faqsafety/pages/foodsafetyfactsheets/foodsafetystandardst857.aspx
Where did you see these times, can you add some reference?
The two hour rule widely quoted here is from the US FDA, unsurprisingly as many users are American. It's very cautious, as are some other FDA rules when compared to commonwealth countries. (This had the makings of an answer but I'm unlikely to have time to trawl through regulations. If you use it as a hint and write your own answer you'll get my upvote)
The reference that was posted is from an Australian agency, so there is your explanation - you are comparing different standards.
There is not some natural border between "safe" and "unsafe" foods. You can see "safe" as more of a certificate, like the CE certificates for electronics - it means that a regulation body has defined conditions under which the food is considered "good enough" for eating. What is "good enough" depends on their risk aversion, the mathematical model they use for bacterial growth, the history of food poisoning outbreaks in their country, and many other factors.
So it is perfectly normal to end up with different food safety rules around the world. Food which has been cooled by that rule will be safe by Australian standards and unsafe by FDA standards.
If you work at a food business, you have to follow the standards of your own country. If you are a home cook, you can choose for yourself which ones to follow, if any.
You are adding the 2 and 4. This is a wrong interpretation of the rule. The 4 is the MAX TOTAL time. Its 2 hours between 140F and 70F, then two more hours between 70F and 39F. Or no more than 4 total between 140F and 39F.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.450321
| 2018-03-26T06:42:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88639",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"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
}
|
18648
|
What is this type of cookware called?
I asked a question about a "Wonder Pot" a bit ago, and this item came up on a search. I don't think it's a wonder pot though. The center hole is effectively much smaller, and there are not any vents in the lid. There isn't a "flame tamer" either, although this part may be lost.
I keep seeing cookware like this in thrift stores, and I'm pretty sure it's for one specific task. What might that task be?
I have to agree, that doesn't look anything like a wonder pot. Doesn't look like it'd be very good for steaming either, considering how little surface area there is for the heat transfer, not to mention the seemingly pointless non-stick coating.
This one had me scratching my head for a while. I came across the phrases "stovetop oven", "raised center skillet", "steamer pan" and a bunch of other dead-ends.
Well, I finally stumbled onto "Ultimate Dutch Oven":
Looks familiar, doesn't it? This one is cast iron, but what you've found is clearly a non-stick version of the same thing.
It's sold as camping gear. The raised center in the middle is what they call a "convection cone". Presumably it's meant to emulate a convection oven (inefficiently, I might add, since there's no fan) - the vents in the cone are a means of distributing the heat, to help mitigate the usual skillet problem of the bottom being overcooked while the top is still raw. I'm pretty sure that nothing is actually supposed to go "inside" the cone, other than hot air. It's probably fairly effective if you're cooking over an open flame (i.e. extremely hot air).
A 3" high non-stick version of this would seem to be of pretty limited use. I can imagine trying to make "baked" potatoes in there, or maybe pre-butchered chicken parts? As you can see from the link above, the "full-size" version can hold a couple of small birds, and again, it's cast iron, so it's infinitely more useful for outdoor cooking.
The OP photo doesn't look deep enough to be a dutch oven, although your research is very interesting.
It is a dry pan, from Tefal, you most likely find in Europe.
Edit by rumtscho The answer used to contain a deep link on a site called top-shop.ro, now the domain still exists, but the product page is gone.
We had one of these when I was growing up. I remember the commercials identifying it as the perfect pan for frying chicken.
The concept was the vents let out undesirable moisture so that all of your pan fried pieces of chicken would be crisp throughout. It was also supposed to be a healthier way of cooking since it was supposed to use little to no oil.
I seem to recall it was a pain to use and results were eh... okay. It got a lot of use though because of the cost.
Funny thing is, my mom and I saw one of these at goodwill today and my 17 year old daughter asked the very same question and my mother was able to confirm my memory was correct.
See these two links: What is this pan all about? and Kitchen Sleuth: What Is This Pan?
The holes are for steam. What is under the raised center?
hmmm, infomercial. off to youtube...
It's called Dry Cooker in Europe. You can find it in Romania, buy it from TV shopping. Not sure who makes it, but I can tell I used it and it really works. Unfortunately there are fake copies which are not Teflon, so you need to be careful what you're buying. Not sure whether they can be purchased online and have them delivered in other European countries, but I have tried getting one here in The States and was not able to find it.
I saw one today in a charity shop for £2:00.
I was curious about its purpose so I have done a bit of research.
As previous posters have said it’s a dry cooking pan.
They are widely used in eastern Europe and seem to be quite a good alternative to using an oven especially if you are only cooking for one or two.
They sell in Romania for about £30:00.
Here is a video from 1987 promoting them as a “Swiss dry cooker” for only $19:95 each.
http://www.videouri.com/en/video/xd3m168
They are available today on Ebay for as little as £8:25 plus postage and packing.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/26cm-Corola-Ceramic-Non-Stick-Frying-Pan-Dry-Cooker-Detachable-Handle-/400335923255?pt=UK_HomeGarden_Kitchen_Cookware_GL&hash=item5d35e16837#ht_1524wt_990
I’m back to the charity shop tomorrow to snap it up.
But I might just keep it as a conversation piece LOL!
I have one like this, but much older. It is useful to bake things on a stovetop when you don't have an oven. I have used mine for roasting potatoes and making sponge cake and it works quite well. Mine, though, has a heavy iron rin that you are supposed to put underneath it, I guess to spread the heat.
I have one of these. It's a Swiss Dry Fryer and it means you can cook mushrooms etc with just one teaspoon of oil. You put the oil in, put the lid on and wait til it heats, add whatever onions, pappers, mushrooms... and replace the lid and just shake occasionally and they cook perfectly in so little oil! It's a great gadget. Mine is over 15
yrs old!
It's called a convection frying pan. I've had one for about 30 years. They were most recently made by Starshine & you can still get a pre-owned one on Ebay. You rub just a tiny bit of butter in them, like you would with a cake pan, & cook on low heat - like a on an electric stove. They come with a lid. The holes in the center allow the heat to come in through the bottom. They are great for chicken, vegetables, any kind of meat. You can cut pork chops with a fork & there's hardly any fat & no grease.
When I was growing up on Long Island, NY we had a stove top oven looking very much like the one that you showed in the first picture. It was from the middle 30's. I was told that it was for baking potatoes on the top of our gas stove. If I remember correctly it didn't work very well What we had was aluminum
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.450535
| 2011-10-29T20:51:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18648",
"authors": [
"Aamir185",
"Aaronut",
"Andrew David Talamas Saca",
"D Kate T",
"Emmie",
"Evan Neumann",
"Max Dante Albert",
"OpenID-test2",
"Owen_AR",
"Robert Brearey Jr.",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sandra Hallman",
"Sypei Terra",
"hijo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79574",
"janewelly",
"stageLeft"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119639
|
Why is my red cabbage suddenly turning blue when cooking, while it never did so before?
I've made fresh red cabbage (not canned or frozen) a few times. Back when I was still living with my parents, it always turned out fine. Now that I'm living on my own, I'm still using the same recipe, with one minor adaptation, which is leaving out the chunks of apple my mother always wanted me to add. I've never been a fan of those chunks, and I prefer eating mine with apple sauce, added after cooking.
But now, when I cook the red cabbage, it suddenly (and always) turns blue. The taste is still pretty much the same, it's just a colour difference. Still, I'm wondering what causes it, and if there's anything I can change to get it to look red again?
Fun fact: you can use the properties described in the answers below to do a nontoxic science demonstration for kids. Take a leaf or two of red cabbage, cut it up, then cover it with water in a pot (just an inch or less should be fine) and bring it almost to a boil, then shut off the heat. This extracts the pigment, which you can use as a pH indicator, changing the color with baking soda or lemon juice.
I'd be curious to see pictures, sounds cool.
@DrakeP Sorry, I finished it all. Otherwise I couldn't have dessert!
@Tinkeringbell haha that's ok, I googled some pictures happy cooking!
If you're using processed red cabbage (e.g. frozen, canned, pickled etc) it might contain food colouring.
@GrahamLaight Yeah, this is about fresh cabbage, threw it an edit to clarify. Though mom would also still have me add apple when we'd eat the cabbage from a jar... or buy jars with the apple pieces already in them.
add some dish soap to turn it green.
The red in red cabbage is Anthocyanin, which is a natural pigment which turns blue in the presence of a base. Apples are slightly acidic, adding apples kept the cabbage's ph towards the acid side, keeping it red.
Adding a squeeze of lemon juice will do the same thing as apples.
It's worth noting that "Anthocyanin" had absolutely no connection with cyanide: see Wikipaedia for the Greek derivation.
Also, the water used has an effect. The acidity of household water can vary considerably (to the point of things like not being able to cook legumes or potatoes). Blue cabbage is a brilliant indicator.
vinegar would also be a good source of acidity if you'd prefer no citrus taste
In Germany there are two words for it blue and red cabbage. This stems from the traditional recipes being acidic or not.
@Luaan, why would you not be able to cook certain things when the acidity of tap water is 'wrong'?
@Holloway It's not that you can't cook them at all, it's that you may not get the expected results if the pH is too high or too low. Basic water will cause potatoes to be softer, sometimes to the point where they turn into mush. More acidic water will make them firmer.
@Holloway Well, cooking isn't just about warming things up - you're influencing the chemical reactions that occur in the food being cooked. And acidity has a huge say in that. For example, raw lentils are quite hard - their cell walls are held together by cellulose and pectin (mostly). To get them to soften up, you need to break up that pectin. In an acidic environment, pectin gets very strong (the carboxylate groups which are normally negative capture the free protons and become neutral). In contrast, add some sodium bicarbonate, and the pectins will force themselves apart readily.
"Well, cooking isn't just about warming things up" - you haven't seen my cooking. Thanks for the explanation though
It's turning blue because it's no longer acidic - the apples in your parents' version was providing some acidity which keeps it red.
You can sub in something else to provide the acidity if the apple pieces aren't desired (vinegar or a little lemon juice should do the trick).
Red cabbage is an indicator that changes color depending pH. If in acidic environment, the cabbage changes color to red, in an alkaline environment it turns blue.
Depending on the acidity/alkalinity of your water the cabbage can turn red or blue. This can be seen in the naming from different regions: It's called „Blaukraut“ (blue cabbage) in southern Germany, and in the northern part it’s called „Rotkohl“ or „Rotkraut“ (red cabbage).
By adding acids like vinegar or apples you can influence the color.
And in the south, in Austria, it is "Rotkraut" again :-)
For the German speakers here: Exactly the question what red cabbage is called locally is part of the current (13th) round of the research project Atlas der deutschen Alltagssprache. In case you want to contribute.
Thanks, Stephie, I was not aware there is such a thing. I‘ll surely contribute
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.451173
| 2022-01-26T13:20:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119639",
"authors": [
"Drake P",
"Gerda",
"Graham Laight",
"Holloway",
"Luaan",
"Mark Morgan Lloyd",
"Portree Kid",
"Stephie",
"Tinkeringbell",
"Tristan",
"Tschallacka",
"barbecue",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97607",
"jmk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124910
|
Why do my recipes say I have to pour boiling water over the mung bean sprouts?
I've got a bunch of recipes, and nearly all of them expect me to boil water and pour that over the mung bean sprouts, before adding those bean sprouts to the rest of the dish. None of them clarify how much water needs to be poured though, which is probably also good to know as that means I may have been doing this wrong?
I've skipped that step a few times, and I haven't noticed any difference in taste or how cooked the bean sprouts are once the dish is finished. Because of that, it seems like a very silly step to me, one that wastes energy, and at the same time adds an action that risks burns due to e.g. unfortunate splashing of boiling hot water. Then again, since it's so prevalent in these recipes, it seems like I'm missing something. Maybe I'm not using enough water to properly boil the beansprouts, but then again, if they needed boiling, why not just say so in the recipe and for how long...
Is there a common reason why my recipes say I have to pour boiling water over the mung bean sprouts?
Can you claridy what kind of bean sprouts you mean? I assume mung bean sprouts (that are sometimes called soy bean sprouts even though they are not).
@JohnDoe Darn. Translate only gave one option XD Wikipedia's English version of the page says mung bean sprouts though :)
@JohnDoe please don't answer in comments. They are for asking for clarification. If you can address the question, please do so in an answer.
Which country/ place in the world do these recipes come from? Could this be a cleaning/ desinfecting step?
@quarague They're Dutch recipes mostly. As for the disinfecting, I don't know, I'd half expect that if it really needed disinfecting, it would be a warning on the bag, and I see none on the one I have in the fridge now...
If the recipes are Dutch that mostly disproves my conjecture. I thought they may come from a country where tap water is not safe to drink so they recommend boiling the water and washing with boiling water to remove effects of unsafe water.
Taking into account the clarifying comments, I suggest that the proposed boiling is intended to kill bacteria like E. coli that can cause food sickness, as the sprouting process has very favorable conditions for growing bacteria [Source].
Instead of pouring over boiling water, you could also blanch cook the sprouts. Or, if you are making something like a wok stir fry, toss them in at the end and let the heat of the other ingredients cook them. Additionally, you should not keep an open package of sprouts for long, even in the refrigerator (as per a manufacturer recommendation on mung bean sprouts packages I buy semi-regularly).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.451606
| 2023-08-07T14:05:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124910",
"authors": [
"John Doe",
"Tinkeringbell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50000
|
Why pre-mix baking soda into 2 tsp of milk?
I am not much of a cook, but about this time every year, I pull out a favorite family recipe for cookies. My grandmother made these cookies for me when I was a child, and when I got older she wrote their recipe down for me.
There is one aspect of the recipe that I have never understood: it has me mix 2 tsp of baking soda into 2 tsp of milk.
All the other dry ingredients (flour, sugar, baking powder, salt, etc.) get mixed together separate from the wet stuff. But the baking soda? No: it has to be added to the milk to form a tiny little bit of wet paste, and then somehow I'm supposed to alternate between adding the flour mixture and this tiny little bit of soda+milk paste into the wet mixture. I cannot understand how such a tiny little bit of wet paste could possibly get evenly distributed throughout the batter mixture, using this method.
My usual approach is to ignore that part of the recipe, and just mix the baking soda with the dry components, and the milk with the wet components. [EDIT: or sometimes, I make the paste as described, then add that to the wet.] There doesn't seem to be any negative results from violating this instruction, and yet I am haunted every year by this non-understood detail of the recipe.
Can I buy a clue? My grandmother is no longer around to ask. :(
[EDIT] After reading the answers so far, I'm reasonably convinced that the purpose of pre-mixing the baking soda (base) into milk (very slightly acid) is to increase the amount of leavening that occurs. These cookies are nearly cake-like in texture, intentionally. But the reasoning behind the alternating is still a bit of a mystery.
... Was mine really the 50,000th question here? Score! :)
No, we only have a bit under 11 000 questions currently. What made you think it's 50 000?
The number in the URL.
Mixing it with milk (or liquid in general) is probably just to remove clumps. It clumps easily, especially when things aren't perfectly airtight (probably more common in your grandmother's time), and mixing in a small amount of liquid is an easy way to make sure it all breaks up.
I'm less sure about the alternating. It is pretty common to alternate wet and dry as a way of getting things evenly mixed and avoiding lumps, so it's possible it's a variation on that. The paste might be too thick to easily mix into the wet, but also wet enough that it'd tend to stay as a lump if you mix it straight into the dry, so alternating wet-dry-paste might get you more even mixing? But if you're able to mix the paste smoothly into the wet, it's completely fine to just do that.
Regarding your second paragraph: I have never observed any problems thoroughly mixing the paste directly into the wet. But I could very easily imagine such clumping problems occurring if I had already added some of the dry... which is precisely why I've always looked askance at that particular detail of the recipe. :)
Also, regarding the clumping while in storage due to moisture: I think if that was the sole worry, the recipe could simply suggest that the reader break up the clumps. :)
@Ryan Mixing in a little liquid can be the easiest way to break them up, though. Sometimes it's hard to physically crush them up fully while dry. Might just be lack of explanation!
Lactic acid is prevalent in sour milk products. Addition of a base such as baking soda would tend to neutralize that acid. So your grandmother's thinking was probably to get ahead of the game a bit by adding the base ingredient to the fresh milk, that is, with the idea in mind that it would keep the milk from souring and from changing the flavor of the cookies.
If so, there's definitely merit to her thinking. Trace amounts of milk dispersed over a large area would be obviously easy to spoil, not as an aggregate (such as in 2 tsp) but as occasional, small clusters of molecules appearing here and there throughout the dough, especially when heat is first applied.
Depending on what else in the way of process is in the recipe, the addition of baking soda may have had yet another purpose such as mitigating against an undesired amount of leavening. But dual purpose or otherwise, it can definitely be said to have had the effect of keeping flavor signatures toward the sweet side of the spectrum.
Sounds like your grandmother definitely knew what she was doing. And thank you for the tide of warm images your story imparts.
I'm not sure why someone else down-voted your answer; I think yours added value, even though I believe I'm about to accept Jefromi's.
There are online variants of this recipe that also have the baking soda pre-added to milk, and in the same proportions. The only detail lacking in the online versions is the alternating of this 4-ish tsp of pasty fluid with the dry ingredients.
Also: I can't understand how adding sodium bicarbonate would 'mitigate against unwanted leavening'. In fact, adding it to milk (pH 6.7) would tend to increase leavening. (These cookies are, intentionally, somewhat cake-like.) Maybe that's the point of the pre-mix!
First, Ryan, thank you. Second, just to clarify, if to mitigate against overfluffiness it would be the full measure of baking powder which the baking soda counters, not the 2 tsp milk. Third, both of the two possible interpretations I offered up are purely conditional, the latter even more so than the first. Jefromi's answer is perfectly sound. In either event we're entertaining of what classes as reasoned speculation, in which case there's no right answer per se. The important thing is that you get what seems to you a satisfactory answer to an apparently important question.
How can baking soda counter baking powder? Both contain sodium bicarbonate; baking powder just also includes a dry acid, so that it self-activates once wet. (Baking soda requires that you provide an acid yourself.) ...True?
So yes, it would be tantamount to shifting the balance [of the baking powder] toward the base side. If however to argue that this would not likely alter the leavening process, this all the more supports the likelihood that the intent was to counter the souring of the milk, that is, without interfering with any other processes. Either way you go, it works. The idea that a dual purpose may bear out was simply all the more speculative. I would not hope to be as engaged on the subject as you understandably are, but enough to reach as far as possible on your behalf. Thus the not simple answer.
I don't really see how milk is going to go sour during the process of making cookies - it takes time. And even if it did, the acid is just the byproduct. The problem is bacteria breaking things down into lactic acid (and possibly producing other nasty byproducts). And I agree about leavening - adding baking soda won't decrease leavening, and even if it did, that wouldn't explain why it's mixed into milk.
While my conception of things may be off, Jefromi, (as that doesn't not happen), it may also be that given a bit more time to gestate over you might come to agree that while, no, a familiar aggregate of milk such as a tsp or a cup would indeed take some time to sour, independent clusters of milk molecules (therefore not in aggregate) are entirely open to the full force of whatever else may act upon them -- which is very different from having the entry point be only the surface of the milk -- as here there's nothing but surface. As to the effect a base has on leavening, it counters it, yes?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.451856
| 2014-11-23T01:34:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50000",
"authors": [
"Adele Smith",
"Bund Lining Systems LTD",
"Cascabel",
"CindyD the fam Tenn",
"Cognitive Hazard",
"Lisa Nelligan",
"Marius",
"Minos",
"Thomas Raywood",
"anthony skorski",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89001
|
Does Agar Agar expand in the stomach if not diluted enough?
This might be an odd question. But I am making gummybears from fruit i mixed smooth in a food processor and agar agar. I read that agar is a potential chocking hazard when taken with insufficient amount of water. Since I used about 3 teaspoons for my mixture to set it firm, will it expand once it comes in contact with the fluid when eaten? Or is the structure changed once it got heated and then cooled again into jelly form?
Agar is a gelling agent, made from seaweed. I can't imagine how it would be a choking hazard. Gummies themselves, of course, could be a choking hazard.
@moscafj Certain gelling agents can increase the risk of choking because of their nature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konjac#Choking_risk). I don't think that applies to agar, though.
I am wondering about obstruction and if it is a choking hazard actually. I will edit it once I am able to get to the webmd page: https://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-80-AGAR.aspx?activeIngredientId=80&activeIngredientName=AGAR&source=0
"Chocking" is the process of inserting a wedge under a wheel or tyre. "Choking" is asphyxiation due to an obstruction in the throat.
Assuming that you are worried about the expansion rate in the stomach from having an insufficient ratio of water to agar during digestion, a quick search came up with the following results from wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agar):
Agar-agar is approximately 80% fiber, so it can serve as an intestinal regulator. Its bulking quality has been behind fad diets in Asia, for example the kanten (the Japanese word for agar-agar[3]) diet. Once ingested, kanten triples in size and absorbs water. This results in the consumers feeling fuller. This diet has recently received some press coverage in the United States as well. The diet has shown promise in obesity studies.
The same Agar used in culinary dishes is the same one used in laboratories for testing. Resistance to high temperature (melting point is 85 °C) makes Agar ideal for studies that need an environment to mimic human body temperature. This means that Agar will not melt in the body once digested.
Melting Agar is also not the same as denaturing Agar. The act of melting it to form and then cooling to set does not change the structure and properties of Agar. Just like how ice melts into water and you can freeze again while also being able to reverse the process at any time, you can do the same with Agar just at a different temperature. Since the Agar has the same properties as before melting, this does not keep it from expanding when exposed to water.
To add to this: Just because your body does not get hot enough to melt agar, that does not mean the bacteria in your intestine won't break it down into smaller molecules and denature the Agar to aid in digestion. Source: https://www.ayurtimes.com/agar-agar-kanten/
"Since the Agar has the same properties as before melting, this does not keep it from expanding when exposed to water." does this conflict with the answer @Bugmo gave "Like other gelling agents, agar becomes more liquified and hence softer ..." or do is it expanding but liquefying more? I guess my worry is that if the gummy bears have enough agar in them that they will only expand to a point where they can become a danger and not enough to be liquid.
@OliverSchöning The more liquid you add, the less absorption will take place. That will have to do with the saturation properties of Agar though and that has more to do with chemistry. For a rough guess you would need "20 times the weight of the agar in water" to keep further absorption to happen, but that makes unsatisfying gummies. The only saturation statistics I could find on Agar are at this link (very chemistry oriented): http://www.agargel.com.br/agar-tec-en.html
@OliverSchöning I wouldn't worry about Agar expanding to be a danger unless you are eating super concentrated Agar gummies (to the point they would be borderline inedible) and you are dehydrated. As agar expands and absorbs water it will break down into smaller chunks by the churning of your digestive system. As long as you drink some water while eating your gummies you should be fine.
The short answer is: Yes, it can. But it's not really about dilution.
Agar agar, along with foods such as chia seeds and flax seeds, are mucilaginous. This property can indeed pose a hazard if the ingredient is consumed while it still possesses a substantial capacity to absorb water. In this case, the product absorbs moisture from the alimentary canal, which can lead to an obstruction of the gut. There is at least one well-documented case of this occurring with chia seeds.
This risk can be completely mitigated by near-total hydration of the ingredient, i.e., by assuring that its capacity to absorb water has been nearly exhausted. To do so, find the absorptive capacity of the ingredient. My research found that agar agar's capacity is to absorb about 20 times its weight in water. Thus if your finished product contains 1Kg (1 liter) of water and 50 grams of agar agar, you have nothing to worry about. (You should do your own research and not rely on mine.)
I would guess that your finished product is actually substantially dryer than that, and as such, consuming substantial quantities of the product along with dehydration could lead to an obstruction. I would suggest eating this "food" with water.
Like other gelling agents, agar becomes more liquified and hence softer in the presence of the warmth of one's body and the liquid present in the digestive system. Therefor the cooked agar is not in itself a choking hazard, though, as noted above, the gummies could be. It is only agar that has not been combined with liquid, heated, and gelled that it is a choking hazard. So your cooked agar is not a danger. (Though I did notice a distinct flavor from the agar when I made a similar recipe several years ago.)
Do you mean the gummies could be a choking hazard in the same sense how all foods can be a choking hazard? Not rapid expansion.
exactly, yes. Not rapid expansion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.452464
| 2018-04-09T17:36:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89001",
"authors": [
"BelethorsGeneralGoods",
"Bugmo",
"JAB",
"Oliver Schöning",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66431",
"moscafj",
"ruief"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89387
|
Can I use low-temperature cooking for foie gras
I used to cook my meat (beef, duck) at 58°C, but I never cooked foie gras of myself. Is it possible to use this cooking method for this?
I am wondering this because I saw a recipe with a beef piece half-opened with a raw foie gras inserted in. Then all of this baked but with normal cooking temperature+time and I would like to try low-temperature cooking.
Thank you
You provided a temperature, but asked about a method. What is your method? What would be your concern?
Furnace at 65°C and initialy cold, bake until the center of the meat reachs 58°C.
You should be fine if you your product is in the oven until the center reaches 58C. Carry over cooking will cause the temp to increase slightly, and your fois will be in the safe zone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.453049
| 2018-04-24T12:08:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89387",
"authors": [
"elpha01",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66780",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90091
|
Foamy cakey layer on top of lemon squares
Every time I bake lemon bars (regardless of recipe), I seem to end up with a foamy cake-like layer on top of the lemon curd. I'm not really sure where I am going wrong, but it is definitely a technique over recipe thing because regardless of the recipe I have this problem.
EDIT:
I make my own lemon curd, I don't buy it. Despite me varying recipes, and trying to vary my technique I still end up with a foamy cakey layer on top. The lemon mixture on top of my lemon bars consists of around (depending on recipe):
4 eggs, 300g sugar, juice of 2-3 lemons, zest and 55g flour.
I don't have any knowledge on lemon curds, but it may also be one of your ingredients (or a combination thereof), if you haven't tried varying them brand-wise.
Are you making or buying your curd?
It is my own lemon curd- I use 4 eggs, 300g sugar, 55 g flour, lemon juice (2-3x lemon), lemon zest, mix, then bake for about 15 minutes
@Stephie nope no butter, but none of the recipes I've seen for lemon bars have butter in the lemon topping
Similar issue for me. BUT, I accidentally fixed it by placing plastic wrap over the finished but uncut tray to refrigerate it. When removed the wrap held the foam and lifted it off!
I make my lemon squares the same way and get this top. I haven't noticed it effects the end result. I lowered my oven temp a bit to help with it, and it doesn't eliminate it, but it's thin and not overly browned. And once the powdered sugar is on top, no one is any wiser.
The only way I've seen to not have this is to do a stove top version that's finished in the oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.453150
| 2018-05-31T12:47:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90091",
"authors": [
"ABC",
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67418",
"mech"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90202
|
Angel Food Cake: crushed pineapple instead of sugar?
For my mom's birthday, I want to make an angel food cake.
I am against using any type of processed sugar (even cane sugar) but I am okay with fruit so I am looking for a way to substitute sugar with fruit.
The only thing I could come up with was crushed pineapple. I found a recipe for a pineapple angel food cake online but it requires Betty Crocker cake mix, and I am planning to make mine from scratch.
Do you think it would work if I use a basic angel food cake recipe, but add crushed/ pureed pineapple chunks instead of sugar and add more flour so it's not too wet?
Has anyone tried adding crushed pineapple as a sugar substitute?
Also, is a tube pan necessary? Cause I don't own one.
Thank you.
Everybody, please note that discussion of health beliefs is off topic here. It does not matter why the OP wants to avoid table sugar but is fine with pineapple, or what are the possible effects of the substitution on their health. I cleaned up the discussion in comments here and on the answers.
Instead of pineapple, you might consider honey (assuming you don't consider what the bees do "processing"). There are recipes available on the web, as well as general advice for substituting honey for sugar when baking (perhaps most importantly, you want to reduce the amount quite a bit).
@1006a I was thinking about honey or even maple syrup, the problem is I don't like the way they taste. I was also thinking about mango, but I don't care for the taste either. I already made my pineapple syrup, I will test my new recipe on Saturday. I came up with some ideas for how to make it with pineapple syrup instead of sugar, but I might have to use a yolk or two. Thanks anyway!
I think you could cut out your update and turn it to an answer instead :)
Marzipanherz is correct, we are quite the sticklers when it comes to the separation between questions and answers. Problems go into the question, solutions into the answers. When you worked on a solution and returned to tell us about it (thank you for that), it is best that you post it as an answer to your own question. For the site, it means that new readers find the solutions all in one place. For you, it means that you will probably get some additional upvotes (translating into reputation points, which translate into privileges) on that answer, on top of what you got on the question.
Okay. I thought it would be easier to read. I am not in for reputation points, I don't care about them :-)
Angel food cake gets it's characteristic texture from the egg foam on which it's structure is built. The flour and, to a lesser degree, the sugar stabilize the foam so it's less fragile.
Adding more flour will change the texture of the cake to be more... cakey. That is, not as springy as we expect from an angel food cake. I don't know what the texture of the foam will be without any sugar. I suspect it will be drier.
Pineapple won't be able to replace the function of sugar because it can't be fully Incorporated. In fact, many angel food cake recipe even use powdered sugar as regular sugar is too coarse.
If you are satisfied with the texture changes of no sugar, you can certainly fold in pineapple chunks when the batter is folded together. I would recommend canned to avoid the risk of protease enzymes in fresh pineapple damaging your structure-- egg foam is all protein after all.
I have never tried this but if I were to do this experiment, I would cut out part of the sugar but leave some for the texture. Then I'd place canned pineapple slices on the bottom of the pan and make an angel food pineapple upside down cake.
You do need a tube pan for egg foam cakes like angel food and chiffon because they are mostly air and don't conduct heat well to their interiors. Tube pan are cheap and easy to find at thrift stores. In a pinch I've had success using a regular cake pan with a clean, empty can or canning jar in the middle. Made it tricky to invert the cake at the end but it worked.
I will cook my pineapple then. I already bought a fresh one. Thanks for your advice.
Sugar is not used as a sweetener in cakes, it is a major component which creates the needed texture. As such, it is very difficult to impossible to replace.
In angel food cake, you absolutely cannot replace it. Angel food is a fragile cake without chemical leaveners, and depends on a very well balanced ingredient list. Using a fruit puree instead of the sugar will create a mess. Also, the tube pan is important for angel food cake, unless you are willing to bake very thin separate layers, else the cake won't bake properly.
If you really insist on replacing the sugar, the least risky base would be a pound cake, since it is relatively insensitive to extra moisture. The basic ratio there is 1:1:1:1 of eggs, sugar, flour and butter by weight. If you are extra careful in reducing the moisture of your puree - maybe drying the pineapple in a low oven for several hours after it has been pureed - you will likely end up with something edible. It will be quite far from the original, and it would be better classified as a fruitbread than as a cake, but at least it is likely that it won't bake into a brick or remain a sticky underbaked mess. Other types of cake won't be as forgiving.
I like switching to a pound cake recipe. Much easier to think about.
Thank you @Sobachatina. I also liked your idea of thinking of it as "let's see if it works with no sugar at all and eventually add some pineapple chunks" - certainly less trouble than having to deal with both the absent sugar and the added fruit matter.
Thank you for your answer but I cannot have a pound cake since my mom cannot have egg yolks.
@treehugger That's difficult then. The pragmatic way would be to forget the cake idea and work with something entirely different, maybe make cups of fruit floating in jellied fruit juice, or some kind of pie. Designing cake recipes is quite demanding, and if you have such strong restrictions, trying to produce something edible on your own will be a very long and probably frustrating process, especially if you have little knowledge of food technology.
Thanks again, I was actually thinking of jellied fruit cups. What is the healthiest cake, in your opinion (no sugar for me, no egg yolks or butter for my mom)?
That's not really an answerable question. First, "healthy" is not really a meaningful qualifier - just because people use it right and left, it doesn't mean that there are medical facts behind it. Second, cakes are made up of mostly fat and sugar, so anything I could suggest wouldn't actually be a cake. There are many non-cake desserts you could make, and some of them could be made without fat and sugar, but I couldn't select a "healthiest" to recommend, just pick something you enjoy.
Fried banana puree works well for a muffin or banana bread base also. 700g of banana fried in 50ml oil (puree, then chill), one egg, vanilla/cinammon, baking powder, and 1.5cups flour with no other liquids works out to about right for a loaf tin or dozen muffins. Angel food would definitely be a disaster.
@treehugger: There are plenty of simple and robust sponge cake recipes that don't require egg yolks. (Heck, there are vegan sponge cake recipes that don't use any eggs or dairy at all.) You could probably even just take a basic pound cake recipe with whole eggs, simply leave the yolks out and still get something OK-ish. Compared to, say, replacing the sugar with pineapple puree, that's a relatively minor change. But as with any recipe tweaks, don't expect to get it perfect the first time.
@IlmariKaronen THANK YOU SO MUCH for your comment!!!
When you say "Sugar is not used as a sweetener in cakes", do you mean not only used as a sweetener, or does some chemical reaction or other effect prevent the sugar from sweetening the cake?
@user2357112 I mean that its primary role is not to be a sweetener. The cake does get sweet, but that's a side effect, which is sometimes desirable and sometimes not - the amount of sugar to be used is dictated by the needed texture, and if you try to change it to suit the eater's desired level of sweetness, you end up with a very differ structure, which is not acceptable to many bakers.
Aside from whether it's a good sugar substitute in other ways, pineapple contains an enzyme called bromelain which digests proteins. Be careful how you use it as it may have undesired effects - for example pineapple jellies will not set properly as the bromelain prevents it from doing so.
Since the angel food cake recipes I've seen contain egg whites, there may be some reaction between the protein and the pureed pineapple there. This may be mitigated if the pineapple is cooked first (and I believe canned pineapple is cooked) as I think this denatures the enzyme.
Also seconding what another user said though, sugar is sugar.
First, this doesn't answer the question. Secondly, your comments apply to fresh pineapple.
@Cindy- I consider the presence of bromelain to be an important consideration in an answer. I agree it only applies to fresh and it was already said but I don't think it doesn't answer the question.
@Sobachatina I agree with you that it's important. If the actual question had been answered and this information included, I would think it's fine. But I don't think that the actual question has been addressed.
I have managed to bake a cake with no sugar whatsoever, using only baked pineapple, flour, and egg whites. The cake came out very tasty but extremely soggy since either I added too many cups of pineapple or not enough flour (I followed my own recipe).
If someone wants to make a sugar-free pineapple cake, here is my advice:
The pineapple should be extremely sweet and ripe.
I roasted pineapple for 40 minutes prior to baking to get rid of the enzyme that could ruin the egg whites.
If I had to do it over again, I would add a yolk and I would decrease the number of eggs and would put less pineapple to make the dough less runny.
I used parchment paper all over so it didn't burn even though I didn't use a tube pan.
Next time, I would use the following ingredients: 3 egg whites (possibly one egg yolk?), 1 cup of sifted flour, 1/2 cup of sweet baked pineapple and I would get a bigger pan because otherwise, it won't be dry all the way through.
Enjoy!
Very cool that you tried this! Using egg yolks would result in a chiffon cake. Not a bad thing. You might look at chiffon cake recipes for inspiration. Decreasing the eggs will not make a better angel food cake. The water in the pineapple could be a problem. I wonder if you could bake the pineapple longer at lower temp to dry it out. Angel food cake recipes usually call for a couple tablespoons of extra water anyway. You should use a tube pan. Seriously. You aren't going to have this work well unless you either use a tube pan or pour it out thinly on a sheet pan which would be interesting.
As for pouring it out on a sheet pan - that's what I was thinking because the pan I used was way too small, even though it was quite a large pan. I have tried baking the pineapple longer, but it just turned brown. Thanks for all your suggestions!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.453327
| 2018-06-06T14:14:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90202",
"authors": [
"1006a",
"Arsak",
"Cindy",
"Ilmari Karonen",
"J...",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67499",
"rumtscho",
"treehugger",
"user2357112"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75748
|
What can you tell about the state of margarine in this cookie?
I want the find out about the structure of the margarine used, shown in the photo below.
I baked this cookie from a frozen dough I bought. The frozen dough was very hard. I am wondering about these spots that look like freckles. I want to find out about the structure of the margarine used. The fat did not set uniformly. Some spots ARE SHINY, and some spots are not. Is this margarine? Was it in hard cold state at creaming?
The frozen dough acts like it has oil in it. Or the fat was melted, because I can pick the chocolate chips in it. But I don't think it has oil in it, because the frozen dough is hard. And won't get soft.
They don't stick to the dough. When I use room temperature margarine, the chips just blend in with the dough...
When I use room-temperature margarine it just won't keep a uniform structure.
Would cold margarine act different?
What can you tell about the margarine used in this cookie? Cold? Melted?
If I am looking at the same things you are when you describe the "freckles", they look more like debris from shattered chocolate chips than any artifact of the dough ingredients. How did you shape the cookies from the frozen dough you purchased? Was it in the shape of a log that you sliced? If so, that cutting would create small chocolate chip particles on top of the cookie that would look like those freckles when they melted during cooking.
As far as the shininess on the top of the cookie, that can often be caused by an abundance of sugar in the dough. Especially since they look to be slightly underdone.
I am curious why you are focusing on the margarine in this dough and comparing it to what happens when you make cookie dough at home. If this is commercially produced frozen cookie dough, there are probably many industrial ingredients and other additives in it that you don't use at home, and these can cause effects very different from what you are used to in homemade chocolate chip cookies.
Thank you Lorel for answering my question.This frozen cookie dough.all it has in in it is margarine. But the margarine acts different from how i do it at home. seems like the gluten is activated. the dough seems to be pulling in.its acting like melted butter, but the dough is very hard and not shiny. when i use room temp margarine, the cookie surface gets all homogen structure, with no freckles , those shiny surface spots. i am wondering how they activate that gluten,.so the dough is strechy
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.454387
| 2016-11-22T16:07:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75748",
"authors": [
"christen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29420"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120827
|
Water concentration of butter post-melt
Perhaps this is different for various kinds of butter and of course the temperature that is applied to it...
Most (USA-generated, I assume) butter is ~18% water. Without approaching the steaming temperature point of pure water, does simply melting butter and then allowing it to return to its initial saturated (solid) state affect the water concentration?
In case I'm seeing this from the wrong perspective, perhaps this should be seen as a matter of distribution rather than concentration.
The proportion of water will not change significantly unless you leave it hot for a while (evaporation will occur even below boiling temperature); the only substance that will evaporate in any meaningful quantity is the water so you can check if this has happened by comparing the original mass to the mass after melting.
However, the changes to the butter will be more significant than merely redistribution: see the information at this answer for more detail.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.454629
| 2022-06-13T15:23:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120827",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122969
|
How can I filter the solids out of my homemade pumpkin spice syrup?
I'm a big fan of pumpkin spice lattes, and I've been experimenting with a few recipes for making my own pumpkin spice sauce at home. It's pretty simple; simmer equal parts sugar and water with varying amounts of pumpkin puree, nutmeg, cinnamon, cloves, allspice, ginger, etc. for about 20 minutes or so. The problem is that none of these spices are soluble in water, and I can't seem to strain out the solids enough to where it won't make my coffee "gritty."
I've tried filtering the mixture through a metal sieve used for cold brew, but the grains are much smaller than ground coffee, so it (mostly) passes through the pores. I tried cheesecloth, but it clogs up quickly and turns into a mess. The most success I've had was pouring the mixture through paper coffee filters straight from the stove while it was still boiling hot, but this has a few issues:
The mixture forms a "skin" at the bottom of the coffee filter and the flow slows to a few drips at a time as it cools.
To hurry things along, I wind up going back and forth between two containers using a clean coffee filter each time, but I wind up wasting a ton of filters this way.
Doing it like this takes hours and it still laves a gritty, sludgy mouthfeel in my coffee.
Honestly, this process is making me feel quite stupid. What do I do?
If the cheesecloth clogs up with solids, doesn't that mean it's doing exactly what it's supposed to?
@spuck - I assume they meant that it clogs to the point where they are having trouble getting the actual syrup through (or with great difficulty), which could easily be the case if the spices are all ground. Nothing a good squeezing wouldn't help with though.
I have several new knee-high nylons that work great for straining. I stretch one around the top of a crock with a 6" diameter and pour the liquid in. It works great.
@Arlo no answers in comments, please. Why don’t you reuse this comment and turn it into an answer?
Straining
Use cheesecloth.
You don't describe your process with cheesecloth in much detail, but I would suggest
line a colander with a couple of layers of cheesecloth, and place that colander over a bowl to collect your pumpkin spice syrup;
pour the mixture of spices, simple syrup, and pumpkin puree through the cheesecloth;
let this stand for five or ten minutes;
(this is the step you seem to be missing) gather up the cheesecloth into something that resembles a bindle, and squeeze; you should be able to get a good amount of the remaining syrup out of this mass.
As an optional final step, run the resulting syrup through a coffee filter.
Whole Spices
You don't describe the state of the spices that you are using, but it sounds like you might be using ground spices. If so, and especially if you are using pre-ground spices from the grocery, I would suggest not doing this. Use whole (or slightly broken up) cinnamon sticks, use whole (or gently crushed) cloves and allspice, and use (maybe) diced crystalized ginger.
You will likely have to steep these things a bit longer, but the advantage is that the spices will be large enough to mostly strain out with a strainer, and should not clog up a coffee filter or cheesecloth.
Recipe
It might also be worth noting that the "traditional" pumpkin spice latte is made with a pumpkin spice syrup, which contains the flavors of spices which one would use in a pumpkin pie (clove, ginger, cinnamon, etc), but which does not actually contain any pumpkin or pumpkin flavor. If you are looking to reproduce that latte, you might be better off making a simple syrup with those spices, and omitting the pumpkin puree entirely.
+1 for omitting the pumpkin puree: it's not pumpkin and spice, it's pumpkin spice, as in the word pumpkin is modifying the word spice. "This latte has spices in it. What kind of spices? The kind you'd put in pumpkin pie."
I've had a nice pumpkin spice latte that had pumpkin in it, but it was the exception rather than the rule. In this case, they made a sort of pumpkin syrup, and a spice mix, and added them separately. I'd guess this is because to make pumpkin syrup, you'd cook it like crazy and then strain all the solids out with a cheesecloth, whereas a spiced syrup you can make by gently simmering whole spices in water, then dissolving sugar
Starbucks' current Pumpkin Spice Latte recipe (which I think many people consider the canonical one) has included pumpkin since 2015, though it didn't always (it was previously just "the kinds of spices you would put in a pumpkin pie" as described).
@A_S00 While I was not aware of that when I wrote the answer, the Starbucks PSL first pinged my consciousness around the same time I returned to college in 2006ish. So I think that I covered my bases by saying "traditional" PSL. But yes, I see that Starbucks now puts pumpkin in it, too.
Using whole spices is the way to go, as they will filter out with your metal sieve. You may need to cook the mixture or steep the spices in longer if you use whole spices, you'll want to taste as you go to learn how long it needs.
If you must use ground spices I have a few suggestions:
Use a jam bag, and suspend it above a bowl. The liquid will drip out, you can also squeeze it
Add the sugar later: the more sugar you put into solution the more solid it will get as it cools, you could cook the spices in pure water, filter and then add the sugar afterwards
Use a siphon: when you brew beer you end up with a lot of solids on the bottom of the fermentation vessel. One way to get the liquid out is to siphon it off into a different container. This sounds like more trouble than it's worth for your particular application, but worth noting
If the spices sink to the bottom of the container, it may be better to decant the mixture:
Remove the liquid on top without disturbing the sludge at the bottom.
You can attempt to ladle the liquid from the top, pour it out slowly, or use a hose to siphon it off.
I would also be worth noting that ‘pumpkin spice’ doesn’t actually include pumpkin typically. It’s just the spices. If you really want to include pumpkin flavor, you may want to infuse the spices into a syrup, then add that to the pumpkin instead of doing them both at the same time.
+1, and even infuse the spices into water only, and then cook the syrup with the water - this should make it easiest to strain.
As a British person, it really surprised me to learn that 'pumpkin spice' means 'the spice mix associated with pumpkin pie' rather than containing pumpkin. Like how US 'coffee cake' is 'cake typically eaten with coffee' as opposed to the British 'coffee-flavoured cake'.
@dbmag9 — Huh. I had never realized what “pumpkin spice” was supposed to mean. I thought it was just a random name, like “Grape Nuts”.
For what it's worth, Starbucks has pumpkin: https://athome.starbucks.com/recipe/pumpkin-spice-latte
@TinfoilHat Only for the last six or seven years. :D
Your problem is the viscosity and the sugar does nothing but hinder the extraction process (competing solute). So just extract, filter, and then add sugar and reduce.
For filtering out spices, after a prefilter (with a fine metal sieve) I tend to use coffee filter papers. Ideally you'd set one up in a filter cone, but it is possible to use a funnel instead.
In you case with the pumpkin puree it's a little harder. I'd still use coffee filters, but start with one of the other suggestions: either cheesecloth or sedimentation, to get a rather cloudy liquid that will filter fairly easily
I've no idea if, or how well, this might work, but instead of trying to filter the spices out after simmering, you might try creating a "spice bag" out of cheesecloth (or possibly a coffee filter) so that they never really mix in in the first place. I would imagine you would either need more spices for a given quantity of liquid, and/or to simmer for longer (because the spices wouldn't circulate as much), but it might be worth a shot.
A sachet: https://www.saltsearsavor.com/blog/cooking-with-sachets
I've found a French Press does a really good job filtering out the spices and just leaving behind a smooth cup.
But to do that, I'm making instant coffee, drip coffee or an Americano with the steamed milk or milk on top. (Not a legit latte).
a French Press won't filter out ground spices. Also, did you notice that the original question was about a syrup for coffee, not a brewed coffee?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.454774
| 2023-01-09T13:05:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122969",
"authors": [
"A_S00",
"Arlo",
"Broots Waymb",
"Esther",
"Marti",
"Michael Lorton",
"Stephie",
"Tinfoil Hat",
"Xander Henderson",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"lupe",
"rumtscho",
"spuck"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116360
|
Is it a good idea to add salt to egg whites before beating them?
It seems to be conventional wisdom to add a pinch of salt before beating the eggs.
However, this website gives a scientific explanation of why it's a very bad idea.
Could you tell me who is correct?
Agitation causes the little bunches of proteins in the white to unfold, at which point the individual molecules start to collect around air bubbles and bond with each other. If there’s salt in the mix that bonding process is slowed as the salt dissolves into its component parts — sodium and chloride — and those ions start to adhere to the bonding sites on the protein molecules, preventing the proteins from using those sites to bond with each other. The result is that the foam takes longer to whip up and is less stable when it finally does form.
Edit: Harold McGee's book "On Food and Cooking, The Science and Lore of the Kitchen" states that egg white foam (whipped egg whites) is harmed by the addition of salt.
Source: this question.
I always go with science over "conventional wisdom."
@moscafj plenty of fake science out there, best to watch out :)
If it is fake, it is not science...best to check sources.
@moscafj this is why I am asking this question...
There is a great deal of contrary advice on adding salt to egg whites. From my research, what I gather is that this mixed advice comes from the fact that it probably depends on how much salt is added.
These researchers found that foam volume and stability increased with a small amount of NaCl, then decreased with increased amounts.
This research did not find a significant difference in foamability or stability. You can look see the details beginning on page 79.
The author did reference the first paper I shared and stated:
The mechanism behind the adverse effect of salt addition on foamability may be attributed to the reduction in protein solubility at high salt concentrations. This decrease was due to a high level of protein aggregation which diminished protein adsorption at the interface and decreased foamability (Ercelebl & Ibanoglu, 2009).
From my reading, I would think that the impact of adding a "pinch" of salt (or leaving it out altogether) would hardly be noticed in the home kitchen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.455438
| 2021-07-09T09:34:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116360",
"authors": [
"Yulia V",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27549",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46879
|
Is it okay to slow cook sausage casserole without pan frying the sausages?
We haven't got an oven/hob at the moment due to kitchen refurbishments and I'm currently slow cooking sausage casserole in a 2.5L slow cooker. There's about 6-8 thick sausages in there all cut up into quarters and mixed into the casserole.
It's been on high for around 5 hours now and I was wondering if the sausages would be edible? They're 97% pork Debbie & Andrews sausages (more info HERE)
Sliced then quartered? How thick are the slices? So each slice is like 4 pie pieces (like this)? Do you happen to have a thermometer? Have you seen any bubbling (like simmering)?
My gut says that you're fine as far as food safety, but that your final casserole might be a bit oily. If you could clarify a bit (as in answering questions in the above comment), I could probably be more helpful.
@Jolenealaska Just quartered, not sliced. Probably about an inch thick. Not sliced like a pie no, literally just got the sausage, chopped it in half, then chopped the halves in half.
There's no health issue here, the sausages will be cooked enough to be safe. The reason you fry off the sausages first is that you make the casings more edible, get flavor from maillard reactions and browning, and maybe get rid of some of the fat (if you discard the fat that comes out of the sausages that is).
I'm thinking that the sausage casings could end up being a bit soggy, however that depends on several factors and you'll probably get a good result. Worst case is you don't eat the sausage casings.
The casings will likely go soggy to the point of falling off, and the sausage will be very soft, but as you say, no safety problem.
I'd probably squeeze the sausage out of the casings before cooking if I was going to do this method. Heck, I'd still fry the meat off just for the flavor.
Just ate it. It was on high for just over 7 hours. The sausages were really soft and tasty, but as you say it would have tasted better probably had we fried them, we definitely will when our kitchen is back together! Thanks again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.455762
| 2014-09-04T14:12:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46879",
"authors": [
"Caitlin Halliday",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GdD",
"Holly Workman",
"Jolenealaska",
"Karen Conway",
"Kathy Brown",
"Mathew Thompson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88997
|
A recipe instructs to boil a whole head of cabbage, can I boil individual leaves instead?
In Madhur Jaffrey's An Invitation to Indian Cooking, her recipe for Cabbage leaves stuffed with potatoes instructs you to boil the cabbage leaves by submerging the entire head of cabbage in a large pot of boiling water.
This sounds like an accident waiting to happen to me, and I was wondering if this method affects the flavor, or will it be just the same to remove the leaves and boil individually.
If you're reluctant to boil the whole head, you could steam for a while, take off the softened leaves, steam some more, repeat 'til you have enough leaves. It's going to take a while, though.
The goal of the boiling step is to make it easy to remove the leaves. Removing whole individual cabbage leaves on a raw head of cabbage is tricky; they tend to tear.
If you want to put forth the effort, it should be just fine. They're cooked just long enough to soften them and make it possible to wrap them around the filling. I will happen much faster without a whole head of cabbage in there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.455975
| 2018-04-09T15:04:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88997",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"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
}
|
55450
|
What determines the variety of paprika to use in recipes?
Spanish smoked paprika is powerful stuff that can enhance or overpower a dish. How do I judge when, how much, and which type of paprika (Spanish, Hungarian, sweet, hot, smoked, etc.) to use?
If a recipe didn't specify which type of paprika to use (and I've never seen one that didn't) I would default to a 'sweet mild' paprika. Sweet refers to 'not chilli hot' rather than anything to do with sugar. Smoked paprika is a very particular ingredient used in very few cuisines so I wouldn't think of it as just a variant or substitute for the other paprikas.
The other clue about which to use will be in the rest of the recipe. Is it a spanish or basque recipe? Then smoked is likely what they mean. Is it Croatian/Serbian? Then it is sweet mild. Does the recipe include chilli as a spice separately? Then they likely won't be asking you to double up by using hot paprika too, use mild. The quantity the recipe calls for will also be a clue. Smoked & hot paprikas are very strong, so I'd expect to see a pinch or 1/4 teaspoon listed in most cases, whereas mild paprika is often used to add colour as well as flavour so you might see greater quantities used.
Your own taste determines it. Seriously, the amount and type you use depends on what you are accustomed to. What is overwhelming for one person is underseasoned for the next.
Ideally, the people who write down a recipe will know that and write down which type of paprika to use. But if they didn't, there is nothing you can do but guess, taking your personal taste into account. If there is one type you always use, start with this and change next time if it didn't work. If there isn't, you have to imagine the taste of the dish made with each type of paprika you have, and take the one which will work better. Such imagination is a skill you have to develop from years of cooking and tasting, and is not perfectly exact. But it's still the best you can do. There is no rule for taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.456099
| 2015-03-06T16:03:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55450",
"authors": [
"Cara Lane",
"Dermot Mullan",
"Snoopy Woodstock",
"Sumeet Kumar",
"Violy Eroma",
"Westchester Dental",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131865",
"scott hulme"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47273
|
Parsley storage
I am trying to store parsley safely at room temperature using the following method:
I snip off a little from the stem part and put parsley in a jar filled with around an inch of water
I loosely cover parsley with a plastic bag to preserve humidity.
While this method helped me keep the parsley leaves from getting brownish and dry, I am experiencing another problem:
The part of the stem that was exposed to water is wilting for some reason.
Does anyone have a scientific explanation to why this is happening? Am I using too much water? or too little? Too hot? Too cold?
Thanks in advance :)
P.S. I'm thinking of doing the same thing but just without water in the jar. Would it work better?
Just keep in a closed container, nto airtight, no water required
I don't have a scientific answer, though I keep my parsely,thyme,oregano (and others) in a very similar manner. I have experiences where exposure to natural/indirect sunlight caused an algae to form on any part of the herb that was in contact with or submerged in the water and seemed to affect the stems as you described. So now I keep them away from the light (I also use a rubberband to seal the bag around the jar/ramekin too).
So, not airtight but closed enough so air can hardly escape right?
But if you use rubberband wouldn't you be making it airtight?
Also, how long can you keep parsley like that? I'm guessing around 10 days?
With the method I described above, excluding the water-exposed part, I managed to keep parsley fully green...
I freeze it, and shave off what I need. Never found a good way to preserve it at room temp.
I would keep cut parsley in the refrigerator, either in a little water in a jar or in a plastic bag, similar to cut flowers that are preserved by refrigeration.
Am I missing something, or is this what the OP is already doing?
Is OP = original poster? It seems OP is leaving at room temperature. Otherwise, yes, very similar. I'll edit down my answer.
Aha, I did miss that difference, thanks! There's nothing wrong with the asparagus comparison, I just mistakenly thought you weren't suggesting changing anything.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.456301
| 2014-09-20T19:26:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47273",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Diane Orecchio",
"Grey Dog",
"Ian McCallum",
"J P Fourie Varmint Control Jac",
"Joshua",
"Karen Lloyd",
"Michael E.",
"Michael Poskitt",
"Nawal Atie",
"Not Joseph",
"TFD",
"Tanya C",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68614
|
How to use vanilla beans?
I used a vanilla bean in a water-based beverage and did not get any taste.
Further research showed that vanilla is apparently oil soluble, not water soluble.
I know that it is a common practice to make vanilla tinctures using alcohol, but if it is fat soluble, why not use oil? The problem with alcohol is that it gives bad taste to many things.
I see in vanilla ice cream there are the little black seeds. Do they just mix the seeds in the milk, and the milk fat absorbs the taste? How long does this take? If I want to add vanilla to a fat-based food, how long do I need to let the seeds sit in it for the flavor to spread throughout?
Vanilla extract is essentially vanilla infused into alcohol. If you don't have any problem with storebought vanilla extract, I doubt you'd have much problem with homemade vanilla infused into alcohol (i.e. homemade vanilla extract) either. While people do sometimes describe real vanilla extract as "boozy", it's not so much about the alcohol as the vanilla flavor. Some do still like it a bit less, though.
Infusing into oil will certainly work, but it does introduce botulisum concerns if you want to store it for very long. So you're much more likely to see it infused directly into a high fat food like ice cream.
For ice cream, you scrape the contents of the bean into the warm custard mixture (milk/cream/egg), and let it steep for 20-30 minutes. (You can also put the whole bean in and fish it out later.) The heat and the fat content both help extract the flavor.
In fact Creme Brûlée recipe starts with making a custard with vanilla bean, and steeping it for 15 minutes.So yum!
Another option if you use sugar in your beverages is to make vanilla sugar. It is vanilla infused sugar made by burying vanilla bean in sugar for 2 weeks+. Also used in German cookies called kipferls
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.456517
| 2016-04-27T21:47:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68614",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68856",
"manu muraleedharan"
],
"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
}
|
62616
|
How is basil prepared for pesto most efficiently?
I'm typing this with a case of "pesto-finger" - the stubborn stains that take a few days to fully wash off my thumb and fingertips from hours of picking basil leaves (mostly after harvesting all the remaining basil in the face of a frost.) I always wonder (for a few days a year while I'm doing it) how basil is prepared (before the grinding in a pestle or food processor) both "traditionally" and/or in a large-scale or even commercial operation to make pesto, as I'm tediously picking leaves off of the stems in my annual home production. Is there a better way than tedious hand-picking?
My personal pesto has wandered fairly far from "pesto Genovese" but that really has no impact on this question, as it's still mostly basil.
Looking carefully at the picture Lars provides, it would appear (upon examining the picture at full scale) that the basil is being harvested fairly young (no flowers) and simply being cut off (you can see a sickle-bar type cutter at the base of the harvester) and pulled up (unfortunately the picture appears to be posed, with the harvester stopped and not actually harvesting, based on nothing on the belts nor coming out the chute.) This actually makes some sense - the stems at that point would be fairly tender and might not be objectionable when ground up. While it will take some discipline to finish off basil that could grow more (after years of trying to give it as long as possible and getting it right before frost), I'll have to try some this way next year. I might also try a side-by side taste comparison with some (of the same age) hand-picked (or fist-stripped) from the stems and processed, to see if there's any detriment form the young stems.
Maybe wear gloves?
@moscafj I'm not concerned with the stains - I'm wondering if there's a more efficient method, and I can't see gloves improving efficiency any (though they would obviously be needed if hand-processing for commercial purposes.)
When you say 'off the stems', are you talking about the green stem that extends off of the leaf for about an inch (would be considered a 'rib' when dealing with other greens), or the more woody part that connects to the root mass? I only remove the woody parts, and I can't recall ever having your problem. (I didn't plant basil this year, though ... typically, I have 6-8 plants, and also do the 'last pesto batch before the freeze')
Are you doing this work in your garden? Because when it comes to the end-of-the-year leaf stripping, I tend to do it at night after I've gotten home (after hearing frost warnings on the news) ... so I cut the plants & bring them inside to strip.
The woody part. And I generally do this in the kitchen.
So I found that I'd need to plant MANY more plants, a lot closer, for this to be effective - I had other garden issues this year, but at the point where this seemed like a reasonable harvest option, the plants could easily have been on 4 inch spacing - they were actually planted on about 9 inch spacing, and I ended up punting to the older method and letting them grow out more for this year, though I have started making pesto before frost this year. Next year I'll try a really dense planting, high numbers of plants on small (3-4 inch, or 75-100 mm) spacing.
The picture shows a basil harvester. The stems remain in the ground, as you can see on the right; those stems that get harvested are processed together with the leaves.
This makes my 2 gallon a year operation seem somewhat small. With a bit of digging: http://www.frostablog.de/produktion-und-anbau/basilikumernte-heute-im-rheintal "Rhine Valley (near Worms).
...
From the field to our factory is just a few minutes. To pass from harvest to final frozen basil usually less than 2 hours"
I mostly run my clenched fingers down the stem to break off leaves, rather than picking individually. It's much faster. The top bits with the little leaves/flowers do require a bit of hand plucking though.
If I were a commercial scale pesto producer, I think I'd probably pull the cut off plants bottom end first through a 18mm hole in a steel plate. That should strip most leaves. -That 18mm number is a guess, but I think somewhere near right. Might use two holes, a big one and a smaller one so as to get better recovery.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.456698
| 2015-10-18T13:30:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62616",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Fadipe Olanrewaju",
"Gabrielle Arent",
"Joe",
"Lorraine Smith",
"M Napier",
"Stephanie Gage",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"shirley butt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12987
|
How do I make spicy mayonnaise like Japanese restaurants use for sushi?
I've tried mixing mayonnaise and hot sauce together and it didn't taste right at all. Any Suggestions?
Japanese spicy mayo is made with Kewpie mayo and Shichimi tōgarashi. You really just mix them to taste.
How is Kewpie different than regular mayo?
You can also use regular mayo and sriricha hot sauce. Ain't authentic, but it's a lot easier to come by, for the most part.
Kewpie mayo and Shichimi. Sriracha has vinegar so it tastes different.
Japanese spicy mayo is "Kewpie" mixed with Sriracha. Kewpie and sriracha can be found at your local asian market...
Not 'authentic', but I make it with mayo, chili oil, chili powder, crushed garlic, and honey. It's good on vegetables, too, especially cauliflower for some reason.
It's sriracha hot sauce mayo and sesame oil. That's it.
How about blending the mayo with wasabi powder? It will be different than the hot pepper heat but you'll taste it!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.457088
| 2011-03-09T20:55:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12987",
"authors": [
"Eric Ozgo",
"JonathanReez",
"The_Rafi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76435",
"numberwang",
"user41548",
"user6591"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22072
|
Difference between parsley and coriander(cilantro)?
A lot of falafel recipe calls for both chopped coriander/cilantro and parsley. Online images look the same to me. Is there a difference between the two? Would omission of one drastically change the flavor?
The flavor is dramatically different.
Coriander leaf/cilantro looks VERY similar to flat leaf parsley. When I have both at the house I sometimes resort to smelling them to know which is which.
Cilantro is very strong smelling, and you'd definitely change the flavor of the dish if you left it out.
Flat leaf parsley is significantly more subtle and has a much milder flavor and scent. It is not flavorless, and in a recipe that calls for a lot of it, you'd really be missing something by leaving it out.
When you've got a recipe that calls for both parsley and cilantro, you're definitely going to be more able to taste/smell the cilantro more than parsley, but they'll both contribute different notes. If you have to leave one out, leave out the parsley, but don't try to make up the volume with more cilantro, as you may wind up overpowering your dish. Just leave the parsley out and proceed as normal.
Do not use curly leave parsley in anything--it is tough and virtually flavorless. It is ONLY a garnish and not worth wasting your time on.
I'll just add that cilantro is not as pungent in either smell or taste when it is very fresh. But it "expires" quickly.
True enough, but compared to parsley, even very fresh it has a much stronger flavor and scent.
As far as visual recognition goes, cilantro leaves are much more delicate than those of flat-leaf parsley, and have large numbers of small rounded tips. Flat-leaf parsley leaves are thicker, and have larger, often pointed lobes.
It is worth noting that Cilantro has an unusual characteristic; depending on your genetic makeup your tasting abilities differ. For some small percentage of the population the taste of cilantro is very unpleasant, I've heard it described as soapy. I wouldn't know as I'm lucky enough to enjoy it, and I find the few things I use it in (fajitas, a few 'don' style dishes) it is wonderful and essential.
Cilantro in large quantities tastes of metal to me.
@renegade yep, my girlfriend is one of those people. Can't have cilantro in any quantity. Coriander seed not as bad if used sparingly.
Tastes a bit soapy and metallic to me - but not in an entirely unpleasant way - and increases perception of saltiness. Mixed genes I guess ;)
"virtually flavorless", no.... but weaker, yes. The advantage with curly is that the texture might be desired here and there, and that the stuff has less of a tendency to rot in your fridge :)
I agree with this answer apart from the last paragraph - there are many uses for curly leaf parsley. It has a slightly different flavour (a bit more metallic and grassy) and a different texture, and is definitely not 'virtually flavourless'. A traditional english parsley sauce would not be right with flat-leaf parsley
Hmmm...each to their own I guess. I like curly parsley and definitely wouldn't describe it as tough or tasteless. I rarely eat it raw though, so that may make a difference. I use it more as a seasoning, finely chopped, and usually it's at least partially cooked. I prefer it to flat leaf parsley (usually called Italian parsley in my part of the world).
Cilantro
The leaf on the left is Coriander - it's a slightly lighter green, and has rounder leaves.
Botanical Classification
Coriandrum sativum is an annual herb in the family Apiaceae.
Uses
All parts: leaves, roots, stems and seeds are used in cooking either as a garnish, a key ingredient or as a powder.
Regions used/found
Native to Southern Europe, North Africa and South western Asia. Common in Middle Eastern, European and American cooking.
Flavor
Seeds when crushed have a warm, nutty, spicy flavor. The leaves have been described to a have 'soapy' taste.
Parsley
Parsley on the right is a darker green and has more pointy, sharper leaves.
Botanical Classification
Petroselinum crispum is a biennial herb from the family Apiaceae.
Uses
Only the leaves are used, chopped and sprinkled as a garnish. Also as part of a bouquet garni (bundle of herbs) to flavor soups and stocks.
Regions used/found
Use for its leaf in similar way to coriander but has a milder flavor.
Flavor
The leaves when chopped have a mild flavor.
The structure of this answer looks impressive, but it does not mesh with my experience. 1) Parsley roots are commonly eaten - in the big scheme of vegetables, not as common as potatoes, but certainly more common than things like nopale or okra, and 2) I find the flavor of parsley stronger than the flavor of coriander.
Coriander is the key element in many Moroccan dishes; Couscous, Tajine etc.. It is hard to distinguish the difference between coriander and parsley however if you have them both then you can use the small to distinguish them as noted by other replies.
Yes. you might want to add Root parsley to your answer. But apart from that great job.
Apart from being green they're quite different, in flavour terms at least. Coriander is deep, earthy, and almost soapy - good with hot and oily food. Parsley - flat not curled which is almost tasteless - is fresh, green and good with fish and cured meats. You can switch but the flavour of the dish will change - if falafel I'd ditch the parsley if I had to choose, but They're both important. In 'older' (pre 1960s before they discovered coriander in the UK) recipes they tended to use the two interchangeably.
The most obvious visual guide would be to look at how the leaves are connected to the main stalk. Look at each joint where the stem is connected to the little branches (petiole?) to the leaves. for coriander, one leave per joint. But for flat parsley, you can see that at each joint, they branch out to a few more leaves, so it's more than one leave per joint. But if someone tear all the tiny leaves out then I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference!
Coriander/Cilantro is also known as "Chinese Parsley"... which hints that they are similar, but not quite the same. The parsley you likely typically think of has ruffled, curly leaves and is commonly used as a garnish. Cilantro has flatter leaves and stronger flavor and aroma.
You may be able to omit the curly parsley without a drastic change in flavor, but I would recommend not skipping the Cilantro as that will certainly have an impact.
I'm fairly certain that they have similar names because they look similar. It doesn't really indicate much about the flavor. Look at the other things in that family - I don't think you'd try to suggest they're all "similar".
many herbs are in the "mint" family but bear little other useful similarity in terms of cuisine
In the US, coriander refers to ground coriander seeds, not coriander leaf. Its a brown powder. The seeds are spherical and slightly larger than peppercorns.
It's the fact that Coriander leaf/cilantro looks VERY similar to flat leaf parsley,I always believe that they are same.Cilantro has flatter leaves and stronger flavor and aroma while Parsley don't.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.457231
| 2012-03-07T01:12:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22072",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Escoce",
"Kevin",
"Neil Laycock",
"Preston",
"Theodore Murdock",
"Umbranus",
"bikeboy389",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"numediaweb",
"rackandboneman",
"renegade",
"rumtscho",
"zanlok"
],
"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
}
|
58797
|
Does Paprika extract actually taste of Paprika?
I’m looking to use paprika extract to flavour a dish, however upon googling it there really is no mention of this extract being used in this context. From what I can see its use is mainly to colour food and for chicken feed (to give their yolk an intense colour).
If I bought paprika extract would it contribute an intense paprika flavour to my dish like say an essential oil would?
There are two types of paprika extracts; one, as you mention, is mainly a food colour. I understand this is made from raw, unsmoked paprika. It has no real flavour.
The other is mostly a smoke flavour. I believe it's taken from the smoked paprika leftovers, not from the raw paprika.
Neither is any good for simulating the colour, texture, and taste of paprika.
There are also many types of paprika, each having a different level of spice, colour, oil, and smoke. It is just a question of taste and culture to which one you like. So getting an extract to match what you think paprika is, is also difficult.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.457765
| 2015-07-05T17:37:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58797",
"authors": [
"Chuck Shearn",
"Doug Brock-Jones",
"Kevin Cass",
"Lauren C. DiCicco",
"Mary Jane",
"Ndumiso Thabethe",
"Renzo Grinzato",
"Runt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140393"
],
"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.