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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
19130
|
What type of Paprika is the generic stuff one buys at a grocery store chain?
I have read this very good link on the differences in paprika, but I did not learn all that I need to learn as far as buying these different varieties. When I go to my grocery chain to do my weekly shopping and I see the spice container which says Paprika, is that just going to be "Plain" paprika. I ask because I need to go out and find both sweet paprika and hot paprika which probably will require a little more effort on my part to find. Maybe a Whole Foods or something?
This information should be indicated on the label: sweet, sweet&sour, spicy, smoked...
Generic paprika is sweet and will probably not have much flavor (that is why paprika can be used in paella together with saffron - see this question)
This might be accidentally US/western centric - are we sure that "generic paprika" will not get you something surprisingly spicy (eg deggi mirch or even cayenne powder) in some english speaking locales? Not a rhetorical question.
@rackandboneman : I suspect that if you were in a grocery store in Spain or Hungary the answers would be different from that in the US. Other places in the EU, I have no clue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.457995
| 2011-11-24T20:33:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19130",
"authors": [
"JGinNJ",
"Joe",
"John",
"Souljacker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mw215",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37486
|
My meringue forms syrup beads on top
Every time I make a pie , topped with meringue , little beads of sugary syrup form on the top of the meringue a few hours later. Why?
That's often referred to as weeping. A few things might help. Is your pie filling hot when you spread the meringue? If the filling is cool, the meringue will cook unevenly (the top before the bottom), causing weeping. If your filling is cool, put the pie in the oven for a few minutes before applying the meringue. Another thing that might help is equal amounts of cornstarch and sugar mixed with water (about twice as much water as solids) brought to a rolling boil and allowed to cool to just warm. Drop a couple of teaspoons of the resulting paste into the meringue when you're almost done whipping it. That will help to stabilize the meringue. Also, try not to cook meringue pies on humid days.
Weeping can also be caused by over (or under) cooking. Confused yet?
Oh, and one more thing. Try warming the whites before whipping. That's counter-intuitive for fluffy whites, but it does help it to cook evenly and keep it stable, especially if humidity is part of the problem. Heat gently and go for about the temp of hot tap water.
EDIT: Looking for more precise instructions for the warm meringue I found another similar option that might work better. Here are better instructions for cooked, or "Italian" meringue. http://www.ochef.com/727.htm
From that site:
Italian Meringue
From The Way to Cook, by Julia Child
Ingredients:
For the Egg Whites:
2/3 cup egg whites (4 to 5 whites)
A pinch of salt
1/4 tsp cream of tartar
For the Sugar Syrup:
1-1/3 cups sugar
1/2 cup water
Instructions:
Beat the egg whites at slow speed until the foam throughout, add the salt and cream of tartar, gradually increase the speed to fast, and beat to soft peaks. Turn the machine to slow as you complete the sugar syrup.
Bring the sugar and water to the simmer, swirl the pan to dissolve the sugar completely, cover tightly and boil to the soft-ball stage (234°F to 240°F; 112°C to 116°C on a candy thermometer).
Beating the egg whites at moderately slow speed, dribble into them the boiling syrup — trying to avoid the wires of the whip. Increase speed to moderately fast and beat until cool and the egg whites form stiff, shining, upstanding peaks. The meringue is now ready to use as your recipe directs.
OR
One-Step Italian Meringue
From Brilliant Food Tips & Cooking Tricks, by David Joachim
Also known as boiled icing, this type of meringue is traditionally made by beating hot sugar syrup into beaten egg whites. This version combines all of the ingredients in one bowl to save time. It should be made over a saucepan of simmering water so that the egg whites reach a temperature of at least 160°F (70°C) to kill any harmful bacteria.
Ingredients:
3 egg whites, at room temperature
1 cup, plus 2 Tbsp sugar
3 Tbsp cold water
1/4 tsp cream of tartar
Instructions:
Combine the ingredients in a metal bowl. Place over a saucepan of gently simmering water and beat with an electric mixer on low speed, 4 to 5 minutes. Increase speed to high and beat until very thick, about 4 minutes more. Remove bowl from saucepan and beat off the heat until light and fluffy, another 4 minutes.
Yield: Makes about 4 cups
In pie meringues (not brittle), weeping can be caused by undissolved sugar granules that end up attracting water to themselves from the moist interior. If this is the cause, it can be mitigated by using a sugar syrup (not hot for French) or powdered sugar (which does contain starch too). Extreme over-beating may also be a possible cause--stopping right before stiff peaks should be good. The sugar should be added at the beginning or during the beating, resulting in a firmer and finer meringue. Too high oven temperatures can cause a problem too.
Source: Harold McGee
That happens to me, too. What I do is just blow on it, and it spread out and coat the Meringue evenly, creating a chewy, sweet layer on top. Hope this helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.458130
| 2013-10-11T04:52:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37486",
"authors": [
"A Rich",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155291"
],
"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
}
|
88455
|
Chinese noodle dough breaking when pulled
How can I make the dough for Chinese ramen noodles stretchy? It keeps breaking when I pull just a little bit.
I used wheat flour, water, and baking soda. What else am I missing?
EDIT:
400g flour
200g water
1 teaspoon baking soda.
I mixed everything together and started to knead the dough for about 5minutes then i saw it just breaks, so i knead it for about another 10min or more.
Could you edit the question and tell us the ratios of your ingredients, and any steps you might be taking like kneading, resting, and so on? As-is, it's probably hard to help since we're not sure what it is you're doing.
edited, im just a regular person, and there are not that many steps when it comes to dough, well i followed a recipe but there should be some secret ingridient to make it stretchy.
You may find some useful information in the answers to this question: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9072/what-flour-and-technique-do-i-need-for-hand-pulled-noodles?rq=1
Baking soda, being alkaline, makes the dough unstretchable. The hand-pulled noodles recipes I see on the internet do not contain baking soda. But even if you use a noodle maker, you need to add wheat gluten if you want to include baking soda.
More info here : Use high gluten (bread) flour for hand pulled noodles
also: What flour and technique do I need for hand pulled noodles?
It is exactly the alkaline compound which makes the pulled noodles dough stretchable and of the right consistency. There is a reason they are called "kansui noodles" (lye noodles). It might be that the alkalinity is not yet right (I suspect too low) but your logic here is the wrong way round.
According to https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjw8rLpuP_ZAhXMM48KHXTCBcMQFgh0MAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aaccnet.org%2Fpublications%2Fcc%2Fbackissues%2F1996%2FDocuments%2F73_708.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1KfwiAj93eTFI3YosNu774, "Extensigraph
testing indicated that doughs containing alkaline salts
were tougher and less extensible...". Also, acid is known to make dough more extensible, so alkalinity should have the opposite effect.
"alkalinity should have the opposite effect" - no, gluten is weakest at neutral pHs and gets stronger as you get either more acidic or more alkaline. You probably learned that about acid in the context of bread doughs, which are neutral to acidic. And yes, "were tougher" is exactly what the OP should be looking for - tough materials don't break apart when you pull them. Also if you want a certain result, you should stick to the traditional methods before you try deviating, and this recipe has too low alkalinity compared to traditional, seems like a bad substitute.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.458460
| 2018-03-20T13:20:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88455",
"authors": [
"Backyard Chef",
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65910",
"mech",
"rumtscho",
"user3524910"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117180
|
Will ultrapasterized milk curdle?
Normally (e.g. here) the recipe for oladyi (thick palm-sized pancakes) requires kefir, a fermented milk drink similar to a thin yoghurt or ayran.
There is one well-tested recipe that uses milk with lemon juice (or vinegar) instead: to begin, one has to heat the milk up to 36C-38C (body temperature), add 1tbsp of vinegar, let it rest for 15 min. I am guessing this is done to curdle the milk, right? Will this process work as expected if the milk is ultrapasterized?
It will not curdle as well as regular pasteurized milk will, but probably good enough for the recipe you're making.
Ultrapasteurized milk, because of its "cooked" nature, doesn't form curds as well as other kinds of milk. Particularly, you cannot make cheese from it because the proteins have been changed by the high-heat sterilization. They have been denatured.
However, this recipe does not seem to depend very much on the texture of the curds made during the curdling process in the first two steps. If you were draining the whey, I'd say not to use UHT milk, but in this case everything is still mixed in. At worst, the pancakes would have slightly inferior texture to those made with regular milk.
Yes, it was pretty much as you say, it worked out, but the texture was inferior.
Yulia: if my answer is correct, please select it?
Yes, it will curdle. It is a chemical process where the proteins clump, the ultrapasteurization doesn't prevent it.
The other question is, do you need to do that at all. The whole reason to use cultured milk products in this kind of pancake-like recipes is that you need acid to react with the baking soda. So you can simply throw everything together, without premixing the vinegar and the milk. It will work quite the same way (unless you happen to pour it such that the vinegar and baking soda react too early). If you insist on mixing the milk and vinegar first, it would have worked if it didn't curdle (or it will work if you pick something which won't curdle, such as almond milk). Or you can simply switch to a recipe with baking powder and use whichever liquid (dairy or not) you wish.
Thank you for the answer, and for guessing what my question was in spite of me using the incorrect word.
I guess I will try the heating method first, out of an abundance of caution, then compare it to the simplified method you suggest!
Note the taste of curdled milk, vs taste of kefir are completely different, in particular kefir is a well-liked refreshing drink often served alongside fatty foods, while I don't know anyone who'd find taste of curdled milk agreeable.
@SF. it is not such a big factor here. First, milk which has been curdled intentionally with vinegar is also consumed (usually after pressing, which makes it into paneer or related cheeses). Second, the second reason why these recipes are that way is that, in the days before refrigeration and food safety concerns, they were a welcome way of using up milk that has soured and curdled on its own.
Rumtscho: UHT milk does not curdle properly -- the proteins have been changed. See my answer, below.
@FuzzyChef yes, they have been changed somewhat. The proteins have many states though - and those in UHT milk are still capable of linking into a yogurt, or a curd. You'll see that the UHT milk in the post you link in your answer has also curdled, it is just not the exact texture needed for cheese.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.458683
| 2021-09-14T10:26:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117180",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"SF.",
"Yulia V",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86543
|
Harissa powder to paste
How much harissa powder would be equivalent to one teaspoonful of harissa paste?
I have tried to look it up online, but all I can find is "add water and oil to reach the desired result", e.g. here. I don't use the paste very often, so I doubt I will eyeball it right, any quantitative guidance would be much appreciated.
I was just in Morocco and asked some of the owners selling the spice how to do it, the answer I got was:
Add 100 grams of Harissa powder
Add 1/2 cup water
Add 1/2 cup of EVOO
I would add that I have not tested this yet, and 100 grams is a lot to be making at once.
I tried the recipe above. It’s basically equal parts powder, water and oil. So to make a tablespoon’s worth of paste - combine 1 tsp powder, 1 tsp water and 1 tsp oil. It works!
Impossible to say.
Just mix and match.
When it becomes a paste, you're done.
There is no "The Harissa Paste Recipe" (although most share the main ingredients), so you'll just have to go by the description on the package. Without knowing what's actually inside the package, my first instinct would be to stick with oil, and stay away from water.
Only if the powder includes dehydrated ingredients (onions, for example), and the rest of the recipe does NOT include water or watery ingredients, I'd include water in the mix.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.458970
| 2017-12-19T13:05:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86543",
"authors": [
"Racer X",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73673"
],
"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
}
|
48936
|
Broiler Drawer vs Oven Broiler?
I'm considering purchasing a new freestanding gas range and would like to hear pros and cons of people's experiences with a broiler drawer under the main oven or having the broiler element inside the top of the oven compartment.
I'm interested in efficiency, ease of use, consistency, safety, versatility, price, etc.
I've only ever used ovens that have a broiler drawer and thought in-oven broilers were reserved for electric or in-wall ovens. One thing I'm really curious about: the broiler burners are the main burners for the oven with broiler drawers. When using an in oven broiler, is the top broiler burner also the main burner for the oven? That would put the flame directly in the oven when baking. Or are there two burners? One underneath for baking and one on top for broiling?
I cannot speak to price; I haven't comparison-shopped with this feature in mind. However, I have used various home gas ranges with either type of broiler. I'll go ahead and sum it up:
tl;dr: I greatly prefer an in-oven broiler.
Here's why.
First, positioning. Broiler drawers are typically located at the very bottom of the range, underneath the actual oven. This means that in order to place food in or take it out, you've got to bend all the way down to the floor. I hope the ergonomic challenge here is obvious, but I have safety concerns as well. If you have never tried to cook 10 pounds of flank steak in a broiler drawer, then learn from my experience: it's less than optimal. You will wind up bent over at the waist when pulling your finished steaks, end up tilting your pan and spilling meat juice on the way to the top of the range, and just barely manage to kick the drawer closed before your dog licks the exposed cooking tray. An in-oven broiler presents no additional challenges than you'd have with regular oven use.
Second: flexibility. Broiler drawers often seem to come equipped with an awkwardly-sized pan that's smaller than the oven itself. Sometimes this has brackets or rails to hold it in place in the center of the drawer. This is a stupid design that's difficult to clean, sometimes even difficult to remove, and limits your cooking space. The pan also rarely has any ability to move up or down, limiting your vertical space too. With an in-oven broiler, you can adjust the existing racks to get thick items underneath, and control how close your food gets to the heat source (and therefore how quickly it browns). I frequently kick on the broiler at the end of cooking with things like au gratin potatoes, to get a nice brown crust on top at the very end. I couldn't fit the pan I use into a broiler drawer, but with the in-oven version I don't even have to open the door. An in-oven broiler will also accommodate any size pan that will fit in your oven. Remember those flank steaks?
Regarding design, most gas ranges that I've seen with an in-oven broiler have two separate burners, a main version at the bottom that provides indirect heat to the oven box, and the broiler running along the top with a sort of heat shield to reflect its energy down into the oven. Drawers often seem designed to take advantage of only a single burner at the bottom of the oven, which provides both indirect heat to the oven box and direct heat to the drawer. This is mostly my assumption; I'm not an engineer.
This design could make drawers marginally cheaper (again, I haven't checked) but I think the advantages outweigh any price premium for the extra burner. I'll be so bold as to say that you will be very pleased with the difference if all you've ever used is a drawer.
What logophobe said. The only situation where a separate broiler is to be preferred is in a wall oven. That puts the broiler as high as or higher than an under-range oven, and it gives you something that can function as a second oven in a pinch (via a covered roasting pan). Of course, if you have the space for a wall oven with a separate broiler compartment, then for heaven's sake, just get a double oven. :)
this...and broiler drawers i've used don't have windows to check doneness visually.
I was hoping to get some more opinions on both sides but I guess there aren't too many fans of the broiler drawer. The only two benefits I can think of with a broiler drawer are.. 1) awesome for reheating pizza :) Put the pizza on foil and slide it right on the bottom of the oven for a bit to heat the bottom to get it crispy then pop it in the broiler to heat the toppings. Quicker and cleaner than using a pan on the stove top or waiting for stone to heat up. 2) Can sometimes heat up some other items without opening the main oven and losing heat. Warming up bread, sides, etc.
All of the ranges with broiler drawers I've ever owned have become dust bunny magnets. And the older I get, the less appealing getting down on all fours to clean or check doneness of the food in the broiler drawer becomes. I would much rather have a storage drawer.
I have had both types. I really liked the drawer broiler, as I thought it was cleaner, only spattering the broiler area instead of the whole oven! The window of my oven was positioned to be able to see food baking, but the broiler being at the top of the oven, I still had to open the door to observe doneness. I never did get use to using the oven type, and I am shopping to replace my oven/range which is the oven broiler type. After reading the above 'pros', I may reconsider my search for the drawer type.
I absolutely hate the broiler drawer. I am 60 yrs young. The getting up and down is a chore in itself. The stove I have now came with my modular home. It is so poorly designed. The broiler isn't a drawer, the door drops down. You use the oven rack, which only pulls out 3 inches. So, now you must pull out the broiler pan. (I had to buy it at the store.) Lift it to the stove top to flip the meat \then put it back in the bottom. Good thing I have a anti tipping device on my stove. I have looked at the prices not any real significant difference. Buy the oven broiler type. Using extra heavy foil you can build a shield around the sides of the pan.
If American companies would follow other countries, they would put the broiler under the top burners but above the oven in its own compartment My Canadian gas stove had this option and I was able to broil, toast any time I needed and NOT have to get on my knees and pray I can get back up . My Canadian gas stove also had electric starters, during electric outs I could light the pilots manually and still cook for a family of five. Wake up America and build GOOD kitchen stoves that are serviceable all the time.
It is a bit awkward on my GE stove, but I am use to it now. I guess the safety issue of spilling hot pans is a valid complaint though if you are not too good on your balance or don't expect to be able to take the extra care to remove the pan slowly. Broilers are not meant for thick cuts of meat so you don't need a lot of height in the broiler space. I think there must be a price differential in some matchups between oven bake/broiler units and oven bake/broiler drawer units when there is an extra heating element.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.459116
| 2014-10-14T22:27:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/48936",
"authors": [
"Ash Charlton",
"Evangeline",
"Jessica Brown",
"Jim Johnston",
"Julie Rony",
"Lorafay Woodall",
"Marti",
"OrganicLawnDIY",
"Prabhudas Garikapati",
"Traci Brylewski",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6992"
],
"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
}
|
48937
|
power failure and a slow cooker
I put a beef stew recipe in to my crock pot this morning at 7 am and set it for 8 hours on low. At 1 pm, the power went out for a few minutes. When power was restored, the slow cooker did not come back on.
Also, at 4 pm my wife noticed the crock pot was off and turned it on for an hour. It is now 6:40 pm. The middle of the stew is 155 degrees F, but close to the outside is 140.
Is it ruined? Unsafe? Can I just cook it for the remaining 2 hours?
This is actually one of the huge complaints about the new electonic-controlled slow cookers ... they don't come back on in a power outage. (the second complaint being that many of them have a maximum time, after which they'll turn themselves off automatically)
@Joe HA! am glad you mentioned that. Power outages are common here, and I'm in the the market for a crock-pot.
Almost 5 hours in the danger zone. I'd toss it.
@CareyGregory : no, not 5 hrs. It didn't instantly go into the danger zone when the power was cut. If the pot was turned back on at 4pm for 1 hr ... but 1:40 later, it's still at 140°F, that'd suggest that 3 hrs of the time (cooling off twice) was not in the danger zone. Of course, that '1 hr' might have been '1 hr on low, then switch to warm', which is why we'd have needed the temperature when the pot was switched back on to really calculate the total time. (and there's the time to heat up initially)
@Joe - Maybe, but you're making lots of assumptions. Specifically, you're assuming it was over 140F when the power went out and it was high enough to stay above 140F for some time. I don't see anything in the question to make me confident that's true.
@CareyGregory : yes, I assumed that the slow cooker was actually functional. (if it was, then 'warm' would be above 140°F, and 'low' would be higher than that ... so it'd have been above 140°F when the power went out). And I'm assuming that being a stew, it's mostly liquid, so there's a high thermal mass, which anyone would know takes quite some time to cool down.
This might be an outlandish idea, but old computer UPS units might be available very cheap on ebay....
The important temperature would be what temperature it was at when the power was turned back on.
The official recommendations are to keep high risk foods out of the 'danger zone' of 40°F to 140°F for longer than 2hrs (cumulative). If portions of the pot were at 140°F after being heated for an hour, and there was the time for it to cool down. (and the time for it to have heated up initially), from a health department perspective, it may not be safe.
Personally, if it were me, I'd have turned it up to high to try to get it back up to ~200°F (about where most crock pot's 'low' setting is), and then depending on how close it was to done, either switched it back to low, or left it on high so it might be ready in time for dinner. (however, I've also been known to eat raw beef and things that have been in the fridge for longer than the health folks recommend)
~~
Isn't there still a movement afoot, longneck, which promotes the preparation of foods (including meats) at surprisingly low temperatures over longer periods of time instead of higher temperatures lickety-split? I think so. And I think it's got a pretty solid footing.
Room temperature seems to be the proverbial culprit, generally speaking. But the kind of circumstance you share is probably just fine. After all, beef is not uncommonly consumed rare. Pork and poultry are the ones we have to be so careful with, always cooking them all the way through.
Anyway, just for reference purposes, it doesn't sound like your stew ever made it back down to room temperature before your wife resuscitated the appliance. It's hard to be precise without knowing what the initial temperature was (the temperature the appliance was set for in the morning), but if in the past one and two-thirds hours the core has fallen to not below 155°F after only one hour's stewing, certainly after six hours' stewing a mere two hour lull couldn't be expected to yield results much different from the ones you were able to measure.
Gas rather than electric is normally the preferred mode for generating heat when it comes to preparing food. This is especially true on the stovetop where not only subtle but immediate (and visible) changes in temperature can be achieved. So too in the case of your crockpot I'd have to say that, yes, use of a gas appliance would have made it alternately possible for you to just yank that crock out of its base and shove it into the oven for the day. But I'm probably speaking out of line, as it's also preferable to have maid service and a hot towel with your shave.
I speak out of want more so than wont.
~~
Things don't have to get down to room temperature to be dangerous. The danger zone starts at 140F.
I made an account here just to downvote this answer as it is contary to all scientific data regarding bacteria growth and temperatures. For your health safety please find online resources regarding USDA Danger Zone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.459702
| 2014-10-14T22:46:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/48937",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Frankie Medicine Horse",
"Hector Villarreal",
"Janet Rees",
"Jillian Furniss",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Timothy Petitpas",
"Tracy Onishko",
"gm70560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129404
|
How can I separate uncooked lentils and rice?
When putting various dry grains into containers I accidently poured some rice into a jar with red lentils. I would like to separate the rice from the lentils.
I would probably use both for example in some soup but the trouble is that the rice would take say 20 to 30 minutes to cook through and the lentils would take only 5 to 10 minutes. It is mostly lentils with a little bit of rice, so overcooking lots of lentils to get the rice cooked seems unsatisfactory. Cooking it for only a few minutes will result in good lentils with undercooked rice in it.
The two grains are almost the same size so sieving them doesn't work. I also tried putting a few into a flat bowl and shaking it but they seem to have almost the same density so they don't separate that way.
Are they any other clever (food save) ways to separate the lentils from the rice?
Not sure what good tags would fit here, feel free to edit.
Well first you spend many hours building an automated sorting machine like they use for tomatoes …. oh wait you wanted to save time?
With my rice and my lentils, a colander would separate them with enough shaking (the rice has to go through the holes lengthways). But do your lentils really cook in 10 minutes? Red lentils are fastest and area normally at least 20 to be still firm.
I wonder about cooking together in a fairly acid sauce, to slow down the lentils, or seeing if a salty enough brine would allow exactly one to float (rinse promptly and dry thoroughly)
Actually, overcooking the lentils until creamy sounds not that bad to me. But @ChrisH also has a point with the acidity.
Both white rice and red lentils take around 5 minutes in my pressure cooker so... you could buy a pressure cooker and make your soup in that maybe.
@Stephie When Red lentils are cooked until they dissolve, they're great at providing body and a depth of flavour to stews. I especially like to put a handful in a beef stew. Speaking of cooking the lentils until they're creamy... my personal advice would be to just make a Tarka Dal. It's a simple, mildly spiced, Indian stew (sort of) that's really easy to make, and it's great comfort food. It can be healthy too, depending on how much ghee/oil, and salt you use. Look for an authentic Indian recipe though.
@HollisHurlbut it seems many users suggest finding uses for the mix, but the question asks about separating the two components.
@Stephie Which is the reason why I added my opinion as a comment rather than as an answer.
A bit of a frame challenge: save yourself the effort of separating the lentils and the rice, cook both together instead.
Your mix shows hulled red lentils, those tend to disintegrate rather quickly. But that's actually intentional and one of the reasons they are sold this way in the first place. They make great fillers / bulk up stews and sauces and in dhal they are even the main ingredient in a mushy state.
So look at your problem from another angle and think what dishes or preparations would fit your taste and could benefit from the lentils while a few grains of rice don't matter.
If this is not an option for you and the methods of separation suggested in the other answers are not satisfactory, put on some music or a podcast and start sorting by hand. Or find a willing kitchen helper (children?) you can delegate to. Luckily there isn't that much grain mix in your jar.
As well as dhal where they're cooked until they fall apart, I use that speed as a vegetarian alternative to minc when , combined with slower-cooking varieties to get both a sauce with body and some texture
I cooked them together in a soup. I noticed that the rice cooked through a little faster than I expected, maybe 15 min. I guess a few loose rice grains in a simmering/ boiling pot cook faster than pure rice in a rice cooker. The lentils did mostly disintegrate and with a batch of pure lentils I would put them in the soup a little later for less disintegration but it still worked out fine cooked together.
I don't know if this would work, but you could try winnowing your mixture: gently toss it through the path of a fan so that the denser rice falls down while the lighter lentils (with a shape that catches the air better) are blown sideways.
You could also try the Brazil nut effect, where gently shaking/vibrating the container sorts the contents by size, but I don't know if the difference is great enough here for it to work. If it does you could then just spoon out the top layer to separate them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.460440
| 2024-10-19T15:40:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129404",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Hollis Hurlbut",
"Stephie",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague",
"user81993"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99942
|
What is the bright red ingredient in Japanese chicken curry katsu?
I have had chicken curry katsu at different restaurants in different countries, and there is always a diced bright red ingredient, the color of a tomato, put on like a garnish. Some told me it was a red pepper, others a variety of carrot. I could not ascertain the flavor from eating a small bit of just that.
This picture seems to have it hiding in the back behind the rice, and I always have seen it served in a pile in the corner, although I often have seen it chopped into smaller bits.
Does anyone know what ingredient is used? Is that intended as a garnish not to be eaten?
This appears to be a Japanese pickle mixture, made with daikon radish amount other things, called Fukujinzuke (福神漬)
Fukujinzuke is a mixture of Japanese radish (daikon), lotus root, cucumber and eggplant which are preserved in a soya sauce and sweet cooking wine (mirin) base. The sweet brown or red relish is served as a garnish to Japanese curry (kare raisu).
Source: https://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2349.html
The spice and color are in the title...
...curry.
"Curry" is not a spice. (There is a "curry tree", but it's not what you're thinking.) It's also not a bright red vegetable.
Welcome! Please take the [tour] and browse through the [help] to learn more about how the site works. I sense the impulse to engage in a discussion in your posts, but this is a Q/A site with a rather strict format, unlike the standard web forums you may be familiar with z
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
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.460949
| 2019-07-03T13:26:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99942",
"authors": [
"Robert",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15925
|
Tips for colouring vanilla ice cream
Using an ice cream machine, I want to make vanilla ice cream, but include some blue and red swirls in the finished product.
I considered dropping in some food coloring, but don't want to end up with a purple mess. I also considered adding chopped strawberries and whole blueberries to the mix, but I will be serving it over a variety of desserts, so those fruity additions might not go well.
Any tips for pulling off a successful red, white, and blue vanilla ice cream?
You will have to find a way to separate the batches of ice cream, or you'll end up with the uniform purple, as you mentioned.
The proper way is to prepare three batches, using different food coloring in two of them. They should come out of the machine with a soft-serve consistency. Hold the first batches in a cool environment while preparing the last ones, but do not allow them to reach -20°C or they will harden. Then layer them in a tub and freeze.
The proper approach is difficult for home cooks: the odds are that your ice cream machine uses a coolant-filled tub, which requires 24 hours in the freezer between batches. So it is only possible with careful planning and partial thawing of hardened batches, and it won't be ready for tomorrow. Unless you are one of the happy few with a compressor based machine, you'll need something else.
There are a couple tricks you can use to prepare three batches without a compressor machine:
Split one batch into thirds, and churn each for a reduced time. It will take more than 1/3 the time, but less than the full time.
Add xanthan gum (or another stabilizer) to reduce the size of ice crystals, giving a softer, creamier result even when the ice cream isn't quite as frozen
Prepare white first, then red, then blue. To keep the ice cream machine cold, you can just clean with a spatula after the red; a hint of red in the blue will only impart a slight purple tinge.
For one or more of the colors, use one of the methods to prepare ice cream without a machine. The linked question explains more fully.
Reserve part of the cream, whip it fully, and gently fold into the ice cream base. Freeze in a tub, without the machine. This is best combined with stabilizers, small amounts of alcohol, or a propylene glycol based vanilla aroma.
For a spotted look, you can use a squeeze bottle or dropper to apply dots red and blue food coloring to thin layers of white ice cream. After each set of spots, apply another layer of ice cream and repeat. I can't predict how far both colors will seep into the ice cream, and what will happen to the spots; if the coloring is propylene glycol based, they may stay liquid, but they could freeze hard if the coloring is water-based. You may get purple if two drops land close together.
To create a beautiful marbled appearance, use uncolored vanilla ice cream and red/blue colored syrups. First prepare a syrup heated to the softball stage, and then thin slightly with water. The supersaturated sugar solution will crystallize, but won't freeze into hard ice. Set up the ice cream with layers of ice cream, red syrup, ice cream, blue syrup, then repeat. Stir gently for the marbled look, being careful not to over-mix or it will become uniformly purple.
Edit In the meantime, I tried this idea and noticed that when you pour the hygroscopic syrup over the ice cream, the white cream blooms into the syrup, and the syrup is also liquid enough to flow through and around the ice cream. I had partial success in creating a barrier by using a very thin layer of watered gelatine and waiting to freeze before applying the syrup. I then cut the ice into strips and turned them sideways, then scooped through the strips. The problem was that the gelatine water froze solid, resulting in unpleasant brittle water plates. I think that using a non-saturated syrup and gelling it with gelatine will help, but haven't tried this yet. Xanthan and guar can't thicken the syrup, as they don't hydrate in the saturated solution. Conclusion: can be beautiful, but hard to get right.
If you accept less homogeneous colors, you can add colored ingredients to a finished vanilla ice cream. Colored marshmallows have a vanilla flavor which should mesh well. Then you can consider making colored granitas and layering them with the ice cream. You can color pieces of paler nuts, such as coconut, or cashews, or blanched almonds, or blanched hazelnuts. If you use nuts, mix them in after they have dried, or sprinkle them on as a topping. Alternately, make a colored white chocolate ice cream: prepare a softish ganache with xanthan, and freeze it in a thick, dense layer on a pre-chilled porcelain plate. Alcohol well keep it softer. Chop it into pieces and mix with white ice cream.
These are the ideas I can think of off the top of my head. There are probably alternatives, but these offer some excellent starting points. I leave it to you (or your wife) which are most appropriate for your skills. I've tried to indicate the most challenging approaches, but all will present some difficulties. In each case, you may get color bleeding, poor consistency from improper freezing, or difficulty handling semi-frozen ice cream. The latter presents a particularly thorny obstacle, as thawing will ruin it, but it can become too hard to work with.
If you decide to use one of these ideas, but can't work out the details, drop a comment!
Edit see some of the ideas here implemented on our blog.
The only ice cream that I have ever seen with marshmallows in it is Ben and Jerry's Phish Food, which is marshmallow fluff.
The content of this answer is solid, and presents numerous different methods; however, it is somewhat wordy and difficult to read. Would you object if I edited it for brevity and sentence organization/flow? There are also some grammatical errors which I could easily fix.
@BobMcGee I was quite tired when I wrote this, and more putting my thoughts to "paper" than creating a structured text. If you can improve it, I would be grateful.
Special thanks to BobMcGee for editing the answer to its current, very readable form!
One word: Sweet!
I would suggest instead of trying to mix the actual ice cream into their designated colors, you could use blueberry and strawberry syrup drizzled on top of the vanilla ice cream. Or you could use fresh as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.461130
| 2011-07-03T22:27:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15925",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Erwin Bolwidt",
"Mangia",
"RMo",
"duchessofstokesay",
"duy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3781
|
Slow cooker lasagna
Can a lasagna be made in the slow cooker, or will that cause the pasta to become unpleasant?
My wife and I tried a slow-cooker lasagnga recipe and it was a disaster, probably for the reasons that Darin mentioned. Perhaps we didn't follow the recipe correctly, but either way, we weren't pleased with the results. I remember it being fairly slimy and certainly not resembling what we expected for a lasagna recipe.
Though we love our Crockpot for lots of different recipes, I would advise preparing lasagna in a more traditional way.
I have never tried it but the extended cooking of a slow cooker, combined with the concentrated and trapped moisture would surely turn the pasta into a gummy paste.
No-boil noodles are just a marketing ploy. You can assemble lasagna with regular uncooked lasagna noodles and bake it for 1 hour (350F) covered with foil waxed paper/parchment paper and foil and then uncover and scatter cheese across the top and bake for another 15 minutes.
Just make sure you have a layer of sauce in contact with the noodles and they'll absorb the moisture during cooking.
You can also assemble and freeze it this way too.
I assume "noodles" means the lasagne pasta? To this brit, noodles are long thin things. :)
Yes, the pasta strips used for lasagna.
@cinque: Thanks for the vote of confidence! One note on your comment about fresh lasagna pasta. I'm my explanation of making lasagna without cooking it, I'm referring to the standard dried lasagna noodles. I have never done it with fresh pasta in the same manner and am concerned that it would end up pasty and gummy. The dried noodles can absorb a lot more of the liquid from the sauce and meat and therefore still have a nice texture.
If you do try it with fresh pasta sheets be sure to let us know how it turns out.
My neighbor does it quite frequently, and it comes out fine if you use a pasta that doesn't get overly soft when cooked. (I think she uses Barilla, and not the 'no cook' type, although she doesn't cook them first).
You do have to brown the ground beef and sweat any vegetables in advance, though, so it's not one of those 'throw everything into a pot and forget about it' slow cooker recipes.
I know many of her slow cooker recipes she got from the Fix It and Forget It cookbook, but I don't know for sure that it was one of them.
maybe that was the problem when we tried it. We definately prefer the "throw everything into a pot and forget about" method when working with the slow-cooker.
Some claim it can be done (e.g., Crockpot Lasagna)
However, I tried it once and was not happy with the pasta. Of course, I did not repeat the experiment to determine if that was my own fault; it probably was.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.461658
| 2010-07-30T14:53:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3781",
"authors": [
"Ben McCormack",
"Catskul",
"Claudine Chionh",
"CruelCow",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Marcus Downing",
"Nils Munch",
"Redwood",
"Stella",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7143",
"techchicken"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71821
|
Different cooking times for red and brown lentils?
I'm making dal for dinner tomorrow and am short some red lentils. I usually cook it for 25-30 minutes after everything's combined in the pot. Can I mix in some brown ones or are the cooking times different? I'm expecting so, since they're much bigger than the red ones.
The times are different -- if you bought it packaged (and not bulk / scoop your own), there should be some recommended time on the package. ... but also beware that old lentils will take longer to cook, too, so the times are estimates.
You likely won't find a definitive answer out there, as there's a range of times for the lentils.
To summarize an article from the Washington Post :
Red, orange or yellow split lentils : 15 to 25 minutes
Black beluga lentils : 20 to 25 minutes
French du Puy lentils : 25 to 30 minutes
Brown or green lentils : 30 to 40 minutes
... suggesting that you'd need to add the brown lentils 15 minutes before the red lentils ... but you mentioned that you cook the red lentils for 25-30 minutes, suggesting that either you like them to fall apart, or you're cooking over lower heat. If it's lower heat, I'd give the brown lentils a 20 minute head start.
If that's going to put a crimp in your timing, I'd suggest starting the brown lentils in water (or some flavorful liquid), and cooking for 15 minutes while you're getting everything else together, then draining and adding them at the same time (or shortly after) the red lentils.
Another random thought long after the question was asked -- soaking the brown lentils ahead of time would reduce their cooking time, but I'm not sure if it'd be enough to get them down to the cooking time for red lentils. But then again, having some that are broken down and creamy while having a little texture from the other ones might not be a bad thing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.461928
| 2016-08-02T00:56:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71821",
"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
}
|
23937
|
What is the name for a round flaky pastry that has a chocolate cream filling in the middle
I'm trying to make a dessert I had in Palermo, Sicily. I wanted to find a recipe for it online, but I can't remember the name of it now. I know it's fairly common, but googling didn't help. It's basically just a large round flaky pastry with a large opening in the center and filled with a chocolate cream. The cream is not hidden by the pastry, but it is in the open. It's similar to a danish.
Edit by rumtscho
Unless I am terribly mistaken, this question is about this thing, only with a chocolate creme instead of vanilla pudding in the middle:
And no, I don't know an English name for that thing more special than "Danish", else I would have answered already.
Are you sure it has a name? "The danish as consumed in Denmark can be topped with chocolate, sugar or icing, and may be stuffed with either jam, marzipan or custard. Shapes are numerous, including circles with filling in the middle (known as "Spandauer's"), figure-eights, spirals (known as snails), and the pretzel-like kringles." (from the English Wikipedia article on Danish). So it seems that all shapes and fillings are covered by the word "danish".
When you say round do you mean it's circular or tubular?
Round as in circular. Rumtscho might be correct, maybe it was just a danish.
It is possible that there is a local name for this variation, for example the same thing but filled with soft cheese and rum instead of chocolate is called Quarktasche in German.
Maybe are bruccellati, though is supposed to be bracelet-shaped, it can have many shapes and fills You could try to find the restaurant online, maybe there is something.
How about a zeppole? If I stretch a bit, I could classify it as "flaky". According to that link: Traditional zeppole are filled with vanilla or chocolate pastry cream or cannoli filling.
What rumtscho posted appears to be what I had. I guess I'll just call it a danish then. Thanks.
That sounds a lot like a Czech Kolache, except that usually has fruit in the middle rather than chocolate. I suspect a lot of European regions have something similar. Some bakeries have made variations with different fillings
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolache)
i think this is what you looking for its called
pierre herme chocolate eclairs and this is extremely good
For reference, the recipe for that can be found here: http://www.applepiepatispate.com/french/chocolate-eclairs-pierre-herme/ Note that Pierre Hermé doesn't have any stores in Sicily: http://www.pierreherme.com/storelocations/ I'm somewhat doubtful that this pastry fits the description given by Zipper.
Is it the calzone ..or the Eclair??
I looked up some italian desserts and found something called chocolate Canollo
I also know that in Sicily they have the kinda of a puff pastry filled with all kinda stuffings called Bigne !
Hope this was helpful
Do you actually think any of these match the OP's description? Bigne are more spherical and closed (the filling is completely inside); eclairs are elongated and closed (with icing); cannoli are elongated with the filling inside and open ends; calzones aren't even desserts.
@Jefromi: There do exist dessert calzoni, but I've always seen them qualified as dolci ("sweet").
Maybe you mean an "occhio di bue", it is quite common to find it in the italian bakeries and you can find the recipe here:
http://www.tortealcioccolato.com/2008/07/01/occhi-di-bue/
(sorry but the only site I found is in italian)
No, this can't be it - the OP says "flaky pastry", and this recipe is for cookies, made from normal cookie dough. (I am 90% sure "levito" must be a chemical leavener here, like baking powder. Even if it means yeast, this recipe is not for flaky pastry).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.462135
| 2012-05-23T09:30:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23937",
"authors": [
"Adam Canney",
"Cascabel",
"Christy",
"Christy Hanshew Page",
"Diana",
"ElendilTheTall",
"JoeFish",
"Linda Jespersen",
"Revati",
"Rinzwind",
"Sandy Stevens",
"Shane Meyers",
"VoyeurToo",
"Zipper",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"jscs",
"rumtscho",
"tgwtdt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55694
|
Can a blood orange be half bloody?
I've got a "sanguino moro" (blood/red) orange, but it appears to be only half-bloody, as in the photo below. However all figures I've found on the internet show oranges that are purely red inside, for instance the ones on Wikipedia. Is this normal? Should I be worried about it? I'm mostly concerned whether it's a sign of the orange being "sick" or health-threatening in any sense.
That's perfectly ok, Actually, many (most?) blood-oranges I had looked loke yours.
@Stephie Ok, thanks. I'm not sure what to do now. I didn't manage to find this on the internet so it may make sense if you made an answer. Should it be better to delete the question for being "too trivial", tell me and I'll do that :)
There are no "too trivial" questions. And IMHO your question is quite interesting, so please don't delete. I didn't write a "proper" answer because I had no idea what to write beyond "that's ok" and no time for further research to back up my statement, which I like to do for solid answers.
While many pictures show them deep red (perhaps for the dramatic effect?), even orange flesh wih only some red tinge is normal.
Even the wikipedia link you gave in the question states:
The Moro is a "deep blood orange" meaning that the flesh ranges from orange-veined with ruby coloration, to vermilion, to vivid crimson, to nearly black.
The color of oranges is affected by temperature: Only if there is a certain temperature difference (cool nights vs warm days) the oranges develop the deeper hues. For blood oranges the crimson flesh and reddish tinges in the skin, "normal" oranges get their typical orange skin instead of greenish or yellow.
Fun fact: Even greenish oranges may be ripe, but just didn't get the cool nights. For the sake of the consumers who percieve orange = ripe, green = unripe, the skin of oranges and other citrus fruit can be "de-greened" by the "ripening gas" Ethylene (if permitted).
Below a range of color variations from mostly orange to deep red:
Ohh, I've never seen citrus that purple!
I just happen to cut into this literally Half Bloody Blood orange! Tasted great and so pretty!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.462487
| 2015-03-14T19:18:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55694",
"authors": [
"Auto Body Repair Arlington",
"Chuck Davis",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lori Kersten",
"Sally Ann Beaumont Savvas",
"Stephie",
"Sunil Godson Thayyil",
"Tara Kirk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"pragya verma",
"yo'"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15418
|
Looking to start cooking....but I'm a total noob. Where should I start?
Possible Duplicate:
What recipes should every high school graduate know how to cook?
So here's the deal: I've told myself on at least 10 different occasions that I was going to learn how to cook. I've either given up or lost motivation on all attempts. Now that I'm living in my own apartment, it's essential that I stop eating hot pockets 24/7. But where do I start? When it comes to cooking, I'm lazy as heck, and I don't know anything. So a good recommendation would be for something that is:
a) Incredibly easy to cook
b) Tasty (to an average college student)
c) Quick
Maybe once I learn to cook a few incredibly basic dishes, I'll be able to move up to something more advanced. Where should I start?
I've closed as the most likely duplicate but there are several other similar questions: Advice for soon-to-be college student, Need suggestions for ABSOLUTE beginner's cookbook, How do we escape the cycle of bad college eating?, Kitchen essentials for a poor college student who wants to cook like an iron chef?, etc.
What @ElendilTheTall suggests is indeed the usual way, and has worked for countless hobby cooks. But the way you describe it, your problem comes from lack of motivation rather than the difficulty of cooking. So you probably need to change your attitude and discover a side of cooking which is fun for you. Then everything will be easier. I, for example, have always been fascinated by cooking as a creative process, but there are different types of cooks.
A book which is likely to help you is "cooking for geeks". You don't need to fit the media stereotype of a geek to like it. It just has a very systematic approach to cooking, explains things like the way meat changes under heat on pop science level, and deviates into this special kind of experiments a down-to-earth person like my grandma doesn't get, but a typical tinkerer/engineer/geek loves. Prime example: cooking fish in the dishwasher. It starts with the very basic things and is chock full of useful everyday advice. It also has some recipes, although it will probably a good idea to also get a recipe collection book for beginners after you've got started. If you are a stackoverflow user, chances are that you'll like the book. Still, it is a very specific style, so make sure you can leaf through it or have a return right before you buy it.
Of course, the usual motivation advice counts for cooking as with everything else. Start small, with simple things. Promice yourself a schedule, e. g. "Cooking once a week" and stick with that until you have worked yourslef into a habit or enthusiasm. No sense in declaring "I have to cook dinner every day so I can save XXX until Christmas" and then getting tired of it after a week.
I'd start with the basic staples - eggs, pasta, potatoes, simple meat dishes - Any of which give you multiple options without being too challenging.
With eggs, you can learn to fry, poach, or scramble. Whack any of those on toast, add a little grilled bacon and you have a meal.
You can do endless things with pasta. Boil it as per packet instructions, add a little olive oil, crushed garlic and parsley, et voila. From there you can work up to basic marinara sauces etc.
If you learn to make basic potatoes - mashed, baked, fried - you can make an accompaniment to most dishes.
Finally, you've got meat. Perhaps the most basic thing to learn is grilling or pan-frying a chicken breast, though something that sounds more complicated, like slow-roasting a lamb shoulder, is actually ridiculously simple.
There are tons of beginner's cookbooks out there - the Food Network's How to Boil Water gets good reviews. Many recipe sites also sort recipe by difficulty. I'd suggest you get a book, look up some recipes that appeal to you, and get stuck in.
Start watching the cooking channel on TV (if you can).
The BBC one is better than the US version (but chances are that's not your choice).
The point is that exposing yourself to folk actually "doing stuff" gives you lots of ideas - lets you learn what sort of things go together - let's you hear and see different opinions (they certainly don't all agree on everything) and so on.
Yes, you'll need to learn a few really basic skills - but you'd be surprised at how little you actually need to know. Most of it you can get with just the simplest trial-and-error.
Start building your collection of condiments and cooking flavors. Next time you're at the market get some balsamic vinegar (mix with a little olive oil, dip bread in it...) Or get a spice. Or a herb. Try it with chicken (pretty much everything goes with chicken).
for example: go get a piece of chicken breast, off the bone. Put some butter, or oil in a pan on the stove. Not too hot. let it sit there for a while. Turn occasionally. Every now an then cut a bit in half to see if it's cooked. (is the same white color all the way to the middle). when it's cooked, eat it. I recommend a splash of balsamic. Or a herb. Or a spice. Even just salt. You'd be amazed at how easy it is to start.
Most off all - risk a few $, and just do it. What's the worst that can happen? (Ok, don't burn the place down). But seriously, you'll have good days, and bad days. There's always hot-pockets to fall back on.
Most of all Have Fun! cooking is fun.
Watch the Food Network's "Good Eats" with Alton Brown.
In his celebrating the 10th anniversary of of his show "Good Eats" Alton Brown stated that his goal when creating the show was "Julia Childs meets Monty Python". Alton's show on the Food Network is both entertaining and educational. Many of his past episodes are available online. Start with episode 1 Steak Your Claim.
In short, Good Eats will not just teach you recipes, but help you to understand as Julia Childs would say, "With scientific certainty" how to cook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.462727
| 2011-06-13T07:15:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15418",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Mister Dart",
"Sola",
"Thomas Kojar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"lisa",
"pedz",
"radouxju"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20009
|
How to keep the surface of the cake from splitting?
Possible Duplicate:
How do you make a cake lift equally and minimize doming?
Or is it natural for it to happen because the top layer has expanded? what should I do if I wanted to make an even-surfaced cake? Not convex shaped as you can see in the photo? Should I cover the tin with an aluminium foil?
Yes it is a duplicate! thanks for pointing me there. I guess I got my answer
I have read and heard that to minimize the cracks you should tilt the batter back and forth in the pan prior to baking. If you let the batter climb the walls about 1/8" - 1/4" it supposedly helps with not only a consistent rise, but keeps the batter from clinging to the wall while rising and stretching the surface of your cake while it rises.
I have done this with white cakes since I began baking a few months back in a springform and had good results, however I have never not done it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.463270
| 2011-12-28T09:16:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20009",
"authors": [
"Cascabel_StandWithUkraine_",
"Jody",
"Myrle Krantz",
"Niki Athena",
"Uday Kanth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6640",
"randers"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116216
|
Bagel Sponge: Room Temp or Proofing Temp?
I have a new recipe to make deli-style bagels. It calls to let the initial sponge stand in a large mixing bowl at room temperature for 2 hours, sealed with cellophane.
I have had troubles in the past with initial sponge/proofing. I am fortunate now to have an oven with a proof setting that keeps the oven at a constant 90F.
I am worried that leaving it at room temperature won't be enough. Would proofing at 90F be bad?
The purpose of a sponge is to create more complex flavors by giving the yeast the opportunity for an additional low-and-slow fermentation step. If you speed the fermentation up by using a warmer environment, you won't get the intended flavors.
If your priority is on quick proofing, it would make more sense to use a recipe written for that, not to change the temperatures in a recipe optimized for other endpoints.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.463400
| 2021-06-25T13:18:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116216",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116210
|
Why would my olive oil smell like chipotle peppers?
I bought some Napa Valley Naturals organic extra virgin olive oil (not actually from Napa Valley -- it's from Spain). We're used to buying this brand, and in fact usually buy 9L at a time. But this box... well, the best I can describe is that it smells and tastes like it has been infused with chipotle peppers!
So, my question: What could cause this? How can I tell? Possibilities I've considered so far:
It's an olive oil defect, but it's not a common one
Wherever it was packed, there was contamination from chipotle-infused oil
It's some other contaminant, and I shouldn't even be eating it
This is legit olive oil, but a different variety or whatever
It's not bad, but it's not what I want -- I'm used to this brand being moderately good quality. I'll be calling them and inquiring about any recalls, whether there was something different about the lot, etc., but I also want information from an impartial source.
(Also interested in whether there are independent testing labs I could send a sample to without too much trouble/expense. I'm in the Boston area, for reference.)
Is there any discoloration? (i.e. the oil seems to have a different color than yellow or greenish yellow)
FWIW, Napa Valley Naturals does not make any type of chili-infused oil, so it's unclear on where any chili could have come from. How MUCH does it taste like chilies? Why chipotles in particular, is there a smoky flavor as well?
It's the usual yellowish color, although sometimes I think it has been greener. Chipotles because of that particular smoky smell they have, although not actually hot. It's enough that when I heat it up in the pan, I smell the chili smell from across the room, rather than the olive oil smell. It's in the flavor as well -- there might be some "green" flavor under it, but it's mostly this mild chipotle flavor. No real pepperiness, but that's I think usual for this brand.
Wait ... is the smell/flavor just smokiness, or does it also have fruity and spicy notes? Because if it's just smokiness, then I can think of a number of ways the oil could end up like that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.463499
| 2021-06-24T23:42:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116210",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"I answer wrong - have fun",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115872
|
Can you make vegan garlic bread? If so, how does the use of margarine effect taste and texture?
I enjoy a nice garlic baguette so much, but I have to drink a pre-emptive, schedule 5, painkiller not to die from being so lactose intolerant. I was wondering if a solution can be found that does not include narcotics, maybe substitute the butter for margarine? I know the French would call it barbaric, but can you do it?
The short answer is 'yes', but that makes your question a recipe request. Recipe requests are a bad fit for this sort of site, so your question will probably get closed. But searching online for 'vegan garlic bread' will give you lots of options.
I'm actually more interested in how the sub affects the end product?
If your question is 'what effect will replacing butter by margarine have on a garlic bread recipe', then that sounds like it will be on topic, but you need to edit your question title and body to reflect that. At present the question is just 'can you make vegan garlic bread', to which the answer is 'yes'.
You can actually substitute both butter and margarine with olive oil. Tastes great!
Does this answer your question? Can I always use butter instead of margarine when baking?
Margarine will not impact the texture, and probably will not alter the end result dramatically. It, of course, is not butter, so as long as the flavor is fine with you. But, you also don't need butter or margarine. You can use olive oil. Sweat garlic in olive oil. Proceed from that point.
I'd go with olive oil. I can buy read-to-bake garlic baguettes made with butter, or slightly cheaper "economy" ones with margarine, and there's quite a difference in flavour & mouthfeel. Olive oil is different to either but good in its own way (I've only made it with oil or butter in recent years)
As a former butter snob (and I missed trans-fat margarines as a side effect, yay) I can say that some of the current crop of non-butters (which notably don't tend to describe themselves as "margarine") are actually quite tolerable substitutes for the real thing. That would be unlikely to apply to "economy" commercial loaves, since on average the good non-butters cost MORE than actual butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.463681
| 2021-05-29T14:03:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115872",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"Neil Meyer",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64319",
"miken32",
"suse"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45357
|
Are red lentils and split red lentils the same?
I have a recipe for vegetarian Moussaka which calls for red lentils, but it doesn't specify whether the red lentils are split or not. Is there such a thing as whole red lentils (I have only ever bought split ones), and will using split red lentils instead confuse the measurements in the recipe?
They are not the same, there is a difference. Red lentils can be purchased whole or split. Most red varieties are skinless, those that do have skin don't appear very red.
The measurements aren't going to be affected much, you'll get slightly more lentil in a cup of split lentils than a cup of whole lentils. The cooking time will be more dramatically different. Split lentils with the outer skin removed will cook faster than whole lentils, particularly those that still have the outer skin.
I looked at a few recipes for Moussaka with lentils, and they all called for cooked lentils. So whatever lentils you choose, follow the instructions on the package or your knowledge of the product.
Whole lentils will maintain their shape more (although the red varieties won't stay whole), split lentils will break up more. Which you choose should be a matter of personal preference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.463874
| 2014-07-06T08:04:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45357",
"authors": [
"Ceiba Ferry and Airport spam",
"Indiasheltertech",
"Lee buys homes",
"Lemon",
"Melted croc",
"ProjectPaatt",
"Stange Law Firm PC",
"Web Shir spam",
"bobbie elliott",
"david",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108070"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116394
|
Can I whip cream that is past its use by date?
I was going to make a dessert with whipped cream but events interfered and I now have a large (sealed) pot of double cream left in the fridge. My next opportunity to make the dessert will be next weekend when the cream will be about five days past its use by date.
Experience tells me that cream will still taste fine well past its use by date, so I am not worried the cream will taste sour. However I have never tried to whip cream that is past its sell by date. Googling has found sites with advice ranging from "it'll be fine" to "OMG throw it away now" so I'm no further on. The question Can sour cream be whipped? tells me that soured cream won't whip, but this cream is going to be nowhere near sour by next weekend.
Does anyone know if I'll face problems trying to whip it? If so I'll try to find another use for it or throw it away (though that seems a shame).
I should add that this is ordinary pasteurised (not UHT) double cream from a UK supermarket, so it's 48% fat, and it has not been opened so no bugs will have got in since pasteurisation.
In the UK, is it a 'use by' or 'sell by' date on the package? I've used (including whipping) unopened heavy cream well past the sell by date on the carton with no issues whatsoever.
@JonCuster it's a "sell by" date, and I've also found the sell by date to be conservative. But I've never tried whipping cream past its sell by date.
If cream is still fresh enough to eat then it will whip just fine, there aren't any mechanisms at work which will prevent whipping. If it's been opened in the fridge for a few days it may thicken up a bit, I usually add a splash of whole milk to thin it out a bit or it can get a bit claggy.
It depends on how the cream was treated. If it has buttered up, or is just on the cusp of either buttering or turning sour, you can no longer whip it, it will coalesce and curdle instead of creating a foaming. It is a gradual thing, you cannot say when a given batch of cream will whip well and when it will curdle. The most you can do is to note the relative probability of 'not whipping' compared to a cream that has been treated in a different manner.
These probabilities are, in increasing order of success:
raw milk from the cow, left to cream up
cream that has undergone traditional pasteurization, no further treatment
cream that has undergone some heavier pasteurization method, like UHT
cream that has been stabilized by microfiltration
cream that has had chemical stabilizers added (usually carrageenan)
The effect of the treatment interacts with the effect of the aging (the older the cream, the less likely it will whip - this effect exists even before the expiry date) and with how strictly you follow best practices when whipping.
Thanks, it's regular pasteurised (not UHT) double cream from the supermarket and hasn't been opened. This is in the UK - I understand UK double cream has a higher fat content that in other parts of the world. I guess I need to try it and see what happens.
@JohnRennie please do report back, I'm curious what the results will be.
@Kat I hate to be the naysayer here, but the results are probably only interesting for John - no matter if his batch of cream whips or curdles, this is not predictive of whether some other batch of cream in some other person's kitchen will whip or curdle. It sometimes goes this way, sometimes the other.
@rumtscho well it would prove the other answer wrong if it doesn't whip.
I had a carton of heavy whipping cream that had already clotted/buttered up about 50%. I tried whipping it anyway and it whipped just fine so I froze it. It had not soured so it tasted fine too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.464031
| 2021-07-12T10:45:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116394",
"authors": [
"John Rennie",
"Jon Custer",
"Kat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126092
|
Bain marie problem
This morning I cooked the cake for a Japanese Strawberry Cake.
It cooked in an 8" aluminum cake pan, inside a roasting pan with boiled water. When I added the water just before placing the roasting pan in the oven, the cake pan floated in the water. That is, it was buoyant enough so that the water did not reach as high up the cake pan as it should.
After the cake was done cooling, and I sliced it in two layers, the cake was very dense and more resistant to cutting than other style cakes I've cut before.
The layers are now freezing (prep for this cake isn't until later in the week). I'm worried that the cake itself is bricked, most likely because of the buoyancy of the cake pan.
Does anyone have a suggestion to keep this cake pan weighted in the water bath?
Push comes to shove, I think I have an 8" springform, but was hoping to not worry about the extra prep.
Extra details:
Masses:
80 g milk
50 g butter
75 g flour
4 eggs
70 g caster sugar
139 g aluminum cake pan
Total mass: roughly 464g, assuming about 50g total for eggs
If I were to use my springform, the pan is heavier, but I would scale the masses. The springform is 5/8" more in diameter, resulting in a 1.162 increase in scale.
If I were to use the springform, it would be roughly 309g (springform) + 379 (ingredients) = 688g
I tested my bain marie now by placing an equivalent glass in my springform, in the water. It is barely buoyant. It moves, but not much.
I'm wondering if I go with the springform, and use extra parchment pinched in the bottom of the springform, and place weights on the parchment to pin everything.
Thoughts?
It might help to know the details of the recipe you are following - what's causing the float is the displacement of the water (by the pan) vs the mass of the pan+contents. The original recipe should give you instructions for a pan type. Note that steel is ~2.5x denser than Al, so mass is substantially more for the same type of pan.
@bob1 added masses and a thought on how to proceed
Looks like you have the answer there. Just a note in the case of circular area, difference is proportional to the square of the radius (pi*r^2 after all...) so an 8" diameter circular pan will have area = 50 in^2 while a square with side of 8" will be 64 in^2, so there can be a big difference in displacement with shape of pan.
Shouldn't a form with lesser diameter do the job?
Jason — I don't believe the density of your cake is related to the floating pan. The purpose of a bain marie is to keep the temperature, especially around the sides of the pan, low so your goods cook more slowly and evenly (usually for custard-based dishes). You don't need the water to come all the way to the same level as your batter / custard. So if your pan is floating, just reduce the amount of water.
It would be helpful to see your entire recipe. Are eggs your only leavening ingredient? Since you're starting with boiling water, I can't imagine a scenario where oven spring is affected whether or not your pan is touching the bottom of your bain marie vessel.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.464310
| 2023-12-14T01:50:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126092",
"authors": [
"Eulenfuchswiesel",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69896"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115839
|
How to Adjust Biscotti Recipe When Using Salted Pistachios
I am making biscotti. The recipe calls for the following:
2 C flour
1/2 tsp fine sea salt
3/4 C whole pistachios
The only shelled pistachios I could find were already salted, with sea salt.
Given these ratios, should I adjust the amount of salt I will add to the recipe?
EDIT: Thank you for the responses. Since there seemed to be no way to control the saltiness, I ended up seeking out an unsalted lot. This recipe was sweet, by the way. And it came out great.
It's going to vary by company, but if there nutrition information on the package you might be able to figure out how much salt was added by the sodium content vs. the serving size ... but that's going to be fairly imprecise, as they can round down. And you never know how much the package has been shaken and thus how much salt is the bottom vs. still on the nuts.
Alternate approach: wash the nuts, then dry them. I do this all the time when I only have salted nuts.
Check the wording as to whether you need to adjust the quantity of nuts too. It's a few years since I made biscotti but that recipe gave the weight with the shells on, probably because that's the only easy way to buy unsalted pistachios, and had "shell the nuts" as a step.
The only thing you can do is not add any additional salt, although I think you might still end up with a result that's too salty. As a commenter mentioned, you could get an indication of the amount of salt from the nutritional information on the packaging, but my suspicion is that in 3/4 of a cup of nuts there will be more than half a teaspoon of salt.
There is a question elsewhere on the site about unsalting salted nuts, where the consensus was that it wouldn't easily be possible. Tap as much salt off the nuts as possible before you use them.
If the nuts are going to get wet anyway (because there are other wet ingredients in your recipe that you haven't mentioned) then you might as well try to wash the water off; do it quickly, and pat the nuts try with paper towel immediately so they absorb as little water as possible. Tasting a few of them should tell you whether you've washed most of the salt off (in which case add it back according to your recipe) or not (in which case don't add any additional salt).
I think it will be too salty still, unless it's a savoury biscotti recipe. 1/2 tsp to 2C flour is the sort of small amount some people add to sweet baking (and I would omit). Worse, the salt will stay stuck to the nuts, which isn't what the recipe expects. That's not to say it will be bad, after all there are lots of sweet products using salted peanuts.
@ChrisH I agree.
I would not change the amount of salt. As the salt will be concentrated around the pistachios, the rest of the biscotti might just taste extra bland. It might, as suggested in the other answers, pay off to try to remove some salt of the pistachios with some paper towels.
Here is how I get salt off salted cashews before making stir fry.
Put cashews in hands.
Hold them under running faucet.
Salt washes off.
Proceed with desalted nuts.
Wet nuts would be fine in a stir fry, but the wetness will cause issues in a baked good. I'd recommend the additional step of rubbing the pistachios between two paper towels or clean kitchen towels to dry them off before adding them to the biscotti dough.
You could also bake the water off in a warm oven (e.g., 180F/80C)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.464576
| 2021-05-26T19:17:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115839",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Tristan",
"csk",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125197
|
Potency of stored baking powder: Does it decrease with time or exposure to air or both?
I am curious about how baking powder, both types (with and without a high-temperature aluminum salt), loses its oomph.
Assuming a constant room temperature, is it time only? Exposure to air/atmospheric humidity? Both?
For example, what are the expected differences between a never-opened canister vs one with a typical plastic lid opened/closed with occasional use, over time?
It's mostly due to moisture absorption from the air. Basically, baking powder is a mixture of a base - baking soda (sodium bicarbonate or similar) and a weak acid, usually tartaric acid (potassium bitartrate) and/or monocalcium phosphate or a similar acid.
Alone and dry the acid and base are more or less inert and won't break down substantially at room temperature, but if you mix the two together and add moisture, the acid and base solubilize and react. This is what happens when you add them to your baking, and is exactly what you want to happen to get the bubbles of carbon dioxide produced to rise your batter. The heat of the oven causes a faster reaction and expands the bubbles to make bigger spaces in the baking, resulting in the rising effect.
However, at room temperature both the acid and the base are hygroscopic to some extent, so they absorb moisture from the air over time and even this tiny bit of moisture results in a small bit of the reaction and degradation of the mixture.
There's a bit more explanation in the wikipedia article on Baking powder.
Most interesting. Thanks. Moisture from the air and not temperature. In that case, sounds like refrigeration to slow degradation would be problematic - unless perhaps kept in a sealed laboratory-style desiccator.
@revans19 Yes, thermal degradation above about 80 C for the bicarb I think. Refrigeration will cause more water absorption. Best just to buy what you need and keep as well sealed as you can.
Note that the room temperature has an indirect effecet on the amount of water in the air. The same humidity percentage of air means vastly different quanitities of water at different temperatures. Idealls you want storage in a dry and cool place.
@quarague good point, but doesn't change the message from the answer.
The neutralisation also creates water which can dissolve more acid and base. Leading to more reacting.
@bob1 Can you explain "Refrigeration will cause more water absorption"? I was under the impression that a refrigerator is generally a very dry environment; the compressor removes most of the moisture from the air. How will refrigerating it cause more absorption?
@GentlePurpleRain: Every time you open the refrigerator door, warm (and, depending on your local climate, likely humid) air flows in to replace the cold air flowing out. As the air cools down, the moisture in it will condense on all cold objects and surfaces inside the fridge. (Top loading refrigerators lose much less cold air when opened, making them not only more energy efficient but also less prone to accumulating moisture, but unfortunately they tend to be less convenient to use for most applications.)
@GentlePurpleRain exactly as Ilmari Karonen explained. Because your BP is now cold, it will be more likely to condense moisture out of the air, especially so when you pull it out of the fridge and open it to use. Keeping it in a static room-temp environment is best.
@IlmariKaronen (and @bob1) Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.464875
| 2023-09-09T23:56:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125197",
"authors": [
"GentlePurpleRain",
"Ilmari Karonen",
"Sam Dean",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98289",
"quarague",
"revans19"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124644
|
Should I refrigerate or freeze unopened canned food items?
My trailer (in Florida) gets extremely hot. My canned items are warm to touch. Should I just store the unopened cans in the fridge or pour in bags/containers and freeze?
this is not a food safety issue, just leaving the cans, refrigerating them, or opening and freezing the contents are all safe. This is only a quality issue, and your best bet is probably to refrigerate the cans.
Can you express, in C or F, how hot is your "extremely hot"?
If you can keep the temp below 85 °F (30 °C) you should be fine. There is no harm in placing your cans in the refrigerator, and I think this would be your best bet if you have the space. I would not freeze the can, as that might compromise the integrity of the can itself.
fixed...apologies!
Frozen water expands. That will compromise the integrity of the can.
The relationship (reactions doubling for every 10°C = 18°F ~=20°F) is pretty universal. For this reason I keep certain chemical items in a fridge. That means that lifetime is halved for every 10°C increase in temperature. So if the rating is 2 years at 25°C the life will be 6 months at 45°C = 113°F.
If you can't keep them cool maybe consider adjusting the BB date to a lower lifespan (the challenge with that is you don't always know when they counted as the beginning).
USDA says
"high temperatures (over 100 °F) are harmful to canned goods too. The
risk of spoilage jumps sharply as storage temperatures rise. In fact,
canned goods designed for use in the tropics are specially
manufactured."
In fact, optimal storage temperature is more like 10 or 15°C (50 or 60°F), cool but safely above freezing.
You don’t know what the original life is, but if you know how much time is left when you put it into storage, you can calculate what 1/4 the time left is (and assume that it was stored at a reasonable temperature before you got it)
@Joe Excellent point.
+1 for USDA link and tropics. The more you know.
"if the rating is 2 years at 25°C the life will be 6 months at 35°C" That's a quarter of the lifetime, not a half.
@Flater wow. my bad. fixed. thanks.
Harold McGee actually had an article on canned goods in the now defunct magazine Lucky Peach. Luckily, it’s also been posted to medium: On Cans
The relevant part is:
The trouble with aging canned goods is that it takes years to get results. However, we can take a hint from manufacturers, who often accelerate shelf-life tests by storing foods at high temperatures. A general rule of thumb is that the rate of chemical reactions approximately doubles with each 20-degree rise in temperature. Store foods at 40 degrees above normal—around 100 degrees—and you can get an idea of a year’s change in just three months.
I suspect that manufacturers calculate their ‘best by’ dates based on non-ideal storage, so it’s possible that they are still applicable, but actively ‘warm’ might be a stretch, so I would recommend paying attention to the ‘best by’ dates. (Although, tastes vary; McGee commented that he preferred some aged things better than when still young)
Depending on how much you’re storing, and if the humidity is low enough, you might be able to rig up a pot-in-pot cooler. I would avoid keeping the cans completely wet, though, to reduce the risk of both rust and the labels coming off.
"40 degrees above normal—around 100 degrees" means that 60 (presumably Freedom) degrees is normal. That's absurd.
This is Florida. Humidity is never low enough.
@RonJohn Are you really not aware that different parts of the world experience different temperature norms? 60 F is not an absurd temperature to keep your house at.
@AzorAhai-him- name a place where the average summer temperature is 60F, and then tell me how many people live there.
@RonJohn I'm confused, do you think 60 F is an absurdly cold or absurdly warm temperature? And also, when did this become restricted to summer temperatures?
And anyway, the average summer mean in Seattle is within 4 degrees of 60 F May - August. That's 4 million people right there ...
@AzorAhai-him- of course 60F is absurdly cold in the summer? And why did I choose summer? Because it's obvious that there are lots of places where lots of people live where it gets below 60F in the winter. (But even there, you close the doors and heat the place up.)
Sure, but most people don't keep cans outside But anyway, there's your example. I haven't looked, but Vancouver and Portland would be similar. Sorry the author's estimated temperatures upset you so much.
@AzorAhai-him- that's still not 60F. And "that's 4 million people right there" is an excellent reminder of why 72% of Canadians live south of 49N (the western boundary between US and Canada).
@RonJohn Not really sure what the geographic distribution of Canadians has to do with anything but alright have a nice day
@AzorAhai-him- they tend to congregate where it's warmer.
@RonJohn the sentence you refer to is a quote from McGee, and was not written in response to this question. 60 F is not unusual for a cellar (especially if regarded as a yearly average), or some other place which meets the description of a "cool, dark place", frequently recommended by manufacturers of goods with long shelf life, or used by restaurant owners who also store cheeses, wine, etc.
@rumtscho this isn't 1943; most people live in cities or suburbs, and don't have root cellars.
The inside of these cans is sterile, so freezing won't do much good. It will slow down the chemical degradation of the contents but this is almost irrelevant unless you plan to store the cans for decades after their best-by date.
We generally refrigerate/freeze to stop bacteria from spreading/multiplying in or on our food (and potentially producing toxic wasteproducts). Since there are exactly 0 bacteria in a can of food, this major benefit is wasted
One danger of freezing canned foods is the can could rupture or crack, which could cause problems later if the can is thawed and not immediately used.
At high temperatures, degredation of food quality can happen much faster than you might expect. Shelf-stable food storage life is generally based on the assumption it will be stored in cool dark conditions. High heat can reduce shelf life from years to months or even weeks.
It strikes me that even if a can didn't detectably rupture, the internal lacquer (or tin) layer might be compromised: at that point the same warnings as about dented cans apply. It probably wouldn't be too bad while a can was left frozen, since there wouldn't be liquid water inside. But thawing and then leaving for an extended period... I'm not saying it's definitely unwise, but is probably best avoided if possible.
Check that there is nothing inside the trailer (I believe this is what we'd refer to as a caravan in the UK) that is actively generating heat, e.g. a fridge or freezer due to not venting to outside.
On reflection, it's only necessary to cool the cans by a few degrees so the first thing I'd investigate is whether there's some spot, probably low down and away from an outside wall, which is substantially cooler than everywhere else and would make a good place for a food cache. My suspicion is that you've got storage lockers fastened to outside walls, probably including some above a work surface which will suffer from the "hot air rises" rule.
If you have some location which is relatively cool, consider whether you can make it cooler by having a fan on a timer which blows night-time air through it, say midnight to 9am. You could further capitalise on this by putting in some of those gel packs which "keep hot things hot and cold things cold".
Irrespective of political outlook, one has to admit that we're going through (or entering into) a hot phase, so there's no point in making it even minutely worse by running appliances which aren't strictly needed. There's also the cost of running them to consider: a timed blower is going to be vastly cheaper than space in a fridge.
It is a little silly to store canned food in a refrigerator. It does very little to extend the shelf life of the food inside. Unless your average ambient temperature is something like 130 degrees Fahrenheit your canned goods will be just fine on a cupboard shelf. Even then the canned food should be fine for years.
"It is best to store unopened commercially canned foods in a cool and dry place (such as in a cupboard)." USDA
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.465286
| 2023-07-04T20:17:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124644",
"authors": [
"Azor Ahai -him-",
"Esther",
"Flater",
"Joe",
"Mark",
"Mark Morgan Lloyd",
"Mołot",
"RonJohn",
"Spehro 'speff' Pefhany",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87594",
"moscafj",
"paulj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116754
|
What is "layering flavors"? What does it accomplish and how do I do it?
Recently I've been into cooking videos and tutorials and something that stands out to me is this concept of "layering flavors" that some chefs use when they add ingredients.
Example:
We're only sweating the onion, afterwards we'll add some garlic and that way we'll have a nice base layer to work with, remember its all about layering flavors
What? What does that mean? How is layering flavors going to help? Is it going to change taste as you chew? Or is it just a fancy way of saying it’s going to have a bit of added taste and it’s going to be wonderful?
And how do I do it? The only thing I see is people adding ingredients to a sauce and cooking them in some way.
It's pretension; nothing more or less.
It is mostly a fancy way of saying that they are combining flavors. There are no solid, physical layers involved anywhere.
Still, there is a reason why the "layering" metaphor is more apt than simply saying "combining". Flavor is mostly about aroma, which leads to two aspects of "layering".
First, aroma is not perceived all at once when you bite off. You first notice the most volatile smell notes when the food enters your mouth, go through a kind of "middle" and only at the end, while swallowing, you notice the "heavier" flavor. So, when seasoning, you can work with food such that you don't mix up too many flavors in one of the three aroma "layers", but also to make sure that there is something noticeable in each of the three.
Second, people are accustomed to some flavors being present as a metaphorical "background" taste. It can happen that, if the expected aroma is absent, you can add all the spices you want, and the eater will still experience it as underseasoned. This is what is happening in the example you cited: the "base layer" are the onion and garlic, which are probably the standard for the dish, and then you can take that dish in different directions by your choice of additional herbs and spices. In that case, you can see the metaphor as akin to clothing - once you have a basic shirt on, you can always make the outfit nicer by layering a scarf, jacket or jewelry on top of it.
All in all, it is not "all about layering flavors". It is just an expression which helps some cooks go about creating harmonious flavor combinations. If it works for you, use it. If not, learn to think about your seasoning in other terms.
Excellent explanation! I'll just add that the concept was very likely imported from perfumery, which usually represent the notes as "layers" on a pyramid - head or top notes (very volatile), heart or middle notes (medium volatility) and base notes (low volatility).
If you could link the video with the quote in question that would be helpful.
In the case of onion and garlic from your example, I would say "layering flavor" is just a way of saying "bring out the best flavor(s) from each ingredient by appropriately adding them in a certain order". Onions have quite a bit of moisture in them that needs to be reduced before caramelization can occur. Garlic on the other hand is quite dry and turns bitter when heated for too long on too high heat.
So, by first allowing the onions to cook on their own and developing a nice flavor and then adding the garlic for a comparatively short amount of time, you get both the flavor of the caramelized onions and the garlic. If you added both ingredients at the same time, you would need to deglaze your onions earlier in order to prevent the garlic from burning, thus missing out on the caramelized onion flavor.
Of course, the method of this "layering" differs from dish to dish, depending on what you want to achieve. A lot of stir frys try to not overcook vegetables so they are still a bit crunchy, while a stew that cooks for a long time goes for the opposite.
As @rumtscho has explained in his accepted answer, it's more a style of language than anything else.
In your particular example, the reason why onions are added first, and then the garlic, is that onions can and should be heated much longer than garlic - garlic burns or turns bitter quickly; throwing them in at the same time would either undercook the onions, or overcook the garlic.
Regarding the question about how to do it - basically, for me the trick is not only to focus on the main ingredients, but also to always think about what else could "work" in there. For example, I usually put a few drops of lemon juice and a very tiny pinch of sugar into most sauces - you don't taste either, the sauce won't have a citric or sweet taste in any shape or form, but it somehow tastes more interesting.
That would be a typical thing someone might call "layering" and it just means that aside from the main ingredients there are very minor bits of other tastes in there.
That makes sense. They're always adding stuff i wouldn't even consider like cheese rinds or bone, at different stages.
One perspective I've encountered looks at specific types of ingredients when discussing 'layering.' For example, 'layering salt' is about adding saltiness to a dish from different sources: e.g., seasoning first with salt and finishing the dish with Parmesan.
'Layering fat' could be adding butter to the first stage of cooking, then olive oil near the end.
I find this use quite intuitive (and distinct from 'combining') because the order matters—i.e., cooking in oil and then adding butter is different from the converse.
The key is that different sources of an ingredient type can be added at different stages, each adding nuances to the flavour and texture.
It's also about adding flavors at each stage of cooking. Each ingredient added should be seasoned, rather than dumping everything into the pan at once and adding seasoning. Example: Saute onions first, season with salt and pepper. Add diced carrots, celery, and peppers. Season. Before sauteing the protein, season well with salt and pepper and desired herbs. All layers of the dish are seasoned, resulting in a more flavorful dish. Each bite is seasoned, not just the stuff at the top of the pan that caught the salt and pepper.
But these people i've watched use it more like adding ingredients, not seasoning. More like "save the oil where you fried your meat because you can use it later on the sauce and it will add a nice layer".
Seasonings ARE ingredients. The oil has picked up flavor from cooking the meat, so it might now be considered a seasoning. Seasoning=Flavor. Seasoning is just another ingredient. Basically, anything edible that gets put into food is an ingredient, be it oil, salt, meat, whatever. Seasoning is generally the ingredients that you probably wouldn't eat a bowl of, but just add in smaller quantities.
I don’t see what the point of this would be, except in a dish where the separately seasoned ingredients are intended to be eaten separately.
Think of LAYERING the same as a metaphor in ....bricklaying ....you start with the foundation first
A good solid foundation is what's needed to build a solid building same as in cooking
Good solid foundation of flavour builds a flavoursome dish
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.465979
| 2021-08-09T07:39:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116754",
"authors": [
"David DPG",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"RonJohn",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95087",
"user95087"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115298
|
Will uncooked meat tenderise or toughen while stored in a refrigerator?
In an effort to make fewer food shopping trips, I want to store meat in the fridge for a few days before cooking.
However, if I'm entertaining guests I want the meat to be as tender as possible.
Will storing meat in the fridge for a couple of days affect the tenderness to any noticeable degree?
Are you going to storing the meat covered or uncovered?
The meat is being stored covered.
Purely anecdotally - before lockdown I would buy my food a week at a time. Since, I get it fortnightly. I perceive no real difference. My meat storage is at 0.5 ℃ in a separate drawer below the main fridge.
While dry aging does impact texture, storing a portion that you might purchase for yourself, or a small number of people, in the refrigerator for a few days will not impact the final texture. Instead, consider purchasing high quality cuts, and the correct cut for your application. Consider a tenderizing pre-treatment (some marinades are intended for tenderization). Finally, of course, cooking process will greatly impact the final texture.
This depends on many factors. From what I've seen, meat tenderness vs. toughness depends mainly on the amount of shock you create when cooking it.
The main effects I've observed:
if you put the super-cold meat from the refrigerator right on the pan, the shocked proteins (esp. long keratin fibers) are going to shrink, causing the steak to became super compressed and tough as a result. This doesn't happen (too much) if your meat is room-temperature before cooking it.
you can prepare the meat chemically to withstand this shock better. E.g., add salt a few hours earlier (even in the refrigerator) to avoid a brutal ion gradient passing through your steak when cooked right after being salted, again shocking the protein
technically, storing the meat in the right conditions (relatively dry and cold) lets the protein slowly degrade and make it respond less, thus making the result less tough again.
How long it is stored in the freezer alone, i.e. without any kind of marinade, and with no biological protein degradation process going on (as with dry aging), should not generally matter. At least until your meat gets spoiled.
Extras:
tenderizer tools work by breaking much of the "long" protein chains, thus making this shrinking shock less prominent in the result
non-pH-neutral ingredients (lemon, milk, youghurts,...) are a great way to reduce the shock chemically
I can't find any evidence of your first bullet point being true. Can you point me to a source? (I do find evidence that attempting to bring meat to room temp is not worth the effort). See: https://amazingribs.com/technique-and-science/myths/let-meat-come-to-room-temp and https://www.seriouseats.com/2013/06/the-food-lab-7-old-wives-tales-about-cooking-steak.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.466572
| 2021-04-17T03:42:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115298",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"TidyDev",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73093",
"moscafj",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112671
|
When should I add the garlic to a roasted leg of lamb?
I'm going to roast a leg of lamb. Here is how I plan to cook it:
Cover it with kosher salt
Let is rest in the fridge for two days
Make 10 or 12 slits, and stuff them with garlic sort of like this recipe.
Cook
Would there be any benefit to putting the garlic into the lamb before it rests in the fridge? My goal is to make it tasty. Will the garlic flavor maybe infuse better somehow?
Why would you not experiment? Cook three legs, one with garlic added before the cooking starts, one near the end and one mid-time. Which one best suits you personally, or your family and guests?
Why are you covering the lamb with salt? We cook lamb quite often, but I've not heard of this technique being used on lamb (in Australia). It's not "watery", there's no bitterness to adjust, and it already has a relatively strong flavour.
@Kingsley I'm not that good of a cook, but I've been following this
I've always done the garlic just before roasting it when I've made basque style leg-of-lamb. But I've never tried dry brining it, too.
@Joe It turned out great
There's no benefit to putting the garlic in as slices from a flavor point of view, it's the cooking that brings the garlic flavor out. I've found that no matter how you do it the garlic flavor pretty much stays with the garlic rather than spreading throughout the meat - you don't get some even garlic hum throughout, instead you get parts with intense garlic flavor, which if you like garlic is a good thing. The only way to get it more even is smaller garlic slices in many more slits, however loads of slits will lead to the meat drying out.
From a food safety point of view cutting the slits and putting garlic in them that long before cooking can introduce bacteria or botulism spores deep inside the meat, and the temperature you cook it to may not be enough to make the food safe. If you use this method it's prudent to wash the outside of the meat, the knife, the garlic and of course your hands before you do it to reduce this risk.
Your plan seems fine. Cut the slits and insert garlic slices when you take the leg of lamb from the fridge and let it rest for 30 minutes or so. Until it reaches room temperature. Sometimes besides garlic, I also cut slits and insert pieces of bacon in the lamb, too. My family loves that roast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.467071
| 2020-11-16T02:57:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112671",
"authors": [
"Astor Florida",
"Joe",
"Kingsley",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29426
|
What is the name of this Venetian pastry?
I was recently in Venice and relaxed my vegan lifestyle to enjoy a local pastry. It was green, pistachio flavored and filled with almonds. It looked something like this (mine did not have chocolate):
Does anybody know what this pastry is called so I can learn how to make it?
Those are Pan Pistacchio - this blog entry (not mine) has a picture of a sign in a shop window identifying them. It goes on to say that the general category of these buns is Fishermans Buns or Pan del Pescatore and that the green ones specifically are pistachio, which matches what I saw in Venice myself - the pistachio ones were always green and there were often other flavours next to them.
That should be enough to get you more pictures and recipes. I found some at this TripAdvisor page, but you can experiment.
Great find! For reference, the ingredients listed on the bottom of the sign there are "Pistachio-flavored sweet pastry, raisins, and almonds".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.467298
| 2012-12-24T13:46:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29426",
"authors": [
"Brittany Turner",
"JShade01",
"Super Fighting Robot",
"ender maz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68399",
"jscs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22597
|
How can I calculate the affect of cooking my food on its nutrition
If I look on nutritiondata.self.com for the nutrition value of raw lentils (as an example), it tells me the protein value per 1 cup is 50g. However, 1 cup of boiled lentils is good for 18g of protein!
I looked up the question, however the popular answer is that it doesn't make much of a difference. But judging by those numbers, I think that it does!
So, what should I do?
Lentils being just an example! This applies to other foods too..
Lentils (and other foods) expand when cooked - its not the same amount of lentils (and other food).
Some vitamins and such are destroyed by heat, but to be sure on exactly what, only a lab could determine.
For macronutrients such as proteint, fats, etc - whatever goes in, comes out.
Ok, so if my bag has a nutrition value for 1/4 cup, is that before or after being cooked?
Based on your questions vs http://nutritiondata.self.com, it appears to be precooked
That still leaves the question.. how do I figure out how much nutrients are in the food after I've cooked it?
@user9692 only a lab really can.
@user9692: If the main effect is expansion, just measure before you cook and you'll know what's in the finished product. If you really care, measure the volume after too.
@Jefromi - for macronutrients, yes.
If you are really serious about this, you can calculate it.
First, obtain the macronutrient counts per 100 g of ingredient you are adding. For example, lentils have 26 g of protein per 100 g.
Second, weigh everything you are adding. Let's say you want to cook 200 g lentils.
Third, calculate the total amount of nutrients you added. With my nice round numbers, it will be 52 g proteins from the lentils.
Fourth, weigh the prepared dish. (it doesn't help to sum up the raw ingredients only, because water will evaporate during cooking). Let's say you end up with 700 g of cooked lentils.
Fifth, calculate the new protein amount per 100 g. 52 g protein per 700 g lentils makes it around 7.4 g protein per 100 g.
Now you are ready. You only get a small amount of error when some nutrients are destroyed by cooking, for example a maillard reaction will involve both proteins and carbohydrates as input and produce carbohydrates only. But it is a very small error; the variability of nutrient levels between batches of the same food are much greater than this error. (You don't believe that every lentil kernel around the world has exactly 26% protein, right? The data you see on labels is an average of a few measurements, and the single batches can vary a lot).
Note that you can't do this for micronutrients, because many of them are affected by cooking.
Also, don't even attempt to do it using volume measures. Once you mix two different liquids, the volume of the mixture isn't always the same as the sum of the two volumes you started with. Also, solids can absorb liquids without changing their volume much, etc.
And of course, you have to do it separately for each recipe to get a reasonable degree of precision. You can't just rely that lentils cooked in pure water will absorb the same amount of water as lentils cooked in a, say, soup soured with tomato juice.
If you still think this all is worth it, go ahead and do it. Most people don't need such a minute control over their diet, especially when they cook by themselves and know (roughly) what goes into their meals.
This isn't really answering what is asked - all you're doing is showing how to calculate the macronutrient density before and after. Which doesn't change the nutrition at all. If I put a 1/4 cup of lentils at X amount of protein, cook them, and then eat the entire dish its still X amount of protein.
@rfusca I interpreted the insisting in the comment to be about the final nutrients count in a portion of prepared food, not about the loss of nutrients through cooking - which is close to nothing for proteins, carbs and fats. I guess that the OP has to come back and say which interpretation is correct.
Thanks! I'm trying to find out more about the nutrients, actually. My insistence about the prepared food is because I'm not sure how much the preparation destroys the nutrients. Knowing that the macronutrient loss is practically nil is basically what I was trying to find out. Is there a way to know anything about the micronutrient loss as well, or is that different depending on each nutrient/source/cooking method?
@martin the reason you can do the calculations I described is exactly because there is no loss. If you are talking about nutrient loss through heat, you have to know how much is lost, this is not something you can calculate. Probably not even specialists can calculate it, given how many variables are involved - it is easier to measure an average value for the remaining nutrients in a certain type of food and use it as a ballpark figure. (But of course, it is not especially precise - you don't know how much you had to start with, the duration of cooking, the acidity of your food, etc.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.467435
| 2012-03-27T23:12:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22597",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"DostZeroMachine",
"Gail Belanger",
"J Leng",
"Jim",
"Rob K",
"Zanna",
"fadiya alexander",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9692",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"xyhhx"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27908
|
Will storing blue cheese with other cheeses make them mold faster?
Possible Duplicate:
Can I eat cheese which has been “infected” with blue cheese mold?
A while ago I got a chunk of blue cheese and stored it in the fridge. A little later, we bought some cheddar cheese and I stored it in teh same compartment of the fridge as the blue cheese. Now the cheddar cheese has mold on it. I've never seen mold on cheddar cheese appear this quickly, so I'm wondering if having the blue cheese in my fridge actually makes mold appear on my other cheeses more quickly?
Is the mold blue?
Did you taste it?
I would close this as a dup of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20423/can-i-eat-cheese-which-has-been-infected-with-blue-cheese-mold, what do you people think?
@rumtscho I'd say it depends whether the mold is blue or not.
Since the OP has not returned to respond to any of the request for clarification, I'm closing this as a dupe. We'll consider reopening if it turns out to be something totally different.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.467943
| 2012-10-20T19:20:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27908",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Crow",
"David Crookes",
"Kareen",
"L Gepner",
"Rylan Grimmer",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64433",
"rumtscho",
"tomas"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61854
|
What is this white, non-fuzzy, substance on my kimchi?
I have a jar of store bought kimchi that I neglected for a few months (bought around mid July). Today I opened it and noticed that a few pieces had some white stuff on it, but it doesn't look like mold. The best way to describe it is that it is similar to the white yeast concentrate that collects at the bottom of homebrew or in some unfiltered beers. I took a piece without the white stuff on it and tasted it, and it tasted fine, if a little bit stronger with an almost boozy taste. I was just wondering what this is and if it's safe to eat, because as far as I know, kimchi doesn't have yeast in it.
Click on picture for full size.
Can you post a picture?
That's mold, and you should discard it.
Kimchi keeps forever (well, years) if and only if it's not exposed to air, meaning there's always enough liquid in the pot to cover the cabbage. If you have bits poking up into the air and you leave them there for days/weeks, they'll dry out and start growing mold.
Darnit, I've never seen mold that looks like that. All that delicious kimchi wasted :(
Kahm Yeast. Very common on pickled products "above the brine."
Annoying but not actually hazardous.
To avoid, make sure there is no "above the brine."
Wikipedia "yeast" article:
The appearance of a white, thready yeast, commonly known as kahm yeast, is often a byproduct of the lactofermentation (or pickling) of certain vegetables, usually the result of exposure to air. Although harmless, it can give pickled vegetables a bad flavor and must be removed regularly during fermentation.
I'm a microbiologist in dairy.
Only two things normally grow in such an acidic environment as kimchi. Yeast or fungi (mold).
The two microorganisms are practically the same. Fungus is a mutiple-cell organism and yeast a single-cell organism.
The two can change under influence of circumstances (such as temperature). So fungus can become yeast and the other way around.
Normally fungus can make harmfull poison. Yeast normally does not.
Both organisms are living from the same source in kimchi, called sugar.
As kimchi should ferment because of lactic acids (bacteria) the sugar should be eaten by those lactic acid bacteria. Whenever you add sugar later or not all sugar is fermented well, other organism can grow in kimchi such as yeast.
If one puts too much sugar in kimchi there will remain sugar before the lactic acid bacteria change the sugar into acid.
Normally lactic acid bacteria die because of too much acid. They should die because of their own product.
A small a mount of oxygen could be very harmful and cause other organisms to grow when there is sugar remaning.
So how can you be sure? Fungus is normally shown only on the top side of the kimchi and makes an unclear liquid. The kimchi liquid should be clouded.
When yeast infected the kimchi, the kimchi should be harmless. The smell shold be weakend because of the growth of yeast. There should be a small alcohol smell, but that's hard to notice. The kimchi liquid should be clear.
I also need to inform that fungi (mold) make poison. The fungi itself are normally not harmful. So the danger is the poison, heating will not change the poison and is no solution. Always be carefull with it, but if you are sure there is alcohol smell in there, then it should be safe.
Be safe.
By the way thanks, I do have the same problem over here after putting radish in my 6 months old kimchi. I thought the kimchi shold preserve the radish, but, I guess the radish contains some sugar and natural yeast. So exposed to a small amount of air the yeast started to grow.
How do I know it is yeast? My white spots are on the bottom of the jar.
My lactic acid bacteria already died, then I put the radish in. So the radish went bad and the lactic acids weren't there anymore to prevent that. I did throw it away because I do not feel safe.
Ok, I'm not a microbiologist, but while yeasts are fungi and molds are fungi, it does not work the other way round - not all fungi are mold. The claim that yeast turns into mold and vice versa does not make sense to me. Yes, some fungi have single-cell and multi-cell stages during their development and there are dimorphic fungi like candida albicans, but thats not the standard case. Above all your "rules" to differentiate between "safe" yeast and "unsafe" fungi seem off - yeasts make my clear juice cloudy and fizzy, which is perfectly ok.
It might not be mold, it could very well be bacteria or yeast. Lactic acid bacteria and yeast would be happy to grow in the acetic kimchi environment. Looking at the photo I'd suspect it's not mold. The advise to discard it is still spot on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.468079
| 2015-09-19T18:45:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61854",
"authors": [
"Alissa Morrow",
"Andrew Cole",
"Billie Fink",
"Daniel Chui",
"Jesus De Luna",
"Jodi Wissinger",
"Nancy Stoner",
"Patrick Hofman",
"Stephie",
"djas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960",
"user147281"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99188
|
How could I cook industry like foie gras?
I would like to learn the industrial skills that allow them to achieve such successful commercial products like the cheap and addictive foie gras.
I know that in many cases, it is required to have some special machinery.
Customers usually buy it without caring if it is not really foie gras.
What is "Industry Like" foie gras ? and the word "Cheap" does not usually go with Foie Gras which is still a luxury product and what does "Customers usually buy it without caring if it is not really foie gras." mean ?
I removed your recipe request as it is explicitly off-topic.
I am voting to close as I do not understand the question.
Sorry for the delay in answering.
Foie Gras is fatty goose or duck liver. There is no machine or process to make it. It is harvested from the animals themselves. Restaurants have providers for their product. You will have to find one for yourself.
I know of no legitimate substitute for Foie Gras that anyone would not care about. People pay a lot of money for Foie Gras and would be quite displeased if they found they were being fed a cheap alternative.
If you are refering to paté made from Foie Gras then you could stretch the final product with the use of chicken livers. I'm uncertain how much cheaper this is though and once again be careful you aren't deceiving anyone.
As pointed out by bruglesco, you can't fake proper fois gras. However, you can make a paté that's sometimes known as 'Faux Gras'. It typically includes a lot of butter (often clarified), and chicken livers. (Google 'faux gras' for recipes.)
It's not quite Fois Gras, but it's not bad either.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.468462
| 2019-05-26T20:47:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99188",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Max",
"MuchiProds",
"Summer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75758"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63832
|
What is the difference between a turkey and a chicken in terms of taste, look and preparation?
I am interested in sourcing a turkey and cooking it. It's not that easy to get a turkey from where I am. I am only wondering if it would be worthwhile to do so. Having never eaten a turkey, I can't help to be curious.
If there is not much of a difference between a turkey and chicken it would not be worth the trouble.
What are the differences between a chicken and a turkey in terms of:
taste
appearance
cooking
Appearance wise, it's just that it's big relative to a chicken ... I guess it's a sign of abundance. I personally think it tastes better, but that's likely because most of the chicken sucks in the US. Depending on what's available in your area, you might want to look into other poultry (duck, geese, etc.)
Agreed, but I think chicken is more flavorful. I think people think turkey is more flavorful, not because it actually has more flavor, but because people usually eat more chicken then they do turkey so it's less familiar. When I have been challenged in the past I have done a side by side taste test of turkey breast and chicken breast, and the chicken has always won for most flavor.
Essentially, it's like a giant chicken with a "deeper" and more distinctive flavor. The main reason I like them (other than the flavor) is the sheer quantity of meat you can get from one roasting session. One could roast multiple chickens for a similar effect, but with a turkey you only have one skeleton to pick meat off of, so it goes faster. Leftovers can be frozen and/or reused in all sorts of ways (sandwiches, soups, casseroles, etc.).
taste
The breast meat of turkey is a little different from chicken, but they have a similar texture and both tend to be rather mild in flavor compared to game birds. If you had access to a wild turkey, the meat will be gamier. The dark meat of the turkey (particularly legs and wings) is generally much more flavorful than chicken, with a "deeper" flavor that some people love and others dislike. (This may be the reason for the increasing popularity of whole turkey breasts sold by themselves in the U.S., which can be roasted like a whole bird, but don't have the "other parts" that are seen as less desirable by many. The vast majority of people I know tend mostly to eat turkey breast meat, usually served with gravy and stuffing.)
I've seen turkey wings and legs sometimes offered at Southern U.S. BBQ joints; when slow-cooked, they are a bit of a "Southern delicacy." On most farm-raised turkeys I've had recently, the thigh meat doesn't have as much of that "rich turkey" flavor that I seem to recall in the past, but it has a more distinctive flavor than the breast meat. Internal organs ("giblets") also tend to have a stronger flavor than chickens, if you're into eating livers, gizzards, hearts, etc.
There's often more fat in various parts of the bird than in typical U.S. chickens, which adds to a richer flavor. However, there's usually not as much fat as found in other common U.S. poultry (particularly duck and goose).
appearance
When prepared and ready to buy at a butcher, turkeys essentially look the same as any large poultry. They are often much larger than chickens, easily going to 20 lbs. (10 kg) and more. There are some differences in proportions and details that you'll see when cutting up or eating. In particular, the legs and wings have a bit more connective tissue and bony/cartilage bits than a chicken, since it's a larger bird and needs more support. This also tends to make the leg and wing meat a bit "stringy," which may be the reason for the slow-cooked versions I mentioned above, allowing time for the meat to break down more than when just roasting the whole bird. The meat is also a bit darker in color than chickens, particularly noticeable in the "dark meat" sections.
cooking
If buying a whole bird, most people in the U.S. essentially prepare it as they would make a large chicken, which usually means roasting in the oven. They are usually cooked at somewhat lower temperatures than chicken, to give time for the whole turkey to cook without drying out the exterior. Given the long roasting time for such a large bird, there's been a bit of a trend recently to cut up the turkey so it lies flat ("butterfly" or "spatchcock"), which allows it to cook faster and potentially more evenly.
Other than that, one can often buy individual turkey parts and use them in similar ways to chicken parts, keeping in mind the longer cooking time required. They can also be used (as with other poultry) for soup meat, etc.
Turkey legs aren't just for BBQ places in the South, they're also one of the canonical foods at fairs, at least in Texas. Anything sort of big event with food stands has a good chance of having turkey legs, in the same vein as roasted corn on the cob and lemonade and so on.
@Jefromi - true, I have seen that. My sense is that they are still prepared in a similar way, though -- often smoked or otherwise cooked slowly for a long time (as with most southern BBQ stuff). Is that your experience?
Yup, I think it's similar - for some reason I never thought of it as BBQ but yeah, I think roasted or smoked, probably with some kind of rub or sauce cooked onto it.
The people you know sure are missing out on that delicious dark meat.
Turkey legs & thigh are a darker meat than pen raised chicken. Breast is dryer. More taste to the bird. It is best to bake upside down. This lets the fat in the back drip threw it. Makeing it self basting. The last hour remove lid or foil turn over & bake at 375 till skin is golden brown. Has good appearance with out burning the wing tips & such. Baked I like them stuffed,, with giblets except the liver. Liver should be fine chopped mixed with fat spice & onion not to much. Baked last hour for a liver dish on the side. Neck is best saved for soup with chicken parts. I like the legs & thighs. Breast is best for sandwich's. A dryer meat. They are good cut up like a chicken & deep fried. Breast can be split or boned fried. Or saved skinned baked with bacon on top of the breast. For a little extra oil in the meat. I use to fix 2 or 3 a year in America. Here I go with peacock for a large bird for a party. A turkeys advantage is size. Fix one to feed all. Not a dozen chickens or more. Also cost per LB. to serve. Here were I live. its advantage is being very special to serve. As it cost over $12 a pound U.S. So putting on something from America very special for guest.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.468623
| 2015-11-25T11:37:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63832",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Barry Whyte",
"Cascabel",
"Clarrisa Lee",
"Denise Nixon-Sparks",
"Escoce",
"JAB",
"Joe",
"Joevil Paraz III",
"Julia Wright",
"Melvin Butel",
"Ringo Koh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115697
|
Why not incorporate eggs at the last moment when making crepes?
My question is about the sequence/timing of adding the ingredients.
In all crepes recipes I have seen, eggs are added before the batter is mixed. I wonder if it would make sense to add them after.
Two possible advantages:
I believe if eggs are mixed too much, whites can get a rubber-like texture. This is especially true when an electric mixer is used. Is this correct? Incorporating eggs at the last moment will allow using electric mixer (on milk and flour) without compromising the texture.
Eggs are fresher when they are in their shell. I guess if the batter is left for 2-24h so that flour can absorb liquid, it does not gain much by absorbing egg, right? In this case, adding eggs shortly before baking will only have advantages (like increased food safety) and no disadvantages.
Yet, in all recipes, eggs are added in advance. What am I missing?
Egg whites do get a foamy texture, but only if beaten without any yolk, like in a chocolate mousse
While I think this is a nice and interesting question, I'm wondering why you don't just perform an experiment and try both at the same time? Don't you feel excited to see the results for yourself? With questions like this, I think that people will provide their best educated guesses which may be correct, but wouldn't it be great to find out for yourself? Cooking is an adventure and when it's as low-stakes as risking a couple of weird crepes, I would suggest trying it out and sharing the results in an edit or a separate answer ;-)
Try it. What ingredients are in your crépe recipe and in how many different places might you add the eggs? Try them all and compare the results…
Your supposed advantages are not correct.
I believe if eggs are mixed too much, whites can get a rubber-like texture.
No, this is not correct. Are you thinking of gluten? That is the ingredient that gets tough with overmixing. So by that logic, you should be adding the flour last - but the whole point of recipes which are being held for a long time is to allow time for the starch in the flour to hydrate, and with the longer periods (you mention 24 hours), to allow for the building of slight sourdough flavors. So you cannot add flour last either - or you can, but then you don't need to keep the batter around. Anyhow, there is no change in toughness when you add eggs first.
Eggs are fresher when they are in their shell
They may be "fresher" by common sense understanding of the word, but by food safety rules, the two batters (the one with the eggs added before a rest, and the other with eggs after the rest) are equally safe. The food safety is not increased.
On the other side, if your suggestion is followed, there may be some slight disadvantages in handling. They are not so terrible as to make your suggestion unworkable, but together with the lack of advantages, they provide a good reason for recipes preferring early mixing.
A list of some of the disadvantages:
Not only is it more convenient to only get out a whisk once, but there are also people who prefer to mix the eggs with the flour first because this is their preferred method against getting lumps,
There are the recipes which require you to start with an egg and then adjust the consistency with incremental additions of flour and milk
There is the slight effect of possibly less-well beaten egg diffunding better into the mixture during the resting period. Basically, if you want to go to the trouble of doing a resting period, whose purpose it is to get everything to settle together, you'd better add everything before you rest it.
I must say that personally, I actually do add "egg last", but that's more of a side effect of my method. I use a very simple recipe (only eggs, flour and milk) measured by weight. I whisk by hand, and I have noticed that I get the least lumps when I first whisk the flour with the milk. This automatically means that the eggs (separately stirred, without whipping) come in last. I don't rest my batter, so there is no question of adding it after the rest (and if I did rest, I would add it before the rest). So you see, egg last is not impossible, just like Willeke said, it just has no special advantages, and in some cases it comes with disadvantages.
To the point of gluten. Gluten "relaxes" during a rest, so stirring enough to incorporate the eggs just before making the crepes would likely add to the toughness by "re-activating" the gluten, so to speak.
@Quasi_Stomach oh yes, the resting effect will go into that direction. I am not sure I would be able to spot the difference as an eater - crepe batter doesn't have much gluten development anyway, and the effect of slightly-stiffened gluten will be very modest. If the OP finds that her crepes are too tough due to too much gluten development, she would gain much more by not resting the batter than by paying attention to not stirring in the last moment.
the remark about the food safety status of eggs is likely specific to the US, due to the practice of washing eggs, which removes their protective waxy coating. The fact this is not done elsewhere means eggs can be safely stored at room temperature in most of the world
@Tristan actually, that part doesn't matter. For the question, it is sufficient to compare the safety of a safely stored whole egg compared to safely stored batter made with egg, which is equivalent (=both are safe). The fact that "safely stored egg" entails different temperature in different contexts doesn't change the comparison or its conclusions.
sure, the point that the batter's safety won't be changed is valid, but the paragraph frames it very much in a US context
@Tristan which paragraph, the one in my answer, or in the question? Mine is not intended to imply a context, and if you can suggest how to remove such an implication, I would like to. I fail to see it so far, I just state "an egg which has just been broken" without making any reference to storage before breaking.
@rumtscho I've had the same impression as Tristan. Otherwise you seem to be saying that there's no difference in bacteria content between a sterile egg and one that hasn't been sterile for 24 hours. Now that's clearly not true, even if in practice both are equally safe.
@KonradRudolph then I am even more interested to understand what brought you to that interpretation, and how to reformulate to avoid it?
@rumtscho Hmm honestly I think the whole paragraph is rather confusing. It’s not that anything said in there is wrong (though I’m honestly not sure about its last sentence), just not very helpful: yes, batter made just now is fresher than 24 hour old batter. And yes, 24h old batter where the egg was added just now presumably does statistically have fewer potentially harmful bacterial than batter to which the egg was added 24h ago. But effect size would be tiny: there’s no practical difference for food safety (and no corresponding official recommendation). I’d just leave it at that.
@rumtscho is the word "diffunding" in point 3 meant to be diffusing? They do have the same latin root, but I've never seen diffund before
I have started to make pancakes, and we use a crepe recipe, only to notice I had forgotten to add the egg.
I next added the egg and made the pancakes.
It can be done, eggs last, but I see no advantage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.469171
| 2021-05-17T11:18:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115697",
"authors": [
"JohnEye",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Pierre Cathé",
"Quasi_Stomach",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"Tristan",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113828
|
Reason(s) for poor bread results
This past weekend I was fortunate enough to be gifted a standing mixer.
My first project was James Beard's white bread. The end characteristics that I wish to improve on were:
When attempting to de-loaf the bread to tap the bottom, the top crust was hermetically sealed onto the loaf pan
It smelled yeasty instead of a nice baked smell. It didn't necessarily taste as yeasty as it smelled
It was very, very dense
Some thoughts on why it had these issues:
I was advised to mix for 5-10 minutes. I mixed for a solid 10 minutes
For the 2nd proofing, I was advised to go 40-60 minutes. I barely went 40
During mixing, toward the start, I didn't feel I had the best we/dry mixture. I played around a bit with the water and flour. When I took it out to place it in the bowl for the 1st proofing, the dough was very sticky
Any suggestions to make better bread?
Was the recipe written for using a mixer? I find that if I try to use a "regular" recipe for a stand mixer I usually need to add 1/4 to 1/2c bread flour to account for the bench flour that would've been used.
It called for all purpose flour, and it didn't say to only mix by hand.
When I say '"regular" recipe', I mean one that's intended to be kneaded by hand. Unless it specifically says to put it in a mixer or some other appliance to knead, there's an assumption that it's going to be kneaded by hand. (and so, there would be a floured countertop, and you'd end up incorporating more flour than what's specifically measured out for the dough)
Ah, I gotcha. Good point. I will take a look.
In my experience, bread pans should be well oiled. Bread just won't come out otherwise. Even my brand new teflon pans needed a bit of oil or they would stick.
Bread fresh from the oven can smell quite yeasty. After it has been allowed to cool that should temper quite a bit. The steam and yeastiness doesn't seem to dissipate as well when the loaf is too dense.
Which takes us to 3.
There are many reason you could have bread that is too dense but they generally come down to two things: Not enough gluten or not enough rising. If there isn't enough gluten then there is nothing to hold on to the CO2 the yeast produce. Not having enough water or not kneading/resting long enough can cause this.
Rising can be insufficient if your yeast is inactive or doesn't go long enough. As you had a powerful yeasty scent it seems unlikely that your yeast was dead.
When you are kneading don't worry about the time as much as the consistency. You want the dough to be smooth and elastic. It should pass the "windowpane test". That is, you can stretch it into a nearly transparent sheet.
10 minutes could be long enough but it varies depending on the fineness of the flour and how much water is in the dough.
40 minutes is on the very low end for proofing. If your recipe has a lot of yeast and water and the room is very warm 40 minutes may be enough. You should expect an hour. Again- the time isn't as important. You want your dough to have doubled in volume- however long that takes.
Good luck. Even though it's frustrating to have bread not turn out it isn't that hard to get right after a couple times and you get bread that is better than you can buy.
It appears to me that all you need is to give the dough more proofing time. Also, make sure that your pan is generously dusted with flour before placing the dough in and baking.
For the yeasty smell, the fix is quite simple; use less yeast.
This may seem like an ignorant piece of advice, but I'm serious. I used to follow pizza dough recipes that end up smelling way to yeasty. I didn't want to reduce the yeast amount, as I thought "that's what's written in the recipe, any less and the dough won't be as good", but over time, I've come to realize that a smaller amount of yeast can accomplish the same level of proofing (with more proofing time).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.469755
| 2021-01-19T18:44:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113828",
"authors": [
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"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
}
|
86134
|
Bringing out flavour in food
I've read in lots of places that pea purée or parnsnip help accentuate the scallops sweetness, while adding lime juice balances the sweetness.
My question is, do we always want to enhance the sweetness in a food which is inherently sweet? What about the odder tastes like sourness, saltiness, etc. Do we also want to enhance those or sweetness is the only one we want to enhance? Why not enhance the richness in avocados?
Combining various elements of the same basic taste will add that basic taste coupled to multiple textures (eg if you put sweet cherries on top of a sweet cake) and/or aromas (same example applies. Most of what we colloquially call taste is actually aroma). "Textures" can be about mouthfeel, temperature, fast or slow onset/fadeout of the basic taste, and other things. This all yields what is called "depth of flavour".
One example of both balancing and enhancing sourness is tomato sauce: Sugar is often added even though tomatoes are sweet, and (balsamic) vinegar is added even though tomatoes are sour.
Overdoing these while still keeping them balanced, though, would give you a different result - you would end up with ketchup or sweet&sour sauce (depending on texture), not something meeting the common definition of a tomato sauce.
Saltiness is treacherous since on one hand, salt balances bitter flavours (which many vegetable ingredients inherently have!) strongly - on the other hand, if you are on the brink of oversalting, salt itself becomes a metallic/bitter flavour component. Some herbs (parsley and cilantro) seem to interact with saltiness in an interesting manner, probably because they are reasonably bitter.
Richness has mostly to do with fats. The avocado in question would not infrequently be found in a salad which also has an oil or oil-emulsion based dressing. Balancing it is by acidity and textural factors (eg fresh crunchy greens on top).
Bitterness in itself is tricky. It is sometimes (not always) due to alkaline compounds (which will interact with acids strongly - sometimes by balancing flavour, but sometimes also by chemically altering each other, see baking powder...). And it is disputed whether it is really a single basic taste or a cluster of similar tastes...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.470092
| 2017-12-05T10:35:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86134",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55204
|
How long does yeast live after baking?
I am pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I need to know for sure to settle an argument with someone... Is yeast still active after the bread has been baked and cooled?
Define active... active as in "there might be a few yeast cells alive" or "still happily bubbling away".
Yeast dies at about 130-140F.
Bread is done baking at 200F or so.
Almost all the yeast is dead when the bread is done.
Edit
I wrote "almost" because in the context of cooking nothing is ever 100%. Not all alcohol boils it off a sauce. Not all microbes are killed. Etc.
The longer and hotter you cook the more are killed until there are too few to be an issue. We're content if 99.99% of bacteria or yeast are dead - but there are always a few that survive.
As an example- Russian kvass is made by putting well toasted black bread in water with a little sugar until it is carbonated. There is enough yeast alive in the bread even after baking and well toasting.
we posted at roughly the same time, I think we used the same source. You need to edit your temp.
"Almost all"? Why would there be any exceptions?
There are always exceptions, the way heat circulates, overly wet areas, , stronger yeast etc!. Pretty much 100% guarantee that some trace of yeast will survive. To get a 100% kill you will need a autoclave
Exactly @TFD. It is also easy to observe. Russian Kvas is made by fermenting black bread in sweetened water. It gets nice and yeasty in short order.
@Sobachatina - couldn't that be yeast the same way you get yeast for sourdough starters though, regarding russian kvas?
@rfusca- it's possible of course but it only takes two days and smells and tastes exactly like the bread it is made with.
Ah, gotcha. Well that makes sense then.
Interestingly enough, there are pasteurization charts available for a variety of raw foods and harmful microbes (most prominently botulism). I have yet to find one for yeast, Probably because it doesn't kill people...
What happens to the surviving yeast cells? The question also asks for the survivability of the yeast cells. Is there any data on that?
The thermal death point for yeast cells is 130° F–140° F (55° C–60° C).
Most bread is cooked when the internal temperature reaches 200 F or 100 C.
The yeast is dead.
But if 200F is the oven temperature (seems rather low to me) this isn't the temperature of the centre of the bread (which has a rather good insulating structure cooled by phase change of the water evaporating). Sticking a meat thermometer into a loaf fresh out of the oven would be a good way to test, but I don't have a meat thermometer (and I'm not sticking a thermocouple in food), and I'm not planning to bake bread this weekend.
@ChrisH 200F is the internal temp of the bread when it is cooked. Oven temps are typically between 350 and 500F, depending on bread and recipe.
That makes much more sense - it's a while since I baked bread (other than pizza) in the oven but after converting to °C that sounds about what I remember.
I can confirm 200F because I used to make bread, it didn't turn out as I like it to, and instead started to take it out when the internal temp was 200F. It ended up being much better after it reached 200F inside
The most realistic answer, including many correct comments above, is 99.9999..% dead.
Yeast and bacteria can sporulate, and spores can survive very harsh conditions. A spore is basically a solid: a cell which has been dried out, packed with sugars and wrapped in an extra thick cell wall. They are not metabolically active, so they can stay that way for thousands of years. And they can survive boiling temperatures for a little while too, that's why temperatures above boiling are needed for sterilization.
So if any of the yeast in your dough (or bacteria that are in there too) decided to sporulate before the bake, your could find them alive later. But they would not be active just after the bread is baked, the temperature at which they can grow is, as others have mentioned, quite a bit lower than boiling.
I don't know whether baker's yeast actually sporulates much, but it is said that brewers yeast are very unlikely to make spores. Maybe they've had it too easy at the brewery. But I'm pretty confident that after you've baked your bread, there will be more active yeast and bacteria falling onto the outside than there are live yeast on the inside.
BTW - if you used dried yeast from a package, they are not spores, they are actually made be freeze drying live yeast, which is why its so important to rehydrate them with water, as written on the package.
"if any of the yeast in your dough decided to sporulate" - this almost certainly didn't happen. Yeast sporulates when depleted of nutrients, and the whole dough making process is geared towards giving the yeast enough nutrition. It would have to be a yeast cell in very unusual circumstances. And then, yeast spores can also be destroyed with hot air, just not with temperatures as low as 50 Celsius. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15643934 - I don't have access right now, so can't read up which temperatures functioned.
To make it clear, I like it that you posted this answer, +1 for providing more information. I'm just pointing out that, while the theory is interesting, it is very unlikely to have happened in practice.
There must be some live yeast in it because that's how they make wine in prison. Store bought bread seems to be a lot doughier though, so maybe that's why. I've never been locked up, but my friends and I were bored and made wine with a couple slices of bread, sugar, and crystal lite; it worked very well.
You're assuming that you didn't get any wild yeast in the process, or even yeast in the bakery finding its way onto the bread after it had been baked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.470394
| 2015-02-27T19:03:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55204",
"authors": [
"Ashlee Bailey",
"Callie Daigre",
"Chris H",
"Derpy",
"Felice Wingate",
"Ian Evans",
"Joe",
"Joe Plante",
"Kami Kaczor",
"Lena CORMIER",
"Mark Ransom",
"Mike Gouge",
"Morton Mc Donald",
"Nitsa pitt",
"Noelle Carlyle",
"One Face",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kallis33",
"moscafj",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"tracie smith"
],
"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
}
|
107155
|
My sourdough starter is going wrong in every possible way
I have been feeding my sourdough starter daily for just over two weeks and everything is constantly going wrong. At first water was sitting on the top, then it started smelling of nail varnish, and now it has a green mould at the top. Should I just give up and throw it in the bin?
dark water sitting on top? That's hooch, maybe your starter needs to be fed more or more often.
related https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100337/why-does-my-sourdough-starter-have-in-the-top-the-liquid-separated-from-the-flou?rq=1
Mould is the only thing in my experience that makes a sourdough starter unrecoverable. The spores can persist so, as mentioned in aucperia's answer below, you need to thoroughly clean the container. Also if you keep the starter in the fridge, check for mould there: I had two healthy starters go mouldy before I realised the fridge was well in need of a clean.
If it has mold on it then it needs to be thrown away, you are unlikely to salvage it. Once a sourdough starter goes wrong it's generally not worth your time to try and save it, just start over.
If you reuse the same container, be sure to fully sanitize first. Those spores can linger and reinfect.
That's a good point @dlb, in fact cleaning the container before you use it is very good policy.
As others have said, if it's mouldy throw it out and start again. These hints might help you be more successful next time:
thoroughly clean and sanitise the jar and all the implements (spoons etc) before use by boiling. Wash your hands before you start making the starter and before feeding
feed every day (as you have), and stir well. The starter needs oxygen as well as food and water; a good stir can help with this. Nail varnish remover (acetone) smells can indicate inadequate feeding or inadequate air. You should be removing 20-25% of the starter and replacing it with fresh flour+water each day
protect from flies, dust, etc with a loose-fitting lid (a tight lid is a recipe for explosions)
watch the temperature. When starting off, warm temps are generally best (20-25°C) but if you are having trouble you could try cooler or even warmer (airing cupboard)
a week should be enough to get the starter going. After it is bubbling well, I move mine to the top of the fridge door. This means I can get away with feeding it less often. If you keep it warm after it's got going it will need a lot of feeding - 20% of its weight every day - and you will end up with huge amounts of starter!
if all else fails, try a different flour. Organic rye flour is recommended, but even just trying a different brand could help.
It sounds like:
you are not feeding it often enough OR
you are not discarding enough (you should take a small amount of
starter, mix with >5x as much feed, discard the rest) OR
you are not changing the glass/jar when performing operation b
or any combination of the above.
I keep around 50-100 grammes in my jar. I try to freshen it every week. When i fresh it up I take 2 table spoons of the starter, put 50-100 grammes of 1:1 flour/water, mix well, check that it starts, discard the old glass contents and put the new one back in the fridge. In a new glass
If I bake with it, I do a freshen routine, but add more feed so that it is ~250grammes which I then use as soon as it has risen to what I think is the top - but I take a little bit off and put back in the fridge (in a new glass)
I rotate around 2-3 glasses, of which I have way too many on account of saving every lidded glass of whatever.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.470919
| 2020-03-30T10:58:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107155",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Luciano",
"Mark Wildon",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116509
|
How can one cook corn on an open grill?
I’ll be camping with limited access to water. I have a grill in the outside kitchen, however this grill doesn’t have a cover. Is it possible to grill corn on the cob on a cooking surface without a cover? If so, how?
I knew I had answered this question before: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/1542/67
Is the corn still in the husk ?
Do you have aluminium foil ?
Keep the corn in the husk and roast until cooked; it's better to remove some of the leaves and dip them in water to add some moisture to the corn before putting on the grill.
If you have aluminium foil, you can either keep the corn as is and wrap in foil, or remove the husk and wrap in foil and put on grill until cooked.
If your grill is really hot, you can finish the corn to add some color.
I disagree with the removal of leaves and adding water. There is plenty of water in the leaves of fresh corn and more leaves are better. The outer leaves will dry and burn but protect the inner leaves and kernels from the same. This is my favorite way to cook corn on the cob. It's perfect every time.
I even cook corn like this in the oven. And to me is seems the removal of the silk is easier after it has been cooked.
@JGinSD Yes and no. The silk comes off easily but the main challenge with this approach is that husking hot corn can be a little painful. I use a pair of cheap welding gloves but you can do it with bare hands, if you are quick.
@JimmyJames you just have to be careful
Even husked corn can be nicely roasted on an open grill. Use gentle heat, turning frequently until the kernels are golden. Some kernels will be darker, even charred a bit, but I find that enjoyable.
That’s how I do it. I husk it, but I try to leave the stem part intact, as I can leave that part sticking off the edge as a handle. Every so often, I give it maybe 1/5 of a turn. If you start to hear popping, turn it, and try to give it a little less time before the next turn
@Joe I prefer tongs :-)....but I do enjoy a grilled ear or two!
While keeping it wrapped (foil or husk) is preferable, you certainly can throw pre-prepared corn on the cob straight onto your grill. Just be aware it may cook extremely quickly so needs rotation.
It is also likely to get quite a char but some people like that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.471225
| 2021-07-21T22:41:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116509",
"authors": [
"Dave",
"JG in SD",
"JimmyJames",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78900",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116964
|
How can I unstick frozen fish/food quickly?
I have 3-4 kg size fish in my non-frost-free deep freezer. They always stick very hard to the base of the freezer and it takes me hours to get the fish out. I have to keep the freezer turned off, which affects other fish or food items.
Is there a way that I can get the fish out in a much shorter amount of time, so that I can thaw it outside of the freezer?
Just joined here especially for this question! I admit I haven't tried this yet, and it doesn't really answer the question, but prevention is better than cure, surely.Line the bottom of the freezer with something.A membrane will just freeze and give the same problem, so I thought bubblewrap would be good.Yes, it's insulating (from a cold point of view), but that won't matter where it will be, as eventually everything will reach a good, low temperature.However, given OP's problem, it's then going to be easy to remove any food stuck to the bottom. In future, wrap food separately in plastic bags.
"non frost" - do you mean "non defrosting"? It sounds like you have frost (ice buildup on the freezer wall and food), right?
@JoeM English: "non-frost-free" means "does not have the status of 'frost free"". i.e. it does make frost. Similar to how "non-waterproof" means "not being waterproof"
Answering my own question.
All the answers above are effective somewhat. But I have found full proof solution that will keep the fish/food from getting stuck. Its an easy process.
After placing fish/food in the freezer and couple of hours gone and the food are not stuck yet, try to move around the fish/food in the freezer. Repeat ithe process two/three times. And thats it. The food item won't get stuck anymore however long you keep them.
For the already-stuck fish: no, there is no way. Don't try to chisel them out, I've known somebody who damaged their freezer that way.
For any fish you will be placing there in the future: find a packaging material which will not stick to the freezer. Plastic bags are the most common way of doing it.
You also have to ensure that your freezer's bottom is dry. It is OK if it gathers a bit of loose frost over time, but there shouldn't be a big lake of frozen liquid on the bottom. If that has happened already (for example because you held in items which leaked, or because you defrosted it and didn't dry it before it froze again), you have to defrost the fridge until the complete lake is melted, then remove all the liquid, then let it freeze empty, without any food in it. Then package the food in liquid-proof packaging, and re-arrange it in the freezer.
You can sometimes break stuff free from ice, but you have to be careful not to damage the fridge, so you shouldn't use sharp tools.
What you want for something like this is a block of wood (like a short section of 2x4). Place the block of wood against the food to be removed, and then hit it with a hammer.
This won't always work. Some food will break before the ice, so you end up with broken shards of food. You can sometimes make use of this by using a more narrow board (like a 1x4), so you're trying to destroy the bottom layer of the frozen food, leaving the upper level intact ... but I wouldn't suggest using anything thinner (0.75", approx 1.9cm), as it will be more difficult to hit the board with the hammer ... and a miss could strike the freezer instead, and do a lot of damage.
You can also try to crack the ice to the left and right of whatever you're trying to remove, so you can try to remove everything as a huge chunk. We used to have to do this with an old freezer every six months or so as I was growing up.
I would also recommend looking for short wire shelves, so your food isn't sitting directly against the bottom of the fridge. This gives you some time before the frost has built up to where it's surrounding your food. And if you're in a humid area, try to keep the freezer full, so you don't exchange the space in the fridge with humid air each time you use it. Empty bottles will work, but bottles of water can also help in case of a power outage.
If you have a single layer of something that's frozen to the bottom of the freezer, you can put hot water in a container (e.g. a Zip-Lock bag) and place that on top of the item you want to unstick. This will apply a significant amount of heat that's reasonably localized to that one item/area, and isn't something which you have to be personally present throughout the time it's being applied. Depending on how much food needs to thaw in order to unstick the item, you may need to either replace or reheat the water (e.g. in a microwave), potentially multiple times.
This process will result in the item you're trying to remove being at least partially, if not completely, thawed, which should be accounted for in whatever plans you have for the item (e.g. the food, or at least portions of it, will likely be in the temperature danger zone by the time you're done).
Adding something hot to your freezer will increase the overall temperature in the freezer, at least to some extent. While the contained water should apply the heat-energy primarily to the item on which it is placed, there will be some which dissipates into the freezer in general. Care should be taken not to add too much such that the overall temperature in the freezer rises too high. Various insulating materials (e.g. a small insulated cooler placed upside-down over the items) can be used to limit this. You could even cut out the bottom of a cheap Styrofoam insulated cooler, which you then set around the item you're working on, so its used both for insulation and to help hold the container of water in place on the item you're working on getting unstuck.
As others have mentioned, it's substantially helpful to have the bottom of your freezer be dry, so be sure to clean up anything that's left melted at the bottom of your freezer at the end of this process. It may be beneficial to place towels around the item to soak up anything that becomes liquid while you're working on this.
I've even used this process to spot-defrost a freezer or just clean up water that's frozen in specific areas of a freezer without the need to completely defrost the entire freezer.
Besides the answers already given which address the long term solution, try using a hair dryer. Since it can be directed, you can target the items that you want.
I'm not sure you can target it precisely enough to avoid thawing nearby food more than the OP's current practice already does.
I am sorry, but I had to -1 for purely practical reasons. I have tried using that on much smaller items than a 3-4 kg fish, and it simply doesn't work. The improvement in thawing time is minimal, and it makes no sense to lose hours of one's time and use up many kilowatts of energy when one can wait for it to thaw on its own.
Might work if you have one with a narrow nozzle, and if you can shield the other items somehow with cardboard or something. Still, it's a lot more faff than placing the fish in a bag or box first. I can't imagine why he put unwrapped food in the freezer; I'd never do it.
If you can get a decent insulator (e.g. cooler), and the other items are significant thermal mass, you should be able to leave them outside the freezer for a few hours without too much trouble. If you want to give yourself a bit more time, you can set the freezer extra cold first, then take the items out. Adding water bottles and/or freezer pads first can also help, especially if the items are irregularly shaped. If you have a fridge, you can also stick them in there, as long as you don't have many items there already, and the ones you do have can stand being frozen; if you fill (emphasis on "fill") a fridge with frozen items, and don't open the fridge, the stuff should stay frozen for hours if not days, even without power.
Once you've gotten everything else out, if you don't care about your water bill, you can speed up the defrosting by pouring hot water and periodically pouring it out (or siphoning it out or otherwise removing it) and replacing it with new hot water. If getting water out is too difficult, you can put most of the water in bags and replace the water in the bags with hot water, and have just enough free flowing water to conduct the heat.
Another answer suggested a hair drier, but air has very little thermal mass, and so does little to defrost items. Simply getting a fan to circulate air will give most of the benefit of a hair drier (cold air sinks, so without circulation, even an open chest freezer will keep items frozen for a while).
For the future, you should wrap your fish in wax paper, and then place it in a plastic bag. You may also want to reconsider freezing 4kg blocks of fish. Smaller pieces will use up more paper and bags, but will be much less unwieldy and easier to defrost.
Take everything out of the freezer and store it temporarily in boxes. You want to group small items together in bags, and then wrap everything (like every box or big bag) in towels or other clothing to keep it from defrosting. You will finally reach your fish at the bottom. Then use any combination of methods others have suggested, including chiseling out some of your catch if that is possible without destroying the freezer.
You may have to turn off the freezer and remove all the ice (and the fish). It should only take an hour or two with the freezer turned off to completely remove all the ice if you leave the lid open and add head with a hair dryer. Clean and dry the freezer and turn it back on.
The food you stored in boxes should be fine, but as for the fish, cook yourself a big fish dinner and invite all your friends!
I think the easiest way is to pour hot water on it.
Hi Blaine! Welcome to Seasoned Advice! We highly encourage answerers to provide background on the rationale behind the method proposed. You can see what SE considers good answers here
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.471462
| 2021-08-26T04:58:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116964",
"authors": [
"Bloke Down The Pub",
"Joe M",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"PcMan",
"Tim",
"chepner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95302",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123944
|
Why does the second bowl of popcorn pop better in the microwave? And how can I capitalize on that?
Picture this.
I make 1/4 cup of popcorn kernels in the microwave. No paper bag - just a glass bowl with a glass lid, where the lid has holes in it to allow steam to escape. After about 5 minutes, about 3/4 of the kernels have popped. If I go longer, the popped kernels start to burn, and even some of the unpopped kernels burn too. So I stop at 5 minutes, with the bowl about 80% full of popped popcorn.
I then empty the glass bowl of all the popcorn into another bowl, for eating. But before eating, I make another 1/4 cup of popcorn kernels in the microwave again. This time, at about 4 1/2 minutes, there are so many popped kernels that it lifts the glass lid off the top of the bowl, perfectly cooked. I empty it into my eating bowl...
I didn't use oil or anything, but I got perfect air-popped popcorn from just a microwave. Only thing is, it took two tries. Also, this happens every time. Part of the reason I make a second bowl at all is because the popcorns are just so much better than the first bowl's.
How can I get the first batch to cook just as well as the second one? I have tried "pre-heating" just the bowl in the microwave for about 30 seconds. It does help. But apparently this is actually very bad and dangerous for the components of the microwave.
I don't know what's happening. But if I had to guess, there are tiny water molecules in the microwave that are messing things up. Or, something about the bowl being warm helps the kernels pop.
Do you have a suggestion on how to make a perfect bowl of air-popped popcorn in one go?
Is this a common way of making popcorn?
Perhaps an increase in water contents in the air inside the microwave? Dry corn is, well, fairly dry, but not entirely (or it wouldn't pop). Add a drop of water to the first bowl and see whether the moist air aids the popping (for example because the air itself heats up as well).
Does the second batch include the un-popped kernels from the first batch, or are they completely new kernels?
I think so Azor. They are new kernels Tripehound. @Peter, that's funny, I was thinking the humidity had decreased in the microwave after the first batch, but i forgot that the popping of the popcorn itself adds to the overrall humidity
@AzorAhai-him- - I have a ceramic "microwave popping" bowl that was designed and sold specifically for this purpose, so yes its A Thing. Its far far cheaper than making bagged microwave popcorn, and you can control the amount made to however much you want (to a max of 1/3 cup increments per batch at least)
When I do this (frequently) the bowl gets very hot by the end of the (first) batch. (I once shattered a Pyrex bowl used for this with a few drops of water, it was so hot.) I would be shocked if the second batch did not come out much better, starting in a hot bowl. These days, I use a (Nordic Ware) plastic/silicon bowl designed for microwaving popcorn. I believe everyone has discounted the likelihood that each kernel pops because it's releasing a bit of steam. and all that (aggregate) steam is probably what heats the bowl.
@T.E.D. But glass?
In case it wasn't obvious: We are all excited to hear back from the experiments! I know you are busy in the kitchen right now but the best lab is a waste without good reports ;-).
An easier way to test if it's the hot bowl might be "pre-heating" it in hot water from the sink and then drying throughly before microwaving the first batch of popcorn.
Can you share why heating the bowl would be bad for the microwave oven components? It's not like you're running it empty - you have the bowl in there.
Just revisiting: Did you find out anything?!
I think i'm back to pre-heating the bowl LOL
I am the original question-asker reporting back...
I was able to make perfect popcorn by adding about 1 teaspoon of water to the bottom of the bowl. But please don't try this unless you have a glass lid with holes in it (see below).
There were concerns about the bowl, the microwave, and the lid. Ultimately, I believe it was the humidity under the lid from the previous batch that was creating the perfect environment for the kernels in the second try. I never mentioned that the lid with holes in it frequently had some condensation on it before I put it back on for a second batch, because I didn't think it would be relevant.
To test the humidity theory, I added about 2 teaspoons of water to the bottom of the bowl, then mixed up the popcorn kernels in it. After about 9-10 minutes (about twice as long as before), I had a bowl of perfectly cooked popcorn. It was incredible that just about every single kernel had the exact same color (brownish-orange) inside the center of the popcorn, especially after that length of time. The bowl was 101% filled with popped kernels, although I stopped it before it could lift the lid off. It's possible that by using less water, you could achieve the same result in less time.
Chemically, this was a bit like buttering popcorn to help it cook more evenly, except with water and a microwave instead of oil and a stove. It's a very unusual way to think of using water because in any other context, water has a very high specific heat - it is objectively a bad heat conductor. Never would you think of stationary water as a "heat conductor", except inside a microwave, as microwaves work mainly by heating the water molecules in food.
The reason why I think the lid must have holes in it for this to be effective is because you have to give a way for steam to escape. The kernels won't pop (and release steam) if there is already a saturation of steam inside the bowl. Also, without holes in the lid, the steam inside the bowl will become so incredibly hot, that you'll likely just wind up superheating the water or glass or something, potentially melting and breaking the glass especially if it's the more common soda-lime glass. The final popcorn will probably be wet, too, and it will take a lot longer to pop all the kernels. This popcorn was surprisingly dry!
I could not determine anything from microwaving the bowl with water in it. The bowl says Pyrex on it. The lid is borosilicate glass. The bowl has some paintings on it. It's still possible that this was a factor.
So in conclusion, I added a really small spoonful of water to my popcorn kernels, mixed it up, cooked it twice as long in glass with holes in it, and got perfectly popped popcorn, dry and evenly cooked.
actually, if you don't have holes in the lid, the pressure inside the bowl will make some holes appear between the lid and the bowl. This is probably not desirable, but you can also just put the lid on a bit "off" and let steam escape that way.
Believe it or not, the reason why I got the lid with holes, is because I once used such a heavy lid with a lip on it that the steam couldn't do that effectively enough. I watched the center of the lid started glow red and eventually cracked one time making popcorn this way. The lid was pretty heavy and old
You might need to experiment a bit, but my guess is your bowl [or lid] isn't perfectly transparent to microwaves & is itself heating. In effect that's 'wasting' the microwaves. Second time the bowl is hotter, giving the popcorn a better chance.
You could test with just half an inch of water in the bottom of the bowl. If the rim gets hotter than the water, or even hot at all, reject the bowl for microwave use.
Personally, I won't use any bowl proven to absorb microwaves itself. It makes the process unpredictable… apart from the risk of trying to pick a bowl out that you expect to be cold at the top, to find it's skin-flayingly hot.
Try something plastic & heat-resistant instead, or just a paper bag, like supermarket microwave popcorn.
Comments below seem to be intent on inventing more & more weird & wacky ways to try avoid this simple two-minute elimination test, or alternatively propose ridiculous science-free theories.
I'm determined not to respond to any more of these ;)
This might be it - but I have to experiment with it next weekend
It only takes about 2 minutes...
A better test is an empty bowl next to a container with a little water - the bowl shouldn't get warm at all. And if it's glass, it won't - some ceramics absorb a bit but glass really doesn't
@ChrisH - I'm assuming they wouldn't fit side by side
Note OP wrote: "tried "pre-heating" just the bowl in the microwave for about 30 seconds. It does help." - so maybe the bowl is transparent enough, and only by being filled with hot popping corn for a few minutes is heated up enough to make a difference.
OP doesn't state whether or not this did actually warm the bowl. If it did, then that's exactly what we're trying to establish. Sack the bowl & use something else.
@Tetsujin I sometimes forget I have a big microwave - but a small cup should fit in most combinations of bowl and microwave
Smallest bowl, just. Too small for popcorn really You're introducing a new variable with the cup though - does the cup heat, or just the water? Better to just keep it simple.
@Tetsujin but you want to test the bowl with the lid, and if you use half an inch of water in the bottom for 2 minutes you'll get quite a bit of steam heating of the lid. The water itself is an additional variable.
@ChrisH you're making a meal of this. If the lid is part of a set with the bowl, then you only need to test one half, or test one after the other.
@Tetsujin "you're making a meal of this." - probably true. "If the lid is part of a set with the bowl, then you only need to test one half, or test one after the other" - maybe not; after all there are glass food containers with plastic lids, and ceramic containers with glass lids
OP said it was a glass bowl and I wouldn't expect glass to react much to microwaves at all. However I would expect the hot popping kernels from the first batch to heat it up.
I feel like keeping the bowl and figuring out how to preheat it without wasting some popcorn might make more sense. The second pop in the bowl is ideal, maybe the properties of the bowl are important for getting that great second batch.
popcorn does just fine in a paper bag, same every time - this residual heat idea is a complete red herring. Everybody is wasting far too much energy on this - just like a bowl that heats in a microwave.
If the hypothesis is that the bowl is absorbing more energy on the first attempt than the second, that would imply that the warmed bowl is more transparent to microwaves.
@Tetsujin I wonder if the humidity in the bag plays a role, and if perhaps the microwave has higher humidity after popping one batch?
Experiments where you have to eat a bunch of popcorn. Where do I sign up?
I would argue that the bowl stealing heat from the popcorn is a more likely cause than the bowl stealing microwaves. If it were the latter, the bowl would be blocking microwaves during the second batch just as much as the first, and there would be a minor if any difference between the two.
I am as surprised as you are, and as curious, frankly. By proceeding systematically we should be able to find an answer.
Something that is involved in the process has been changed by preparing the first batch. This is one of the following things:
The microwave (electronics, temperature);
the air in the microwave (moisture, temperature);
or the bowl (temperature).
The easiest to exclude is the bowl: I assume that the bowl is at least a bit warmer to the touch when you take it out. Just use a second, identical bowl for the second batch. If the difference persists, it was not the bowl.
The oven vs. the air are harder to discern. You could try to vent the oven thoroughly but quickly, e.g. by pointing a blow drier on high fan but "non-heat" at the opening for a few seconds. If that has an effect, it is the air.
If not, it must be the oven. The electronics surely warm up and may run better (hit the frequency better, for example). Yes, I just learned from your post that you shouldn't run the microwave empty. Therefore, simply run it with a dummy. Ideally that dummy would not change the moisture contents of the air in the microwave. For example, you could could use the usual batch of popcorn, but inside a large, sealed Ziploc or other plastic bag which is deflated as much as possible when you put it in to allow for air expansion. If you then vent the microwave as described above, and the difference persists, it is likely that the "warming up" of the microwave itself is the reason. In that case you can always simply microwave a glass of water first as the "throwaway batch".
I would guess the warmer bowl is the key - it warms by conducting heat from the kernels of the first batch, which we don't want as rapid heating is why they pop. By the 2nd batch it's taking less heat. To test, prewarm it with hot water, than dry it before the first batch.
The actual corn... 4a. The corn for the first bowl was probably sitting on top in storage. 4b. The corn for the second bowl may be sitting out, exposed, for a few minutes while the first bowl microwaves. These seem like small variables, but we're also talking about a small amount of stuff. I propose a test as such: take out enough popcorn for two bowls, mix it all together, and leave it sitting spread out on something like a cookie sheet for an hour or two so that 5 minutes extra sitting out shouldn't make a difference.
The air in the kitchen maybe, if you tend to use your waiting-for-popcorn-to-pop time to hand wash a bunch of dishes or something.
@user3067860 I'd go along with 4, but the other way round: The top inches of an open package of corn may be different from the lower layers which are shielded by them: Moister or drier, perhaps more oxidized. The same way the top few cookies in an open roll of cookies can be stale while the ones further down are still crisp and delicious, because they were protected. But I would think that with corn, the effect must be small because the upper layers are too permeable.
Please don't microwave Ziploc bags. They melt.
@MJ713 Wait -- you have never heard of Ziploc® brand Zip’n Steam® Microwave Cooking Bags!? ;-) More seriously: If you avoid contact with overly hot items (and the glass bowl should prevent that in our use case) they are just fine. If in doubt, throw out the test kernels.
Modern consumer magnetrons should drop in power output as they get hotter. As the large permanent magnet gets warm and approaches its Curie temperature, it experiences reversible demagnetization and its field strength drops.
@MJ713 I've been microwaving leftovers in Ziploc bags for most of my life and the only time one ever melted was when I accidentally put in a much longer time than I intended, making the food get hot enough to melt the bag. If your bags are melting on you, I suspect either you are using overly cheap bags or bags that are exclusively intended for freezer use rather than general purpose use (or, like me, you are overheating your food).
That's an interesting effect.
I have a similar bowl I use, but its a special-made "microwave popcorn" bowl, almost identical to this one (if not this exact brand). Its ceramic, with a plastic lid that is designed to (mostly) stay on but not air-seal. Costs in the neighborhood of $15(US). I've been using these to make microwave popcorn for around 30 years. I haven't noticed your exact effect, so either my special-made bowl avoids it, or its so rare I make that much that I never noticed before.
So my first suggestion would be to try it with a bowl that's designed for this purpose. I'm not a chemist, but ceramic is way different than glass, and that's likely to make a difference. The glass bowl should be dissipating much more heat into the air inside the microwave, so a lot of the heating done for your first batch may be wasted heating the air outside the bowl.
I have learned a few other things over the years that you might find helpful. #1 Is particularly applicable to minimizing unpopped kernels without burning, which is what I think you are asking for.
Don't do it on high power, and don't overfill the bowl with kernels. There's always a bit of a narrow edge in making popcorn between getting as much of it to pop as you can and burning the popcorn. The higher the power you use, the tighter that edge is. I've found I like to use 7 on my microwave's 1-10 scale. There's a pattern of popping where it starts slow, gets intense for a while, then slows again. You want to stop it after the intense bit when you start to hear about 1 second between pops. If you start to smell a burned smell, hit that stop or open button like its the buzzer on Jeapordy. Otherwise you'll find you're now doing #3 below instead.
My kids don't have the patience for this (and don't like dancing on the edge) so what they do is put in like half a cup of kernels (1/3 is I beleive the reccomended capacity), run it on high power, and stop it while its still popping. That wastes a ton of popcorn kernels. The remainder can be repopped, but it isn't as good. This offends the engineer in me, but it is one solution I feel compelled to bring up. If I'm understanding you correctly though, this is the exact thing you are (sensibly) trying to avoid doing.
Let it burn! As long as I'm listing inferior options, I'll list the opposite of the kids' approach: you can just let it burn, then use a big metal spoon to dig the smoking ball of carbon (a diamond in the making) out of the middle of the bowl safely and deposit it in the sink (or better yet on the concrete outside). It stinks up the house, and of course you have to work around any burnt pieces you don't dig out, but the remaining popcorn is just fine, and you'll find there are few if any unpopped kernels. (This isn't something one typically does on purpose, but if you get distracted and don't stop it soon enough, this is what you'll find yourself doing)
Stuff that doesn't impact how many of the kernels get popped before burning, but is important for other reasons:
Put your toppings in the bowl ahead of time. If you don't, the popcorn comes out as dry as the Sahara. For butter, I like to pre-melt some (about 1tbs) in the bowl and dissolve some extra salt in before putting the popcorn in. (Don't use margarine with calcium added for this! The calcium likes to separate out and create hard deposits on the bottom of the bowl, and that makes the popcorn taste weird too.) Trying to pour hot butter over popped corn after its popped will shrivel up the kernels it gets poured directly on, and its very tough to distribute evenly. You can (and probably will) still salt to taste after popping though.
If you want to go low fat, you can dissolve your salt in the bottom of the bowl in a puddle of water before popping. Trying to put salt on dry unbuttered microwave popcorn after popping is an exercise in frustration. The salt just rolls right off of it.
Experiment
Since I have the equipment, I went and tried this out experimentally last night. I ran two batches right after each other using my usual method, which is:
1tbs of melted (via 15s in the microwave in the bowl) butter, mixed with salt.
1/3 cup of unpopped kernels
Run in microwave at power level 7 (out of 10). Timer is set at 3:50, but that's a failsafe.
Stop the microwave when popping slows down to about 1 pop a second.
Results
The bowl was indeed much warmer for the second batch. In fact, the butter was bubbling when I put it in the bowl, so I probably didn't even need to run that 15s melting cycle (but did so anyway).
The first batch completed in 3:40 (280 seconds). The second batch completed in 3:05 (245 seconds). That's about 12% quicker. Both batches finished with about 70 unpopped kernels.
There was no noticeable difference in taste between the popped kernels of the two batches.
Conclusions
If I had instead held the time constant, I think its fair to say that all or nearly all of the kernels in the second batch would have popped. I would imagine it would have also burnt some of the popped corn, but this may be worth testing.
Since both the air inside the microwave and the bowl were considerably warmer when the second batch was started, this doesn't really show which is responsible for the time difference. Buying a second bowl would allow us to isolate out that variable (or a second microwave, but the former option is considerably cheaper, and I do kind of need a new bowl).
Warming the bowl up (eg: in the oven) before use would be another way to test this. It may also end up being a good way to achieve the quicker pop time, but if my current theory that this only achieves a 12% reduction in pop time and no other effect is correct, it doesn't seem likely it would be worth the trouble of doing routinely.
More study seems called for. I'll be applying for grants for this important work shortly.
Interesting experiment.... I have to ask if the lid was still wet when you put it back on for the second batch? I also think that running the microwave at 7/10 would extremely helpful in spreading out the heat more evenly. I have been running mine on "HIGH" only which may be why I got different results. Both the water i added and 7/10 in yours would distribute heat more evenly
@nickcarraway - "Wet"? No. but when you pop with butter, it lightly coats all interior surfaces of the popper, so yeah it probably had some of that.
@nickcarraway - Can't stress strongly enough how important I've found it is to knock the power down to prevent burning. That's why I put that bit first.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.472296
| 2023-04-16T16:20:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123944",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"Azor Ahai -him-",
"Barmar",
"Chris H",
"Esther",
"Jeffiekins",
"JimmyJames",
"MJ713",
"Martin",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"PoloHoleSet",
"T.E.D.",
"Tetsujin",
"Todd Wilcox",
"TripeHound",
"Vilx-",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99712",
"montjoy",
"nick carraway",
"user3067860",
"user71659"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119936
|
Are red beans supposed to look pruney when soaking?
I'm a teen trying to cook for himself and I wanted to make some red beans and rice.
After I boiled the water, I started soaking the red beans and in just 5-8 minutes, the beans pruned up like your fingers in bath.
I got so scared (I still am), because I think I did something wrong because my grandmothers red beans never looked like that. (At least when I ate them.)
My mother got the beans from a free food place and they've been in the cabinet for a few months now.
The beans:
2 lbs (900 g) of Morrison Farms light red kidney beans in 8 cups of boiled water.
The boiled water has 1/4 cup of kosher salt dissolved.
Did you soak the beans before cooking them? If not, I suspect the outside is just cooking faster than the water is making it to the middle to soften the whole bean. You might want to cut the heat, let them rest in the hot water for an hour, then finish cooking then
I've had beans do that. It's not an issue, just give them an hour or so.
@FuzzyChef omg thank you guys. They just finished soaking, and now the real cooking starts ... any advice on how to season them?
Posted that as an answer so that we can mark this one completed.
As for seasoning the beans, it's really up to how you want them to taste, no? Maybe use a recipe?
Here's a list of recipes for you: https://insanelygoodrecipes.com/kidney-bean-recipes/
Are you sure about the 1/4 cup of salt (meaning 60 gramms or so) for 2 lb of beans? It seems like maybe a factor 10 too much to me.
@quarague: Some bean-cooking techniques involve soaking the beans in (effectively) a brine and then draining them and cooking them in fresh water. So it's possible that the OP is trying to do that.
Seems like that would make for some very tough beans, but, then, I don't know what recipe they're using.
It's normal for beans to sometimes do that during the first stages of soaking, particularly if you soak them in boiling water. They should plump up and become normal after 40min to an hour.
Perhaps mention the toxicity of red kidney beans and the proper handling of it in your answer? It is not clear in the question whether this is being followed or not. It may not be common knowledge. Some procedures recommend pre-soaking and throwing away the water in which the beans were boiled.
@PeterMortensen Since the beans mentioned in the question are, as far as I can tell, canned, rather than raw, this should not be an issue here, right? (I doubt raw beans would still be good after a couple of months in a cabinet anyways.)
@AlexanderWolters The soaking suggest to me they're dried beans, which (as long as they stay cool and dry) can last a year easily, or many years if packaged and stored carefully
@PeterMortensen that is not a question that the OP asked, so I see no reason to include that in my answer. That information is readily available online.
Quote from Bon Appetit:
After soaking, the beans should be BIG—they'll have absorbed much of the water. If they don't change in size, or are visibly wrinkly or shriveled, your beans are probably too old. If it seems like just a few of the beans are wrinkled, pick them out and proceed.
If it’s the whole pot, start over with fresh beans or buckle in for a looooong, slow cook—and add a pinch of baking soda: The baking soda increases the pH of the liquid (the opposite effect of adding acid to the mix!), naturally making the beans more tender.
Backing up the quote, old beans do take longer to cook, and when they are too old, they may stay tough and chewy even after they simmer for hours.
So the conclusion is, if our beans remain wrinkly after soaking overnight, it just might be a case of them being too old. Given that at the time you've only soaked them for less than 10 minutes, I'd say they were probably okay and simply needed to soak longer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.474567
| 2022-02-21T21:55:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119936",
"authors": [
"Alexander Wolters",
"BThompson",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Michael Seifert",
"Peter Mortensen",
"crash15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98111",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22065
|
How do I ensure that pita forms a nice big, even pocket when baking?
I have the opposite problem as Amir's question about thick, fluffy pitas. Whenever I make pita, it's nice and thick and fluffy, but the pocket is small or nonexistent. I would like to use my pita for sandwiches, so the pocket part is important.
Normally when I make pita, I get a pocket forming on one side of the bread, but the other side stays flat. I end up with a lopsided pita that has a pocket too small to stuff anything into. Every once in a while, I get one with a perfect pocket that evenly puffs up the whole pita, but I don't know why it happens sometimes and not others. Could this be caused by uneven heat in my oven? Or is there something about the technique of rolling out the dough that I'm not doing consistently?
The magic word is "water" - the dough needs sufficient moisture to stay moist while it expands to one big pocket and enough to generate the steam to make that pocket.
Most people when doing doughs make them too dry because they're easier to work with. As the dough rests, it will pull together more. Ideally make your doughs for this kind of bread slightly wetter than you think and then check it after its been mixed for 30 minutes or so. Additionally, as you knead and then in the fermentation stage it will firm up some. Difference in water content of the dough causes many of the consistencies for bakers. It will also depend on how much it dries after its been rolled so thin - keep it covered.
Alternatively, if you've put your first one in and found out its too dry, then try spritzing the top with a little water and let it rest there for 5 minutes or so.
I tested batches with spritzing and without, and so long as there's enough water in your dough and the oven is hot enough to make the steam - it doesn't seem to matter. Every one came out perfect.
More water seems to work for me!
You need a temperature of at least 250°C (480°F) to get a real good steam puff inside the bread the moment it goes in oven. It is the initial rush of heat that cooks just the outside layer, and also makes steam inside which forces open the bread and makes a pocket. Once the bread is partially cooked through, you wont get a single clean pocket
Traditional middle-eastern ovens are just like fire based brick pizza ovens that are popular in backyards today
Your domestic oven may not get that hot, or be able to hold that heat when you open the door. Using large slabs of steel (up to 10Kg) or stone may help hold the heat better, and get that initial puff going
Some people use electric frying pans on maximum with the lid, to cook them one at a time
Indian naan bread has the same issue
In some areas you will find weird pans like this. They have a lid to make a single pita oven
To add one more tip to the excellent advice of both rfusca and Laura:
How you roll it out does matter. After resting the dough, you should pull off balls an roll them out smoothly, from the center, in a few quick rolls. Three issues will rolling out will prevent pitas from pocketing well:
If you allow the dough to fold over at all while rolling out
If you press several pieces of dough together or "patch"
If you spend too long rolling out the dough round
Any of the above will cause the dough to compress in spots, and the top of the dough will not separate from the bottom. You'll either get a malformed pocket or none at all.
If you allow sufficient rest time with a well hydrated dough, I doubt any of that will be an issue...time to test.
Ya, its not an issue. I cut up a pita dough into small pieces, reformed it, rest for 10 minutes, roll out aggressively, rest for 20 minutes, and then in the oven. https://i.sstatic.net/0BNno.jpg https://i.sstatic.net/LwIwe.jpg https://i.sstatic.net/KP4Ky.jpg
rfusca: thank you for doing this test! clearly I'm not using enough water in my pita dough.
The reason behind getting some pitas puffy and others not as you said is 1) enough water and 2) heat.
You need an oven that produces higher temperature than regular ovens such as the portable ones they use in the Arab world. Or (TOG) ovens with 30 liters capacity and power not less than 1500 watts and bypass the thermostat (as I did in my house). With these you will get high enough temperature and all your pitas will come out just fantastic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.474996
| 2012-03-06T21:58:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22065",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"LA Hattersley",
"Laura",
"Ruthi Mcpherson",
"Sajan George",
"aswine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91867",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16897
|
What is the "standard" salsa tomato?
I make a lot of fresh salsa (pico de gallo style) in the summer, but I don't usually think much about the type of tomatoes I'm usuing. Usually I just buy whatever looks best (fresh & ripe) at the farmer's market, so I've used everything from beefsteak and heirloom to cherry and grape. I've been quite happy with the results, but I'm still wondering: is there a "standard" tomato variety for salsa?
I've read this question and this question about homemade salsa, but neither of them really mention tomato varieties; the focus seems to be on other ingredients or preparation techniques.
A standard tomato implies that there is a standard salsa, which there isn't - but let's stick with your specific case of pico de gallo AKA salsa cruda.
The distinguishing characteristic of salsa cruda is that it uses raw tomatoes - the cruda literally means raw. Since you aren't going to be cooking them, and since water is going to be your primary binding agent, you'll want to use plump, juicy tomatoes that have potent flavour when raw, and that just so happens to be those bog-standard globe tomatoes you see in the supermarket aisles. Of course, if you can get garden-fresh tomatoes, so much the better.
Cherry tomatoes are also a great choice - they're very juicy and a little sweeter than globes - the only downside is that for a chopped salsa (as in pico de gallo), they tend to make preparation much more difficult and messy. If you've got the time and patience, give it a try; cherry tomato salsas taste much "fresher" than those made from globes.
The other common types of tomatoes, most notably roma and pear tomatoes, are really meant more for cooking. That's not to say you can't eat them raw, but they don't have a lot of juice or raw flavour, so they don't make a good base for cruda. Roasted roma or heirloom tomatoes (especially fire-roasted) make a great addition to salsa, but of course, it's not really "cruda" anymore if you cook any of the ingredients.
Do yourself a favour and don't use the plum tomatoes in a can; they're plenty juicy but have almost no seeds and no flavour.
So, all in all, for pico de gallo I believe that regular globe tomatoes are the most appropriate, but any tomatoes with strong flavour and plenty of juice will do.
I would add that for cooked sauce the traditional tomato is the San Marzano
@nico: If you can get them fresh, yes. For salsa, which is all about the tomatoes, I'd rather use the cheapest kind of fresh than anything in a can. I say this because, at least where I live, it's not that common to find fresh San Marzanos, you usually tend to see them canned.
oh yeah, sure it was just out of curiosity ;) On the other hand, a fantastic variety to eat raw (but I think that it is pretty much impossible to find outside of Italy) is the pomodorino del Vesuvio
I disagree with this a bit. I prefer my salsa to be not too wet. When I pick it up on a chip, I don't want a lot of juice running everywhere, I want a lot of flavor packed into a reasonably non-runny bite. So I often use Roma's or something similar.
@Michael: Sure, different strokes for different folks, but you can remove liquid without affecting the flavour, whereas adding water will dilute it. I enjoy the concoctions you're referring to as well, but technically they're closer to the definition of a salad than a salsa (sauce).
IIRC, most of a tomato's glutamates are in its liquid; remove the liquid and you lose some umami.
@Aaronut - fair enough; I was thinking specifically of pico de gallo, which I don't want to be watery.
If we go by the seed companies, the fresh salsa tomato is a variety of plum tomato.
And I agree with Michael -- I prefer plum tomatoes varieties for pico de gallo, in part because they have a lot more 'meat' to them than seeds & gel, and seem to hold up a bit better after they've been salted.
The tomato variety used (for centuries) in most parts of Mexico for making salsa is the one called "Jitomate" the Jitomate is a (red) tomato that has an oval form and a belly button, normally smaller than round tomato. Its flavor is more intense than the round tomato, it is ideal for pico de gallo, boiled and grilled sauces. In the us you can find it in most grocery stores.
Sounds like that's the roma tomato in English?
@Jefromi : roma is an italian variety of plum tomato. It's entirely possible that Jitomate are old as 'roma' tomatoes in the US, but they're likely different varieties.
@Joe Right, but he said "in the US you can find it in most grocery stores" and the only oval-shaped tomato I've seen in most grocery stores is the roma.
@Jefromi : ah, okay. I admit I don't really pay attention to the names of tomatoes at grocery stores (in part because I get enough from my mom's garden, or my garden the years I plant, or farmer's market)
Yes it is similar to Roma tomato, actually it is really hard to know what will be the exact equivalent. Tomatoes for cooking use were originated in ancient Mexico and brought to the rest of the world by spanish, but now they are produced world wide, the Roma ones (at least the name) may be related to italian tomatoes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.475391
| 2011-08-15T14:13:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16897",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carter",
"Cascabel",
"ESultanik",
"Gavin Schulz",
"JMee",
"Joe",
"Michael Natkin",
"Stewart",
"Todd Stewart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"nico",
"raspacorp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115974
|
Why did this gallon of milk stay fresh for so long?
A few months ago I had a gallon of milk in the back of the fridge that stayed fresh for over a month - maybe even two; I lost track.
Our house is only me and my wife. We don't drink milk often. I use it more for recipes, and maybe an occasional iced coffee. Since I couldn't repeat this feat I have gone to half-gallons.
What I noticed about this gallon in particular is that its plastic container was more opaque than what we normally had been getting. Previously I was getting the supermarket brand with the semi-opaque plastic container. I had gotten this one, white, 100% opaque at another store.
I also thought maybe it had something to do with it being in the back of the fridge. Also, being packed in by other fridge mates. But this is something I have always tried to do.
Are there steps to try to get milk to last this long? Especially since I don't use it that often.
Further Clarification:
There seems to be some question about how spoilage was determined.
I have always and forever smelled my liquid dairy before using. I stand by my nose to let me know when such a product has gone too far. In some cases I have chosen to go a day or two beyond the onset of spoilage. This onset can be detected by a sweet-sour smell.
In the instance of this gallon I have posed above, there was no such indication in smelling the milk for at least a month beyond the Best By date. Of that I am sure. There was a period when I hadn't used it. After which I smelled it and it became obvious it was too far gone.
This is a somewhat complicated topic due to the site rules, so I added a post notice. To elaborate: If the milk was opened at the beginning of that month (or unopened but past its use-by) it was unsafe by official definitions, so we have to treat your question as based on a false assumption. That is, we can accept answers which reiterate that "spoiled" and "unsafe" are not the same thing. But if there are answers which claim to give advice how to replicate the situation, claiming that it was safe, they will have to be removed.
I been in Moscow recently and notices something similar. I bought 1liter milk in paper box and used it a little bit and forgot to put it inside the fridge. After more than one month I came back to same house and thought that the milk must be spoiled, but it wasn't, no bad smell. After discussing it with my friends, I found out that better buy milk in plastic bottle, I try to experiment with it also, they got spoiled quite fast, which I think is good. The expiry date of a milk in paper box was 1 year, while in plastic bottle was 1 week.
Could it have been filtered milk? In the uk filtered milk is packaged in opaque plastic. Filtered milk keeps fresh much much longer (but still must be refrigerated, unlike uht milk)
Milk goes bad because it gets colonized by bacteria. There are two sources for this bacteria; ones already present in the milk because pasteurization didn't kill them, and from the environment (that is, bacteria in your fridge).
The "expiration date" for milk is therefore a conservative estimate of the time when the milk might start turning bad. Note that many political regions have specific regulations on setting those expiration dates, which might cause them to be set way early from a probability-of-spoilage perspective.
Thing is, that probability-of-going-bad date is more of a half-life, and many factors can affect when it actually goes bad. And just like milk can go bad early because of those factors, it can also go bad late. Particularly, in this case, I'd guess that pasteurization of the milk was unusually effective, and either you didn't open the milk or your fridge is exceptionally cold and bacteria-free.
I, too, have had some dairy products last for weeks beyond the expiration date, particularly half-and-half. However, you can never count on it.
If you're looking to maximize milk lifetime, then, you create the best conditions:
Find brands whose pasteurization seems to be extra-effective
Keep your fridge cold and squeaky-clean
Open the jug/carton as little as possible
Never leave the milk out on the counter
Don't drink straight from the carton. Seriously, did your mother teach you nothing? Jeez.
Certainly one factor you don't mention is simple variation between samples. The bacteria count after pasteurization may depend on the bacterial load before, and there are lactobacilli strains more heat tolerant than others. And then there is post-pasteurization contamination. The best-before date is a conservative estimate for these things as well. If your milk was processed first after the daily sterilization you may be in luck; the bbd is assuming it's the last batch ;-).
"and from the environment (that is, bacteria in your fridge)" Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I always (1) open the fridge, (2) take the milk carton from the fridge, (3) close the fridge, (4) open the milk carton, (5) pour out the amount of milk I intend to consume, (6) close the milk carton's screw cap, (7) open the fridge, (8) put the milk carton back into the fridge and (9) close the fridge. How would bacteria in the fridge enter the milk container? Or, in other words, why would I open my milk jug/carton inside the fridge?
@Heinzi What about the milk carton that does not have a screw and you have to cut off an edge to open it? image from google search
@mishan: Ah, yes, of course. Haven't seen those in a while around here...
Note that it does also matter what kind of bacteria colonize your sample. If it's the right type then instead of sour, curdled milk you get yoghurt.
@Heinzi The bacteria in your fridge coat the lid and the outside of the jug and when you do your open and close routine there is some probability of them migrating a bit. It's why for some kinds of lab work you'd sterilize the outside of the container before opening it.
@Heinzi they're also present in your kitchen, anyway
@Peter-ReinstateMonica here, milk has a use-by date, not a best-before. It's often one of the more forgiving use-by dates though, probably for the reasons you state (but occasionally not cautious enough, perhaps due to getting warm on the way home from the shop, or being left out of the fridge a bit much
@Heinzi Where I live in Canada, milk is sold in 1.33 L plastic bags. You put the bag in an open ended jug, cut a hole in one corner to pour it out, and then put the jug in the fridge with the open hole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_bag#Canada
@WhiteHotLoveTiger That's interestingly the most environment-friendly packaging, even though it is plastic, because of the little mass involved. Glass production, transport cost and cleaning make even deposit bottles worse, iirc. These plastic bags have been improved so they stand on their own, and there's some mineral filler in it to reduce the carbon footprint, by a company called Ecolean. Pretty neat.
@ChrisH: Interesting. I just checked, and over here (Austria) milk has a best-before date (not a use-by date).
AFAICT, both kinds of dates mean the same thing, and they're equally untrustworthy.
@FuzzyChef no. "Best before" is meant to be about quality, "use by" about safety.
@Heinzi, that's interesting, especially as I would have thought it's standardised across the EU. In the UK (and France IIRC, where UHT dominates) fresh milk always has a "use by" like almost all chilled products, but UHT/longlife has a "best before"
Something to be aware of is where the milk is from and how it's pasteurized. My store brand milk is local and pasteurized only, but some other brands are ultra pasteurized and expected to last much longer. I've experienced similar flukes in the past, generally with ultra-pasteurized milk.
I think this, too--especially slightly specialty brands (organic or lactose free, etc.) tend to have premium packaging and also be ultra pasteurized (the longer shelf life prevents waste if it doesn't sell as quickly). Note that it's different from UHT, which is shelf-stable at room temperature when unopened (to the date on the package) but often has a different taste... ultra pasteurized tastes like normal pasteurized and still has to be refrigerated but lasts slightly longer. There are, of course, regulations... https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=131.3
@user3067860 I often buy a brand that is labelled ultra-pasteurized and not only are the sell-by dates week out, they are good for weeks after being opened. Actually the half-and-half in my coffee right now was purchased more than a month ago and is perfectly good.
@user3067860 but in the US, UHT is often sold chilled even though that's not necessary, so it's easily confused
Milk often keeps for longer than stated, especially unopened, but I wouldn't want to rely on it even though milk tends to spoil in a way that smells obvious. My experience of keeping it past its date is accidental, and I don't suggest you repeat it as an experiment. If for some reason I want to maximise storage time of an unopened bottle (perhaps I'm going away for a few days and want it ready for when I get back), I do place it pressed against the back of the fridge, where it's coldest. That guarantees it will still be nice and fresh up to its date, while kept in the fridge door and taken out for use repeatedly the taste might already start to suffer. I wouldn't expect a month though, no more than half that (the bottle in my fridge has 9 days from the day I bought it anyway). So I don't think this is the explanation unless you got unusually lucky.
There are some filtered milk brands designed to keep longer. I think you bought one of these by accident. Your wording suggests you're in the US, but here we have Cravendale. They claim ceramic filters, and 3 weeks shelf life unopened or a week open. That's probably conservative. It's also packed in a white rather than translucent bottle; that may just be marketing. It's a little more expensive than supermarket own brand (80p/litre instead of 68p/litre), but may be worth it if you don't get through much. Walmart offer one called Fairlife (with added vitamins etc.); they don't say how long it keeps unopened, but state 14 days open.
Alternatively you could also buy a smaller bottle, and milk can be frozen.
Filtered milk was my first thought too.
Ex"spore"sure
If you've ever tried to grow mushrooms, the most frustrating part is inoculating the substrate with mushroom spores, without letting mold spores compete with them. The problem is that mold spores are everywhere. And exponential growth guarantees that whether the number of spores that get in your substrate is 1 or 10 or 100...they will eventually become visible and take over. The trick is to make sure that the mushroom mycelia outpace their growth and colonize the substrate faster. At some point, the mycelia will encounter mold (unless you have a BSL-4 lab in which to grow your shiitakes). If they are sufficiently established, they will engage in chemical/biological warfare and steamroll any competitors on their way to full colonization.
Temperature
Now, while all organisms are sensitive to temperature, and while 4 C is an ideal temp for minimizing the growth rate of pathogens, anyone who has taken a mold-ridden jar out of the fridge knows that it is only buying time in an unwinnable war. Every time you take a bite of food, you are eating mold and/or its spores, but hopefully at a concentration that is too low to matter.
For this reason, I am not that convinced about front vs. back of fridge arguments. Unless you are opening your fridge 20+ times a day, or it has a particularly weak compressor, I would be surprised if temperature variation could account for more than a few days' growing time for the mold.
Light
I am also skeptical about the opacity of the container. If your kitchen is open to direct sunlight (no windows) or you have sterilizing UV lights in your kitchen, then the container definitely matters. Otherwise, it is only blocking optical frequencies which make very little difference to the milk other than raw temperature (which should be dominated by the fridge). In fact, light is more likely to damage microbes in the milk rather than protect them (except for photosynthesizing microbes, and I would be very curious to know how they got in your milk). So I would actually expect a more opaque container to slightly favor spoilage than reduce it.
Open Lid
Therefore, I would suggest that the most likely explanation of variance is a combination of 1) initial pasteurization level, and 2) exposure rates. I somewhat doubt that 1) can explain a month of spoilage-free milk by itself because I suspect that many bottles of milk get "ultra-pasteurized" and yet do not last a month with "normal" usage. However, a weakly pasteurized bottle would likely not last a month even if you left it alone the whole time. So being decently well pasteurized is probably a necessary, but not sufficient condition for your anomaly.
I would propose that most spoilage conditions can be predicted on the basis of average mold load, and total exposure time. While mold spores are floating pretty much everywhere, all the time, the concentration can vary quite a bit from day to day and place to place. Obviously, a well-ventilated room with a HEPA filter will have a much lower spore load than a drafty kitchen with a loaf of molding bread sitting open in the garbage can. You can control the mold load somewhat by minimizing mold sources and filtering the air.
But the biggest variable you can control is the exposure time, or the amount of time that mold spores floating in the air can get into your food (or milk, in this case). This is obviously a function of how many times you open the lid, and for how long the lid remains off. Using the milk a few times for larger amounts will result in less exposure than using the milk often for small amounts. And leaving the lid off is simply inviting spores to colonize your giant vat of microbe food. What might have happened is that you simply didn't use the month-long milk very often, and when you did, you were exceptionally prompt at replacing the lid, minimizing open-air exposure. Note that just opening the lid to sniff it and see if it is still good also introduces spores. So the more often you check your milk, the faster it will spoil. Being in the back of the fridge may have eliminated any impulse to pull it and check it, minimizing the number of "mold spore inoculations".
Also, the shape of the container matters. It is quite fortuitous (and perhaps not at all accidental) that many milk bottles contain a relatively small opening. This reduces the surface area through which mold spores can land in your dairy treasure. The cardboard cartons with the rip-top openings, on the other hand, are a giant invitation to colonization, and should thus be consumed as quickly as practical.
Grow Some Shrooms!
I think everyone who handles food should grow mushrooms at least once in their life. It only takes a few batches of moldy frustrating failure to learn intuitively just how moldy our air is, and how aggressive microbes can be. It also brings home the importance of covering food. Most food safety guides talk about temperature and cooling food quickly. But again, low temperatures are just a rear guard action that delays inevitable defeat. The mold will win. The strongest defense is to minimize the initial exposure. Put a lid on it!
Of course, if you are going to finish it off in less than a week, then some open-air time won't matter too much if you refrigerate promptly. But if you want something to last more than a week, it is absolutely critical to keep the spore counts as low as possible. And that means keeping it away from open circulating air as much as possible. I would wager that every bottle of decently pasteurized milk would last at least a month if the milk were dispensed from a pump with a HEPA filter in it rather than poured from the bottle.
You don't even have to take a bite of food to find yourself eating mold spores. Merely breathing will do. ;-)
Temperature variation in fridges is actually increased, not decreased, by frequent opening and closing.
Your experience doesn't surprise me. FuzzyChef went into most of it but I would like to add one more bit of information:
Locally, those opaque plastic containers are used for milk that they must be doing something different with the pasteurization as I have seen milk on the store shelf with a date more than a month out. And stored carefully the odds are high that they'll still be good two weeks past the date on the carton. The store fridges seem to be better at keeping them the right temperature than a home fridge--I suspect it has to do with the cooled volume. The store fridge has a huge volume of cold air and air jets by the door--when someone opens the door to take something the warm air they let in is very rapidly replaced with cold air. A home fridge can't cool itself that fast after being opened.
Was that milk organic?
In my experience, organic milk lasts way way longer. Apparently it's due to the way it's processed, via the ultrahigh temperature method (UHT), according to Scientific American.
Wow, so in the US organic milk is UHT-treated while non-organic milk is not? I would definitely expect it the other way around.
That link says that it's because organic milk "often have to travel farther to reach store shelves since it is not produced throughout the country" whereas the market for "regular" milk would prob be everywhere and thus does not have to be transported far or for long.
Side thought - if the milk was at the back of your refrigerator, then it is away from the door and very-near to the cooling panels.
Every time we open a vertical `fridge, the cold air starts cascading out the front. Upshot is that the warmest part is at the top, nearest the user, and the coldest part is in the back toward the bottom.
So your bottle might have been chilled to a temperature below the recommended 4 degrees C for a refrigerator. Mine can freeze water-bottles that are left undisturbed in the middle/back for a couple of days.
This would have contributed to an extended life, along with being unopened.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.475996
| 2021-06-08T14:50:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115974",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Heinzi",
"JimmyJames",
"Lee",
"Perkins",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Richard Tingle",
"TooTea",
"WhiteHotLoveTiger",
"aqn",
"barbecue",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94285",
"mishan",
"rumtscho",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113639
|
Does this tinned food need to be cooked?
I’ve recently started eating tinned chicken, specifically the Roberts brand as shown below.
When I open the can, it looks kind of raw and kind of tastes as such, but that could just be my imagination.
I have tried to contact the manufacturer for more information, but have had no luck.
Is the food in these cans fully or partially cooked? Can you eat it directly from the can, or does it need to be cooked? Is it safer to cook it prior to eating?
If it is to be cooked, how should one go about it (e.g. microwave, fry, oven)? What is the point of these cans if they will need to be cooked anyway (I thought they didn’t have to be cooked)? Have I just got the wrong brand for ready-to-eat tinned chicken?
From Grab Grocery:
Precooked beef luncheon meat with the addition of chicken essence in 340g preserved cans. Robert beef luncheon meat is a wholesome meal cooked and slaughtered as per halal dietary laws and is suitable perfectly for people who are tolerant of meat products.
So the meat is safe to eat without needing to be cooked by the customer.
The link even above displays:
You might be able to get even more information there.
So it aguably is "the wrong brand for ready-to-eat tinned chicken" if it's beef with chicken essence
@Ecnerwal I suppose.
@AnastasiaZendaya The page has photos of the tin from different angles, one of them shows the ingredients. It says "Chicken meat 90%" with no mention of beef. Must be an error in the description on the website; chicken-flavored beef makes no economical sense anyway.
Now that's some first class marketing!
All tinned foods which are not dry (like flour or coffee grounds) have been sufficiently cooked and are safe to eat directly after opening. Once opened, leftover contents should be treated like any perishable food. Of course, some canned foods should be heated before serving, but that's a culinary consideration rather than a safety concern.
I've removed the digression into personal dislike of the food in question, and the ensuing discussion in comments. That's not welcome here; if you don't like what someone's cooking/eating, you can write an answer without mentioning it, or just avoid the question entirely.
As people have mentioned, canned meats are cooked as part of the canning process, so it’s safe to eat as is... but it’s not always ideal to do so.
In many ways, it’s like a chicken hot dog right out of the package. It might be safe to eat, but it’s much better if you cook it.
I would recommend slicing it up, and then browning the slices. This helps to develop new flavors and adds some texture. (You can dice it up, but I just find it to be more work to get it evenly cooked). You can then use it as an ingredient in other dishes. (Casseroles, stir fries, sandwiches, etc.)
In my experience (in the UK) anything described as "luncheon" has been precooked and design to just slice and eat, perhaps in a sandwich
Others have explained that it is safe to eat as-is from food safety standpoint. From a taste standpoint cooking may be a way to add flavor. Although recipes requests are off-topic, you might look online at recipes for a product called SPAM. They even have their own website.
Notes:
I have never eaten Spam or tried any of the recipes.
Spam is definitely not suitable for a Halal diet. It is pork based, not chicken.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.477393
| 2021-01-07T18:10:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113639",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"IMil",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62602",
"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
}
|
115036
|
Is ginger soluble In water, fat or both?
Is ginger soluble/can it creates strong flavours in water, fat or both together?
No, by strict interpretation of your question, ginger itself is a plant. Plants are typically insoluble as they are composed of chemicals that are fat and water insoluble to a greater or lesser extent.
However, the major spice component in ginger is [6]-gingerol, this is a volatile ketone that is soluble in a range of organic solvents (oils/fats seem likely), but only very barely soluble in water. There are a range of other flavour/scent compounds found in ginger, some of which will be water soluble, some will be organic solvent soluble, that play a role in the taste of ginger, but these are too abundant to go into.
Note that water or fat solubility has only a partial influence on your ability to taste the ginger. You can make tea from ginger and taste and feel very strongly the gingerol, but this is because the gingerol is forming a fine layer of oil on the surface of the water and you can taste minute amounts of it. In addition, it scores 60,000 on the Scoville scale - similar in range to a cayenne pepper and much hotter than a jalapeno, so in a tea with nothing to cushion the effect, the heat is very obvious.
To confirm by experiment: Honey+lemon+ginger in hot water is quite soothing for common cold; the ginger flavour comes out, but a sludge forms in the bottom of the mug. If everything is clean and rinsed, you can actually see the oils come to the surface when you pour water onto dried ginger. The flavour you get from ginger depends on what you do (as well as presence/absence of sugar), so while it's possible to get a strong flavour steeping it in water and straining, it's not the same strong flavour as if you consumed it (not sure if this is just the solubility to mention)
@ChrisH the change in flavour steeping cf. chewing will be a mix of things. Steeping works best with powder or dried flakes, which will have lost some of the volatiles already, whereas you are more likely to chew fresh, which makes a mush with greater contact with tongue and captures all/most of the volatile compounds in the airway. You could try chewing fresh vs dry and see if the difference is noticeable, but I doubt it will be pleasant. Solvent extraction is the other part of it - water isn't a good solvent for oils, but the fats in your mouth are.
the only ginger I'd chew by choice is candied or in syrup. I was meaning more consuming it in a sauce (or soup; I make a split pea and ginger soup that's far better with fresh, using a bit of dried if more is needed towards the end). Anyway, you're right of course
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.477703
| 2021-03-30T23:28:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115036",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114887
|
Should canned fish be flaky?
Properly cooked fish is meant to be flaky and not tough or chewy.
I just had some canned mackerel and noticed it was not flaky but rather a bit tough and chewy. Is it just a bad batch or does the cooking process cause it to be like this?
Fresh fish is considered ready for serving at 60-65°C (plus minus a bit, depending on what kind of fish, cut, personal preference etc.). At that point, fish will fall apart into moist flakes if pressed with a fork, but not crumble on its own. Heat the fish further, and the proteins will denature in a way that the fish is perceived as tough and dry.
Safe canning for non-acidic protein-based foods requires temperatures of above 117°C, in practice up to 130°C. This is necessary to ensure food long-term safety and to destroy heat-resistant pathogens like the infamous C. botulinum.
In short, you can either have perfectly cooked, juicy and tender fresh fish or a shelf-stable product. They are mutually exclusive.
Your canned fish is perfectly fine for canned fish, not a bad batch, but simply can not have the taste and mouthfeel of a freshly cooked à point mackerel.
(if I remember correctly)
Mackerel is not quite flaky (or at all), at least compared to Tuna or Salmon, even in cans.
Different fish, different result.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.477963
| 2021-03-19T16:42:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114887",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37192
|
Is it safe to throw frozen meat in marinade?
What if I don't wait for it to defrost. Does it affect taste in a bad way? Or is it unhealthy? How does it compare to thawed meat?
Yes, it is perfectly safe (as long as you continue to thaw the meat in a safe manner, as in the refrigerator).
The marinade will not begin to have much effect until at least the outer layers of the meat are thawed, but it will not otherwise have any side effect. It may get slightly better penetration due to the changes in the texture of the meat from ice crystals, but the effect should be negligible at best.
In fact, you can freeze the meat in its marinade if you so choose, and know what you are going to use it for when you thaw. It will get the benefit of marination time until the outer layers are frozen, and then again during the thawing.
definite yes on placing in marinade and then freezing
Marinating from frozen can help fish retain moisture and flavors which would otherwise drain out during defrosting
While this answers the question, advising that a marinade will slow down or stop the fish from becoming bad is very dangerous from a food safety perspective. As it’s not part of the question, I had to remove that part.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.478192
| 2013-09-28T21:06:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37192",
"authors": [
"Haixia Chai",
"Sebastian Norr",
"Stephie",
"Steve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87652",
"juettner",
"lemon",
"rejamdra",
"user87652",
"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
}
|
78713
|
What does "unpeeled" mean?
I'm looking at a recipe for pot roast, and one of the ingredients is this:
3 carrots, unpeeled and cut into 2-inch pieces
Am I supposed to remove the peel on the carrots, or not?
Unpeeled means not peeled. Do not peel the carrots.
I think what is confusing me is the word "and," which to me implies two actions I'm suppose to take (unpeel and cut). Apparently the "and" is joining two adjectives, unpeeled and cut. Thanks for clarifying. I may ignore the directions and peel them anyway. :)
@BenMiller fair point. Perhaps the instruction would have been clearer if it read: 3 unpeeled carrots cut into 2-inch pieces. In the end, I doubt it will make much difference in your final product.
It's a bit odd, since ordinarily a recipe like this would call for you to peel the carrots, or if not, to wash them very carefully. There's little need for it to be explicitly with the peel, not in a pot roast. I'd be tempted to interpret this as a poorly-tested recipe and move on to a recipe that was clearer...
Please unpeel some carrots for me
That would still leave you with unpeeled carrots :) ... And yes, "do not peel the mother f carrots motherf.... ", that's what it says :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.478347
| 2017-02-25T18:36:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78713",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Ben Miller",
"Joshua Engel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32640
|
How can I clean these brown iron stains in my pot?
I use a big aluminium pot to boil water. I think the water contains iron because after 4-6 months, the inside of the pot is full of brown stains. The colour is just like ferric. There are lots of circular brown areas (1-4mm diameter) in the pot.
Is this stain caused by the iron in the water? If not, what is the
cause?
How can I remove these stains?
Can I do anything to prevent these stains in the future?
Pictures
Do you have a picture to share? That could help out a lot.
@PrestonFitzgerald Pictures added. The pot is currently full of water so could not take more close up picture.
@shiplu.mokadd.im It looks pitted in these photos... is it rough to the touch? or is it just a trick of the light?
@sarge_smith Its not pitted. Its a layer. Peeling the layer reveals shiny aluminum. But its very hard to peel. Yes its rough to touch.
If it's rust stains or other kinds of scale build up, CLR will take care of it:
http://www.jelmar.com/CLRbasic.htm
From the pictures (thanks for adding) it looks like sediment from the water (source, pipes, etc) and CLR cleans it easily. Just don't breath the fumes.
Also, you can try commercial coffee pot cleaners such as http://www.urnex.com/ to remove the build up.
Finally, if none of the above is available in your area, try Vinegar first. If that didn't work, wash off and switch to baking soda. you may have to make a paste and let it treat for a while.
There is also this recipe for cleaning rust stains from aluminum pots, though I haven't tried it.
How exactly would an ALUMINIUM pot rust? Even if it was building up aluminium oxide, he wouldn't want to clear it off since it will just reform. Not to mention that aluminium oxide couldn't form under water in the usage conditions he described.
@sarge_smith ALUMINIUM corrodes but not like Iron. The rust I'm referring to is external to the pot. As in Iron existing in the water, the pipes, or even an overused spatula. In some places the rust can build up in a matter of days. You might have also seen an under-used bathroom where the ceramic looked like it was rusting. Did you ask yourself there how could CERAMIC rust?
That rust isn't rust, it's scale. It's what's formed by the evaporation of water and the mineral deposits that the process leaves behind. While this gentleman's issue might be scale (I doubt it actually, but anything is possible), it definitely isn't rust. Once again, unlike with many other metals, when aluminium corrodes into aluminium oxide, it forms a dull barrier that protects the aluminium. That's because it remains bonded to the surface until you remove it. It's almost as good a protecter as anodizing. Of course, almost all aluminium cookware sold is anodized so (cont)
it's unlikely that's a major issue either. This answer could apply to certain types of cookware (Like unseasoned cast iron), but I would be astonished if it could apply in this particular case.
@sarge_smith have a look at the pictures on this post and speculate about what you see.
From Wikipedia: ...a thin surface layer of aluminium oxide that forms when the metal is exposed to air so the oxide is almost always present and the above answer is NOT about aluminium rust. It's about Iron Oxide staining an Aluminium pot.
You are wrong. I'm tired of talking about it. Have a great day!
I have added some pictures
I tried Baking soda. It fails. So I think something Acidic might help. I am quite unsure about Vinegar. The bottled Vinegar I bought is already 10% solution. But after some searching I found water and vinegar should be mixed in 2:1 ratio. Should I used 100% vinegar here? If I use 10% vinegar it'd be 3.3%.
BTW, do you think quicklime could help here? The big problem is local shop keeper dont understand these standard names. and I dont know all the local names these cleaning chemicals
No sure. Quicklime gives off heat when mixed with water, if you try it, careful not to burn yourself.
The vinegar ratio is fine. Just heat up the mixture and let it run for a while. You can try lemon/lime juice as well (better smell). Give it lots of time.
It's hard to say what is causing these stains without more information about exactly how you are using the pot. If you are just using it to boil water and nothing else, then the stains could be a result of the minerals in the water in your area. Also, if you are just using the pot for water, do you wash the pot in between uses? Repeated exposure to moisture can cause an oxidation layer to form on the surface of the metal. Cleaning the pan thoroughly between each use should help prevent oxide buildup.
The stains could also be caused by what you are using to clean the pot. Aluminum is a fairly reactive metal; so any acidic compound or residue that gets left on the material for too long is likely to cause a stain. You can read more about how to take care of your aluminum cookware here:
http://www.jesrestaurantequipment.com/jesrestaurantequipmentblog/cleaning-aluminum-cookware/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.478504
| 2013-03-13T11:44:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32640",
"authors": [
"Dale Campbell",
"Karl Adler",
"MandoMando",
"Mayube",
"Pam",
"Pema Lai",
"Preston",
"RobertReny",
"Shiplu Mokaddim",
"TylerW",
"Vaidehi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75441",
"mkdir",
"piyushg91",
"sankara",
"sarge_smith",
"volkan ulutas",
"weia design"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16902
|
how long can eggs sit out?
Possible Duplicates:
Should I refrigerate eggs?
How long can eggs be unrefrigerated before becoming unsafe to eat?
I got 4 dozen eggs this weekend (from actual chickens on a farm that were laid yesterday), and they sat in my car overnight. Would they still be good to eat? I put them in the fridge this morning. I'd say they sat for 20 hours in my car.
And/or http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14775/how-long-can-eggs-be-unrefrigerated-before-becoming-unsafe-to-eat
how hot did it get while sitting in your car? Eggs are ok for about 3 days, but not if they baked in your car.
You're MacGyver. Why didn't you make a refrigerator from some shoelaces, a length of pipe, duct tape, and your Swiss Army Knife?
Depends which country you live in. In general eggs are designed to be kept warm underneath the hen!
Looks like my question got 1000 views, so I earned a badge. Answering some questions. @Rikon - I live in Madison, WI, so in August, it's pretty hot. I was visiting family, so the car was probably 90 degrees for at least 6 hours out of the day. The rest of that time was near room temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.478946
| 2011-08-15T15:29:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16902",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Dwayne Charrington",
"JustBeingHelpful",
"Michael Natkin",
"Rikon",
"Sanjeev",
"TFD",
"TsunamiCha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7061",
"user36185"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68454
|
Freeze ice to far below 0 Celsius?
Residential freezers are reasonably set to just below 0 degrees C: any colder doesn't preserve food any better. But if I want to chill a liquid without overly diluting it -- say, bringing a sauce down to room temperature, or a martini to drinking temperature -- one ice cube at -100 degrees is better than twenty at -5 degrees. (Dry ice (CO2) wouldn't cause dilution either.)
So what's a practical, not overly expensive (under USD 100?) way to store a small quantity of ice (or dry ice) at home for, say, a week before it warms up from such extreme temperatures?
Are you trying to create the low-temp ice or merely maintain it at that temperature? In the US most grocery stores sell dry ice, so it's easy enough to grab some. A sufficiently well-insulated container might be able to maintain a very low temp if provided with dry ice... also, why worry about dilution when there are solutions that don't require introducing liquid at all? To quickly reduce the temperature of our wort (in beer making) we don't add ice to the beer, we put it in an ice bath and run cold water through a wort chiller.
FYI - home freezers are recommended to be set to 0 degrees Fahrenheit (-18 Celsius) and in my experience can go quite a bit lower.
Yeah, I found a tiny chest freezer that goes down to -10 F (-23 C). It was only $136. Also, as a note, I don't think home storage of dry ice is recommended unless you can actually keep it at the proper temperature... if it sublimates in an air-tight space, it can cause it to explode.
Put or make ice in a "Zip Lock" bag, and use the bag containing the ice for cooling.
@Optionparty If you want to answer, post an answer. Comments are not for answers.
@Catija keeping dry ice in an insulated but slightly ventialted container (e.g. polystyrene) in a chest freezer would be fine -- unless you put heavy weights on the lid. If the pressure rose enough the lid would lift and it won't rise fast. In an upright freezer it could open the door a little and you wouldn't have gravity to shut it again. Door seals aren't quite that good anyway. You would have to beware of leaning into the chest freezer -- cold CO₂ will hang around for a long time and you don't want a lungful.
@ChrisH But it will still only last a day or two, not a week.
@Catija, possibly, but I managed more than than for a polystyrene bucket of liquid nitrogen, which has a much greater temperature difference.
Not only is the assumption of "home freezers operating at just below 0C" false, the assumption that "any colder does not preserve any better" is also false...
Most of the cooling from ice comes from the melting anyway. That's why ice makers, which don't freeze as cold as freezers, are still useful.
It takes 334J/g to turn ice at 0C into water at 0C, but only 2.03J/g to warm ice by 1C. So to halve the amount of ice you use to get the same cooling you'd need to freeze it to around -150C. If you're going to do that you may as well use the liquid nitrogen directly, because that's the most likely way to get ice at -150.
If you use dry ice or liquid nitrogen in the kitchen, you need to look into the precautions (and regulations if it's commercial) that you need to take.
You should be able to cool the sauce by transferring it to a bowl sitting in an ice+water bath (this cools faster than sitting it in a bowl of ice because of contact area). If that's not enough, here are some ideas that can be used as well
This is done with wine and cocktails - it might work with your sauce:
make a batch of the sauce (or a base without cream/egg etc.)
freeze it
use the frozen sauce (base) to cool the final sauce. It may dilute ingredients you couldn't freeze but this will be much less noticeable than diluting with water.
Sitting a bowl inside another bowl, with the gap full of ice+water, then frozen, should get you a very effective cooling device for moderate quantities. It should scale to a litre or so per vessel if there's plenty of room for ice in between. The inner container should have decent thermal conductivity and/or thin walls - a stainless serving dish would be ideal.
Another approach is to use an ice/salt bath for freezing point depression. This can be used to make ice cream so gets really quite cold. You could precool a bowl in that and then put your sauce in it.
This is a great answer, because it addresses why the OP's assumption that "one ice cube at -100 degrees is better than twenty at -5 degrees" is incorrect. There's a surprising amount of energy locked up in that phase change.
The way to store a small quantity of dry ice for a week without spending a lot of money on a freezer that will actually keep it below sublimation temperature, or having a cylinder of the pressurized liquid and a "dry ice maker attachment" for the cylinder to make some when you need some, is to buy a larger quantity of dry ice and store it in a well-insulated container. A Dewar flask would be the best option; a large amount of styrofoam is less ideal, but can be good enough. Nested foam coolers (ie, a foam cooler with dry ice inside another foam cooler) can hold it for a while, but details will depend on variable factors. You do need to consider the ventilation of the area where it is stored, as it is possible to fill an area with the heavier-than-air gas and manage to kill yourself, or others, or pets.
As for the practicality of using it in cooking, marginal at best (and dry ice, in particular, may cause taste effects from dissolved CO2 in the cooled product (ie, sparkling .vs. still water.)
Your martini, for instance, could be much more easily super-cooled by storing the gin or vodka in the freezer - I suspect the vermouth might freeze (not a martini fan, but most wines will freeze in a common residential freezer, while most distilled spirits won't.) Perhaps you could make vermouth cubes.
Chris H's answer has good details regarding latent heat and use of ice/salt mixtures (I upvoted)
In commercial kitchen environments large quantities of liquids that require rapid chilling may be stirred with a "cooling paddle" - the "secret" to which is generally a water-based (or simply water) filling that is pre-frozen to make ice, and a large surface area to rapidly melt the ice, pulling the latent heat of melting from the hot liquid, without mixing in water.
Pouring it into a hotel pan in a shallow layer, and setting the hotel pan in another hotel pan full of ice is another effective approach.
Don't freeze ice then. There's a couple of solutions where something with a good amount of heat capasity is popped into a freezer and used to cool things - the generic names for these seem to be drink chillers. They are made of materials like metal or granite which you throw into a fridge. It'll cool, and when added to a drink will absorb heat from it, and cool down your drink without added ice.
They're also called 'whisky stones' even when made out of something that's not stone.
Oh ... and there's also 'cold paddles' which are vessels you fill with water and freeze, and then use them to stir the liquid to chill it more quickly. (but they tend to be large ... they're more for restaurants making large batches of things).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.479093
| 2016-04-21T22:21:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68454",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Debbie M.",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"Optionparty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110400
|
Is it possible to effectively dissolve chocolate into coffee?
The combination of milk chocolate with coffee is very good. The classic strategy is to take a bite of chocolate, chew it for five seconds, and then sip some coffee.
This strategy can be inconvenient at times, so I thought of dissolving the chocolate directly into hot coffee. However, this did not work very well due to the chocolate's fat content. How can I effectively mix chocolate into coffee? (Sometimes there are some tricks for these situations; for example, when you make hot chocolate, the trick to effective mixing is to make a slurry first.)
Have you tried mixing in some instant hot chocolate? Or do you really want to incorporate actual chocolate?
@zetaprime I have tried adding some cocoa powder in the coffe grounds when brewing, and while the result was interesting, it did not compare to using actual milk chocolate.
Nescafe, Movenpick, Lufthansa Catering and Albert Heijn housebrand serve Wiener Melange as Coffee blended with Cocoa - no matter whether foam topped or not. Kaffeehaus de Châtillon in greater Seattle describes it as relatively equal portions of light roast Kaffee, milk and cream foam in a 6oz cup.
Do you drink your coffee with milk? I have a very good recipe if milk is allowed.
@2cents I do sometimes. Would you mind sharing the recipe?
Where I live this is called a 'Mocha' you can order it at most cafes
@DarcyThomas Same here; but there is a large difference between a Mocha and having milk chocolate with coffee. I suggest you try it :)
@Ovi According to the wikipedia article, there isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caff%C3%A8_mocha "Caffè mocha, in its most basic formulation, can also be referred to as hot chocolate with (e.g., a shot of) espresso added."
@nick012000 I can only speak from personal experience: I have had mocha before, and drinking it was quite different from the experience and flavor achieved by chewing chocolate and then sipping coffee.
Ovi, ".. did not work very well due to the chocolate's fat content" I find this statement confusing. (1) it's (fortunately!) totally, completely, normal, in every part of the world I have been in, to drop a square of chocolate into hot cofffee. (Starbucks, say, obviously sells "squares of chocolate" for this reason.) (2) You say it does "not mix well". I mean, "cream in coffee" does not really mix well, but it's the standard drink? I have never had the slightest problem with dissolving a square of chocolate (ordinary chocolate, from a bar of chocolate) in to hot coffee. (3) There's ...
.. no difference at all if it's dark or milk chocolate. Could it be that your standards of "absolutely perfectly dissolving-into, in a labratory sense!" are way too high?! it also makes no difference at all if there's also cream/milk in the coffee (obviously it's less hot, so takes longer). I wonder if I misunderstand your question.
Regarding the notion, piece of chocolate in your mouth, and then drink coffee.. if you are going to simply drop a square of chocolate (milk or dark) in your hot coffee (with or without cream) ....... could it just be you just simply need to add A LOT MORE squares of chocolate to get that mouthfeel / taste you seek? @Ovi (something I will surely test myself :) ) Cheers!
Chocolate squares (obviously) instantly dissolve in to hot water (hot coffee is obviously "hot water"). Here's a video seen below, where chocolate squares instantly (of course) dissolve in to hot water https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6oMIo3GTQ8&feature=youtu.be (at exactly 1:01 time mark). Of course, you have to mix them a bit (much as when you add, say, sugar or milk to a coffee, you stir it). That's what the plastic stirring stick is for!
Have you ever tried Hershey's chocolate syrup?
@Fattie I will give it another try, but as I said in the other comment: when I try to dissolve more chocolate, most of it just ends up in a molten lump at the bottom of the cup, and I can barely feel the slightest flavor of chocolate.
@MarkRansom Thanks for the suggestion. Might give it a try if I have a chance, but I'm not a big fan of Hershey's chocolate.
One classic solution is to make a ganache to make the chocolate liquid. Ganache is an emulsion that suspends the cocoa butter in water which helps it mix with the coffee. While this sounds fancy, you can make it in a few minutes.
The recipe I use is from The Blue Bottle Craft of Coffee by James Freeman
Put 3 oz (85 g) coarsely chopped dark chocolate in a small bowl
Pour 1/4 cup (60 ml) boiling water over the chocolate and stir until smooth
You can pour your coffee directly over the ganache or store the ganache in the fridge for up to one week. Reheat in the microwave (gently) before using.
The original recipe uses espresso and tops the coffee with hot foamed milk. I have also always used espresso and foamed milk, but I believe coffee should also produce good results. If you don't use the foamed milk, I suggest using a less dark chocolate to balance the bitterness.
Ganache can also be made with heavy cream instead of water. I have not tried using a cream-based ganache in this drink.
One note is that this recipe works best for hot drinks. Cold drinks can seize the chocolate into lumps.
A double-cream-based ganache of 85% solids chocolate mixed into coffee? Oh my word - my wife is going to kill me if I start making that at home, but I'll die a very, very happy man. Thank you :-)
Imagine a $2 cup of hot coffee from the gas station. Take that, and drop in a few squares of chocolate broken off your ordinary Ritter chocolate bar. We have just precisely described the process in the first two points here. This entire QA is incredibly confusing. Everyone takes squares of chocolate (dark, milk, white, whatever) and drops it in hot coffee, and mixes it in. This QA is somewhat bizarre!
@Fattie I don't know I tried that, but the chocolate doesn't dissolve well. Most of the chocolate just ends up molten at the bottom of the cup. There are some chocolate particles suspended in the coffee, but not enough to give the drink a strong chocolate flavor. Do you have a different experience?
I think you will have to make a ganache with cream (which is what I expected from the word).
@MarkWildon A water ganache works well. I have tested it and it is a standard ganache for chocolate if less well known.
@Fattie, It may be the case that you can make a ganache with coffee directly, but this two step process has always worked best for me. I don't know enough chemistry to explain why, but the temperature, fat, and liquid ratios of a ganache are very important to prevent splitting (or an oily or grainy ganche). I believe splitting is what the OP is complaining about when they add chocolate directly to their coffee.
hi @2cents ! Hmm, if you drop squares of chocolate from the top, to the bottom of a cup of boiling water, versus, putting them in the bottom and dumping water on top, it's really hard to see any physical difference. I've never noticed the slightest difference. Perhaps, next tim you do it, go "water first" and drop in the choc chips !!
You not seeing a physical difference doesn't mean there isn't one, especially when you simplify it to the barest of similarities. Adding ingredients gradually and folding into a liquid can have very different results to dumping it all in at once and beating fast, though both of those could be equally described as "mix ingredients in a bowl".
@Nij Exactly, it's just like making a roux, if you tried to start with flour in the pan, then pour butter over that, then try to stir it you'll get a lumpy mess. There's a reason we do things in the order and ratios that we do
Ganache is not made with water. If you mix hot water and chocolate, you certainly obtain something, but definitely not a ganache.
@njzk2 We may be arguing semantics here, but water ganache is an invention of the molecular cook Herve This, which shares many characteristics of traditional ganache, including being an emulsion of chocolate.
If convenience is your priority, then making an emulsion might not be the best solution. I would recommend making a chocolate syrup to mix into your coffee. A recipe based on water or milk with cocoa powder rather than chocolate will produce the best result mixed into coffee. Using a good quality cocoa powder will produce a very tasty result. Most coffee shops use a chocolate syrup to produce their mocha coffees because they incorporate so much easier than pure chocolate.
This is a very interesting solution. I am not sure about the convenience aspect though. Commercial syrups are formulated for shelf stability. The kind of syrup you suggest is likely to be normally perishable - so max 5 days in the fridge. Depending on the OP's mocha drinking habits, they may end up making a new dose of syrup for each cup, which is not more convenient than making an emulstion for each cup.
@rumtscho I freeze mine in ice cube trays since I don't drink mochas very often :) A shot of espresso + hot milk is more than enough to melt it immediately.
I hadn't thought of that, it really sounds like a very nice solution!
@Johanna you should add that trick to your answer, it sounds very helpful
If the cocoa powder actually mixes well with the water or milk, then that will be because the cocoa powder has an emulsifier in it and the resulting syrup will be a more convenient emulsion, but still an emulsion. Without an emulsifier, my experience is that cocoa powered just never really mixes with any water-based liquids.
If you are not watching calories, and want a treat, use good quality chocolate ice cream. Add a shot or two of espresso, stir, add milk to taste. The result is a very rich chilled mocha drink.
As you already observed fat and water separate from each other. In this regards your coffee-choclate-mixture is similar to a salat dressing made from vinegar and oil, you can mix it but after some time the both parts will separate from each other again.
To create a stable fat-water-mixture you will have to add an emulsifier like soy lecithine. As an alternative you could try to blend in an egg yolk which is the traditional source for lecithine in ice cream making, in this case you have to take care that the temperature is kept below 65°C to ensure the yolk does not cook. Because this also means it is not pasteurized you should only use very fresh eggs for this purpose and take care the yolk does not get into contact with the outside shell.
Egg yolk and lecithine are not required for chocolate emulsions. You can make one with cream or water and chocolate as the only ingredients.
@2cents Egg yolk and lecithin are good alternatives for anyone avoiding dairy.
This is a tangential comment, but: are eggs used in icecream due to lecithin as an emulsifier? Icecream uses, well, cream in the base, which is already a pretty stable emulsion of fat in water, to the point (reduced) cream will itself stabilize say the ganache mentioned in another answer. I thought adding egg to ice cream bases serves to further thicken the dairy and thus inhibit ice crystal by mainly binding loose water in the dairy to proteins in the egg yolk; not by primarily helping integrate fats with the water phase. (I don’t imagine egg-less ice cream base “breaks” into water and fat.)
Although I am aware store bought heavy cream may have stabilizers like carageenan added to it to prevent that. Nonetheless even with cream that I’ve found had fat rise to the top of the carton this was nothing briefly whisking it wouldn’t fix and the churning process wouldn’t prevent from reoccuring until the ice cream is ready to go into the freezer. Heavy cream really doesn’t fight being homogenous.
@millimoose I can´t provide an exhaustive explanation here, but AFAIK some emulisfiers are commonly used in the most mixtures aiming a bit higher (traditionally: yolk, modern: others).
Thickening the mixture means to shift the ratio of water-to-solids, creating a harder result with the same percentage of water frozen.
Recommended readings:
http://icecreamscience.com/why-are-emulsifiers-used-in-ice-cream/
http://icecreamscience.com/ice-crystals-in-ice-cream/
Also try googling for: angelo corvitto i segreti del gelato
If you have a small smoothie blender, try zerping the coffee + chocolate while it’s hot just before drinking. It might stay emulsified for long enough.
This might be more of a suspension than an emulsion, but a suspension is a viable way to combine chocolate and coffee, if one is willing to do the work to create the suspension or use an appliance to do the work.
@ToddWilcox Nah, this is hardly different the ganache method. Chocolate is broadly speaking cocoa solids; cocoa butter (fat); sugar; and in the case of milk chocolate, milk/cream or their powdered versions. I’m making an educated guess here based on the numbers I can find on Google, but melting chocolate - and freshly brewed coffee will likely fully melt chocolate, since those melt at around body temperature - will unravel the cocoa crystals trapping the other constituent parts in a homogenous bar.
@ToddWilcox The solids are either soluble in water or not, so they’ll dissolve in the hot coffee. The sugar will certainly dissolve, as will probably anything in the dairy part - milk is homogenized during production, i.e, already emulsified by breaking up the dairy fat droplets. What’s left is a decent amount of cocoa butter - an 85% chocolate bar I have around is 46% fats. Blending it will emulsify if by breaking the fat apart into tiny particles that should hopefully be small enough to not bounce into one another too much and contained through surface tension to not merge again.
@ToddWilcox It’s literally the same process as when emulsifying mayonnaise by whisking madly… or using an immersion blender, a great hack to save effort. Emulsifying agents like lecithin merely aid emulsification and stability by coating the fat particles with a layer preventing them from recoalescing.
@ToddWilcox Long story short: emulsification is always the act of breaking up the fat phase of a liquid into microscopic droplets, and optionally using additives that help them stay apart afterwards. The OP cites the fat in chocolate as the culprit, presumably as a pool of cocoa butter floating on the top of the coffee; so he needs to make said cocoa butter into the opposite of a coalesced fat layer.
And like you mentioned elsewhere, egg yolk is a great source of lecithin, and I can find mention of paleo/keto/primal ppl making egg yolk coffee as an alternative to coconut oil/MCT oil coffee; it’s also apparently a way they serve coffee in Vietnam. Tossing an egg yolk in after the chocolate melts would probably make this very stable indeed.
Of course, homogenization creates a suspension, not an emulsion.
I doubt that a consumer immersion/smoothie blender is capable of homogenization. Usually devices with a special head are used for this purpose, creating much higher shearing powers than a regular blender.
I suppose we’re mostly differing on very subtle points of semantics; my vague recollections of chemistry class make me say “suspension” = “undissolvable solid dispersed in a liquid”; and “emulsion” = “liquid dispersed in another liquid in which it’s immiscible” whether or not it’s stabilized enough to stay emulsified for an arbitrary length of time. These nuances aside, whatever one calls what a home blender will create from this may remain smooth and drinkable for long enough to matter practically.
I am not understanding the amount of time and extremes for answers. I get in kicks where I melt chocolate into my coffee for a day or two a week to mix it up (I am a pot a day minimum person).
Chop up part of bar.
Put it in microwave at 20% power in your coffee cup.
15 seconds.
Check it out.
It should be slightly melted - let the coffee do the rest. For some type of chocolates I have had to put a wet paper towel on top and add time in the microwave.
Pour coffee.
Stir.
As mentioned every chocolate will have specifics. If you do about the same amount, with same chocolate, this should add no more than 30-40 seconds to your day and without adding ingredients you are getting the chocolate flavor, not a sugary taste (which I do not like as I drink my coffee black or just a bit of chocolate). The chocolate powders or emulsions or hot cocoa powder may taste good or better to some but this is different from your description and is a sweeter cup.
The key is the micro power and keeping it in the same cup. It isn't that much chocolate, so if you melted it down, then poured it you may lose half the chocolate in the mixing "bowl".
It seems like this might risk seizing the chocolate?
@nick012000 Chocolate only “seizes” within a particular range of water-to-chocolate ratios. Once you add enough liquid, the clumps will disperse again. This is the trick behind Heston Blumenthal’s chocolate-water mousse: https://youtu.be/F6oMIo3GTQ8
Note that you can use pure cocoa or cacao powder if you don't want it to be sweet. Or a high % dark chocolate bar.
@JBentley - but the OP wants a milk chocolate taste. What you are suggesting and the other answers are suggesting is a different taste. Like making an apple pie with pears.
@blankip True, but my comment was simply in response to your part of the answer that talked about sweetness. Milk chocolate by definition is sweet, so if you want to strictly abide by OP's original request, then sweetness cannot be avoided. You can reduce the quantity of the chocolate, but then you are proportionally also reducing the taste of chocolate.
@nick012000 One way to avoid seizing the chocolate would be to temper it (not as in tempered chocolate, as in bringing two ingredients to the same temperature) by stirring the chocolate and adding a small amount of coffee at first, then adding the rest when the two incorporate
Not sure where you are from, but in germany we have "Pocket Coffee" from Ferrero, they just fill a chocolate piece with coffee. This way you still have the chocolate melting part before you get to the coffee.
Hervé This, the French physical chemist focusing on molecular gastronomy discovered how to create a mousse from chocolate and water/liquid.
"I invented chocolate Chantilly — how to make a chocolate mousse without eggs, just foaming the chocolate. I was very proud, I got prizes for that. Later I discovered you can make the same with butter, foie gras, or even olive oil, so the invention is nothing [big in itself]."
Chocolate chantilly
200ml water
225g bitter chocolate (with a high percentage of cocoa
butter)
Melt the chocolate in the water over medium heat. Stir until smooth. This forms a mixture where the cocoa butter can be mixed like cream. Pour the chocolate into a bowl cooled by an outer bowl of ice and water. Whisk until whipped.
You can flavor the water with anything so coffee, or a liquor.
I have followed this recipe before, it turns out quite strong if you use a bitter chocolate (for my taste).
Note: Three things can go wrong. Here's how to fix them. If your chocolate doesn't contain enough fat, melt the mixture again, add some chocolate, and then whisk it again. If the mousse is not light enough, melt the mixture again, add some water, and whisk it once more. If you whisk it too much, so that it becomes grainy, this means that the foam has turned into an emulsion. In that case simply melt the mixture and whisk it again, adding nothing.
https://food52.com/recipes/16044-herve-this-chocolate-mousse
https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2008.689/box/1
I do this every day, though I don't use chocolate bars. I have tried every brand of spicy hot cocoa mix on the market that I could find and my favorite for both flavor - and how well it dissolves in my coffee - is Equal Exchange Organic Spicy Hot Cocoa. I absolutely love the stuff. A lot of other brands did not dissolve as well. Equal Exchange also has regular and dark versions without the spice.
However, if you prefer to use solid chocolate it is possible with the right mixing method. There is an amazing device out of the UK called the "Hot Chocolate Shaker", made by The Chocolate Society. I purchased it from the original kickstarter - a bit skeptical but hopeful. I was not disappointed. At first it seams rather simple - a cup with a lid for shaking hot cocoa. The magic is in the lid - it starts collapsed and pops out as you shake the hot cocoa. Smoothest hot cocoa ever - whether you use mix or chocolate drops. For coffee, just pour the coffee in, add some chocolate drops, and shake.
Enjoy!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.479692
| 2020-08-25T05:21:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110400",
"authors": [
"2cents",
"DarcyThomas",
"Fattie",
"J. Mueller",
"JBentley",
"Kat",
"Kevin",
"Mark Ransom",
"Mark Wildon",
"Nij",
"Ovi",
"Spratty",
"Thomas",
"Todd Wilcox",
"blankip",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85345",
"millimoose",
"nick012000",
"njzk2",
"rumtscho",
"user141592",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123179
|
Did I just ruin a new carbon steel wok with bar keepers friend?
I saw this reddit post where people said BKF was fine but that doesn't match what I'm seeing.
I just bought a new wok which I was about to season. It had a coating of oil/grease. I washed it with dish soap and then wiped it with a paper towel. The towel became very very slightly dirty
So I thought I'd wash it again. I had just got a bottle of BKF and thought, "oh, perfect chance to try this!". I washed it with BKF and immediately it started to turn rust colored. Wiping looked like this
So I washed it 2 more times with dish soap but the rush just keeps coming
You can see the wok in the back of that picture is all yellowed. There was zero yellow after the first wash, before using BKF
Here is what it looked like just after that last picture
And here it is close up 10 minutes later
The advice in that reddit post is to scrub even more with BKF to remove the rust but AFAICT it was the BKF that made it rust so using more is going to make more rust not wash it off.
Have I ruined this wok? I'm afraid to cook with it and get rust in my food. Should I have not used BKF on carbon steel? I have 2 carbon steel frying pans and a smaller carbon steel wok. I've never used BFK (or even soap) on those. Once seasoned I just kept them clean with water, scrubbers, and then oiling them with heat. I was planning to do the same with this wok and then this rust thing happened.
Woks aren't expensive so no worries if I need to discard it but a little freaked out about BKF induced rust.
Update: Given it's already covered in rust I washed it 3 more times with BKF. Every time, seconds after I finish rust forms again. Rinsing off the BKF and wiping I get a paper towel full of rust.
Update 2: Here's video of me trying to wash it. Before I can clean 1/2 of one side of the wok it's already rusted again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlXgrOmOWEg
To get rid of the rust that formed, I like a copper bristled brush (you can get them at at hardware stores, sometimes automotive stores), or you can use coarse salt… take a paper towel or rag and dip it in oil, then in the salt, then use that to scrub. (Put the salt and oil in small bowls so you don’t contaminate your supply). The only issue is the oil will make it more difficult to tell when you’re done.
Fascinating. BKF is a rust remover, and one that is used fairly frequently with all types of steel.
Wait ... you're using *liquid" BKF? Use the powder instead. Too much water.
Definitely not ruined. When I had to completely redo the seasoning on my wok a few months ago I had something similar happen. The issue I determined was just that the wok was staying wet too long. Paper towels are only so absorptive, and then moving the same damp one around gives the metal even more opportunity to oxidize.
You can use a manual abrasive (like a green pots and pans scrubber instead of the blue sponge) just to scrape off rust and rinse as quickly as possible before drying it and putting it on the heat. Once being heated, grab a new dish towel and dry the inside even more, then go for the oil.
Prior to oil, and once the wok is hot/warm and dry, you can also use a mild dry abrasive like baking soda or salt and a dry towel to polish off any new rust. THAT SAID - you do need to oil it while it's hot if you go this route. Mine rusted again when I tried to take a break before seasoning lol.
That said, don't worry too too much if you still see a tiny bit of orange or grey prior to seasoning. Because once you have seasoned it, that surface with whatever miniscule traces of rust will be sealed under the layer of polymerized oil. It won't get in your food as long as the wok is seasoned well.
If it keeps rusting every time you wet it… stop wetting it.
Get it dry as rapidly as you can by not only wiping it round with several paper towels, but get it on some heat as well.
Once it's dry, one last wipe round to get the last of it off, then start seasoning. That last little bit of staining is unimportant, it will just get buried in the seasoning.
It is not ruined...pretty hard to do that...If you've got some rust at this point, just scrub it off. Dry well, and immediately wipe it with a paper towel that has some oil on it. Heat your wok and season with a light coating of oil. Use a paper towel to make sure there is no excess while heating. Let it smoke for up to 5 minutes (keep vent fan on), wiping any excess oil. You should be good to go.
I don't think you really understood my question. Watch the video I added. I can't scrub the rust off as it comes back too fast
I watched. I would stop using the BKF. You use a lot, and then need more water and scrubbing to get rid of the BKF...and I don't think it is necessary. Also, don't worry about the bottom (outside). Get a copper, or other abrasive scrubber. Synthetic ones work as well. Scrub, dry, and immediately oil. I also like @Joe's suggestion above...adding a small amount of oil as you scrub. A little rust is not a big deal...and seasoning will prevent this in the future. See also: https://www.webstaurantstore.com/article/510/how-to-remove-rust.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.481536
| 2023-01-28T23:52:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123179",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"gman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114309
|
How to lower the melting point of a specific chocolate?
I want to use a specific brand of chocolate to make chocolatines/pain au chocolat. This chocolate is a stone ground dark chocolate that has been tempered. I attempted to use them to make chocolatines once but after baking I realized that the chocolate hadn't melted.
So I want to know what I can do to lower the melting point of the chocolate, just enough so it melts in the oven but not too much that it's liquid at room temperature. I read that you can ruin a chocolates temper by melting it again and waiting for it to solidify but I couldn't find much more information on "untempering" chocolate or reducing the melting point. I was also thinking I could try to melt the chocolate, mix in a small amount of butter, then wait for it to solidify again. Not sure this would work though or if it would ruin the chocolates flavor.
I don't want to use a different type of chocolate so I'm hoping people can provide suggestions.
EDIT 1:
The recipe I used the first time I tried this called for the oven to be heated at 400°F. Since they're basically croissants they only need to go in for 15 minutes, that could be the issue. The chocolate wasn't cold before use it was just room temperature. I'm now using a different recipe but it calls for the same amount of time and temperature.
EDIT 2:
I'm still wondering if there's any way to lower the melting point of the chocolate a little. I don't want to sacrifice the taste of the chocolate too much but I still want it to be a little softer at room temperature and melt more readily during the quick bake.
What temperature are you baking at and for how long? I'd be surprised if any chocolate is still solid at baking temperature; are you starting it out cold (ie from the fridge) and baking very fast?
Do you care about the temper if the chocolate's going to be inside the dough? Dark chocolate has a higher melting point but if it's not melting during baking there may be an issue with your method, can you edit and add your recipe and method?
A rich dough should reach over 80°C inside, and dark chocolate should melt by 50°C. That's enough margin that it should be melting unless it's chilled or in very big pieces
Hmm that is a good point @dbmag9, I just added some more details but yes I am baking them pretty fast although the chocolate didn't start out in the fridge..
I don't think you can lower the melting point without melting the chocolate first.
Butter is very soft at room temperature and adds it's own typical butter flavor. A better alternative is hard coconut fat.
I always use this trick when I cover a cake with a simple chocolate glaze. If you simply melt the chocolate and slather it on top of the cake, it becomes so hard that it's hard to cut cleanly and (depending on the thickness) hard to bite. Of course that has to do with the ruined tempering.
Adding coconut fat to the molten chocolate makes it softer without turning it into a ganache or mouse. For a cake glaze I usually add half the weight of chocolate in coconut fat. The result is very shiny, still has a bite and unchanged chocolate flavor, but melts within seconds in your hand and wouldn't be able to hold its shape without the support of the cake. You'll probably want to add significantly less fat.
To the question of tempering: If you manage to melt the chocolate while baking, the end result won't be tempered anyways. Indeed, untempering can lower the melting point of chocolate without adding any oil or fat. Here's a very detailed blog post about tempering chocolate that explains the different crystal types cocoa butter can form and what their properties are. Tempered chocolate has only one type of crystal that is very stable. If you don't temper chocolate at all you'll end up with a mix of different crystals that might make the texture more gritty, but also lower the melting point.
Unfortunately I cannot offer any more detailled instructions, you'll have to experiment to find the best solution for you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.481968
| 2021-02-15T09:38:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114309",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Omnomnious",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66766"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47737
|
Does heat distribution vary between uncoated stainless steel pans and non-stick pans?
The refrain about non-stick cookware being easy to scratch is well-known, but setting that aside, can the choice between those two types of pans change the end quality of your food?
Are the two types of cookware better at different things? For example, does one conduct heat in a way which makes it easier to sear things, while the other one is better for stir frying? Are there times when I should deliberately reach for either uncoated stainless steel or non-stick pans to get different jobs done?
Non-stick pans have a coating on top of metal, this metal could be aluminum, stainless steel, copper, or any other metal or alloy. The coating doesn't make a whole lot of difference to the heat distribution, that is the property of the metal underneath it.
Heat distribution doesn't change the end quality of your food, it determines how quickly heat spreads through the metal of the pan. What determines the quality of your end result is your technique in using the combined properties of your heat source and your equipment to cook food well. You can make great food with the most basic of equipment if you know how.
The type of range you have should have a big influence on your pan choice. I cook on gas which produces a nice, steady heat which I can control very finely, I prefer using a set of inexpensive non-stick aluminum pans as they are light and heat up quickly. I can keep the pan at a steady heat by adjusting the flow of gas. If I (god forbid) had an electric stove I would opt for stainless steel or cast-iron instead because these materials even out the fluctuations in heat from the on-again-off-again nature of electric heating elements.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.482294
| 2014-10-07T12:11:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47737",
"authors": [
"Achmad Asiah",
"Arthur Knott",
"Bharathi K",
"Geoff A",
"Informasi Pola Slot Gacor Pali",
"Maqbool Jilani",
"Yvonne Brampton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115276"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47368
|
When should garlic be added to the pan to get maximum pungency?
When you crush raw garlic and use it as seasoning for vegetables, is it best to put it the pan first and let it begin to cook before adding any other ingredients, or is it best to add it later on?
Which order is best if you want the garlic flavor to be strongest?
Ana it really depends what sort of a dish you are making, and what texture and flavour you are after and the nature of garlic state: chopped, crushed, minced, pounded, etc.
If you want that pungent taste of garlic to be tasted, then you could add these crushed, chopped, sliced ones into your dish in the middle stage. If you do not want to taste too much of garlic, but just to go along, then minced ones are better and you may add a vee-bit at the earlier stage of the cooking. (I had to edit this passage as I had written it swapping the stages)
Garlic can be used for both oil based and water based dishes. Even for salads without oil! but with some flavours of lemon/lime and salt. We usually blend one raw garlic clove (as per the quantity) when making guacamole!!!
So are you sauteing vegetables? Or a gravy based dish? Should the dish go alone or with another set of course based dishes? =)
**
Update as per OP's edit:----------
**
I must say it is quite rare to see chefs wanting to preserve the best pungent flavours of garlic/onions... ;)
Cooking the garlic by, say, roasting or frying it affects it in
another way: its flavor changes as chemicals break down and reform
into novel aromatic compounds. It also becomes sweeter as large sugars
and carbohydrates break down into simpler sugars like fructose and
glucose, both of which taste quite sweet to us.
The key to really great garlic flavor? Use a combination of techniques as indicated in the above article. Personally I like to do couple of things. Marinating with crushed/chopped/sliced garlic would be in your favour. The longer main-ingredients wrapped with raw garlic before cooking, the better they absorb the flavour as well as aroma. This only works for fast/short cooking dishes. Because longer cooking kills the pungency and makes the dish sweeter.
It all comes down to the chemistry of ingredients and heat - not to mention the experience you may get along!
Your answer helped me figure out that I was in fact asking about pungency. I've edited my question to better reflect that. Thanks!
Hi chefs, critiques, please drop a line to improve the answer or educate us in the event if you want to downvote :)
@Ana I am editing my answer with a link that could help you retain the pungent flavour and aroma of garlic. Bon appetit and happy cooking!
Garlic's pungency is released by cutting it. The more finely the garlic is cut-up, the stronger its taste will be. So minced garlic will be stronger than chopped garlic. Chopped garlic will be stronger than sliced garlic. Etc.
Cooking mellows the sharp pungency of garlic. More cooking - milder flavor.
In order for garlic flavor to be strongest, you should mince the garlic and cook it briefly. Assuming you are trying to flavor vegetables, you should add your minced garlic shortly before they are cooked to the point where they ready to be served - give the garlic 30 seconds or so.
In Thai dishes, I put oil then garlic. This way garlic's smell and taste get mixed with oil. Putting garlic later on makes it soft and unappetizing for me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.482484
| 2014-09-24T03:40:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47368",
"authors": [
"Ana",
"Andrej Gaspar",
"Barry White",
"Craig Smeda",
"Donna Haldane",
"Dr Lydia M Daniels",
"Ear Wax",
"Joe Costigan",
"Kristi Speed",
"Matt Umscheid",
"Rosetta Nunn",
"bonCodigo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21086"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113697
|
What will happen if I put cut vegetables or roasted peanuts in a Salzburger grain mill or a mock mill?
I am trying to use a grain mill for peanut butter, and also pureeing vegetables. Can this work?
Don't do it.
a] it won't work properly &
b] you'll ruin the machine. It is supposed to take bone-dry grain in the top, grind between two flat(ish) granite plates - actual millstones - & pour fresh-milled flour out of a spout. It will not only clog the mechanism & not pour through, it will ruin the millstones by getting them greasy &/or wet.
Don't ruin a €600 mill trying to do a job you could get a dedicated machine for €35 to do better.
I feel for you regarding your former mill...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.482809
| 2021-01-11T02:35:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113697",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"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
}
|
96177
|
Should a cook be concerned about the type of symmetrical edge-grind from the manufacturer on a chef's knife?
Asymmetrical edges are out of scope of my question because I feel like they're too different from symmetrical edges as it relates to the question.
If the stock edge-grind on a chef's knife is any rounded variation, is that something that should be avoided due to a less well-defined guiding angle for future sharpening?
Does it have any material effect on knife performance if the quality of the edge is comparable in polish, angle, etc?
This has some examples of edge grinds
In the above picture, all but the chisel type is symmetrical.
Hollow and convex are examples of the types I would be concerned about during the first non-factory sharpening.
Hmmm ... can you give some examples/links? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "rounded variation".
I'd say so; you can't really sharpen hollow-ground knives using a knife block at home. However, I don't have definitive enough information to offer this as an answer.
This video https://youtu.be/7nTBEbMQBGQ?t=1076 up to about 18:20 he mentions that hollow-ground edges "melts away" when they touch the whetstone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.482894
| 2019-02-06T04:43:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96177",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Ryan Mortensen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128571
|
Creme Brulee disaster - Any way to recover?
I made a batch of Creme Brulee in my Sous Vide bath last night (82C for 1 hour in a ziploc bag), 6 egg yolks, 600ml cream, 6 tablespoons of sugar and vanilla essence. Normally, this turns out firm but wobbly, after 12 hours in the refrigerator it is still runny.
Why has this happened and is there anything I can do with this dessert to rescue it?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.483105
| 2024-06-15T14:59:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128571",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126408
|
Can you steam liquid food in deli, takeaway or microwave containers?
I use an electric steamer with a steaming basket with 1cm diameter holes to reheat frozen dishes such as lasagne, biryani etc. I remove the meal from the container and place it directly on the steaming rack to assist steam penetration and speed up the process. These food items are ideal for this method as they generally hold their shape when defrosted and very little food falls through the holes.
What about items such as soups and stews etc. which are more liquid? Can these be efficiently steamed in a deli, takeaway or microwave container etc.?
Assuming the carton is suitable for reheating purposes, should I leave the container lid on, off or vented?
why would you do that, though?
Steaming is a great way of reheating food and it would be useful to be able to reheat a curry with a biryani at the same time etc.
The answer to this strongly depends on the type of material from which the container is made. This answer also applies to heating in the microwave.
Clay-based, steel (don't put this in the microwave), glass and similar containers are generally considered safe to heat and reuse. Cardboard and plastic-coated cardboards (these are the shiny cardboards, like the ones often associated with "Chinese take-out" in American movies) will soften and fall apart.
There are several different types of plastics that might possibly be used in food containers. One major concern is the softening of the plastics at temperatures below the cooking point. What temperature this happens at depends on exactly which plastic the container is made of and the formulation of the plastic therein. Some plastics such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and LD-PE (low density polyethylene) will soften as low as 60 C (140 F). Expanded polystyrene containers will start to fall apart at a fairly low temperature too, and the polystyrene itself can soften as low as 90 C (194 F) depending on formulation.
The second major concern with plastics is that they contain chemicals that are added to adjust their physical properties, such as higher/lower melting point, more/less brittle, more stable, etc. Many of these chemicals are considered to be dangerous to human health. These can include things like Phthalates, which have been shown to have hormone mimicking properties, causing endocrine disruption and birth defects. BPA (bisphenol A) is another hormone mimic commonly found in plastics that is linked to all sorts of hormonal effects, particularly in young people.
In many cases these additives are completely stable (at least to my knowledge) in their initial plastic form, but once heated start to leach the additive in a non-stop fashion. This means that once heated (even by washing in hot water in some cases) the additive will start to leak out of the plastic into whatever is in the container, and won't stop doing this, so every time you eat from that container, you eat some of the additive. No-one fully knows what these additive effects are and how cumulative they might be, but the few scientists that I know personally, working in the area consider them to be a risk that is worth further study and recommend never heating plastic containers, or at least those known to contain BPAs, as do many authorities such as the Mayo Clinic, and BPAs have been banned in baby/infant bottles and similar items for a while now by most authorities such as the FDA and EFSA.
Edited to add: OP was asking about heat transfer in containers. Conductive containers such as metals will transfer heat faster than non-conductive containers, such as plastics, which are relatively impermeable to heat (especially the expanded foams, which are excellent insulators). The others are in the middle and depending on the thickness of the respective container might be faster or slower than plastic. Heating in the microwave is different to heating in a steamer, as what happens is that the microwaves interact with polar molecules in the substance (mostly water in food) and induce heating, a process known as dielectric heating. Plastics are mostly non-polar so don't interact strongly but also don't block microwaves much so heating is more or less unimpeded in plastic containers in the microwave. You can't use metal bowls in the microwave, but assuming no arcing (DON'T TRY IT; it's bad for your microwave and it can cause fires), metals will actually shield the food from the microwaves and prevent heating.
Steel is safe to reheat say in the oven but should not go in the microwave. Most clay or porcelain items are microwave safe but not all of them. For plastic it is easiest to just not put it into the microwave, although it is probably safe for some plastics but not for others.
Thank you @bob1 for your extensive answer. I was thinking more of heat transfer and efficiency etc. rather than food safety per se, but I completely agree with your answer. I am always careful to avoid any suspect plastic containers. In the UK at least, most containers are marked with a symbol that denotes what they are manufactured from.
@quarague good point, was writing a general answer and then added about microwaves. I will edit to fix.
Heat transfer within the food will dominate over heat transfer through the container. You have cm of food compared to no more than about 1mm of container, and nearly all foods have low thermal conductivity. This is the limiting factor even in microwaving, where a fairly thick surface layer is heated, instead of the thin layer in oven or steam reheating
@ChrisH What I was referring to there was that a conductive container will have greater heat transfer capacity than a non-conductive, purely based on surface area, which will mean faster heating of the food. The thickness of the material doesn't matter much, it's the rate of heat transfer that is the problem here. This applies in the case of the steamer as in the question, not the microwave obviously.
@bob1 the difference between a really high thermal conductivity container (aluminium, say) and a really bad one (plastic) is tiny in the context of needing to get the middle of the food hot. It won't mean faster heating on measurable timescales. And thicker is always going to be slower - significantly so for poor thermal conductors. Good thermal conductors tend to have high specific heat capacities, so the container will take some heating unless thin (like foil)
@ChrisH I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I've done this empirically at home, though admittedly not in the exact same dimension containers with steamed egg, and plastic (~1-2 mm) was still liquid when glass (~5 mm) was done. Muffins in silicone cups (inside a metal muffin tray) take 1-2 min longer than those in metal tray in my experience too.
Experimented with instant pot and a frozen curry in a Pyrex dish covered with foil. After 20 minutes full pressure, the curry was still semi-frozen. So it seems that covering the item is not a good idea, this makes scientific sense as air is a good insulator.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.483176
| 2024-01-18T17:43:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126408",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Greybeard",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"njzk2",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81192
|
Ways to prevent smoke when grilling
I've been grilling hamburgers and steaks but my neighbors complain about the smoke. Are there ways to reduce the smoke but still let me cook basically the same way?
I'm currently using a Weber Kettle. I'd be willing to consider buying something new if it could keep the smoke down somehow. Currently using briquettes. Have been told lump might less smoke but wondering if it's enough.
Do any smokeless grills exist? Something with a short chimney+fan+filter? Or are there other solutions? Switching to electric or propane seems meh as no flavor.
Are you smoking stuff or just grilling up burgers or something? And whats your fuel source/setup?
updated the question to just cover grilling
Are you cooking with the lid on? That should not produce much smoke. Not cheap but Big Green Egg.
Is fat dropping on the coals and smoking up or what?
Share with the neighbor to get them to stop complaining? (Sorry, its a Monday).
A drip tray to catch fat might help, or indirect heat (following on from @Batman's comment).
Using actual charcoal rather than briquettes will make much less smoke, particularly the more objectionable "coal" smoke from getting the briquettes burnt far enough that they are useable.
In my personal experience actual charcoal lights (to a usable state) faster and if you have a good tight grill can be put out by sealing the grill for re-use, much more effectively than briquettes. If your grill is no longer tight you can put it out with water, then dry it, and re-use it.
You'll still get some smoke from burning fats dripping off the meat. But proper charcoal is effectively smokeless, itself.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.483709
| 2017-04-24T02:16:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81192",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Chris H",
"dlb",
"gman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54717
|
How should I interpret this expiry date?
I have a just opened plastic 4L container of cranberry juice that I bought several months ago. The expiry date on the container is 14 DE 15. I don't know if that should be interpreted as 14 Dec 2015, or 15 Dec 2014.
In general I have this problem with many expiry dates and am curious if there is any kind of standard.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! What country are you in? That's a pretty big clue here as there may be a regulated standard in your country. I'm guessing US as we tend to put days in front of months whereas most of the English speaking world seems to put Month first. Year would almost always be last, regardless.
I'm in Canada, where all three formats are common. Be "we" do you mean those in the US? You guys put months first, almost always.
See also this wikipedia article.
Ah right. Month first in the US. I wrote it backwards because I personally tend to put the day first, forgetting that was "backwards." In government and military applications we do use day first--it sounds like Greek to most Americans though.
Canada gets the worst of all worlds, because our official format is YYMMDD, but it's rarely used, and DDMMYY seems to be the unofficial format maybe from the UK, but we have tons of stuff and influence from the US where MMDDYY is common. So I'm at a loss for how to interpret dates like the one above.
What country was the juice bottled in is the question? ISO standard is yyyy/mm/dd, but usually only used in full year format, and with a variety of separators. Any other format would most likely be in DMY style, unless USA sigh...
The bottle says "PRODUCT OF USA" and also "Distributed by Costco Wholesale Canada". It is not clear where it is actually bottled, but the labeling is clearly Canada specific (it has French, etc). The expiry date is stamped on the cap and also has French/English.
UK is dd/mm/yyyy
If this is Ocean Spray, then according to this link (scroll mid-way down page) the last two digits are the year -- so, 14 December 2015. If not... perhaps call the manufacturer?
Interesting. I happened to be in Costco today and took a look at the big juice bottles.
The bottle I have was Kirkland brand, but they don't have it any more and have gone back to Ocean spray. Ocean spray was YYYY/MM/DD (i.e., no ambiguity because they used a 4 digit year). The kirkland bottle of grape juice was YY/MM/DD. So years always came first on the two examples I could see.
That's funny...In my documents at work that are date dependant I begin all filenames with 20150226 (today), so that they sort in true date order. All my files sort in perfect order that way.
According to this government website from Canada, the date on your product should be read as 15th of December of 2014.
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/information-for-consumers/fact-sheets/date-labelling/eng/1332357469487/1332357545633
Based on the comments below it looks like the first value may actually the year.
It's very unlikely that a can bought in late 2014 would expire in 2014 unless your store is carrying some very old stock. I have seen this type of expiration on other cans and it's been clear that the format is Day Month Year (31 DE 14 or 31 Dec 14). Seems like poor labeling on the part of the manufacturer by not including a 4-digit year.
Other formats I have seen are:
2015 Dec 14
Dec 14 15
Dec 14 2015
12 14 2015
I don't think I have seen a format where a two-digit year is the first value.
I agree with you about poor labeling. I also have to say that many stores do not move some products very well and have become lazy to move off shelves and consumers have also become lazy about checking expiration dates so things sell and when the consumer takes things back, the store will question us about how long we have kept the product. This has happened to me and thank goodness when I went back to find my product, there were many more of the expired products there. Consumers have to beware of dates and clarification of dates.
Just to be clear, this was a bottle, not a can, and it was probably bought in Fall 2014 (so not sure about "late"). FWIW I checked next time I was back at Costco and the two examples I saw for similar juice bottles did have year first, e.g., 15 06 21.
A two-digit year is often the first value in Japanese expiration dates. In that case, they are usually not Gregorian-based (2015) but Imperial-based (平27)
I have plum juice from Korea dated 2015.07.26 -- I also have Sour Cherry Juice from Slovenia dated AUG / 2015 -- Another juice from Italy says 25-JUN-2017 -- my Mango and Pineapple Juice were confusing because their dates were 12141214 (really no dates but I needed it and they were small single serving cans and in the end the smoothies I made with pulp and also yogurt tasted more like cans, lesson learned, I won't buy canned juices from abroad) -- Apple Juice from the US is dated 012516 -- and lastly my Concord Grape Juice and White Cherry Juice from the same US company is dated 15DEC16. This is what I have in my pantry now and had before. Good Luck (PS I believe if it is US Welches or Italian Torani it is Dec 14 2015 and my Slovenian juice has the date then the year. A very good way to find out is to go back to the place where you bought it from and ask them or call the company you bought it from or even email them or google.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.483878
| 2015-02-14T03:01:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54717",
"authors": [
"Abdon Perez",
"BeeOnRope",
"Chris Davies",
"Corliss Carter",
"Doug",
"Elizabeth Barnard",
"Erica",
"Escoce",
"Larry Seegott",
"Life Made Easy By Aishwarya",
"Paul Guyot",
"Preston",
"Shea Harper",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33516",
"lorraine pendred",
"simon galt",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39432
|
How long is garlic butter safe, and why is it not a botulism risk like garlic in oil?
I've been making garlic butter for years, storing it for months at a time. When I read that garlic-in-oil can grow dangerous amounts of botulinum toxins after similar lengths of time, I wondered how safe garlic butter is and why.
Evidently, the safety warnings specifically target storage in oil. I couldn't find a satisfactory explanation for butter not being mentioned with a preliminary search. The first Google result turns up a grossly unhelpful Yahoo! Answers page whose sources do not mention butter at all.
To the point: is garlic butter safer than garlic-in-oil, and why? Is butter not also an anaerobic environment, so that the same precautions should apply as with oil?
Are you storing it in the refrigerator?
Yes, naturally. However, I never minded keeping it out for up to about 4 hours to spread it more easily or use it in longer cooking sessions.
Garlic oil is also much safer in the refrigerator (though still not great for long term storage). The really strong warnings are for the people trying to bottle it and keep it on the shelf.
A common recommendation from health authorities seems to be 1 week max in the refrigerator for garlic-in-oil. It'd be good to know if butter is safer for chemical reasons, or if I just got lucky.
This question is close to home. Not finding anything online myself, I just sent an email to a distinguished doctor of Food Science, and will reply (if he does not himself) with any forthcoming information.
I'm wondering if it has to do with the fact that butter goes bad much quicker than oil does. You could conceivably have oil for a few months and it would still be ok, but butter would go rancid, so maybe garlic butter will go rancid before it's likely to have any botulism in it?
More people are likely to place butter in fridge than oil, so it is "more safe"
Botulism is still quite rare in most countries. Many people are ignorant of it, yet there are very few documented cases of it
Fresh vs granulated ---Both seem to be naturally able to contaminate the mixture, oil or butter. I decided to make a "quick and dirty" garlic spread using granulated garlic. Within a week, the garlic caused the combination to turn green. From now on, I'll just make it fresh, or make a batch and freeze small packs. Why take the chance with butter when you can freeze it?
I suspected that @FuzzyChef's answer was essentially correct, but I felt that the question was not conclusively answered without sources, so I ended up never accepting an answer. Thankfully, Linda Harris published this very comprehensive summary (which I recommend you to read if you are a fan of garlic), from which these parts stand out:
Garlic is a low-acid vegetable. The pH of a clove of garlic typically
ranges from 5.3 to 6.3.
[...]
Adding wine or vinegar to garlic
provides an acidic environment (less than pH 4.6) so that Clostridium
botulinum cannot grow.
A quick Google search reveals that butter has a pH of 6.1 - 6.4, so there is indeed no reason to believe that garlic butter is safer than garlic in oil.
As the summary says that garlic in oil is safe for up to 4 days in the refrigerator, it should be safe to assume that the same would hold for garlic butter.
Most interestingly, however, the document explains a method to acidify garlic for long-term storage in oil, based on research that was published a year after this question was originally posted. The method should be just as valid for garlic butter. In short:
Prepare 3 parts of 3% citric acid solution (about 15 g citric acid / 500 ml water) per part of garlic to be acidified (and don't change this ratio, obviously)
Coarsely chop the garlic into pieces no longer than 6 mm (1/4 inch) in any direction
Put the garlic in the solution, mix, cover and let soak for 24 h at room temperature, then drain/sieve.
This acidified garlic is safe to use in oil (and presumably butter), according to science. Enjoy!
There's no reason to believe it's safer.
Garlic in oil is "unsafe" by FDA standards. Which means that roughly one in 100,000 bottles of homemade garlic oil kills someone. Before reading about the botulism risk, my friends and I used to make garlic oil at home and hand it out; I'd say we distributed probably 100 bottles, some of which stayed on the shelf for years before being used. In that time, nobody got sick from it (most bottles went to friends, so we'd have heard).
So the fact that your garlic butter hasn't killed anyone yet just means that you're playing the odds. Chances are, unless you get really sloppy, you could go on making garlic butter for the rest of your life and never get botulism poisoning. But not everyone is comfortable with that risk.
EDITED PER BELOW: You can improve your odds of avoiding botulism by straining the oil/butter through cheesecloth (to eliminate solids which would hide spores), and heat-treating it to 160F or more for 45 minutes. This will not eliminate all risk of botulism, but will improve your odds.
I agree that unless we find a reason why garlic butter isn't mentioned alongside garlic-in-oil in those health warnings, it should be assumed that both are equally dangerous. However, I can't see how that would imply better food safety when straining butter through a cheesecloth. The environment would still be anaerobic, and the spores are heat resistant. Is there any source for this?
The straining through cheesecloth is to eliminate hydrous solids which could protect spores from the heat-treatment.
However, you are correct that my recommentations for heat treatment duration are inadequate. Edited entry.
Clostridium botulinum grows best around body temperature.
Typically, butter — as opposed to oil — is stored in a cool place which significantly reduces bacteria growth in general, including the growth of Clostridium botulinum. The CDC in 2010 specifically recommended cooling as a means to prevent Botulism.
Botulism is rare to begin with (the CDC page gives a number of 110 annual cases in the U.S. of which only 25% are food-born.1).
I'd be totally cool about food in the fridge ;-).
As an aside, the whole issue is moot (for adults) if the food is cooked for a few minutes before consumption. Botulism in adults is not an infection (our acidic stomach sees to that) but caused by the toxin already present in the food. The toxin is destroyed at boiling temperature. You can cook with your garlic oil no matter how old, just don't put it in the salad.
1 It is perhaps worthwhile to put the numbers in perspective. In the US, about 5,000 people each year die from choking, as opposed to three or so from Botulism. The best advice is "we don't care how you store your garlic as long as you chew it properly" ;-).
Garlic butter should be safer because you make it by chopping up garlic and cooking it in butter. The cooking reduces the water content in the garlic to low enough levels that botulism bacteria should no longer an issue.
The garlic in oil issue is that at the water content and pH of garlic, oil blocks the oxygen, allowing the anaerobic bacteria to thrive. But if you change either the water content, by cooking, or the pH, by pickling, then the bacteria can't grow.
Of course, either cooking or pickling will change the taste of the garlic, but both are delicious, so it's fine. :)
Not only does butter contain more water than oil, this well-researched answer states that botulinum spores would grow on dried garlic immersed in oil. Butter would be more dangerous if water content was the deciding factor. Also, the garlic butter recipes I know don't involve cooking.
Garlic butter is commonly made without cooking, by mixing butter with garlic. The butter is softened but this may be done by leaving it at room temperature. It's usually heated before use to get it to melt, but that doesn't require high temperature and is unlikely to be sufficient to kill bacteria. Example recipes: BBC AllRecipes.
Unlike oil, butter isn't pure fat. Typically, it's around 80% fat in an emulsion with roughly 20% water and dissolved milk solids. So, no, it's not a truly anaerobic environment. If it were melted or clarified, it may be a different story. Furthermore, butter's crystaline structure -- at room temperature and below -- is bound to be aerated to some degree or another.
Also unlike oil, which is usually stored at room temperature, butter is usually stored at or below 40 degrees F, which retards bacterial reproduction of any kind. The botulism bacteria itself isn't inherently dangerous. It's pretty common in soil and also, therefore, in agricultural products, especially root crops like onions and garlic. When the bacteria reproduces under anaerobic conditions, however, there is a toxic chemical by-product of that specific process. Since low temperatures retard bacterial reproduction, they also reduce the risk that the toxin will be produced.
Realistically, the risks of garlic-in-oil preparations are probably mostly over-stated, but it can be a complex issue, and the consequences of botulism poisoning are too grave to take any chances.
That said, if you're making garlic butter with fresh garlic and storing it anywhere but the freezer, "months at a time" seems like too long, from a quality perspective if not a food-safety one.
The water and dissolved milk solids may make it not a pure fat, but they don't make it a non-low oxygen environment. Storing garlic in oil in the refrigerator is also discouraged because some of the botulism strains are active below 4 C, and since most refrigerators cycle up and down around their target temperature, growth is possible. While the risks may be exaggerated for garlic in any fat, you have not distinguished the butter case in any meaningful way.
I'm not sure the structure of butter can be called crystalline, even if it solidifies at room temp. Even then, this link suggests that oxygen levels in processed fats like butter would be kept low to increase its shelf life. Water would not inhibit bacterial growth, so I don't see how this would explain a difference to other oils. 2) From a personal taste perspective, the garlic butter becomes more potent over the weeks (as the aroma diffuses into the fat, presumably). Quality doesn't seem to suffer until the butter turns rancid.
3 days if not refrigerated. 14 days in a fridge. Freezing is not recommended.
Is there some documentation or reasoning for this?
My husband is head chef at Veritas and I asked him. He's been a chef for nearly 30 years.
And can he provide you with some documentation or reasoning? This is a safety question; making assertions without backing is not really a good thing.
http://www.ehow.com/how_8289511_make-garlic-butter-compound.html if you read it at the end it says it has shelf life of one week. You can freeze if you wish but fresh is always tastier
Why is it different from oil? (And I know you meant well, but ehow isn't really the most trustworthy source - that article was written by someone who didn't cite sources, and doesn't have a culinary or food safety background, so she might well have just picked the amount of time it seemed to stay good for.)
Frozen butter is indiscernible from fresh butter. In fact most butter in the world is frozen for storage
I thought that our stomach acid kills botulism spores... Which is why we recommend that infants under 12 months do not eat honey. Honey can store botulism spores... But it's not dangerous for older kids and adults.
I also have read this, but I think the people panicking over garlic stored (room temp) in oil arent worried about the spores themselvs (present on fresh garlic too, no?), but the mischief the spores may get up to when submerged beneath oil in an anaerobic environment, and may in time begin a flourishing colony on the (moist, nutritious) garlic. After while, you would have botulinum toxin, and it could kill you if you eat it without cooking it to the point of breaking it down (dont know temp or time for that) That's my understanding; I'm sure someone here will correct me if need be.
@LorelC. sums it up nicely - you have to differentiate between exposure to the spores (which under normal conditions won't be able to grow in humans - with exceptions, especially where the imune system isn't fully active) and exposure to the toxin, which may kill you - 5-10% of all cases of botulism are fatal.
Lactic acid has been shown to inhibit the growth of Clostridium botulinum. That is why it is safer to use butter than oil. link
This is not a good argument. First, any acid will inhibit c.b., if you use enough of it. Butter has nowhere near enough lactic acid. Second, the link talks about a live colony of lactobacilicus, not about isolated lactic acid. It is normal that a live colony can outcompete other bacteria, but there is no live culture in butter, not even in sourmilk-made butter. Third, one of the most insidious things about botulism is that the spores can survive what the active bacteria can't.
The link is interesting. But if that is the basis for your premise, you're way, way short.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.484371
| 2013-11-14T10:06:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39432",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amanda",
"Cascabel",
"Christy Nimitsilpa",
"DaaBoss",
"Daniel Chui",
"FuzzyChef",
"FvD",
"John Fazio",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lorel C.",
"Marc Benedict",
"Michael J Daly",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"Stuart F",
"TFD",
"Tawny LeBlanc",
"Whitehat Jr spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960",
"ipso",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92499
|
Why asafoetida clumps in hot oil?
Introduction
While making vegetable recipe we generally initiate with same procedure for every vegetable i.e. in 2 spoon of hot oil we put mustard, cumin, and asafoetida before adding pieces of any vegetable.
Question
Why does asafoetida clump after putting into hot oil? How to avoid this?
Reference -
Video -- Please refer initial process only in this video. Although she has not added asafoetida. I am just telling to refer initial common procedure for understanding.
Following is another image for reference
Naturally, asofoetida is obtained as a hard gummy resin from trees. In order to make it easier to measure and add to your cooking, it is powdered and sold. But, asofoetida being a resin in nature gets clumped in the package if not coated with some agent. In India, it is usually coated with flour. Flour when put in oil gets fried. So what you see clumping isn't asofoetida, it's the flour in it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.485461
| 2018-09-27T12:29:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92499",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92471
|
Reason of putting clarified ghee on Modak
"Modak" is the sweet dish generally prepared for Lord Ganesha in India. "Ukadiche Modak" is the sub-type of Modak. It is usually cooked in steamer. It does not get fried (or deep fried). I would like to know what is the reason of putting clarified ghee on Modak while eating?
Image courtesy- Google.com
Golden goodness of ghee has a special value in the culture and cuisine of Indian sub-continent since ancient times. Ayurveda suggests it promotes digestion and increase the absorption of nutrients.
Adding warm ghee to any meal enhances the taste significantly. An example is the 'tadka/tarka' added to lentils('daal') or pouring ghee over boiled rice to enhance the taste. Probably the main reason of putting ghee on steamed Modak is to enhance the taste.
From the story behind the traditional association of Modak with this festival my guess is that ghee was added to Modak to make it soft, tasty, easy to eat and filling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.485560
| 2018-09-25T14:01:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92471",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92493
|
When to add Milk powder while preparing a cup of Tea (Chai)?
Tea is prepared by adding water+sugar+tea powder in a bowl, and boiled it properly. After pouring into the cup, I added 2 spoon of milk powder (Nestle product) and stirred up well. But I found big granules of milk powder at the bottom of cup (after drinking it). How to avoid this? I mean, What is the proper timing of adding milk powder while preparing a cup of Tea?
Some powders mix better with cold water than hot, and milk powder seems to be one of them. Making a paste using a small amount of water also helps.
You can make a paste of cold water and milk powder in the cup before adding the tea, or you can make the paste, add the tea, optional sugar and more water, then boil. You may be able to put the powder in the cup, ad a small amount of tea and make a paste, then add the rest of the tea while stirring.
I do something similar with instant hot chocolate (which contains powdered milk) if making it in a mug. Another approach (which I use with instant hot chocolate when taking it out hiking) is to use a vacuum flask like a cocktail shaker: put the powder in and half fill with water, shake hard, then top up the water. Unless you want the tea in a flask this is just a way of making more washing up.
As an alternative, milk-based powdered whiteners sold for tea and coffee have more soluble ingredients than milk derivatives, and don't form clumps. The ingredient list for one I could easily buy is Glucose Syrup, Coconut Oil, Stabiliser (Dipotassium Phosphate, Sodium Polyphosphate), Milk Proteins, Emulsifier (Mono- and Di-Glycerides of Fatty Acids), Anti-caking Agent (Silicon Dioxide), Colour (Beta-Carotene). Other whiteners have no milk in them at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.485660
| 2018-09-27T07:30:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92493",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115739
|
Are these pots suitable to cook in?
My mother recently bought these from an old second hand shop because she thought them pretty, but I am just wondering if they are suitable to cook on the hob.
I tried to google them on Google images but it kept showing me Serveware. Does anyone know if this is actually cookware?
We think so but just want to be sure. We use a solid plate hob.
Click for full size
It's hard to say from the picture, they look like enameled metal but they could just be painted. Is there a stamp on the bottom of any of them, or identifying marks?
@GdD they are enamel And rather new, it seems.
The real question is if you would want to (no).
These are enamelled pots - perfectly fine and intended for cooking, albeit a bit sensitive to chipping if not handled carefully. You can find various listings of that exact set on the Internet, e.g here or here.
Enamel is a hard, glass-like, non-porous substance and pretty non-reactive. As long as you are not exposing it to extreme temperature changes (when it can crack like glass) or excessive scrubbing, it remains pretty much the same even with prolonged use. So buying them secondhand is a good investment, if they are in a good condition. Do not use enamelled pots with chipping, less because of the rust from the iron core, but because in that case there’s a (small) chance of enamel shards or splinters ending up in the food. With good care however, enamel pots can be used a long time.
Note that the surface is quite hard and scratch-resistant, so not bad per se and reasonably well to clean. It’s not non-stick, though, so you will want to use a bit of fat if you intend to fry or roast something in them. Some cooks like the light inside color, because it makes it easier to judge the color, e.g. when browning onions.
You don't see them around so much these days, but they look like a million variants of the old enamelled steel casserole pots, probably last popular in the 70s.
They probably ought to have lids.
I have been buying the kind in the question (but without the print) in the late 1990's and in the 2010's, and will buy them again when our local shops stock them in the right colours again. Good for potatoes and veggies, not so much for meat.
They went out of fashion after the seventies but I still have them and they are particularly useful for pot roasting or simmering over a low heat.
These pots came from the Netherlands more than 40 years ago and are still perfect. Yes they can be used on a hob.
Maybe they went out of fashion but they were still for sale here for much later and I bet I can buy the like in many of the stores here still. (But likely not in this kind of decor.)
Yes, those are enamelled pots and they are perfectly safe to cook in (on gas, on an electric stove or in the oven), but may not work on induction. They're also easy to clean and safe to put in the dishwasher. I have two sets and have been using them for nearly 40 years (and I cook a lot), and they still look almost as new.
I wouldn’t use the on the stove top. I tried to melt some butter in one, once (at probably too high of a temp—I was 11 or 12) and the enamel started cracking and breaking off.
Kids mistake. They are not frying pans but boiling pans and work well for that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.485821
| 2021-05-20T16:30:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115739",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Stephie",
"Willeke",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44523
|
How to make a homemade Phrostie?
OK, warning: this is a little "local."
Until earlier this week, anyone in New York City's 5 boroughs could follow @phrosties on Instagram, text the phone number included in the profile, and receive a cooler full of colorful frozen alcoholic beverages delivered straight to your door.
(photo credit: sara_jane_triplett)
But then the beverages blew up - everyone heard about them, including Senator Chuck Schumer, and the enterprise was shut down.
So now we're left to guess what was in Phrosties (Adam Platt says "This is just pure sugar and grain alcohol."), and how we might make them ourselves.
Anybody had one? Anybody know how we might make one?
I take it you're a fellow NY'er :)
The classic Phrostie consists of just 4 ingredients: Kool-aid mix, sugar, water and Everclear. First, mix the Kool-aid, sugar and water until everything is dissolved. You want to use about 1/2 to 1/3 the amount of water that you would normally use and the rest (1/2 or 2/3) would be Everclear.
Here's my Phrostie interpretation (uses 1/2 everclear and 1/2 water):
3 (6g) packages Kool-Aid, your favourite flavour
1 3/4 cups sugar
8 cups cold water
8 cups Everclear
This should make a little more than a gallon total. Portion it out in capped bottles, then put them in the freezer for a few hours.
I've also poked around with a "fancy" Phrostie:
3 cups Marino's Italian Ices
8 oz Brugal Anejo
5 oz Brugal Especial Extra Dry Silver
1 can frozen pineapple juice concentrate
1 can frozen orange juice concentrate
8 oz grenadine syrup
Good lord, no wonder these things were reported to knock you out. I'd guess you could achieve the fancy color combos by using different types of Kool-Aid, freezing them separately until slushy, and then layering them in the capped bottles.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. Any chance you can speak a bit to the technique necessary to get that layering effect?
@SamtheBrand Nothing too fancy - freeze the original mixtures separately in large vessels, then pour or spoon carefully into the final containers, bottom color first. The frozen slush should be semi-solid enough to prevent much mixing if you're careful. You could try upping the ratio of sugar in the lower layers and increase the alcohol in the higher ones to adjust their specific gravities, but that might affect how they freeze. Such care probably doesn't matter since you won't be able to see straight after one or two of these.
+1 to what logophobe said - just freeze them in separate containers then scoop them into a bottle and refreeze for an hour or so so that they settle. No need to adjust the sugar/alcohol ratios for the specific gravity after they are separately frozen though as they'll just mix in the end.
Perhaps there is a simpler layering method: fill the bottles half-full of one color and freeze them, then pour on a second color and freeze again. Don't know why you'd want to though - I have some bad college memories of Everclear!
@GdD Yeah, good point, that would simplify things a bit. Only thing to be careful about there would be having the second color at least somewhat chilled, so that it didn't melt the top of the bottom layer too much and cause more color mixing than necessary.
The first recipe is almost half alcohol, that wouldn't even get slushy. That would be like putting a bottle of vodka in the freezer. Isn't "slushy" part of the point? The second recipe (~8% alcohol) will get slushy in a few hours and eventually freeze at normal freezer temp.
@Jolenealaska the first recipe does have a slushy consistency - granted a very watery slushy. If you're thinking shaved-ice type of slushy, you won't get it with the first recipe. The second recipe you have to be a bit careful with timing - otherwise you'll freeze it solid. I (as well as my friends) personally prefer the first type since we tend to drink it from bottles. If I'm having a get-together, then I typically make the second version to shave and serve in martini glasses, or frozen Moscow Mules.
@jsanc623 Then something isn't correct, because your first recipe is almost 50% alcohol. It has a higher proof than the 80 proof vodka in my freezer, which will never freeze at that temperature. Is your everclear 195 proof?
Your second recipe is just about 8%. Now that will freeze, especially if left too long.
The bottle I have in my cabinet is the 151 proof, so something around 70% alcohol, which with the water gets down to about 35% (and with the sugar and kool-aid gets down a few more %'s). I guess I should have mentioned that :)
Don't crunch the numbers, try the recipe yourself :)
I'm not from New York and have never had a Phrostie, but I assume that a big part of it is that they should be slushy? To get a product that will stay slushy (at least for a while, before it freezes hard) you want an alcohol content just around 10%, varying a bit depending upon your freezer. There is no reason that Kool-Aid and Everclear wouldn't work, but your ratios have to be right. Everclear is 95% alcohol in the 190 proof formulation. I understand that it also comes in a 151 proof formulation (75.5% alcohol), but I've never seen that.
So if you're using 95% alcohol, you'd want to use about one part of it for every 9-10 parts of mixer. Your alcohol content can be a little lower than that if the mixer is full of sugar, but not much lower or it will quickly freeze hard. If your alcohol content goes much higher than 10% (like in jsanc623's first recipe, assuming 190 proof Everclear) it will just stay liquid at home freezer temperatures.
To get the layered effect, just mix your layers with slightly less alcohol in the bottom layer color than the top. Freeze your first layer until it's good and slushy, almost frozen. Then add your more potent layer. You can freeze again to make yet another layer, just keep the total alcohol content of the bottle at just around 10%. Doing it this way, as the drink melts, it will also stay in layers (sort of) as you drink. Kind of cool (or kool), so to speak either way.
See also: What's the secret to getting restaurant-quality frozen drinks at home?, especially if Kool-aid and Everclear sounds as juvenile to you as it does to me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.486132
| 2014-05-29T19:53:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44523",
"authors": [
"DLV",
"David Zugsberger",
"GdD",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mpendulo Chiliza MQL5 Develope",
"Vida Skin Beauty Center",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7107",
"jsanc623",
"logophobe",
"samthebrand",
"sevensevens"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20780
|
When using melted butter, is rendering (clarifying) always preferable?
I was looking at this question:
How do I butter popcorn without making it soggy?
And it got me wondering: is there any instance, either using melted butter for popcorn or in some other application, where simply melted but not clarified/rendered butter should be used?
If you were looking at this answer, note that it's not quite the same as clarifying - there's no mention of removing the milk solids, though they may have separated and sunk. If they get mixed back in, then the butter isn't really clarified.
Your assumption is kind of odd, too. Clarified butter has no water in it, so this is like asking if it's always preferable to use pure fat instead of 80% fat 20% water. In the case of popcorn, maybe so. In the case of a recipe using melted butter that was created using melted butter, and knows that water is there, and will be changed if it's not?
Essentially clarified butter is butter that has all it's water and milk solids removed. All that is left is butterfat.
Pros and Cons of Clarified/Rendered butter:
Pros:
It can be stored longer than regular butter
It has a higher smoke point so can be heated higher without burning
Does contain negligible lactose for those lactose-intolerant
Cons:
Effort. It requires so time to melt the butter, boil off the water, filter out the milk fat, and resolidify the butter again.
Taste. Because the milk solids are filtered out, it has a milder "butter" taste than unclarified butter. Of course it will still be much more rich and buttery compared to regular vegetable oil.
With this information in mind, I will leave it to yourself to decide when you should and should not use clarified butter.
Could you give any sources?
This is actually the article I first used when I created my clarified butter. It's introduction provided me with most of the information I posted: http://www.joyofbaking.com/ClarifiedButter.html
@Mien: This is reasonably common knowledge. The first sentence is basically a definition (which you can see in the snippet for the wikipedia page which is the first result on google for "clarified butter") and the rest is deduction from that, and can also be found on wikipedia or elsewhere.
@Mein, this is not "skeptics", where the children ring out "prove it" to every little thing. Not to say that sometimes sources aren't valuable but, as Jefromi points out, this is pretty common knowledge. Of course, if you disagree with Jay's analysis you are free to offer something constructive.
@CosCallis I didn't saw your comment till now (you wrote a mistake in my name). After looking it up, I don't disagree. But I never heard of those characteristics, so it wasn't common knowledge for me. I thought I wasn't the only one.
@Mien, sorry for getting your name wrong... the mistake was all mien. ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.486601
| 2012-01-25T19:38:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20780",
"authors": [
"Anna",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"D Hager",
"Jay",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"papakias"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34540
|
Why do Pocky and other "stick" biscuits have this distinct burn pattern?
This is Pocky: (much larger image)
As you can see, the part that is not covered in chocolate has burn marks that form a distinct pattern that is also common for other kinds of "stick" biscuits. Is this just a traditional decoration, or does it serve some purpose?
While I cannot give an absolutely definitive answer, from visual observation of the picture you provided, that is simply the pattern that would develop when a small cylinder lies across parallel wires of a grill at an angle. The contact surface is an ellipse where the biscuit was in contact with the grill, the width and length of which were determined by the angle at which the biscuit was oriented.
The biscuits are probably cooked twice, once to cook through and be strong enough for the second baking, and once to crisp up. The markings would be a result for the second baking.
The one or two exceptional sticks with doubled markings probably rolled or shifted slightly during the baking.
I just checked my pack of Pepero and some other biscuits like that, and they all have double markings.
That would then indicate they are probably turned once during the baking process.
I suspect a grid, not just a parallel grating.
@Joe Possible, perhaps even likely, but I couldn't prove it by the marks in the picture provided.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.487175
| 2013-06-06T19:06:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34540",
"authors": [
"Alfonso Peixoto",
"Joe",
"Kimberly Gonzalez",
"Malka Mocci",
"Maricela Stewart",
"Martha",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Suz Parque",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80509",
"user1306322"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34444
|
How to make matcha tea without matcha whisk?
How do I make a nice cup of matcha tea without the whisk?
I hear the recipe including the use of a whisk is a traditional way of making ceremonial matcha drink, but I'd like to know how to make a drink from matcha without a whisk.
Here's a photo of the tea whisk along with a bamboo spoon:
I can't get a whisk right now, but if it turns out it's really worth making matcha drink according to the ceremonial recipe, I'll be sure to get it.
See also: What to use for a matcha whisk?
See: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34417/what-to-use-for-a-matcha-whisk
Yeah, ok. I decided to change the question, since I'm really more interested in ways of making matcha drink without a whisk, and there are lots of tutorials for the traditional recipe.
I propose shaking.
I've been drinking matcha for a few months and I've never owned a matcha set.
Usually, I will take a swing-top glass bottle, add some matcha powder and hot water, and shake vigorously. Then I open the bottle and pour the matcha into a cup.
Using this method, the matcha dissolves perfectly; there are no clumps in the tea nor does any of the powder stick to the bottle.
The only downside I have found so far is that some of the froth will remain inside the bottle, but most of it will still make it to the cup.
The taste does not seem different from a matcha made using a whisk, which I had a few times at a friend's place.
I imagine a cocktail shaker, or any similar closable and heat-resistant container, would also work.
I have had a lot of success getting matcha whipped into a nice froth (and getting rid of the little tea lumps) using a small blender, like a Magic Bullet. I just put the warm water and matcha powder into the blender, pulse it a few times, then blend it continuously for about 20 seconds.
If you don't mind putting in more elbow grease, a balloon whisk can work just as well for doing it by hand.
The aerolatte handheld battery-operated milk frothers work very, very well with a little practice. Seriously great crema after you get the hang of it.
Coastal Tea Company has a product called a "Modern Matcha Whisk" that works great for forthing up matcha. I was frustrated with using (and cleaning) traditional matcha whisks/chasens so I use this now.
You can get it on Amazon, more details are at http://www.coastalteaco.com
battery milk frother
mason jar
blender
metal kitchen whisk
fork
This post has full explanation and photos. Cheers!
http://www.westendmatcha.com/blogs/news/64569285-5-easy-ways-to-make-matcha-without-a-whisk
Hey, while your link has really great answers, it would be much preferred if you summarized the answers here. If for whatever reason, the link changes, your answer would be come quite useless. It also reads much better if people don't have to click around.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.487357
| 2013-06-01T14:28:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34444",
"authors": [
"Chaya Cooper",
"Chris Tomlinson",
"Fabis",
"Idiot",
"Kaidrosia",
"Keith Matthews",
"LinkPhoenix",
"Major Havoc",
"Moocowman",
"Peggy",
"PizzaPups kaylabeck",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80513",
"luvinhappy",
"talon8",
"user1306322"
],
"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
}
|
126627
|
Is this Wok ruined or just needs to be seasoned?
So full disclosure in that I'm kind of exploring cooking more and am a bit of a novice with my wok.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B084DQYNNM This is the wok in question for reference.
I thought I followed the instructions right in regards to seasoning it but now I'm not so sure. I came back after a week where my roommate used it and it looks off. Where it was once black there are now silver bits showing and it also looks coppery. After some googling I'm unclear on whether it needs to be tossed because the coating has peeled off, or it just needs to be re-seasoned or something else entirely I'm unaware of but if any wok experts know please help me! I don't wanna throw it away if I don't have to but also unsure what happened or if it can be fixed.
is it carbon steel? have you checked the related questions (on the right side of the screen if you're on desktop). This one for example https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101209/seasoning-a-carbon-steel-wok
Please check the same Amazon link for the reviewers giving the wok 1 or 2 stars ... your roommate is not be the big offender here.
is the darker patch wet or oily?
That's not coppery, that's rust. Your roommate didn't clean and dry it after use, evidently. Steel rusts. Naughty roommate, don't do that to pots that are not yours...and get scrubbing!
The link states that it's black carbon steel, not any sort of teflon-coated thing where the present state would be "ruined" so it just needs cleaning and oiling/re-seasoning. We have had questions where people with teflon(PTFE)-coated woks have attempted to treat them like plain steel woks and indeed ruined them. Utterly different items of similar shape.
Which leads to the question of whether a wok which is Teflon-coated is still a wok, or some hybrid inferior.
Another possible reason it might have rusted is if somebody put it in the dishwasher. Black carbon steel will do this, and I think a dishwasher will make it rust much more quickly than just leaving water in it.
This is rust. Seeing as it looks like the wok is still wet a while after it was washed up, this is not surprising.
Carbon steel, like cast iron, will rust quickly if left wet and so always needs to be thoroughly dried, and not merely left to air dry on a draining board, and certainly not put back in a cupboard damp. It's generally recommended to thoroughly heat it over a flame to dry it fully after washing (you can also use this as an opportunity to top up the seasoning if you want).
If it hasn't been too long the rust probably hasn't penetrated too deep and it is probably salvageable. You'll need a steel wool scourer and to scrub the rust out completely. This will also remove any seasoning (including that that it seems to have shipped) with, so after removing the rust you'll need to give it a thorough seasoning as if it were brand new, unseasoned carbon steel.
This video here from Chinese Cooking Demystified has good advice on how to do that. In essence you'll need to heat it extremely hot over a flame until the steel starts to change colour, and then move the wok around so that the entire surface has been heated thoroughly and no silvery steel remains (it should all be orangey or blue). Then add a small amount of oil or fat (it is very easy to overdo this, so it may be easiest to use a piece of kitchen roll with oil on it, rather than pouring oil into the pan) and rub it into the entire surface, top and bottom. This will cause a lot of smoke. You don't want a thick layer anywhere as this will get gummy, just enough to coat it. You should start noticing the previously blue/orange areas turning black as the oil polymerises forming the coating.
In the end your wok should mostly look black (although you may still have some slight blue or orange bits around the edge and handle, as it's hard to heat these thoroughly). At this point it is ready to reuse.
I guess the take off is: not every steel is stainless steel.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.487648
| 2024-02-08T13:41:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126627",
"authors": [
"Clockwork",
"EarlGrey",
"Luciano",
"Mark Morgan Lloyd",
"Peter Shor ",
"Tristan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87594"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121148
|
Is this type of scratched pot safe?
I found What can I do about scratched pots? But the type of pot, and level of scratch, is much different than that which was mentioned in that question.
Is this
Safe, at all, to cook with?
I tried describing it to a friend without showing him the picture and he said it might have harmful chemicals from the coating once it's scratched, but I don't know if that's true
To me this looks like an enamel pot with some of the enamel gone. It shouldn't be losing any more enamel particles unless scratched some more, and even if it does, enamel is basically sand, so it is chemically neutral and likely harmless to swallow in small quantities.
Enamel on pots is used to prevent harmful chemical reactions between food and the base metal of the pot. For this reason the lack of enamel makes this pot unsuitable for cooking foods that react with steel or aluminium. It's likely OK to boil water or cook things with low acidity, but I wouldn't use it for soups, sauces, and such.
It also looks ugly. Why don't you just toss it?
thanks for the advice. I cant afford a new one, Im dirt poor. Do u think its safe for eggs , quinoa and greenbeans [all I really use it for] etc.?
@B''HBi'ezras--BoruchHashem it should be fine for those things
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.488083
| 2022-07-25T21:21:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121148",
"authors": [
"B''H Bi'ezras -- Boruch Hashem",
"Esther",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96639
|
Are fermented home-canned berries safe?
I just opened home-canned blueberries and blackberries. They are probably 5 years old, and taste like alcohol. Are they safe to eat? I don't know anything about the original canner's intent.
The blueberries still have their skins and seem to be in juice.
I don't think there is any way to answer this question reliably without knowing how they were processed.
The alcohol tells you the stuff fermented anaerobically. Clostridium botulinum likes anaerobic conditions. Unless I knew that's not in there, I'd toss the stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium_botulinum -Of course, you ate some and are still alive, so that's one data point in their favor.
Unless you know that the alcohol was added by the cook at the time of canning, I’d treat it as a sign that “something” happened. And in canning, “something” is always considered bad, because it means the food was in uncontrolled conditions.
I’d stick to the golden food safety rule of “when in doubt, throw in out”, just to be safe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.488215
| 2019-03-01T23:25:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96639",
"authors": [
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93187
|
Making potato pancakes without egg
I am wanting to make these Kartoffelpuffer, which is german for potato pancakes. I am looking to use this recipe https://www.allergygirleats.com/potato-pancakes/
The ingredients are as follows:
Ingredients
500g Parboiled Potatoes
1/4 cup White Onion - finely chopped
1/4 tsp Salt
1 tbsp Potato Starch
1 Egg
1 tbsp Ghee
1 tsp Olive oil
This is a gluten free recipe but I was also wondering if I could make it vegan as well/dairy free? Which ingredients here would fall under vegan or dairy free?
I saw the eggs, is there any substitution for that?
Thanks. (Need it more vegan than dairy free, that's the least of the priorities) Thanks!
How can it be vegan without being dairy free? What foods do you consider vegan but not dairy free?
This happens to be one of my favorite ethnic foods as long as I can remember. So the hunt was on.
Anyway, I could not find any egg-free version of this (or Kartoffelpfannkuchen that is traditional in my household), but checking German websites I found two egg-free recipes:
Kartoffelpfannkuchen
and
Kartoffel-Pfannkuchen mit Speck
(without the bacon to be vegan)
If you can't read German, Google Translate will give decent results.
While there is some variation on the spices, the main difference from what I expect in the recipe I use (other than no eggs) is the use of a potato press on the potatoes.
As I make the standard recipe (with eggs), we grate and then drain the potatoes (somewhat), but never press them.
Honestly I have never tried such method, but I think it would be worth a try.
I would use liberal amounts of butter if you can (I wonder if you can leave it out). The amount of ghee in your recipe seems to be too little.
You might also experiment with the type of potatoes you use.
But (in my book) never, ever leave out the nutmeg (Muskat).
"mit Speck" is not a good indicator for a recipe when someone is asking for a vegan recipe.
@ThePhoton Of course leave out the bacon... It shouldn't affect the recipe though. Maybe add additional oil to the frying pan, though I use more than enough butter to compensate. I added a note to my answer.
I don't usually use ghee in kartoffelpuffer. It won't hurt if I leave it out right? Just there for flavour?
I never have. As I make them, I use about 1 tablespoon of vegetable oil (or whichever oil you prefer) and about 1/4 cup of butter in a pan large enough for four medium size pancakes. You just have experiment on ingredients and cooking temperature to get the flavor and texture you want.
Also I don't parboil the potatoes, as the frying time of the pancakes should be sufficient to cook them.
The non-vegan ingredients are the egg and the ghee (clarified butter, browned to develop the nutty flavours).
For the ghee you can substitute the same quantity of olive oil, possibly with some loss of flavour.
The egg is harder to replace. You could try a commercial egg replacement: these are powdered starch (one product uses potato and tapioca flour, so is gluten free) with assorted emulsifiers. A substitute widely recommend on the web for savoury pancakes is a gel made from flax or chia seeds: mix 1 tablespoon of seeds with 2.5 tablespoons of water and leave for 10 minutes for the seeds to fully hydrate.
Seeing "Pancake" with potatoes also make me smile. :)
But anyway, you can (and we usualy do) not use butter but regular oil (canola in 90% of the cases as eruopean rape is different than USA one). The color of fritter will depend on the type of potatoes rather than fat you're frying it over.
To compensate for the nutty flavour fry onions before adding to the mix till they get starting brown (not full brown thought).
For the eggs replacement can be chosen depending on what final flavour you want to have. For example if you put sugar on "pancake" one of the best option is mashed banana. You may use a little more potato starch.
If you like them sour (with sour cream or even more fried onions) you can use aquafaba. Chickpea one will make more nutty flavour while (the one I prefer) pinto beans have more neutral taste.
And remember: first pancake is always bad.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.488335
| 2018-10-24T04:52:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93187",
"authors": [
"Grand Skunk",
"The Photon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69988",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113729
|
Do I need more fermentation? Why my sourdough is flattened?
From a few weeks I've been trying to make sourdough. The most successful recipe for me and for the time I have I found is Easy Sourdough Bread Recipe using a stand mixer - Sourdough Lamination In the recipe it said that it needs 3 hours in room temperature + 30 min in refrigerator and then you bake.
Because I don't have that time in one I leave it on the counter for 1 hour then let the sourdough in the refrigerator overnight (10 hours) and bake it in the morning. The whole wheat flour I use is with 13% protein.
I found the dough "flattened" and without so much holes and somehow I feel like it's not so fermented. Is it possible for 10 hour fermentation in the refrigerator? How can I improve the dough and do I need more fermentation time maybe in room temperature? The dough is fine, not so wet it can be shaped. I added picture in the end to show what I mean.
The recipe is:
200 g. white flour
100 g. whole wheat flour
240 g. water
6 g salt
90g starter
40g pumpkin seeds
Totals:
345 g flour (45 from starter)
285 g water (45 from starter)
2% salt
82.6% hydration
The time will depend on the activity of your starter, but what's the rising, transferring and baking process - in the recipe and in your kitchen? If I get enough rise for really big bubbles I only have to look at it funny and it collapses, let alone transfer it into the pan I bake it in. I actually aim for a denser loaf because it makes better lunches IMO
First of all, that's quite a decent looking loaf. It doesn't look dense or overly pancaked. The crumb is consistent, with good bubble formation. A lot of amateur bakers would be quite proud to achieve that result. So give yourself a pat on the back before you start trying to improve further.
Now, 82% hydration is quite high, even for a whole wheat loaf. High hydration free-form whole wheat loaves are notoriously difficult to shape well, simply because the dough is so loose. Careful shaping and skillful oven control (including steam) are necessary to get a good loft in those circumstances.
Now, three hours at room temperature is not enough time to develop significant sourdough taste. Neither is ten hours in the refrigerator. (Ten hours in a cool room would be closer.) As more fermentation occurs, however, the gluten structure will weaken, leading to a flatter loaf.
So overall, I'd suggest you try a lower hydration and a longer cold rest (but, if possible, at a slightly higher temperature than your refrigerator).
Thank you for the good explanation, till now I was only reading about how to make your own sourdough bread but there was no one to ask these questions so this would help me a lot. I was trying also to leave the dough in the refrigerator for 20 hours (so I can bake the dough the next evening) but I found it was flatter than ever. I will try lower hydration and longer rest on higher temperature than refrigerator as you recommend me and will make an update how it was going. Thanks a bunch again!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.488653
| 2021-01-13T14:09:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113729",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"developer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90801"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113764
|
Baked chocolate cake type dessert with 'sticky' top
I am in the UK and in my 60's. My Mum used to make a cake in the oven that was heavy cake like at the bottom, but was still slightly sticky on top.
Can anyone tell me if they know of this and what it is called please? She was given the recipe by a friend of hers.
I think you need to try to think of more detail: do you know any of the ingredients? Flavour? Colour and appearance? Cooking time? What it was served with? Typical size or depth? Texture or density? Area in the UK? Even small pieces of trivial information could help someone have a guess.
Spent ages looking through things like Mississippi Mud Pie and similar, but have come to the conclusion from pictures I have seen and recipes I have looked at, that it appears to be more like a Brownie. As I did not help cook it, I don't know the ingredients, but it did taste like a VERY heavy cakey type recipe that was just sort of sticky on the top, but did not appear to taste very different.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.488886
| 2021-01-15T20:27:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113764",
"authors": [
"Jennet",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90844"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115330
|
Why does beating egg whites with cold water increase the volume of incorporated air
From Wikipedia,
beating an egg white after adding a small amount of cold water considerably increases the amount of foam produced.
Why? What is changed by adding cold water?
When you beat an egg white, you incorporate air into the water contained in the egg white, thus making an emulsion. The kind of foam that we obtain is the result of the proteins present in the egg white trapping the air in the water.
So it makes sense that if you add a little bit of water you will produce more foam. I assume it has to be cold water because emulsions are fragile and would be destroyed by hot water.
Careful with the quantities though, I haven't been able to find a clear table of quantities but most of the recipes mention just one coffee spoon of cold water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.488992
| 2021-04-19T20:54:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115330",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115868
|
Why does packaging indicate that a ribeye cut needs to reach 165 F?
Even though the FDA recommends 145 F as the safe temperature for whole cuts of beef, this ribeye I bought, as per packaging instructions, needs to reach a minimum internal temperature of 165 F.
Could this be an indicator of poor meat handling/quality (cut was priced at $50 per kilo)?
It may just be that the seller does not want to handle claims and as such advices the extreme high temp.
It could be that you don't want to eat rib-eye with uncooked fat.
@Tetsujin but shouldn't a proper sear and basting the steak to even ~130F render it out?
@Tetsujin I usually cook it to ~130F then rest for ~6 mins, and so far the fat has always been rendered out and cooked
@Willeke but wouldn't following the FDA guidelines be sufficient?
@user256872, I do not live in the USA and our advice culture is different here. But I noticed in laundry advice that tumble drying is not allowed while non of those items gets damaged in my tumble dryer (yes, I ignore the advice) and I guess this cooking advice is something like that. Not needed but it keeps the people from complaining if they handle normal.
Without more information, it's not possible to give a definitive answer. The two main possibilities are:
The producer is unusually risk-averse. They are erring on the side of extreme caution in their labelling, because for whatever reason they believe if they label the beef with a lower minimum temperature they will have more trouble in some way unrelated to the actual safety of the beef for consumption.
There is some reason this beef should be cooked to a higher temperature. For example, perhaps the beef has been tenderised using needles which could transfer pathogens from the surface to the inside of the meat. The manufacturer knows their product and has deviated from FDA guidance for the reason of food safety or quality.
I've been seeing this temperature on practically every package of food I buy these days, even though the safe cooking temperatures for different meats, and non meat products, vary by up to 30 degrees. 165 is likely to yield a dry, over-cooked steak. Current USDA advice is 145 with a three minute rest time, the previous standard was 160 with no rest time. I'd stick with what culinary experts and the USDA recommend. The URL for this post says 2011, but it was updated in June, 2020.
Cooking Meat? Check the New Recommended Temperatures
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.489085
| 2021-05-29T02:26:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115868",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90969",
"user256872"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115933
|
To flip or not to flip...? (a steak)
Some chefs say the steak cooks more evenly by flipping it often. Others say this makes the juices run out. With so many different styles and recipes out there, one must wonder: who is right?
What are the reasons one would flip a steak regularly or only once? Does the type of meat have any influence on this?
Also, why would flipping the steaks frequently (supposedly) make them cook more evenly? If both sides are exposed to the same heat for the same amount of time, what is the difference?
There's a great deal of opinion on this subject, the majority of the testing I've seen favors the multiple flip method. My own tests agree, you get a better result from more flipping.
Type of meat has no influence on the method, although it impacts how long you cook it. For example a rump steak is a bit denser than a sirloin or ribeye so it takes longer to cook.
The reason that steaks cook unevenly when flipped once is that the top of the steak heats as you cook the bottom, when you flip it what was the top has a warmer starting point so that side ends up hotter at the end of cooking. You can get evenness from the one flip method by doing 2/3 of the cooking time on the first side and 1/3 on the other side (that's approximate from my own testing). The benefit of a single flip is it's less time spent on the steak, if you have a lot going on in the kitchen you have more time to spend on other tasks.
Other than that multiple flips are the way to go as you get even cooking, less curling (although you can reduce fat curling by cutting across the fat every inch, this gets a better result in general), and the steak tends to cook faster. Note this is for thicker steaks, for thin steaks you really just want to get a crust on as quickly as you can, so a single flip makes sense.
I've never noticed a difference in juiciness with either method, other aspects of technique are more important, for instance with a thick steak you want to cook it mostly on the cool side of the barbecue and then crisp it up on high heat as opposed to cooking it on high heat the whole time.
Huh, I always figured flipping cooked more evenly because it prevents the hot side from getting too hot. I.e., if you leave one side down too long, by the time heat has made it to the middle, the outside will have gotten too hot. Whereas flipping lets the top outside cool down a bit, while still transferring some of that energy to the cooler interior
Aside from cooking in a closed grill, I hadn't really thought about the heat that the top of the steak will be getting. Thanks for pointing that out!
This is not just with steak, it's with most kinds of meat once they get a bit thicker. I even do it with hamburgers. Fish is trickier, but for the rest: keep flipping.
It also depends heavily on how you like your steak done. If you're going for well done or medium well, then yeah, flip it around all day on there. If you're making rare then there really isn't enough time to bother flipping more than once - you'll be cooking on the highest heat available for just a few minutes on each side, even for a really thick cut, and then you're done, and you need those few minutes of uninterrupted heat to get a nice char.
@J... I don't think the uninterrupted heat is necessary to get a good char. I think you get a better (or at least a very similar) char from 3x30s on one side than 1x90s. Try it out! So I think the same flipping advice would hold for rare steaks. It's all about avoiding to overcook the middle while searing the outside. https://www.seriouseats.com/the-food-lab-flip-your-steaks-and-burgers-multiple-times-for-better-results
@user2705196 The arguments there seem to contradict fundamental thermodynamics. If you're cooking a rare steak, you don't want it cooked at all in the middle. Every flip cools the browning surface, frustrating what you're trying to achieve (Maillard at the surface), and allowing more low-grade heat to drive further into the steak, forcing proteins to contract and squeeze more liquid to the surface (again, bad for temperature) while you posh around flipping the thing every thirty seconds, dragging out the cooking process for far longer than it needs. Great for well done, rubbish for rare.
@J... Nope, it's because of thermodynamics that you want to do that (keep the inside cool while reaching high temps on the outside). Maillard at the surface will happen easily with a hot pan because you get 150C w/o problem. And you won't get any extra moisture. But instead of theorizing try it out yourself, or follow the data of those who've compared it directly as shown in the above link.
@user2705196 I'm not theorizing - I have decades of experience as a physicist, materials scientist, and a cook, and I've particularly spent a long time perfecting rare steaks. The more you flip, the longer it takes, the more the centre cooks.
@user2705196 I no longer cook steak, but I'm with J... both as a home cook and physicist. I used to do multiple flips for medium-well to avoid the outside over-charring while getting the middle good and hot, but one flip for rare (in the same pan, staggered starts to have them ready at the same time). If you flip once, you have no heat flow from the top of the steak towards the middle until late in cooking (aside from anything to do with hot air over the pan), but if you flip more than once, there's heat flow both up and down towards the middle from the first flip.
If the steak is enclosed by a lid, such as in an outdoor grill, you flip once, because you lose 50 degrees every time you open the lid, which breaks the constant thermal transfer of heat to the center of the steak, so the inside will not be cooked properly.
Idiot downvoters.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.489300
| 2021-06-04T08:08:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115933",
"authors": [
"BThompson",
"Chris H",
"J...",
"Mast",
"blahblah",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94212",
"user2705196"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115152
|
Cheese soufflé with bread cubes instead of egg whites
In this video: Cheese Soufflé that NEVER Falls! - Chef Jean-Pierre, Chef Jean Pierre proposes an interesting method for making cheese soufflé; instead of folding in beaten egg whites to his custard, he uses diced bread cubes (with crust removed) to provide the air that will make the soufflé rise.
His reasoning for using bread is that the soufflé will not fall (only slightly) and could thus be fully cooked in advance (hence making a foolproof recipe for beginner cooks).
This method relies on 2 key aspects:
The bread is broken down in the heated custard environment and
The soufflé will not fall because of the bread
Could someone explain from a chemistry perspective why 1) and 2) occur?
For 2), my guess is the broken down bread provides better structural integrity than egg whites, though I am not sure why.
There is nothing to explain here - the claim is simply wrong.
You can certainly put bread in custard and subject it to heat. It is traditionally done in French toast, for example. I could even buy that under some circumstances, you won't notice that you are chewing on what used to be bread - the inside of a French toast is quite soft, and if you don't know what it is, you might not recognize it.
But first, I don't believe that the bread in this recipe will disintegrate fully to the point where it is completely mixed with the custard. (And if it did, it wouldn't turn "into flour"). You can see in the video how, before sticking it into the oven, the bread cubes swim on the surface, even after he purposefully wets them on top at around 10:20. And after he takes it out, the surface is rather uneven with a few lumps, and while he does have cubed shallots and dried tomatoes in there, the shapes look awfully like bread cubes - see for example the closeup at 11:50.
You could, in theory, mix the bread fully. For that, you would have to wait until it is soaked well, and then physically mix it, with a fork or with the blender he praises so much. But in the video, it is implied that no such mixing happens.
The second claim is that the souffles don't fall. This is entirely wrong. When he puts the souffles in there, the ramekins are filled "all the way to the top" (quote from 10:28). When he takes them out, they are risen slightly, I'd say less than two centimeters - you can see a good shot at 11:19. That's expected, since there are no egg whites to rise during baking. And then, while he plates them, they fall back to the rim of the ramekin. He even mentions it at 11:29
"Eventually, they're gonna fall. A little bit. They're gonna fall right at the rim."
Don't be fooled by the "little bit" - if you remember, they were filled to the rim when they went to the oven.
So, even in his own video, you can see that the soufflés cannot hold any of the expansion they got in the oven, and fall to their original size once they cool. This is exactly how any soufflé behaves, with bread or otherwise.
Thank you. So the reason they don't fall "as much" is simply because the bread takes up less space than the whites, thus more custard is placed in each ramekin.
No, there is the same amount of soufflé mass in the ramekin. Standard soufflés expand a lot in the oven, the fall immediately. These here expand a little in the oven, then fall down immediately. They both fall to their original size, but the bread ones never expanded much.
Re: Not rising. For a souffle you add small air bubbles, they expand due to temperature in the oven, and then the mixture cooks trapping the air bubbles in their expanded state. It sounds like the idea for this bread-based version is to start with pre-expanded air bubbles (they expanded during the baking of the bread)...so you would start closer/at the final volume and not need to expand. ...not a comment on if this actually works or not in this recipe, but you could try starting with equal weights of bread-based and non-bread based and see what the final heights were for both.
Do you still call it custard when it's not sweet?
@njzk2 yes, I would all any liquid thickened with heated (but not emulsified) egg yolk (or whole egg) a custard. McGee almost agrees with me, adding that for him, it has to be baked in its own container to form a single piece of gel, while the spoonable ones he calls creams. "The custard family includes savory quiches and timbales as well as sweet flans, cremes caramels, pots de creme, and cheesecakes".
@rumtscho Maybe it's a regional difference, but down here in Australia, custard is the stuff you make with custard powder, or buy pre-made in boxes or bottles. I definitely wouldn't call this a custard. It's typically eaten as a desert, possibly with slices of (canned) fruit, or drizzled over ice cream and/or slices of cake.
@nick012000 the difference is probably not regional, but among cooks vs. noncooks. In culinary terms, the category of custards covers gels where egg yolk is thickened with a liquid, but the prototypical custard is still a mixture of yolk, cream and sugar, served as dessert, and that's what you'll get in a good restaurant if you order "a custard". Industry has created replacements for that dish in a sachet, and has started calling them by the name of the dish. This is likely how the meaning got established among people who knew the word from the supermarket and not from the culinary literature.
It looks more like a fluffy bread pudding (or even a quiche) instead of a soufflé.
There is no chemistry involved; the bread just adds (little) more structure.
At 10:06 you see the uncooked mixture near the rim of the ramequins.
At 11:28, you see the soufflé has deflated nearly to the rim of the ramequins
A similar recipe from the Egg Farmers of Canada was a standard in my household growing up. I can confirm that this recipe basically turns out like a savory bread pudding, though not quite as dense.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.489765
| 2021-04-07T18:10:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115152",
"authors": [
"Michael Seifert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90969",
"nick012000",
"njzk2",
"rumtscho",
"user256872",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59218
|
Can I safely thaw and refreeze sorbet?
A month ago I made a mango/lime/cilantro sorbet that is delicious. The problem is I put the sorbet into a quart sized container and it's frozen solid (I keep my freezer very cold). Can I safely thaw (or partially thaw) the sorbet and put it into popsicle molds and then refreeze the popsicles? The ingredients are mango, lime juice, cilantro, sugar, and possibly a little water (I can't remember).
The recipe I used was from http://low-cholesterol.food.com/recipe/very-basic-mango-lime-sorbet-224706. The only thing I changed was I added one bunch of cilantro chopped in the food processor with the mango. And I used my ice cream maker.
Ingredients
2 lbs mangoes, chopped (frozen is fine)
1⁄2 cup lime juice (fresh is best)
2⁄3 cup sugar (super-fine is recommended)
1 cup water
Directions
Make simple syrup: Add sugar to water in small saucepan. Stir over medium heat until sugar is fully dissolved. Raise heat and bring syrup to a boil; boil one minute, then remove from heat and allow to cool completely.
Puree thawed mango and lime juice in a food processor.
Stir simple syrup into mango puree. Refrigerate a few hours to be certain puree is cool.
Follow the manufacturer's instructions for your ice cream maker at this point. If you don't have one, pour into a pan and put in freezer; pull out every hour and stir (for 3-4 hours).
What method did you use to make your original sorbet? Did you have a ice cream machine to churn the mixture or was a different method used. And do you remember the concentration of sugar you used?
@Jay, I edited my post to show the recipe, addition I made (cilantro), and method (ice cream maker).
Sorbet are typically acidic(from the fruit juices) and contain sugar. Both of these act as preservatives in addition to the extremely cold temperatures that sorbets are kept at. So it is perfectly okay to melt your sorbet ice block. However when you melt the sorbet block, you will want to do it slowly. Fruit/herb flavors are very volatile so if the mixture is over heated, the flavoring will break down and the taste will deteriorate.
When refreezing your mixture, you might want to consider adding a little more sugar into the mixture to prevent it from freezing so hard in the future. Sorbet sugar by concentration is usually around 20-30%. If your sorbet is sweet enough, then you may also add a little tasteless alcohol like vodka to prevent the sorbet from freezing too hard.
But if the OP is refreezing as popsicles, they will want them to be harder, right?
@Catija thats true. I guess it really depends on how the OP wants the popsicles. I naturally just assumed they want a softer/like-sorbet texture for their popsicle.
I don't necessarily want popsicles, but I figured they'd be easier to eat and no scooping hard sorbet! The softer sorbet texture would be nice, but I keep my freezer very cold, so I'm not sure adding more sugar would even help. The vodka idea might, but I'm not sure I want to go that route.
I left a container on top the freezer for approximately two or three hours it was soft but still looked and tasted OK. I have popped it back into the freezer and now it's back to the original consistency BUT there is a layer of darker colour at the bottom, I think that might be sugar, so I am going to use the top bit only.
Mine was a lemon sorbet not home-made but shop bought.
Yes, thawing sorbet once is not a bad option. The sorbet can remain safe for thawing twice if kept upto two months. I have tried sorbet for 2 and a half months, thawing ones. After that they get damaged/ unhealthy. You can keep your container on warm water for thawing rather than instantly changing the temperature as in microwave or fluctuate in high heat. I usually follow a bit slow method for warming.
Hope this helps.
May I ask where your numbers are coming from? Is this from personal experience or do you have some sort of source? NO offense, but it just seems kind of random to me.
I'll go a step farther than Jay: generally things are safe indefinitely in the freezer, and sorbet is no exception. There may be quality loss over time, especially if it's not tightly sealed, but it's still completely safe and just as healthy as the day you put it in.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.490366
| 2015-07-20T18:08:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59218",
"authors": [
"Angie Neff",
"Barbara Mundy",
"Brooke",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Frank",
"Hannah Kate",
"Jay",
"Rosie Martinez",
"Teri Muttera",
"Tony Ko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47429
|
Amish Friendship Bread starter with buttermilk
I saw a recipe for an Amish Friendship Bread that called for buttermilk in the starter and feedings. If I made this and gave some away, are the recipients now required to continue to feed the starter with buttermilk or can they feed it like a normal starter? I don't want to make this one if it is forever required to "eat" buttermilk.
If the feedings you need to do require buttermilk, then yes, so will your friends'.
Probably not...
Though there are plenty of starters that include dairy, instant mashed potatoes, fruits, etc to inoculate or feed the starter; the goal of any starter culture is to grow and maintain a of yeasts that can efficiently and effectively raise bread, normally wheat or rye-based bread. Any ingredient added to a starter other than water and wheat/rye, in my opinion, only increases the chances of ruining a perfectly good starter through contamination. The species of yeasts and bacteria that flourish in milk or on fruit may lead to off-flavors. In cultured buttermilk (widely available in the US) the milk is first pasteurized then inoculated with a mixture of bacteria to produce the tangy flavor and thicker texture. Unfortunately, this often includes bacteria from the genus Leuconostoc which are known to cause off-flavor in starter cultures and their resultant breads.
On the Other Hand...
Unlike sourdough starters (where a procession of bacteria acidify the mixture to the point where only wild yeast and certain bacteria will happily live there) your buttermilk starter probably has a pH around 4.5. This is the pH where commercial yeast functions optimally, lower than that (pH 4) the yeast will produce less gas, a lot lower (pH 3) they won't produce any gas at all and may die off. Refreshing the starter regularly with a mixture of buttermilk and flour provides food for the yeast and helps maintain that optimum pH.
If your friend stopped feeding the starter with the buttermilk mixture and just used a flour & water mixture, I suspect it might stop leavening properly. As the bacteria from the original buttermilk keep working they will acidify the culture, over time it could reach a point where the commercial yeast is inhibited, and if it is kept covered in the fridge there probably won't be enough wild yeast to raise the bread.
In conclusion...
If you or the person you plan to share this starter with is likely to feed/refresh it regularly with the buttermilk mixture, then by all means try it out. If not, you're probably better off just starting a more traditional sourdough starter. You can always add milk or buttermilk when making dough to get the flavor and texture you want without the risk of contaminating your starter.
That's what I was afraid of. I wouldn't mind trying it once, but since buttermilk is so expensive compared to milk (or even water!), I don't want to be committed to it or force someone else to be committed to buttermilk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.490768
| 2014-09-25T18:35:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47429",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Chandrakumar V",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Nicole Reece",
"Renee Lahti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"jereline DAVIDS",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49386
|
Will colored shredded coconut show up in brownies?
My coworkers would like me to make faux "special" brownies. The requirements are that the brownies look the part and still taste good but don't have any actual "herbs" in them. My first thought was crushed dried mint leaves. We also came up with colored coconut. I'm going to try the mint leaves, but will the food coloring hold up on the coconut in the brownies? Or would I be better off mixing undyed coconut into the brownie with some dyed coconut lightly mixed on top? Or are there any other suggestions I could use? I also thought of cat nip but that doesn't seem like it would taste good.
(I'm using code just in case I can't put the real word. LOL)
There is no official policy of regulating/deleting such content, but there are many people with strong opinion and they will possibly act through votes regardless of code or straight terms.
I also don't want to seem like I'm condoning anything. I'm just the resident baker for my office. I don't even know (or care) how they came up with the idea.
It is better for our format that updates only contain further info about the problem. If you found a solution, it's better to post it as an answer. It is also OK to accept your own answer, especially in cases like this where you made the experiment and now know best what works and what doesn't.
"Special" brownies just look like regular brownies. Done well, they just taste like regular brownies too. So, to make regular brownies look like "special" brownies, your best bet is to focus on decoration or packaging. Like this or this
Thanks rumtscho. I wasn't sure if I should post as an answer or an edit. I've edited to remove answer and place here.
Update: I ended up making two brownies.
One 8X8 pan with 6 bags of mint tea stirred into it. It gave off a very earthy (and minty) smell and has a very earthy/herby taste (and minty too). I doubt I'll make the mint ones again.
The second one was a 9X13 pan with 2/3 of a bag of shredded coconut colored green. I put the coconut in a bowl and used gel food coloring. I don't have a huge selection of colors, so I used green with a touch of brown. I could have used a little more brown so the green wasn't so bright. I mixed it in the coconut and then mixed most of it into the batter. The remainder went on top and lightly swirled into the batter. The effect was really good and amazingly the color didn't seep into the brownies. When you bite into them, the coconut maintained its green color. I didn't have any white chocolate to try the green white chocolate idea, but maybe next time. :)
Removed additional commentary out of an abundance of caution and respect, based on comment above.
I'd try dried and chopped mint in blondies (e.g., KAF recipe), which might taste and look good. Fresh mint might be too stringy.
I'd suggest colouring white chocolate green. Melt it and add green food colouring, then cool again and break it into chips. Add to the brownies and you should get the desired effect of brownies flecked with green. If you want to add an extra flavour you could add a couple of drops of peppermint oil to the chocolate too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.491073
| 2014-10-30T18:50:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49386",
"authors": [
"Bobbye",
"Brooke",
"Dennis Nate",
"Jeannine Harris",
"Jolenealaska",
"Laura Di Bella",
"Lori Amlicke",
"Walter Pinkston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"keelin ladurini",
"rumtscho",
"shannon dujack",
"woody milia"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58015
|
Can I put a layer of almond paste in my tart that will not be baked?
All the recipes I'm finding are for pies where you put the layer of thinly rolled almond paste on the pie shell, add the filling and then bake. I'm wanting to blind bake my pie shell, lay down the almond paste, add pastry cream and top with fresh strawberries. Would this be a problem?
Almond paste is a finished product... as far as I know, so you shouldn't need to cook it.
That's an answer @Catija
Almond paste is a finished product. It can be eaten without cooking.
In fact, one of my favorite tart recipes is Julia Child's "Pear and Almond Tart" from her Mastering the Art of French Cooking. The four parts of the tart (crust, almond filling, poached pears and currant glaze) are cooked separately and it is assembled without being baked afterwards. It uses a "frangipane" that cooks the eggs rather than leaving them raw as many almond pastes do. I don't have a copy of the book to confirm but this looks like the correct version of the recipe.
1/2 cup almonds
1 large egg
1 large egg yolk
3/4 cups sugar
1/3 cup flour
1 cup whole milk
3 tbs butter
2 tsp vanilla extract
1/4 tsp almond extract
Heat oven to 350 degrees. Toast almonds until brown (about 10 minutes), then pulverize in a bender, food processor, or with a mortar and pestle.
Whisk egg and egg yolk in a large mixing bowl until combined. Gradually add sugar and beat until mixture is pale yellow – about 3 minutes. Beat in the flour.
Heat milk on the stove over moderate heat until it reaches the boiling point. Beat a small amount of milk into the egg mixture, to temper the eggs. Then pour in the rest of the milk and whisk vigorously.
Pour milk mixture into a sauce pan and heat over moderate heat. Stir slowly, until mixture begins to thicken and coagulate into a stiff paste. Beat vigorously over low heat for 2-3 minutes to cook the flour. Off the heat add the butter, vanilla and almond extracts, and almonds. Let cool. To prevent a skin from forming, cover custard with buttered parchment paper.
If you're making the almond paste on your own, you might consider substituting this one for it. It's really amazing and was hard to stop eating.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.491362
| 2015-06-05T02:27:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58015",
"authors": [
"Aqeel Anas",
"Brit Michelle",
"Catija",
"GdD",
"Joseph Ferrucci",
"Robert Stoudt",
"Roderick Rah Allen",
"Shannon West",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58773
|
Thawed frozen blueberries inside cake roll?
I would like to put frozen, thawed blueberries inside a red velvet cake roll filled with cream cheese icing. I am concerned that the blueberries may "bleed" or just look a mess instead of having the red white and blue look I am hoping for. Has anyone ever tried anything like this?
Yes, the blueberries will bleed, and, what's even more non-4th-ish, they will make purple or lavender stains instead of blue.
If you are serving the roll rather quickly after assembly, consider thickening the pureed blueberries seperately with some corn starch or pudding mix. Then you can make a blue-and-white filling inside the red roll. The blueberries must be boiled and cooled again, obviously, because they would otherways melt your cream cheese icing. Aim for a "spreadable pudding when cool" consistency of the berries, ideally the same consistency as the cream cheese filling.
You can layer both fillings atop each other, but the risk of them mixing when rolling the log is high. I suggest piping alternating blue and white stripes parallel to the edge where you hold it / future long axis of the log and rolling very, very carefully. This should result in a blue/white pattern when you slice the log (wipe the blade often!).
The longer you store your log, the more colour will leach into the white, but a few hours should be ok. Chill thoroughly.
A partial answer because you probably need one soon, else I'd have left it for somebody with more blueberry experience to answer.
I am not 100% sure what will happen, but there is a high likelihood that it won't create a red-white-blue effect. Blueberries are red on the inside, not blue. Their skin looks blueish because it's very dark and because of the wax on it. Frozen blueberries certainly won't remain whole, they burst on thawing like any other fruit. So you are likely to end up with lots of red-violet smears in the filling. You can try it yourself in case that my forecast is wrong, as I haven't done it myself - just use a small portion of berries mixed in a small cup of yogurt, hold them in a warmish place, and see what the result looks like after thawing. The berries are likely to look similarly when mixed into a cream cheese filling.
If it doesn't work, there aren't many easily used blue foods to substitute. If you need something quick, better try blue candy, e.g. fishing out the blue Smarties from a pack, or those blue Haribo worms.
Correct. If mixed into white, you end up somewhere between purpelish-pink and lavender. What worked for me in the past was keeping the berries separate, e.g. in a second filling (as below), the darker the berries remain, the more likely is the perception of "blue". However, never "true blue". Best choice IMHO would be fresh berries on top, as the inside of fresh ones is greenish, which doesn't work when cut, e.g. in a filling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.491594
| 2015-07-04T03:24:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58773",
"authors": [
"Bushra Aziz",
"Ella Scott",
"Josh Zimmer",
"Justin Mayes",
"Kevin Cowley",
"Mike Brennan",
"Queso Boosh",
"Stephie",
"barbara gray",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55372
|
How can i optimize the use of my convection oven?
Is there a resource i can use to learn how to bake in my convection oven? I know that it can improve the results greatly and i am just not understanding it. I know that you are supposed to bake at 25 degrees lower temp but it seems like all my baked goods seem to dry out or brown too quickly. I thought it was supposed to just bake things more evenly.
Could you describe for us a specific problem you have had?
You should also be reducing the cooking time, in most cases, not just temperature.
A convection oven has a fan that blows hot air around the items being baked. The air flow will draw moisture from the food. To stop the drying out, you could tent the baking items with aluminum foil but that has two drawbacks: you waste aluminum foil and lots of times you do want your baking items to lose moisture during baking. Another issue as you noticed, it messes up the browning (Maillard reaction) of the baking process. Where you place your item to be baked with a regular oven has a big effect as well as the container.
The top of oven is hotter while the bottom of the oven is better for slow cooking. Place the dough in dark container for better browning.
Convection ovens change all of those variables. I recommend that you use recipes tailored for that type of oven. If you are concerned about being energy efficient. Bake more than one thing at a time. That's what I do. I use multiple timers and the location in the oven to place the various items for a fantastic meal or bake.
From your description, it seems that you are simply setting it too hot. No need for a resource, just experiment until you have found the correct temperature which works for you.
It seems that you expected to just set it 25 degrees lower than the old one. There are three reasons why it might now work. First, this advice usually assumes 25 Celsius, I don't know which units you are using, 25 F wouldn't have been enough. Second, it is rough advice, the difference needed is not perfectly linear. Third, ovens seldom have good thermostats. If your old oven was running a bit low, and the new one is running a bit high, then your new one will consistently overbake your old recipes if you use the same baking vessels and leave them inside for the same time. You will just have to get a feel for it until you know which temperature setting is good for which dish.
Well all you need to do is bake on a lower stand which is given with microwave as it will cook it from the bottom as well as wont burn the top..
They really shouldn't call these convection ovens. They should be called blower ovens. Normal ovens without the blower are convection ovens with the heat rising up the middle and cooler air falling around the outer lamination (shells) of air. That's convection.
When you place a cookie sheet, the hot air mushrooms in from the sides down on top of the cookie or biscuits or whatever, as well as directly heating the bottom surface. You don't have this with a blower oven.
A blower moves the hot air around and it's like the opposite of "wind chill" on a cold day. Because the air is blowing, it draws more heat from the heating elements as well as deposits more heat to all the surfaces. So for instance 400 degrees with 5 MPH of wind might feel like (and heat heat YOU up like 425 degrees.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.491864
| 2015-03-04T02:53:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55372",
"authors": [
"Billy Henderson",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Ecnerwal",
"Elmarie Du Rand",
"Lesley Stocks",
"Maryam Adavoudi",
"Michael Scullion",
"Rich Ewing",
"Victoria Peel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"ros whatley"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34350
|
How can I tell if the tea has been stored properly, is not too stale or oxidized?
I was looking up why my green tea isn't as green as the other guy's and stumbled upon this question: Why is my green tea brown?
So I guess the tea I believed was the best I could get is not actually the best. And I can't fully trust what the seller has to say about the quality of their product, so I'd like to find a way to discover the real quality of the tea I'm drinking.
Are there any reliable ways to tell how old the tea is and if it has been stored properly?
In what situation do you want to tell this? At a brick and mortar store, a web store, at home ...?
Preferably at B&M store, but if it's not possible to tell there, then I guess it's home.
Okay. Well, I haven't read the question you're referring to, but colour doesn't say much about quality. Colour depends on what type of tea and what kind of cup you're using (green tea can be yellow, green, red/brown). I don't think there's any way to tell how's it been stored either. When I buy tea, I look for unbroken leaves and if you find that it tastes good at home, it's probably a good store for other teas as well.
You can't (or at least I can't) tell without a lot of experience with teas of that sort. Generally, a sufficiently fresh tea will have a decently strong fragrance when you smell the dry leaves. As it grows stale, the fragrance will be replaced gradually by mustiness. But which fragrance to expect varies dramatically by the tea. For instance, pan-fried greens like dragonwell (longjing) tend to smell vaguely nutty, while a sencha will smell more grassy. Dragonwell will also be more yellowish while the sencha will be more greenish. But these are two of many different varieties of green.
Also, there's a continuum of oxidation from green to black, so "too oxidized" is really a matter of taste. If you buy a Darjeeling (black), it'll tend to be lightly oxidized for a black tea; if your green is darker than that, maybe it shouldn't be called green.
I'm sure with appropriate analytical chemistry equipment you could determine some aspects of tea "quality"--but this would be complete overkill unless you're running a major tea business and you want to ensure quality. And even then, you'd probably be better off hiring a number of taste-testers.
There is one test (but it's not definitive): brew the tea, then leave the cup out for a day. If it doesn't get dramatically darker by the end of the day, it's already mostly oxidized.
In any case, if you like the tea, why do you care so much about the quality? You can find some outrageously expensive teas--I've noticed some South Korean greens in particular--that start getting into the price ranges of fine wines, but unless you're doing this to impress people, you're better off trying a variety of samples and then getting the one/ones you like. (Hopefully you won't find that you really like those South Korean greens....)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.492161
| 2013-05-27T06:00:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34350",
"authors": [
"F.K.",
"JoeASaunders ",
"Mehmood Arib",
"barbra kruyer",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80173",
"karen lavoie",
"user1306322"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43483
|
What is this tea stalk that almost every cup of tea in anime has?
Here are two photos of tea stalks in their natural habitat:
I've never seen those myself when I made tea, and I've been making at least two cups of tea every day for the past six years.
Is it a Japanese tea thing? Is it sorted out from the leaves in other regions? I've been buying some export green teas from Japan (sencha mostly) but I've never had any tea stalks appear in my cups. How do I get them?
One type of tea style popular in Japan is Karigane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karigane_(tea)#Karigane) Karigane tea is made from the stalks, not the leaves. This means anything that slips out of the teapot's strainer will be a stalk. This could be one of many types of Japanese tea: you can find Gyokuro Karigane (the stems and veins of Gyokuro tea leaves) or Hojicha/Houjicha Karigane (stems of tea leaves roasted in the same way as standard Houjicha.)
Stem teas tend to be a lighter, more delicate version of their heavier-hitting leafy counterparts.
You can also find blended teas, where there will be leaves as well as stems in the mix.
P.S. I like the "natural habitat" line :)
I see, so it's a whole other sort of tea. I'll be sure to check with my favorite tea shops if they have it.
I disagree with the other answer. Karigane, or the cheaper Kukicha, are indeed teas where stalks are intentional and not a fault. AFAIK they're not an obscurity in Japan, but hardly a mainstream tea. So it is not likely a reference to this kind of tea.
In reality, a tea stalk swimming upright in a cup of tea is simply a well-known lucky omen in Japanese tea culture. It's called ‘chabashira’ (茶柱), which means ‘tea pillar’.
Tea stalks can occur in normal tea and slip through strainer and even stand upright – but that's rare. Just because it's common in anime (because of the symbolism), it isn't common in real-life Japan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.492423
| 2014-04-13T11:57:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43483",
"authors": [
"Arup Roy Chowdhury",
"Jeffrey Wagman",
"Nana Yaw",
"Zarghoon Alizada",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14024",
"user1306322",
"white-board-follies"
],
"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
}
|
54944
|
How do I cook sticky rice/glutinous rice in my rice cooker?
I would like to try and recreate the sticky rice (aka glutinous rice or sweet rice) as I often find served in a kratip at my local USA Thai restaurant. I already have a rice cooker - the Hamilton Beach Digital Simplicity Rice Cooker and Food Steamer (on Amazon). I've cooked quite a few different long grain white rices and also brown rice, but have not yet tried sticky rice.
For standard long grain basmati rice I would just pop it into my cooker pot with the appropriate amount of water and press the white rice button. I have some concerns about the sticky rice as I have read that it requires a presoak upwards of 6 hours and I've also read that some rice cookers (Zojirushi) have a specific mode just for sticky rice. I've also read reviews on simple steamers for sticky rice, so that leads me to believe that I would actually have to use the steamer basket vs the regular rice cooker pot, but I'm just guessing.
Since my rice cooker does not have a specific mode for sticky rice, is it possible with my rice cooker, and if so how?
Some related resources that didn't quite answer this question:
Making sticky rice without rice cooker
Do you need a rice cooker to cook sticky rice?
How can I make perfect sticky rice?
Thai sticky rice is not simply cooked glutinous rice as many assume. The differing results come from the starches on the grains of rice being cooked entirely by steam instead of by immersion and then steam.
This lady is pleased with the results just using her one-setting cooker: Sticky Rice. Note, she says in the comments that she uses 2 cups (or slightly less) water to 1 cup of rice (which makes sense) not 3 cups rice to 2 cups water like it sounds like she is saying in the video. She rinses the rice well, but does not soak it.
EDIT: With things like this there are often "camps" of differing opinion. I doubt that Michelin Starred restaurants that include sticky rice on their menu ever use rice makers to make said rice. I am reminded of this: Turning regular noodles into no-boil noodles. Even though there are thousands of recipes online for making lasagna without boiling the noodles, I say pfftthhfft. Sure, you can do it, if you don't mind High School cafeteria food. (Remember the Church Lady? "Isn't that special?" Think like that.)
I am less of a connoisseur of rice than of baked pasta. That being the case, I'm not sure that I would notice the deficiencies of sticky rice made in a rice cooker. With that in mind, and assuming that you are not on a different stratosphere of connoisseur than I am, I recommend that you give it a shot and let us know how it goes.
Yet Another EDIT - I Tried It
I used this brand of sweet (glutinous) rice:
I used 2 cups of rice, thoroughly rinsed, 1 tsp salt, 3 2/3 cups water, and the only setting my simple, old rice cooker has.
My lid is glass, and I could see that there was still quite a bit of water on the top of the rice after the cycle was complete (short, 30 minutes or less), so I waited 15 minutes before I lifted the lid.
Since you can't see the rice without opening the cooker, I recommend that you do the same, wait 15 minutes before opening.
After 15 minutes I checked it out:
It's absolutely fine. Is it as good as the the great Thai place down the street? No. But it's close. The only thing I would (and will) do differently next time is to only use 3 1/2 cups water to 2 cups rinsed rice and 1/2 TBS salt.
After it finished last night, I was suddenly too tired to mess with it anymore, so I just left the cooker on warm, and went to sleep. 5 hours later, if anything, it's improved.
It was fine without it, but I'm intrigued by @GdD's answer here. Later, I'm going to try making the rice again with the above measurements plus 1.5 TBS sugar, just to see (more just seems like too much). Making sticky rice without rice cooker
Final EDIT I Promise:
Yep, that worked. It does brown a bit at the bottom of the rice cooker, but I like that. I enjoyed that as much as sticky rice from the Thai joint. It's not the same, but it's really good. So, there is my recommendation. Have fun!
The lady who made the video has responded to me on YouTube. She seems grateful and flattered. She had no corrections.
Sure looks like it works to me. She does say it comes out "a little more on the softer, stickier side" but seems to think it's a matter of preference, not necessarily right or wrong. I'd certainly do it, especially since I don't have the right kind of steamer.
Thanks! I'm going to give it a shot and I will report back. I'm no rice snob, just trying to get some decent sticky rice at home without additional single purpose equipment.
Leaving it on the keep warm setting for a while could certainly provide some of the changes jbarker mentioned!
I'm happy to report back that for the past year I've been successfully cooking sticky rice in my basic rice cooker. I've played with less water, rinsing, cooking times, and sugar. The best results for me come with rinsing and using a bit less water. Thanks for the tips Jolenealaska!
@dpollitt Thank you. I love it when OPs return to the question to say that an answer worked for them. :)
To answer your question: you can't... not really.
Thai sticky rice is cooked by steam and not by boiling and then steam like normal rice. Simply cooking a glutinous rice using the standard method is no more Thai sticky rice than a spud that I've crushed under my foot is a mashed potato.
The main difference is that glutinous rice has waxy starch and it will react very differently to different cooking methods than standard rice. Also, steaming allows dextrinization to occur throughout the cooking process instead of only at the end of cooking delivering a different flavor in the finished product.
The differences are not subtle if you use the traditional Thai method, however your mileage may vary.
The rice cooker that I have also offers a steam basket for steaming fish and vegetables. Would that work to properly steam Thai sticky rice?
If you could guarantee that you'll have no condensation dripping back onto the rice and you can provide the proper head space to get enough dry, radiant heat as well then sure.
Judging by the results in the video Jolenealaska linked to, you're exaggerating a lot here. It's clearly way less different than comparing crushed raw potato to mashed potatoes. Could you clarify what the differences actually are? How does it react differently to the different cooking methods? Is there a textural difference? How is the flavor different? (Dextrinization normally means browning, as far as I know, and I don't think Thai sticky rice is terribly brown...)
@Jefromi, you're right. That's why no one in Thailand does it the traditional way anymore... no, wait... they all do it the traditional way even though in most houses they have a rice cooker as well. And dextrinization occurs and has an effect on taste long before browning occurs to any noticeable extent, but in Thailand the sticky rice that I had was not perfectly white, either.
I'm sorry, I don't quite follow. I didn't say there was no difference, I said the comparison you made was clearly hyperbolic, and asked you to clarify the actual differences. If no one uses the rice cooker for this, why? Is it just the mild browning? (You could mention that in your answer - it's a lot more clear to the average reader than "dextrinization".) Is there a texture difference? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm asking you to explain more.
Before asking this question you should have looked at how it is done your local USA Thai restaurant and how it i done in Thailand. Not only the rice but the method is different. It is steamed, not boiled. Of course you can rig different appliances to do this but the Thai apparatus, suitable for stove top use, is the most authentic; unless you duplicate the steaming you will not come close.
Jim
As I said in my question, my rice cooker also has a steam function. Will that achieve the desired effect?
you wash the rice until the water runs clear...that gets rid of any polish or patina or whatever the coating that develops is called so that the nice sticky starch of individual grains can join.
For a stick rice substitute I really just use jasmine rice with a little extra water...Not much, and not enough to make it soggy, just enough so that the rice isn't exactly "dry" when complete.
The rice cooker works by detecting that the rice is getting too hot, that's when it knows the water has run out and the rice is "done" if the right amount of water was used.
I'm not really sure that this answers my question. I don't want to substitute sticky rice for something else, I want to try to properly cool sticky rice with the equipment I have if possible. Also washing rice is quite a debatable topic that this site already has Q&A on, so I'd rather not get into that here.
Are you maybe saying that you should take glutinous rice, wash it, and then cook as normal? (That'd address the question.) Or are you saying that's how you make non-glutinous rice act alike glutinous rice? (That doesn't address the question.)
Please check out the Hot Thai Kitchen You Tube, Pai is showing how to cook Thai Sticky Rice in rice cooker and another method she called it "Steam the Bowl". Her method is that you don't need to soak the sticky rice. Please make sure you use the sticky rice from Thailand.
Quick-Fix, No-Soak Sticky Rice หุงข้าวเหนียวแบบไม่แช่ข้าว- HTK Tutorial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMDwyqJy2r4
This is for the sticky rice that you can use in the recipe for sticky rice and mango.
Siri, welcome to the site. Answers that say "go to this website" aren't answers here on Seasoned Advice. What would happen if the link goes bad? We end up with a useless answer... So always give the important information right here in the answer. For more on how to write a good answer see our [help] and take the [tour].
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.492739
| 2015-02-19T23:54:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54944",
"authors": [
"Andi Castilleja",
"Annie Haynes",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Corrish",
"Danny Nicolas",
"David Hofacker",
"Janet Mills",
"Jesse Inzetta",
"John Beynon",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kareem Morgan",
"Kate Roberts",
"Kristina Burton",
"Leisha Lovely",
"Mandy Johnson",
"Maurice Riordan",
"Michelle Vandekerkhove",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Rhoden Lee",
"SafetyFirst",
"Stephie",
"ahmed kabeer",
"dpollitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243",
"miguel fundo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114497
|
Using both cook and serve pudding and instant pudding in pie
I have a layered Pudding Pie recipe that calls for Chocolate, Vanilla, and Butterscotch pudding. I have not been able to get the Butterscotch pudding in instant pudding (which is what the recipe calls for), only in cook and serve. Would it cause the milk in the other two to curdle when that layer is applied, and if so, how would I avoid that problem? I intend to let the pie set in the fridge overnight.
So your recipe has you prepare each pudding according to the package instructions, then layer the puddings together in a crust? Or is it more elaborate than that?
"So your recipe has you prepare each pudding according to the package instructions, then layer the puddings together in a crust?" Yes, pouring one layer, then preparing the next and pouring that layer, and repeat. The Butterscotch layer is the second layer.
You probably need to chill the cook and serve pudding until it's soft set, otherwise it will be too runny and it will end up getting mixed into the top layer. I don't think it would curdle the other puddings if you put it on hot, but I don't know for sure.
I doubt it would make the milk curdle, but it may mix with the other layers if you pour it in while still hot. I would cook the layer with cook-and-serve pudding and let it cool in the pot until it's more spreadable than pourable. It should be just about room temperature by then, and then you can layer it on top of whatever layer it's supposed to be on without any worries. If the butterscotch is the first layer, you can pour it hot into the pie shell and wait until it's cooled before adding the other two layers.
Although the recipe called for it to be the middle layer, I decided to put it in as the first layer, put it in the fridge for 30 minutes, then did the instant layers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.493794
| 2021-02-25T05:52:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114497",
"authors": [
"Davidw",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91035"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114018
|
How to prevent scorching and sticking when boil soy milk
So long story short, I really like making tofu at home and I have done it a lot of times. I am pretty happy with my end results, but the boiling soy milk part always bothers me.
No matter how much I stir the soy milk while boiling it, the soy milk always sticks to the bottom of the pot and burns, leaving lots of mess. I also tried the microwave method, the sticking and burning is gone, but it is very time consuming (takes 15 mins to fully cook 2-3 litres of soy milk).
So just wondering if anyone has any great method to fully cook a few litres of soy milk? Perhaps steaming it? If steaming actually works, how long can I expect it to fully cook the soy milk.
What utensil are you using for stirring? Using a utensil that will let you easily scrape the bottom of the pan as you stir might help. Try a heat-safe silicone spatula.
My understanding is that the soy has to come to the boil, and be held there for several minutes to deactivate enzymes. I hear you. I hate the clean up after making tofu. You can certainly avoid burning by stirring and controlling the heat, but the lees will stick to the bottom and sides of the pot. I don't think there is any way around it, unless you use a non-stick vessel of some sort. I don't have access to that, so, my solution is simply get water into the pan right after the straining, and clean as soon as possible. A scouring pad of some sort really helps, but it takes some effort.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.493977
| 2021-01-29T19:36:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114018",
"authors": [
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114462
|
Use of thawed Beef blood
I recently thawed a roast and put blood aside to use to add to gravy mix. Was this dangerous to do? It was brought to a boil.
You should be ok as long as it is properly cooked (boiled)
People will often (re)use juices from raw meat in sauces.
For example, you can use the leftover marinade as a base for a sauce.
It might be worth mentioning that (as far as I know) the liquid was almost certainly not blood; proper slaughter/butchery removes all the blood from meat and the pinkish liquid is a mixture of water and proteins.
@dbmag9 that's not entirely correct. Only perfusion would be capable of removing all blood. Proper slaughter removes almost all the blood in larger blood vessels, but is entirely incapable of removing it from things like capillaries. Storage of blood results in hemolysis, which releases hemoglobin to form the pink/red colour... it's still blood, just a different form.
@dbmag9 meat does not have blood, veins and arteries have blood.
It is a popular misconception that meat contains blood. Mammals have blood in there veins and in there arteries not in there meat. What meat does contain is hemoglobin which is off course also present in blood. It is a case of all thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs.
When an animal is slaughtered it is customary to have the carcass hang for a certain period to let all the blood drain out. Any full carcass that you as consumer will interact with will definitely not have any blood.
Actual real blood is quite dangerous. There is a reason why no butcher in the West sells the blood of animals. The risk of dangerous pathogens being spread like this is just simply to great.
That is why I do believe what is sold as blood sausage is really a fraud. You are only going to get real blood sausage made on the day of the pigs slaughtering. You can only use blood if you slaughter animals yourself and even then it has to be used immediately.
The defrost juices are probably just dampness from the melting of the ice crystals mixed with the hemoglobin present in the muscles of the meat.
Do you have any sources for "actual real blood is quite dangerous"? FWIW, my local butcher sells pigs blood.
That is incorrect. Fresh (and dried) blood is available for sale and perfectly legal in Europe. And claiming that blood sausage is a fraud would offend not only the Confrérie des Chevaliers du Goûte Boudin but also a lot of traditional regional dishes like the British black pudding, German and Austrian Blutwurst, French boudin noir etc.
Incidentally, "meat" does contain blood (hanging the carcass empties the major blood vessels but not the capillaries), but the red exudate from the muscle fibers themselves is myoglobin, not hemoglobin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.494124
| 2021-02-23T18:24:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114462",
"authors": [
"Neil Meyer",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"bob1",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56806
|
Can you substitute blood for the eggs in an ice cream base?
I read somewhere (Facebook) that you can use blood as a substitute for the eggs in an ice cream base due to to the similarities in protein composition shared between the two.
Does anyone know more about this?
Have you made Blood Ice Cream?
What would be some good flavors?
Would the blood give the ice cream a metallic flavor because of bloods high content of iron?
Sounds like an urban legend to me... But from years of nosebleed-proneness and as a woman (you know...) I can confirm that even small traces have a distinct flavour and smell. So nothing that would be easily masked, IMHO. Good for a bunch of very fearless Halloween guests, perhaps, if you can get your hands on the stuff - not easy nowadays, I heard.
I stand corrected on the urban legend part - see my answer below.
@Stephie I have a lot of fellow culinary arts graduate peers
How about bacon egg and blackpudding instead
@Chef_Code Sure, but the picture was of blood orange sorbet, no ice cream and no blood, so it wasn't particularly credible at first glance...
To me this sounds like a case where technically you can, but you really, really shouldn't.
The Nordic Food Lab, founded by René Redzepi, has experimented with blood as egg substitute, full blog entry including recipes here.
Apparently texture-wise the substitution can be possible, but the typical bloody aftertaste is hard to mask, which might have to do with the physiological way the metallic taste is perceived. It seems especially women tend to recognize this ingredient quite easily.
nice find, interesting article.
Apparently the claims aren't fake (see Stephie's answer) but the photo sure is.
The photo is of blood orange sorbet, from this blog:
(I'm assuming the blog is the original source; I can't find any other instances of the picture online, and they have a lot of other photos of the same thing along with it.)
The photo definitely looks like sorbet and not ice cream; it's icy not creamy. The flavor and safety issues would probably be a deal-breaker anyways.
Good find of this picture! But apparently the chef behind Noma has done some experiments with blood. So there seems to be a grain of truth in this facebook claim, sigh!
@Stephie Ugh, well, kudos to you for digging that up. The captioned image is still pretty dishonest, between omitting the flavor issues and using a photo of something that's not even ice cream.
Absolutely! And I somehow don't see me replicating these experiments either...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.494363
| 2015-04-20T03:49:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56806",
"authors": [
"Aaron Mobley",
"Benjamin Balanza",
"Cascabel",
"Chef_Code",
"Denise Sealey",
"Doug",
"Estelle Smal",
"Gastroen77",
"Iftisam",
"Justyna Blawuciak",
"Shananarocks",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"Vincent Tapaoan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56059
|
Lobster Death! Freezer vs. Alcohol
I love lobster but I must admit I am not very good at cooking it. I want to make this easier on my self by just adding the lobster to a flavorful broth. I've heard in the past that if you are going to boil lobster for best results you should purchase the lobster alive and keep it alive until you are ready to toss the lobster into the vessel of hot liquid.
Now the question at hand. I've been told that if you just toss the lobster into the hot liquid, the lobster suffers and tenses up making the meat chewy. Is this really true?
The two methods I've heard of prevent this.
First: Get the lobster drunk with alcohol.
Second: Throw the lobster into the freezer for 30 to 45 minutes before I throw the lobster into the hot liquid.
If these methods actually work, which one is better and why?
If the alcohol method is better, which alcohol should I use?
Revision:
Oh yea, I want to keep the lobster whole and intact for presentation reasons.
Just plunge a knife into its tiny brain stem. It won't feel a thing.
I want to preserve the look of the lobster for presentation, I will revise my question. Thank you although, I guess this would be the easiest over all.
Assuming that the "tensing up" part is true (I can't judge if it's a myth or not): Why do you think that the same effect won't happen when the lobster is suffering from slowly freezing to death, or being poisoned by alcohol (assuming that alcohol poisons lobsters, which is another open question)? The solutions you propose sound quite doubtful.
I think the courts will have a problem with it no matter how you execute the lobster.
The way fish (shelfish included) is dispatched impacts both its flavor and texture. The Japanese have a long history of this knowledge. This type of fish killing is called ike jime.
Dave Arnold did some interesting research on this. You'll find it here: http://www.cookingissues.com/index.html%3Fp=5731.html
Bottom line: How you kill a lobster does impact its flavor.
It would be useful to have more than a link and a bottom line, can you expand?
@vincebowdren not sure how I might expand without reiterating the article, which I did not write...Perhaps the addition above helps.
...and from the top of the article (perhaps easily overlooked due to positioning) "The upshot? I still believe proper lobster-killing technique produces a better product, but those quality improvements are easily swamped by other variables."
The key information which someone would want if the article goes dead is the use of clove oil as an anaesthetic, the appropriate proportions, and the way to tell that the lobster is sufficiently anaesthetised.
As long as you properly attribute the information using a link and quote text, you're more than welcome to include it in your answer without worrying.
Another important result from that link: "3. Hypnosis Induced by Carapace-Rubbing: I could never get this business to do anything." Food for, uh, thought.
Does cooking a lobster alive alter the flavor/texture?
No, not really.
Is there any truth to the claims that lobsters don't feel pain?
Absolutely not. They feel pain just like you do.
Does killing a lobster before cooking alter the flavor/texture?
Nope.
Are there other ways to kill a lobster so it doesn't suffer the horrible pain of being boiled alive?
Yep.
An alternative, if you don't mind having the carapace damaged, is to bisect the head vertically just before cooking. I made this diagram to instruct my coworkers on the technique.
Assuming you can get fresh lobster, you definitely should keep it as fresh as possible prior to cooking. Generally, that will mean keeping the bug alive until it's cooked.
I haven't heard of this effect myself, and if it's true, I very much doubt that it's due to the lobster "suffering". If anything, it's probably just that a vigorous boil applies too much heat too quickly, overcooking the lobster (which would definitely make it chewy and less pleasant).
Freezing the lobster accomplishes two things, then. First, it raises the total amount of heat energy required to cook it, offsetting the high heat and providing a slight buffer against overcooking. Second, the chill stuns the lobster, making it easier to handle and less likely to react vigorously when handled or exposed to its imminent doom.
I've never heard of getting lobsters "drunk", and as @rumtscho points out from comments, their metabolism is so significantly different from mammals' that alcohol likely wouldn't have the same effect. (Side note: we don't actually even have a complete understanding of ethanol's effect on our own brains, much less on lobsters'.) You could submerge your lobster in a solution of ethanol, which would force it to absorb some, but that might very well poison the critter instead (alcohol is toxic even in humans in sufficient concentration, after all). I would advise you not to waste your precious booze on what is basically a giant sea bug, especially not to test such a dubious proposition.
Re: you can't make him drink. If you submerge a lobster in alcohol, it will have no choice but absorb some of it. But its metabolism is so far from a mammal's that I wouldn't expect it to get drunk the way a human would. So unless the OP likes pickled lobster, I agree that alcohol doesn't make much sense
@rumtscho Very true - I was thinking you'd probably wind up suffocating the bug by doing so, but even a strong spirit would be mostly water, probably enough to allow it to breathe (and of course you could dilute further). A better question is whether alcohol would have the same effect as on humans; perhaps the best question is, how do you tell a drunk lobster from a sober one?
By the time you've drown your lobster in alcohol he will surely taste of alcohol too, right? That whole idea seems weird.
I'm pretty sure lobsters can get drunk. There's a traditional Shanghainese dish, drunk shrimp, that involves marinating live shrimps in a alcohol-based marinate so that they get drunk. I'm pretty sure lobsters, being quite closely related to shrimps, get drunk too.
@xuq01 are you sure drunken shrimp actually get drunk? It could very well be just a funny name because they're submerged in alcohol. How do you know they are actually drunk?
@Luciano After a while, the shrimps do stop moving and that's when you eat it, hence the name "drunk shrimp".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.494638
| 2015-03-25T18:49:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56059",
"authors": [
"Affordable legal services",
"Calum Marnock",
"Catija",
"Chef_Code",
"Dennis Stampohar",
"Drisheen Colcannon",
"Ecnerwal",
"Gill Neil",
"Jenny Wong",
"JoAna Carthew",
"Lew Szybki",
"Luciano",
"Marcia Duncan",
"Meredith Grenfell-Bird",
"Peter Taylor",
"Preston",
"Sabine",
"Sneftel",
"Sobachatina",
"Vince Bowdren",
"abdul azeez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"logophobe",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"xuq01"
],
"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
}
|
47428
|
Making Herman the German starter using brown sugar
I have a recipe for Herman the German cake and starter that calls for white sugar. One of the comments said the person used brown sugar to feed Herman. It wasn't clear if she used brown sugar to create Herman. I love the flavors brown sugar gives. Can I make a starter using brown sugar? Or does it have to be white sugar to start and then I can switch to brown sugar when I feed Herman?
Here is the initial recipe and the link for the site:
• 5 oz plain flour, sifted
• 8 oz castor sugar
• 1 packet of active dry yeast (OP recommends using 3 tsp instead of the approx. 2 tsp in a packet)
• 1 cup warm milk
• 2 oz. warm water
http://www.hermanthegermanfriendshipcake.com/how-to-make-your-own-sourdough-starter-for-a-herman-the-german-friendship-cake/
http://www.hermanthegermanfriendshipcake.com/friendship-cake-instructions/
http://www.hermanthegermanfriendshipcake.com/just-how-flexible-is-herman-the-german-friendship-cake/
The first link is to the starter recipe. The second link is the instructions on how to feed Herman and the standard Herman the German cake you can make with it. The third link is the recipe where she says she feed Herman with brown muscovado sugar (which Google tells me is similar to brown sugar) and wonders about starting Herman with muscovado sugar.
Do you have a link to the recipe?
I'm not sure but I think brown suger can also be used to make a Herman. The Herman dough consists of Lactobacillales and yeast. Both need sugar to live. White refined sugar mostly consists of saccharose (99,96 % saccharose, 0,04 % inverted sugar syrup).1 Brown sugar is nothing else than white sugar mixed with molasses. 2 Therefore I assume that you can use brown sugar instead of white sugar. Due to the molasses in the brown sugar you might use a bit more brown sugar than the receipe says for the white sugar. Wikipedia says that "Based on total weight, regular brown sugar contains up to 10% molasses.". I think, about 10% more brown sugar and it will be fine.
1 German Wikipedia article about (the purity levels of) sugar says "Raffinade ist der kristallisierte schneeweiße Zucker mit dem höchsten Reinheitsgrad (99,96 % Saccharose, 0,04 % Invertzucker).", translated: "Refined sugar is the crystallized, snow-white sugar with the highest level of purity (99,96 % saccharose, 0,04 % inverted sugar syrup).
2 English Wikipedia article about brown sugar
Thanks. My concern is the molasses would negatively impact the starter. If it doesn't work well, I guess I can always start over!
I read a bit more about molasses. Molasses are also used as feed for yeast in the ethanol-industry (bio-fuel, rum, wodka, etc...). So I think that you don't need to use more sugar.
Maybe you can present your results here? :D
I can certainly do that. This will be my first starter, so forgive me if I don't know exactly what I'm looking at or doing! :)
@ Ching Chong - Finally I have an update! I started my Herman the German starter two weeks ago. I have successfully made it to where he gets split and am half way to the second split. I did make a small adjustment in the feeding schedule, but Herman doesn't seem to mind. The original schedule has me feed & split, stir for two days, feed, stir for four days, then feed & split. I changed it to feed & split, stir for three days, feed, stir for three days, feed and split. I have been feeding with 1 cup flour - sifted, 1 cup dark brown sugar, and 1 cup warm milk. So far so good! :)
The cake I made with the starter was also good. Not as sweet as I would have liked, but not horrible (I have a SWEET tooth).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.495306
| 2014-09-25T18:32:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47428",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Ching Chong",
"Jerie White",
"Kate Armstrong",
"MasterShizzle",
"Passport Dinners",
"Phillip Brown",
"Wilma Damron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24805"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52079
|
Frosting kept melting when trying to frost cake
I made a chocolate malt cake for the first time the other day. I let the cake sit overnight to cool. I made the frosting while the cake was baking and put it in the fridge for the next day. The cake recipe had me cook the cake at 325 for 45-50 minutes. That turned out to be 10-15 minutes too long (when I checked it at 40 minutes it was very overdone). That's easy to correct for next time. The frosting is what's stumping me. The recipe is:
3 sticks (12 ounces) unsalted butter, at room temperature
1 1/2 cups powdered sugar
3/4 cup malted milk powder
1/2 cup whole milk, at room temperature
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1/4 teaspoon kosher salt
When I added the first three ingredients it was a good consistency, if slightly thick. I added the rest and it became too thin. I added another 1 1/2 cups of powdered sugar and it was a lot better. I put it in the refrigerator to use the next day. Of course it became very firm. When I was spreading it onto the cake it kept getting so melty that I couldn't spread it consistently. I've never seen this happen before. It was so bad that I actually had to make a ganache to cover the bad frosting job. Next time I will definitely cut down the butter to two sticks and reduce the milk to maybe 1/4 cup. What else could have happened to cause this?
How long after removing the cake from the oven did you attempt to frost?
I had the same conclusion as jbarker2160 and Johanna; I typically make the cake the day before so it's had a chance to cool overnight. If I can, I make the frosting the next morning and give it a quick crumb coat, and then finish the frosting job that night.
Since I was baking all day, I couldn't be bothered to wait and frost it late at night. The cake sat at room temperature all night and the frosting went into the fridge. The cake was out of the oven about 15 hours before frosting. I've edited the original post to say the cake sat out overnight before getting frosted.
There are two things I would consider with the frosting. The first is that either the cake or the kitchen was too warm when you tried to frost the cake. It's happened to me a few times that I set the indoors temperature too warm in the winter and frosting keeps melting for me. Freezing the cake for about 20 minutes before attempting to frost it will usually make it easier to do a nice job too.
Otherwise, when you make a frosting recipe like that one, you want to mix all the ingredients except the liquid (in this case milk) together first, and the add the liquid, a little at a time until the frosting is the right consistency. Never add all the liquid at once. I don't think the butter was the problem, if anything you didn't have enough of it compared to the amount of milk.
Johanna, normally I only use a tablespoon or two of milk in buttercream frosting (added at the end to see how much I need). I also thought the amount of powdered sugar wasn't very much. But when making a recipe for the first time, I try to follow it as close as possible. It is possible that the house was warmer than normal, but I can't remember if it was cold the night before so the heat was on or if it was warm that day. The only other time I've ever had a problem with melting frosting is when I was too impatient to let the cake cool properly. That wasn't the case this time.
@Brooke Since every other frosting recipe like this one I've come across says to add the liquid a little at a time, it was probably badly written instructions that tripped you up :) You sound pretty experienced, so I didn't think that you would try to frost a warm cake (most people only try that once...), but I felt it should still be included in the answer, for anyone who reads it later.
Thanks Johanna. :) The only time I did attempt to frost a cake too soon it was in a disposable 9 X 13 pan and I was only frosting the top, so I decided (impatiently) to frost away. It ran all over the top and stuck to nothing! I just relooked at the frosting instructions and she wants you to blend the first three ingredients and then add the other three ingredients and beat for three minutes until "light and fluffy". I will admit I didn't originally see the three minutes part, but it was so runny there's no way it would have fluffed up (whole milk not whipping cream!).
I agree with the comments and answer. The cake does need to be cooled completely before frosting and room temperature does make a difference.
Based on personal experience, if a cake is to be stored at room temperature I will never use more than one stick of butter. Butter becomes soft at room temperature and frostings with too much butter do not hold up well.
What I do to compensate for this is to use no more than one-half to one stick of butter and substitute half & half for the milk. Simply mix the other ingredients together first and add the half & half until you have the proper consistency. This should work well for you, especially considering that you have salt as an ingredient for your frosting.
Why is the salt relevant?
Hello @Stephie. Flavor. Even though unsalted butter is used, when you use less butter and add half & half the flavor does change slightly. The small amount of salt helps to make this almost unnoticeable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.495618
| 2014-12-29T18:07:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52079",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Cindy",
"Eric Mok",
"Gunness Associates",
"James Halsdorff",
"Jane Kerstetter",
"Joe",
"Mike Jones",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Stephie",
"charleskasseloptonlinenet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"thomemerge",
"user141592"
],
"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.