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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
41595
|
How long can cream cheese frosting be safely stored in the fridge?
I made a cream cheese frosting a while ago. I didn't use all the frosting, so I put the rest (quite a lot actually) in the fridge with the intent to freeze it by the weekend if I hadn't used it. Fast forward a month and it's still in the fridge. I don't have the exact recipe in front of me, but it's cream cheese, powdered sugar, butter, extract, and milk. The milk is minimal and I can't remember if I actually used it (I don't always).
I should note that I keep my refrigerator very cold (veggies usually freeze after a couple days - I like milk super cold). I don't know if that would help preserve it longer, but thought it might be relevant.
No matter how close the temperature was to freezing, if it is not frozen solid all the time, it is considered fridge storage. And fridge storage for all prepared foods is 3-5 days regardless of ingredients, nowhere near a month. There are a few classes which are an exception, e.g. refrigerator pickles, but if you didn't use a recipe intended for storage, you will practically always end up with food which is not safe after the fifth day.
I did see that question/answer but wasn't sure since it talked about individual foods and I had combined different items with different shelf lives. I know it ultimately depends on the item with the shortest life span.
no it doesn't depend on the item with the shortest life span. Bacteria generally live in all human foods, and you have to remove a bacteria living condition to make it durable. If you mix two foods, you might be adding back the missing condition. For example, gelatine is durable because it has no water, and water is durable because it has no calories. Mix gelatine and water and you get the medium labs use to grow bacterial colonies. And the other question doesn't talk about individual foods, it talks about categories of foods.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.496058
| 2014-01-30T14:20:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41595",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Emily Minium",
"Russell Gunn",
"Spammer",
"cihset",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96989",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115593
|
Is Wagyu ground beef too beefy?
As a result of a promotional offer from a mail-order meat company, I receive 1lb of Wagyu ground beef each month. I have experimented with it in various dishes. It makes an excellent burger. Great flavor, and not sensitive to overcooking (doesn't get tough or dry).
My question is about other dishes that feature ground beef but aren't "about" ground beef, like chili, seasoned ground beef for tacos, red sauces, etc. In those dishes, I have found that despite the presence of other strong spices and ingredients, the resulting dish is very "beef forward". For example chili made with Wagyu ground beef almost tastes like a burger with chili topping. Is there something about my technique that is leading to this? Can I make this into an ordinary chili, or is it really reserved for burgers?
(In most of these dishes the ground beef is browned, and then drained, retaining whatever the usual desired amount of beef fat is for the rest of the dish. Even so the Wagyu ground beef (which isn't marked with a leanness percentage) doesn't seem that much fattier than ordinary ground beef.)
there's probably more fat, even if you drain most of it; and fat is a good conductor or flavour.
Have you tried less wagyu compared to normal beef?
Hi Ben, I have trouble seeing a question here. You explain you have established that, to your taste, the taste of Wagyu beef is more pronounced than you like, except in burgers. This is a simple observation; what is your question?
Some prefer beef forward chili. You could take advantage of that strong flavor of the beef to double the amount of onion and garlic in the chili and increase the other flavors because you know the stronger beef flavor will stand up to it.
Yes, it will be more beefy than what you might be used to.
Whether it would be "too" beefy depends heavily on your taste.
If you're worried, add more spices and/or cooking liquor.
I sometimes use wagyu (or U.S. angus) mince when I make Chinese dishes such as mapo tofu, and I feel that both are too beefy than what I'd like (compared to the meat of Chinese breeds, which is quite bland). The solution is very simple too: just add more Shaoxing wine and minced ginger & garlic than usually add. In your case, if you're making chili for example, you'd just add more onions (or shallots), garlic, and wine than usual. Be careful about the excessive fat, though: it's a good heat conductor, so you might want to cook your aromatics for a bit less time, otherwise you'd overcook them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.496231
| 2021-05-09T22:01:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115593",
"authors": [
"Max",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43360
|
'Sweet milk' substitute in an old recipe
I have an old pancake recipe (circa 1930) that I would like to try. However it includes as an ingredient "sweet milk." Having never seen such a thing in stores. I'm trying to find the best substitute for this ingredient.
Given that the "milk" readily available in the 1930s was probably much fresher and full fat (and perhaps unpasteurized), I'm thinking that the best modern substitute would probably be whole milk or perhaps half-and-half. Would this be the correct ingredient substitution to make? And would a 1:1 ratio be acceptable?
it could also be evaporated milk - comes in cans and is sweetened.
True. But regular milk has 12g of sugars which seems plenty sweet, especially considering the palate of the times.
I have seen "sweet cream" used to contrast with "sour cream" and just meaning cream, but not "sweet milk" in that sense. One clue might be the amount - if it just happens to be the amount of evaporated milk in a tin that would strengthen my hunch.
sweet milk is what we call now "regular whole milk". Traditionally there was also "soured milk" and "buttermilk", with different consistency and taste.
It's normal whole milk.
'sweet' was used to distinguish it from buttermilk in older cookbooks.
My grandmother referred to 'whole milk' as sweet milk. I wonder if it has to do with the fact that when milk was delivered in the mid 20th century, it came in a bottle and had no designated fat content - if you wanted cream, you would 'skim' it off the top of the bottle after it had settled. Now we buy the different parts of milk separately.
Would it be safe to assume, then, that the alternative recipe that calls for "sour milk" is, in fact, a buttermilk pancake recipe?
@ConfusedEngineer : no, it's milk that's been left a little too long. It's similar to today's buttermilk, but not quite, as it hasn't necessary thickened to the same degree. Back then, 'buttermilk' referred to what was left over after churning butter, which is probably closer to today's skim milk.
@ConfusedEngineer sour milk or soured milk was whole milk left at kitche temperature for a day or to. "Cream" certainly has higher fat content than "milk"
when I was small (1950's) , the older folks referred to milk as either buttermilk
or sweet milk.... including store-bought milk . People drank a lot more butter
milk back then , so if you asked for a glass of milk , people very well might ask
you to clarify - "Would you care for sweet milk or butter milk"? Sweet milk is now
just called milk .
Grandmother asked what I wanted to drink with dinner, sweet milk or regular milk. You can guess that as a suburban kid I did not get what I expected as 'regular'
I grew up on a farm. We always had a milk cow. We used the terms "sweet milk" and "milk" interchangeably. It was whole milk. Mother would pastuerize it. We did not have the capability to homogenize it so the cream would rise to the top. We always stirred it before pouring a glass. The alternatives were buttermilk or clabber. Buttermilk was what was left after the soured milk had been churned and the butter removed. There were always small particles of butter left in it. Clabbers was the soured milk before it was churned.
Interesting. (that old school 'buttermilk' had bits of butter in it.) Is there something typically available to those of us not on farms that would make a good substitute for it in recipes? I had assumed 'skim' milk, as the cream had been removed as butter, but now I'm thinking it might be closer to 1%.
And in case you're not allowed to leave comments (and so this is easier for other people to find ... and because many users on here don't like long conversations in comments), I've put this up as a 'Question', so you can instead post an answer to that: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/76470/67
I always called condensed milk sweet milk, that's what my granny called sweet milk. Carnation sweetened condensed milk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.496464
| 2014-04-08T13:32:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43360",
"authors": [
"Adam Hamilton",
"Avogadro",
"Confused Engineer",
"DWDW",
"David Wilkins",
"JUSTIN KAZMIERZAK",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Michael Cochran",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sophie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"roetnig"
],
"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
}
|
115987
|
Traditionally, is prosciutto never to be cooked?
In a discussion about pancetta and prosciutto in sauces (specifically, bolognese), a friend said that
"Traditionally, prosciutto is never to be cooked."
I have not heard that before. I also cannot find anything in searches for "is prosciutto supposed to be cooked" and "is prosciutto never to be cooked". There are many search results around "does prosciutto need to be cooked?" but nothing about "never to be cooked".
I'm skeptical because prosciutto is a salted and dried meat, like other preserved/smoked/salted/dried/fermented protein stuff like salami, ham hocks, dried squids, dried shrimps, etc. As such it seems reasonable that they could be, and would have been, used as flavoring or condiment for other dishes.
So, is prosciutto traditionally never to be cooked?
Are you asking about making prosciutto, or using it as an ingredient? It's absolutely never cooked as part of making prosciutto. That's probably what your friend meant.
@J... except, of course, that there is prosciutto cotto - which is a traditional thing in its own right.
@cbeleitesunhappywithSX In English we just call that "ham", so there's no ambiguity. Prosciutto in English always means crudo. If we were speaking Italian then the distinction is important. If we were speaking Italian, of course, we also wouldn't need to have this discussion! ;)
The first time I saw prosciutto sitting in my fridge, while still living with my parents, I decided to heat it up in the pan, as I prefer to do with ham and most cold cuts. It concentrated the salt/ saltiness to the extreme and was rendered almost inedible. However, the last time I used prosciutto was in a recipe for Beef Wellington, and it turned out absolutely amazing.
The person may just have problems with articulateing the facts that these are foods eaten raw
'Never to be cooked'… nope. Cook it if you need it cooked.
Saltimbocca alla Romana I'd think to be traditional enough to refute this easily. Jamie Oliver's recipe. There are a million others, but the main ingredients are veal, sage & prosciutto… cooked.
For those questioning Jamie Oliver's credentials on this - Wikipedia lists the same major ingredients - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltimbocca
as does this one - in Italian too - https://www.tavolartegusto.it/ricetta/saltimbocca-alla-romana-ricetta-originale/
Jaimie Oliver is the guy who put chorizo in a paella. I don't think that he is a good example of a person who cares about how traditional Mediterranean food works.
@Daniel Are you so sure that's not "traditional"? There's some pretty good evidence that historically, paella allowed just about everything, and was more of a technique than a specific dish: https://elcomidista.elpais.com/elcomidista/2016/10/13/articulo/1476372723_268242.html
@Bloodgain: Still, my impression was that he just called that recipe a paella based on the general idea. I don't recall him defending it by pointing out that he was already aware of the historical usage of the term, or anything like that. (That's an interesting fact, but it doesn't lend weight to the idea that Jamie Oliver is a traditionalist in his recipes or in their naming. Doesn't mean they're not tasty, but not a good source for history of food cultures.)
tbh I already knew I was looking for saltimbocca, so I just linked the first recipe with the right ingredients, by someone people would have heard of.
Regardless of this particular chef, saltimbocca calls for cooked prosciutto in nearly every recipe I've seen.
We Italians usually use prosciutto cotto when it needs to be cooked together other meat or pasta, but it can happen we use prosciutto crudo and cook it together meat or pasta, as in saltimbocca alla romana.
I believe I can explain where your friend's belief comes from.
There are three main traditional cured pork products used in Italian cuisine: prosciutto, pancetta, and guanciale. Of these, (certified) prosciutto is the most expensive, and also the only one that is usually eaten without further cooking. As such, most Italians would use pancetta or guanciale for recipes where the pork is going to be cooked, just as an American would use supermarket ham or bacon and not 2-year-aged Virginia Ham for a soup.
Prosciutto also has less fat than pancetta or guanciale, and many recipes that involve cooking cured pork are depending on the rendered pork fat to then cook other ingredients.
Confusing this for Americans, most of what gets sold as "prosciutto" here isn't actually DOC prosciutto, but is in fact some kind of cheaper local ham. Making it, ironically, better as a cooking ingredient.
So it's not that it's bad to cook prosciutto; it's just expensive and sometimes inefficient.
You can definitely eat pancetta and guanciale without further cooking. It's mostly used in cooking, but serving it (preferably sliced paper thin) as an appetiser isn't all that uncommon.
(I’ve found some links that claim that FDA recommends against eating pancetta raw, but all links to actual FDA resources are dead, and the only mention I’ve found of pancetta on an official US site doesn’t mention this. Oh, and of course these rules don’t necessarily apply elsewhere since (a) different standards are used, and (b) the products and their respective safety might differ slightly.
Changed my wording from "edible without further cooking" to "frequently eaten without further cooking" per comments.
("cerfified" → "certified")
Italian pancetta is cured, differently from bacon. You don't eat bacon without cooking it, but you can eat Italian pancetta without cooking it and without any risk for your health.
Yes, I call it cured above.
@FuzzyChef I meant that the raw pancetta another comment is referring to is not what we Italians call pancetta. Your answer is correct, in the same is correct to say that we normally use prosciutto cotto when it needs to be cooked together other meat, or pasta.
For example, for pasta with peas and prosciutto, we don't use prosciutto crudo, but prosciutto cotto.
Yeah, and generally speaking here in the USA you can't get prosciutto cotto at all.
Yes, I noticed that when I went on Long Island to visit a friend of mine. I liked ham, especially cooked in the oven, but that's not prosciutto cotto nor spalla. (I cannot complain about eating in USA; I had just to get used to the differences.)
@kiamlaluno My comment was written before the answer was changed: it previously said that it wasn’t safe to eat pancetta without cooking it. The “raw pancetta” was in reference to cooking, not to being uncured — I’m not aware of the existence of “uncured” pancetta.
Konrad: yeah, I changed it based on the feedback here. The USDA recommends against eating pancetta "raw", but of course that doesn't apply to other countries.
The problem with saying the word "traditionally" in regard to Italian cooking is that traditions vary wildly from region to region (and often village to village). The person you were talking to is either absolutely correct or not at all accurate (depending entirely on the scope of the word traditionally in their statement).
According to my Italian grandmother, if you're making any kind of sauce, use pancetta or guanciale (depending on its purpose in the recipe) for best results. Prosciutto is "what you use if you can't get the good stuff." I even remember her occasionally apologizing for using prosciutto because our local grocer didn't always have pancetta in stock.
That being said, I have compared family recipes with friends where theirs specifically calls for prosciutto where my recipe says to make something else if you can't get guanciale.
I'm confused how prosciutto isn't "the good stuff"; are we talking about non-DOC fake prosciutto here?
@FuzzyChef only in the context of making sauce. Mostly because pancetta and guanciale both contain more fat and therefore render much better than prosciutto. On its own, prosciutto was served regularly as an antipasto and was definitely considered the "good stuff" in that context. No doubt the propensity for more fat in her sauce is why she only lived to be 104 :)
On your first bit, it’s not even just Italian cooking this applies to, but almost any cuisine. For example, if you ask people from all over Spain what the most ‘traditional’ Spanish dish is, only the Valencians are likely to say it’s paella, but many people from outside of Spain think of paella immediately when they try to think of traditional ‘Spanish’ cuisine.
I would use regular bacon before I used prosciutto in a sauce -- why use a fairly expensive meat when the subtle flavors are going to be obliterated by the sauce.
@eps or just use good lard if you want a sauce to have a pork taste
I think the more complete and critical answer is from @FuzzyChef.
I think it captures the essence of the problem.
Some more details should be added regarding what's the situation here in Italy. Disclaimer: I'm an Italian living in Italy and I like good cuisine, but I'm not nearly a professional nor a gourmet*.
What you call "prosciutto" in USA here is called, more specifically, "prosciutto crudo", especially when one wants to make a difference between "prosciutto crudo" and "prosciutto cotto", which are fairly different products. Note that "cotto" means "cooked" in Italian, but, as I said, "prosciutto cotto" is not "prosciutto crudo" that has been cooked!
There is no single "DOC" prosciutto (crudo) in Italy. There are a couple of high valued, "DOC" types (very expensive): i.e. "prosciutto crudo di Parma" and "prosciutto crudo S. Daniele", which are somewhat similar products (to a non-gourmet).
But there are also a metric ton of quality types of "prosciutto" made outside the typical areas where "Parma" and "S.Daniele" are produced. The biggest difference is an higher percentage of salt employed during the seasoning. Often those kind of "prosciutto" are called "prosciutto crudo nostrano" ("nostrano" means "made in our area/region") and they cost less than "Parma" or "S.Daniele".
Prosciutto crudo is used in recipes where it ends up being cooked (e.g. Tortellini alla Bolognese, where it is used in the filling), but often you don't use the highly priced "Parma" or "S.Daniele" for that.
As for "pancetta" and "guanciale" they are lower price products here in Italy, because they are meant to be used for cooking, although you can definitely eat "pancetta" raw. It is a very fatty product and also very tasty, and a "panino con la pancetta" (sandwich with "pancetta") is very yummy (and a calorie bomb)!
Keep in mind that in Italy we have probably the most strict legislation against food fraud in the world. In particular, we have an entire branch of one of our national police forces (Carabinieri) who is devoted mainly to prevent and repress food frauds: they are the NAS (Nucleo Anti-Sofisticazioni).
This means that it is very difficult here to be sold "bad food", since an inspection from the NAS finding, say, a restaurant or a food shop selling expired food or (worse) bad food can cause the immediate closure of the business (until further investigations or trials), even if no-one of the customers felt sick!
All this to underline that what you eat in USA and it is sold as "pancetta" or "prosciutto" may not be what we in Italy exactly would expect. We have a huge problem of fake Italian products sold in every part of the world (even worse outside EU), especially where there are customers rich enough to pay a bonus for original Italian stuff (USA, Canada and Australia, for example).
Bottom line: if you buy traditional Italian food in the USA, be sure your shopkeeper sells you legit products, otherwise all bets are off whether or not the products are even remotely the same as the "traditional" ones.
What do you mean by traditional? The current de facto standard? What is the standard -- and whose standard? Is "traditional" what your grandparents were used to? What was in the cookbooks 50, 100, or 200 years ago?
Most of the time, I find that the word "traditional" is just gatekeeping. What they're really saying is "I don't like the way you did that, and I want to be right without a debate" or worse yet, "You're not one of us." It's bad form and people who do that should stop. It's fine to be interested in historical methods and preparations, such as what The Townsends does with 18th Century American (and British) cooking and what Glen and Friends Cooking does with old Canadian and US cookbooks, but that history should never be used to limit another cook's approach.
Prosciutto is just an ingredient. It should be used as you see fit and experimented with. People have always experimented with flavors and made replacements when their usual ingredient was scarce. That's how we get new foods! I love a nice bit of freshly sliced thin prosciutto, but I've also had it fried up crispy to complement a dish.
Now, for a Bolognese or "Sunday gravy", I'd probably reach for pancetta, guanciale, or even bacon, but that's mostly because I want the fat and the subtle flavors of prosciutto probably wouldn't stand up unless I used a lot of it. But for a lighter sauce made in a pan where I wanted a bit of cured pork, frying some chopped up prosciutto could be really nice. But then, is the prosciutto really part of the sauce? Are the capers and olives really part of the sauce of pasta alla puttanesca? Does it matter?
To answer your question about the puttanesca, yes, it requires olives at minimum. Otherwise what would you call it, marinara? It is meant to be made with cheap filler, which olives certainly are.
@JasonPSallinger I think you misread that part of my answer, as I wasn't making that point. However, now that you mention it, you're still doing the gatekeeping thing. I agree it would be a bit confusing to serve someone expecting that particular dish one without olives, but what if it had green olives instead of black? Some would get all up in arms over that. But in popular use of the word puttana, pasta alla puttanesca really translates to something like "pasta with whatever shit [I had in the pantry]". And ironically, yeah, it used to be called pasta all marinara in some places!
Cooking with a high quality (and assumedly fairly expensive) prosciutto is like using fillet mignon for stew meat or sushi grade tuna for a fish stew. You are obliterating the great flavors and there's probably a much cheaper and better thing to use instead. Of course there are always exceptions and never say never but it's a good general rule.
It's not the same. Beef has relatively less flavor than preserved meats like prosciutto. A bolognese tastes very different depending on whether it has prosciutto or not. I regard bacon, prosciutto, pancetta, etc. as flavorings instead of a protein ingredient.
As for it being a general rule, that could be true, since I have not been able to find any "traditional" recipes other than the Saltimbocca alla Romana mentioned above that involve cooking of prosciutto.
You can cook anything you want, but prosciutto (and Spanish jamón) are not their best when cooked.
The first reason is that they tend to be expensive, and they can be better enjoyed raw.
The second reason is that when you cook them, they don't become crispy like bacon, but hard and rubbery, and they become too salty as well.
Prosciutto cotto is normally used when it's cooked because it's sweeter. Italian prosciutto crudo is salted, and cooking it would make it more salted.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.496835
| 2021-06-09T17:52:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115987",
"authors": [
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"Bloodgain",
"Daniel",
"FuzzyChef",
"J...",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"LightBender",
"Neil Meyer",
"Peter Cordes",
"Peter Mortensen",
"RIanGillis",
"Tetsujin",
"aqn",
"avpaderno",
"cbeleites",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114696
|
What is the difference between cheap and expensive extra virgin olive oil?
I read that extra virgin and regular olive oil are different in the way they are processed. For example, regular olive oil can contain chemicals e.g. pesticides, but extra virgin will not?
Extra virgin also comes in cheaper and expensive brands for example fillipo Berio is a few pounds but it’s apparently genuine.
Does this mean the fillipo Berio does not contain chemicals and why are the other olive oil brands 4 times the price?
You're confusing several different aspects of oil preparation. Any of them can 'contain chemicals' unless they are certified Organic. This has nothing to do with whether it's first cold press or refined. Prices on olive oil can be like wine - if it's a blend, it's cheap, it it's 'single grove' it's expensive. The actual quality may not be any different. Organic certification is also expensive to achieve & to maintain, which also affects the price.
All olive oil contains chemicals. It's made of them.
"Organic food" does in fact use chemical pesticides, and other chemicals, but from a restricted range. That also means they use a heck of a lot more chemicals per acre, like 3 to 20 times as much, depending on the pesticide. Of course by definition you can't make an apple to apples comparison of the impact of significantly different chemicals.
"Virgin" olive oil is mechanically pressed. "Extra virgin" olive oil additionally satisfies basic quality criteria, and is generally the first oil pressed from a batch of olives. The terms have nothing to do with pesticides or "chemicals".
Extra virgin olive oils vary widely, both in overall "quality" and actual attributes. Adulteration is common; something labeled as "extra virgin olive oil" may have non-extra-virgin olive oil added to it. It may have non-olive oil added to it. (My understanding is that walnut oil is a common adulterant.)
There's a lot of factors influencing price, including actual quality, brand recognition, and how nice the label looks. A more expensive olive oil is not necessarily higher quality. If there's a brand that's four times the price, that simply means that the store thinks people might pay that much for it. (Perhaps simply because people assume that price equals quality.)
Tetsujin's comparison to wine is a good one. There are reviews of olive oil out there, but they'll likely concentrate on really expensive olive oils, and probably not the ones available in your local shop. If you want a Decently Good Olive Oil, go with a well-known brand (they're less likely to be adulterated). If you want "top shelf" olive oil, go to a specialty store, pick something that looks tasty, and hope for the best. In either case, get a small bottle: It'll be fresher by the time you're done with it, and if it turns out not to be amazing, you won't have spent as much on it.
+1 Thanks for turning this into a proper answer - I couldn't quite make my comment into one. Personally, I buy the supermarket's own-brand extra virgin & trust to their judgement & quality-sourcing, or processed just for frying. I have a friend who has her own family olive groves in Greece, recently qualified as organic. When she comes to the UK she brings gallon bottles with her [or she did before we left the EU, I'm not sure how that will work in future:\ Money couldn't translate how good that tastes.
Please keep in mind that "extra virgin" olive oil is THE MOST conterfeited food product worldwide. So very cheap "extra virgin" olive oil might just as well be cheap vegetable oil with green food coloring or even rancid low quality olive oil with some additives to hide the rancidness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.498079
| 2021-03-09T17:25:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114696",
"authors": [
"Elmy",
"John Montgomery",
"Steven J Owens",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79366"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115345
|
What are these spaghetti-like strings in the rice I got from a Turkish shop?
I bought some rice from Turkish shop and as you can see in the picture it came with this spaghetti like strings with it, I’m not referring to the green stuff.
Do you know what it is and would it have been typically boiled with the rice or added at the end?
Any chance you could pull a couple out and post them without all the rice, so that we can get a better idea of what shape and size it is?
It's toasted vermicelli.
This dish is called şehriyeli pilav in Turkey, riz bi sh’arieh in Lebanon and Syria, shehrehi yeghintz in Armenia, and reshteh polo in Iran.
The basic idea is that you brown the noodles in a little bit of oil or butter, then add rice and cook basically as you would cook steamed rice.
Below are four sample recipes. Note that the Persian version (the last in this list) is more complicated, uses a different noodle (a kind that's more common in Iran) and has a crispy bottom.
şehriyeli pilav
riz bi sh'arieh
shehrehi yeghintz - and if you read that article (it's worth a read), you'll learn that this dish was also the inspiration for Rice-A-Roni. More like the "Yerevani treat"!
reshteh polo
Vermicelli is Italian for "little worms" (a kind of pasta) so your worry was justified :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermicelli
Neat. It's a variation I haven't really seen before. I'm more used to orzo rice, which I guess is the same thing but differently-shaped pasta ;) I see the first recipe says to use either.
and "rice-a-roni" in the US
@Gramatik, thanks. I've had that jingle stuck in my head my entire life, but I've never actually tried rice-a-roni. According to wikipedia, rice-a-roni seems to have been based on the Armenian version of this dish. I'll update my answer. Definitely adds flavor.
I've also seen a dish served at Vietnamese restaurants similar to this. I forget what its Vietnamese name is, but it's essentially a fried rice with vermicelli in it.
@RedSonja If you bought rice in the Turkish shop where I bought it, you would have indeed got worms to go with it... :-(
You can relax, they are not worms. What this is, is vermicelli. It is a mild tasting noodle typically made of flour. You can boil it with the rice, although to make a nice tasting pilaf you should brown the rice/vermicelli mixture in a little fat before adding the water. I use butter. It adds a nice nutty, browned butter flavor to my rice dish at the end.
"What this is, is vermicelli"...which means "little worms" :-)
This is single alfalfa sprout. My research: knowledge of the earth our giver of life.
The OP was "not referring to the green stuff".
@Sneftel I agree, +1. But tbh, the OP never did point out which ones they were referring to (with some arrows or circles), so you can't really blame the answerer. Not everyone will find the appearance of alfalfa sprouts obvious :)
@AnastasiaZendaya the question clearly described “spaghetti like strings” and excluded the “green stuff”. I don’t think arrows or circles are necessary with the photo plus the verbal description.
I mean, this is the only unquestionable "green stuff", right?
...and this.
@AnastasiaZendaya including the attached green “stringy bit” - see how it’s attached at the upper left corner. It’s thinner than the other brownish stringy things. Which means in the picture only the brownish stringy things remain as the subject of the question. In short, either the answerer misinterpreted the question (-> pointed out in comments) or the community deemed that the answer is incorrect (-> reflected in the votes).
@Stephie Very good point. Thank you, I stand corrected.
Nonetheless I found it useful for me to know that they are alfalfa sprouts. I didn't know it before.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.498361
| 2021-04-20T20:12:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115345",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Andyc",
"Darrel Hoffman",
"Gramatik",
"Juhasz",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"TonyK",
"Vorbis",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93606"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76636
|
How long does an opened and unrefrigerated tub of yogurt last?
I have found online that unopened and unrefrigerated yogurt will last for a few days without refrigeration. However, is this also true for opened and unrefrigerated yogurt? By "opened" I mean that I have already removed the seal and taken a few spoonfuls out of the tub before leaving it unrefrigerated.
EDIT: I see this question has been marked as duplicate. I think that the link provided does not answer my question. The case for yogurt is a very special one since it is a fermented food and cannot just be casually thrown into the general category of "dairy product" (as does the top answer in linked question). Moreover, my rough understanding is that yogurt has a low pH (from the high amounts of lactic acid) which prevents the growth of external pathogens. Hence, unopened yogurt will be safe at room temperature for at least a couple of days. However, if you wish me to be pedantic, my question would be: is it likely that by opening the yogurt tub I introduced pathogens that can replicate rapidly at the low pH of yogurt given that it was left unrefrigerated?
I think this question is worthy of it's own answer, so I am going to answer it below taking relevant tidbits of the discussion @Cindy shared.
As answers are currently not possible: I think yoghurt fits into the dairy category for spoiling. It is sour, but not exceptionally so (pH around 4 - 5, like tomatoes and bananas. Apple juice is more sour), and dairy-typical protein content makes it more prone to spoil fast. Open as in truly open vs. taken something out with a fresh spoon and then put a tightly closing lid does make a whole lot of difference in my experience (also inside the fridge). Outside the fridge are not very well specified conditions in terms of what to expect. Right now, my larder (?) has 11°C, the kitchen ca. 16°C...
...(didn't cook today). I wouldn't expect trouble leaving an open yoghurt with closed lid over night at these conditions. But: it's winter over here now and there are no flies. Flies are attracted by yoghurt (and other protein-rich stuff) and leave their microbial footprint (if not their eggs) on the yoghurt can just where the lid sits. (Experience from Italy - with room temperature ≈ outside temp around 15 °C). Otherwise spoiled yoghurts that I've seen so far lead me to guess that usually a single something falling in is the cause (usually single little island of mold, not multiple spots).
When you open a food product, you are exposing it to microbes in the air. The food is sealed in a sanitary environment and bacteria is kept out. Once you open the container of yogurt, those microbes begin working on the yogurt. Further, when you leave the yogurt at room temperature the bacteria can rapidly multiply as the yogurt is in the danger zone between 40 F and 140 F. At temperatures in this range, any yogurt exposed to bacteria in the air will become rancid rather quickly.
Your danger zone IMHO starts very low: over here (Germany) the recommended temperature in the middle of the fridge (which is also the recommended place for dairy products) is 7 °C (45 °F).
Yogurt actually spends quite a long time right around 100F making itself hospitable to yogurt cultures and much less hospitable to other microbes. It's not a chunk of raw chicken; it's a fully populated bacterial colony that's not nearly as hospitable to random growths.
@Ecnerwal yes the yogurt is full of cultures already, but I don't think that means other microbes can't grow and spoil the food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.498701
| 2016-12-19T21:47:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76636",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Ecnerwal",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59746
|
Are spuntini a form of appetizers?
I am going to an Italian restaurant and trying to educate myself a bit about the food before going. I own the oxford companion to Italian food, but it says nothing about the term "spuntini" which is a category of food listed on the menu. Given that spuntini means snack (of some sort) and given that I don't see appetizers listed anywhere on the menu, I wondered if spuntini meant appetizer.
Does spuntini mean appetizer? If not, what does it mean? If so, why doesn't this show up when I google spuntini and appetizer at the same time?
Link to the menu? It's hard for people to say exactly what it means on that one menu without seeing it. (Seems likely given what you said that they're using it to mean appetizers, but as you discovered, it's not the usual word.)
As a guess -- if they were trying to do the 'small plate' style of food, and were trying to get people to order a few each, I could see not wanting to label it antipasti.
I added the link. It's the section after olives near the top
Yeah, all of the items in that category are vegetable based, while "salumi" are meat-based and "formagi" is cheese-based.
It's not a standard. 'Antipasti' (before the meal) would be the typical replacement for 'appetizers'. Quite a few of the categories on the menu could be classified as antipasti:
Olives
Salumi
Formagi
As Catija points out, the items all seem to be vegetable dishes intended as a starter.
In my opinion (having taken courses on classification & thesaurus design), the menu's a bit of a mess. I suspect that it's in part from mixing lunch, dinner & bar menus, they have starters, salad & soup courses, small plates (which includes stuff from the starters), main dishes ... and even one category (vegetariano) which mixes both main & side dishes.
They're also inconsistent on the text after the title ... sometimes it's a translation (Coppa Classic / Fragrant Spiced Pork) or description of the item (Taleggio / Cow's Milk, Nutty, Aromatic, Semi-Soft), some list sides it comes with without translating the main ingredient (Stracci di Grano Arso / Broccoli Rabe, Tomato, Onion, Garlic, Red Chili, & E.V.O.O) or (Veal Osso Buco / Gremolata).
(Note that this says nothing about the food itself -- it might be excellent ... it's just a confusing menu)
Yeah, it's a huge menu that needs a lot of help.
It is just that they took a license.
Spuntino literally means snack.
Taking a spuntino ranges from a bite sized item to a little meal, it depends on much is the break one need.
Essentially all the uncooked items on that menu (appetizers, salumi, cheeses, etc.) or the salads and sandwiches they might serve would be suitable for a tasty and possibly gourmand spuntino.
Same is for a lot of street food served in Italy or worldwide.
They choose an interesting and Italian recognisable name for items that, accompanied by a little bread, can indeed be a spuntino. But they would be normally go under the category starters. It is possible that while giardiniera is usually served in a mixed plate of starters, they present it itself as a course in s more robust portion.
This can happens many times, especially if strong notes are smoothed, as for in the current example ordering giardiniera could mean a spuntino of prickled vegetables :) Names and presentation is fancy, and categories are more suggestive of ambience than food, especially in business mixing the restaurant and bar ones.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.498994
| 2015-08-09T06:43:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59746",
"authors": [
"Bill Mills",
"Brian Beaty",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cynthia Ohrt",
"Jenni Wade",
"Joe",
"Stan Shunpike",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user142810"
],
"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
}
|
18570
|
Does dumping the water from boiling ramen noodles reduce the fat content much?
I enjoy eating ramen noodles cooked in the microwave at work. I've already learned to toss the sodium seasoning packet to avoid the salt, but I notice the noodles themselves have lots of fat and much of it saturated. (I understand the noodles are deep-fried as part of the preparation for packaging.) In an attempt to reduce the fat content, I dump the water after the noddles are cooked and add more water to start up a new broth.
(For reference, I add Thai red curry seasoning and either an egg, canned salmon or both. If I have one, I'll squeeze a lime over the finished product.)
Does it help reduce the fat content of the meal if I dump the initial broth? Is there any way to know how effective the practice is?
Since you are already getting rid of the seasoning packet and you want to reduce the fat of the pasta, why not just ditch the ramen and use another type of non-fried pasta like vermicelli or cellophane noodles?
@ESultanik: That's not a bad idea assuming those pastas are a) quick to prepare in a microwave and b) not expensive. Those are my primary requirements for this particular purpose. ;-)
Price should be similar serving-per-serving. One benefit to using cellophane noodles is that you don't even need hot water: you can simply re-hydrate them in cold or room temperature water.
You are not the first one worrying about fat and there are already multiple solutions: 1) yakisoba style that you dump the water mix in the sauce (not noodle soup any more), 2) non-fried versions of the noodle (steamed then dried) or go with rice noodle.
Fat floats, so if you dump the water into a bowl and let it sit for a bit, you can see how much floats to the top. You can then remove the fat in any of the normal ways (this is exactly the process you use to defat a stock or a soup), and measure it.
Of course, I quickly looked up the nutrition information on ramen, and it has ~7g fat, ~3g saturated. An egg is ~6g fat, ~2g saturated. The fish is ~27g fat, ~6g saturated. Check your red curry seasoning as well (varies a lot by brand/type) So it seems like your approach is misguided, but nutrition questions are off-topic here.
edit: From thinking about your comment, you may want to try switching to spaghetti. You can just break it until it fits in the bowl, and it should be cookable in a bowl in the microwave, or even soaking in boiling water. You won't get perfect al dente or anything close, and my Italian ancestors will be after me for even suggesting this, but it will cut down on the fat. You can even get whole-wheat spaghetti.
I guess the point is that I don't care as much about fat as avoidable fat. If dumping off the oils in the noodles reduces the fat content by an appreciable amount, it makes sense to do it even if I add back more fat with other ingredients. (Or to put it another way, 7g + 6 g + 27g > 6g + 27g.)
The canned salmon I buy is 1g fat per serving (1/3 a can) and 0g saturated. I'm sure an egg's an egg, however.
@JonEricson: That's a very low fat salmon (or a tiny serving). But almost all of that fat is avoidable fat. You don't have to add the curry, egg, or fish. You could eat regular (non-fried) pasta. You could just have a head of broccoli. But of course you don't, because you want the flavor (which, I hate to tell you, is partially due to that fat). So I'm not sure what you mean by 'avoidable'.
@JonEricson: Also, see my edit, using a non-fried noodle may work flavor- and texture-wise, and will definitely remove the fat.
You are, of course, correct. My point is that I don't value the fat flavor from the noodles (assuming dumping the broth is removing fat (I haven't tried your experiment yet)). Obviously, both the egg and the fish (serving size is ~57g according to the can (but as little as 1/4 can adds the flavor I'm looking for)) add back fat which I do value.
BREAK SPAGHETTI IN PIECES? ARE YOU A MONSTER?
@nhinkle - yes, I am
I've done the experiment suggested by derobert:
Added hot water to the ramen noodles in my microwaving container
Microwaved for 2 minutes (I usually pour off the water and start over after one, but I wanted to give this the best chance that I'd get a result.)
Poured the water into a glass container (I used my french press, which looks a bit like a chemistry beaker.)
Stirred the broth and allowed it to sit overnight
The photo I took this morning is not particularly appetizing:
You can't tell from the picture, but there is a layer of fat that may be skimmed off the surface. The cloudy water seems to be the result of other matter in suspension. It isn't fat, however. I don't have a scale so I don't know exactly how much fat I save. But my subjective opinion is that the practice is worthwhile.
The experiment also encourages me to shop around for alternate noodles such as those suggested in the comments to the question.
I don't follow follow the directions but went to looking at ways to reduce the content just by adjusting cooking and rinsing procedures. Using one block of ramen in a medium sauce pan add water until the block is floating 2" from bottom of pan. Bring to a boil and allow to boil for 15 min or until the noodles are completely white. Remove from heat and place the pan in the sink. Using hot water, add water to the pot till overflowing and leave under tap until water in pot turns clear. Doing this should help to extract a fair average amount but it will result in a not so desirable texture of soggy noodles obviously. Healthier solutions should still be utilized as afforded.
An educated guess was arrived at collecting all rinse water in a large vessel and chilling it, then draining the solidified fats off the surface into a coffee filter. Filter was weighed dry before and weighed again after drying completely at room temperature. Filter measured 4.2 grams difference with surface fats and fine suspended solids. Pureeing the leftover noodles in hot water and following a similar procedure yielded only .5 grams difference in what remained.
Washing noodles with warm tap water doesn't sound like a good idea.
I have to upvote, for SCIENCE, even though as @BaffledCook mentions, probably of limited culinary value.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.499308
| 2011-10-25T22:59:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18570",
"authors": [
"Amit Saroj",
"BaffledCook",
"ESultanik",
"Jon Ericson",
"Josef Sison",
"Kyle Rose",
"Megha",
"Rachael Anderson",
"Sarah",
"Shane",
"Valerie Fink",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"learner",
"nhinkle",
"padma",
"user3528438",
"user40335"
],
"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
}
|
27545
|
Softening ice cream with guar gum
I have several ice cream recipes that I'm generally happy with (texture is good and all). However, I'd like to make a less sweet, less rich version of some of them.
How much guar gum would I expect to need if I halve the amount of sugar needed, or replaced half the cream with milk, for this example recipe:
560 ml of heavy cream
50 g of unsweetened cocoa powder
150 g of sugar
85 g semisweet/bittersweet chocolate
310 ml whole milk
What if the recipe has no chocolate but several egg yolks?
I know there probably isn't an exact answer, so is there any way I can efficiently test a given amount? In order to directly test it, I'd have to churn a batch, wait for it to freeze, see if it's soft enough, and if it's not, melt and rechurn it, and so on, and I'd much prefer avoiding that.
I saw that some information is contained in the comments on a previous answer, but I'm looking for more detail.
Completely untried idea about efficient testing: You might be able to evenly divide a batch after churning, and stir a different, carefully measured amount of guar gum into each. (I'm not sure if you'd need to pre-dissolve it in a bit of cream). Then you could freeze them all at once, and test for texture. Hopefully your favorite ratio of guar gum will be less than or equal to the average ratio of the batches, so that you can then let it all soften and mix it back together (possibly with additional guar gum), and refreeze. If you're careful to not let it soften too much, you shouldn't have to rechurn it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.500189
| 2012-10-03T01:43:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27545",
"authors": [
"Julie Dixon",
"Oct",
"Rob",
"Sanjeev Nanda",
"Virginia Graves",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63911"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128949
|
How to measure out fresh herbs when the recipe calls for 'a tablespoon of chopped herb'?
My current method includes taking what I think is the right amount from the plant, chopping it up, and then realizing I either chopped too much (and end up throwing away the excess as it's too little to freeze) or too little, and then I go outside again, pick and chop more and I still end up throwing stuff out. I've tried packing the full, fresh herbs into tablespoons first before chopping, but that didn't work either.
Is there a practical way to measure out fresh herbs when recipes call for a tablespoon (or teaspoon, or cup, or...) of chopped herbs?
I'd say don't bother, if you have a bit more just toss it all in, not out :D In vast majority of cases it won't matter, "a tablespoon of chopped herb" being already a highly imprecise measurement.
To answer your question literally: You could use a scale. Get a sub-gram precision scale, carry it to your plant, and pick your herbs with a conversion factor of 7 g per tablespoon.
This will improve over your current method of eyeballing it in the sense that you'll be able to have a consistent taste between batches of food you cook yourself, using your own plants, grown from the same stock under more-or-less similar conditions each year. It will also enable you to better adjust recipes to your taste, in the sense that you can think "last time I used 14 g and it wasn't enough, I will use 20 g this time". If that is what you want, the scale, possibly combined with a logbook of what you cooked and how it turned out, can be a good way to become a better cook. Ironically, this would also be a way to a better eyeballing skill - since you not only get more immediate feedback, but also because it's easier to learn how much a sprig of a given size weighs, rather than what volume it will have, given that it can chop up to different volumes.
I have to warn you though that I wouldn't consider this to be very practical. It's a lot of extra work (fitting sprigs of herbs on a small subgram scale is fiddly!) for a modest gain. The really practical thing would be to continue eyeballing it, and just use whatever amount you picked, no matter if after chopping it turns to be one tablespoon, half a tablespoon, or two tablespoons.
I will try the scale, thank you! (Why didn't I think of that... I have one of those). I've got some narrow, higher than wide, plastic containers that I can use so it shouldn't be too fiddly to fit whole sprigs on there. And I take a lot of notes while trying new recipes anyways (before writing them down 'for good'), so remembering + adjusting shouldn't be a problem either.
7g/tbsp sounds like an overestimate to me.
Just to point out the obvious caveat: you're assuming that all leaves of your herb have the exact same flavor-to-weight ratio, so that you can measure flavoring by weighing it. That is not a given. The goal of having an exact quantity of something and getting the dish to taste consistently are not necessarily identical goals.
@Flater yes, this method won't give constant flavor intensity - that was explained in the other answers already.
@KarlKnechtel your source gives 2.1 g of dried basil per US tablespooon. The conversion rate for dried:fresh is 1:3, so 6.3 g. Given that chopping can create different volumes, I'd say 7 g is a very reasonable estimate. The OP could of course adjust to their own chopping results, after a few measurements, if she is a consistent chopper.
Ah, I hadn't considered that it would dry out that much.
As with many things in cooking (as opposed to baking), exact measurements are sometimes not necessary nor possible. With herbs and spices, there can be a huge variety in intensity. Rather than strictly adhering to "exactly 1 tablespoon, not more, not less", go with the roughly estimated amount, chop it up, then add to taste. Slightly more won't alter the taste dramatically, slightly less can be adjusted by grabbing a sprig more and chopping that up as well.
And, some waste is to be expected with natural products.
I guess... I was hoping for some way to get a better/easier approximation of the "roughly estimated amount" so I didn't pick too much from the plant at the time or have to walk back and forth between the kitchen and the plant outside all the time for 'just another sprig'...
Expanding a bit on John Doe's answer: there really isn't any such thing as "one volumetric unit of [herb]". There are a couple of reasons for this. First, density: the mass of some volume of chopped herb is going to depend quite a lot on how finely it is chopped—if you chop something very finely, you are going to be able to get more mass into a given volume, while coarsely chopped herbs are going to have a lot less mass per given volume. This is actually something worth considering more generally when baking—coarse salt has less mass per given volume than very fine salt, flour can have different densities depending on how well settled it is, etc. This is why many baking recipes are in terms of mass (or weight) rather than volume.
Secondly, the flavor of a given herb can vary quite a lot. By way of example (somewhat tangentially), peppers like jalapeños can range from fairly milds to relatively hot. This is somewhat linked to how much moisture they get while growing—in more wet, humid environments, mold and fungi are an issue, and the capsaicin in the pepper has some anti-fungal properties. Herbs are similar. Even herbs from one plant can vary quite a lot, depending on how much water the plant gets, how much sun it gets, how young the harvested leaves are, the season, and so on.
Because there is so much variation in the flavor you are going to get from a given volume of herb, I would suggest that you just not worry about it. You should be adding herbs to flavor—if the final dish tastes right, you've got enough of the herb you want. If not, add more. If you accidentally harvest more than you need, just throw it in—it'll be fine.
Finally, something actionable (if very rough): experiment a bit with your recipes and determine what the "right" amount of a given herb is for a given recipe (ignore the measurement you are given, just cook with feeling). When you prepare the recipe, pay attention to the amount of a given herb you harvest from a plant—think of it in terms of the length (e.g. "use three inches of rosemary") rather than the volume you get in the end. Make notes in the recipes about how much you use. Over time, you'll start to develop an intuition for what "1 teaspoon of rosemary" is supposed to do to a recipe, and you'll be able to convert from these kinds of measurements to something a bit more practical.
Don't forget though that even from the same plant the flavour varies seasonally, mainly, but not just, in strength. And a 3" sprig will have smaller leaves if the plant is actively growing than when dormant. It's still close to the best you'll get though
@ChrisH Indeed. I was not trying to give a completely exhaustive answer, nor to account for every variable. Rather, I just wanted to emphasize that there is going to be a lot of variation, so any kind of rigorous measuring is basically impossible. But trial and error by length is maybe the best you are going to do. Just, you know, cook with feeling.
You're overthinking it.
There's a surprising amount of complexity in your question, because not every herb is structurally the same. The volume before cutting and after cutting might change depending on the type of herb. In effect, this makes trying to get it right the first time a disproportionately difficult endeavor.
Additionally, herb measurements are always just an approximation anyway. It's always a matter of doing it to taste. As the saying goes, baking is chemistry, but cooking is art. You don't need to measure things to the degree that you're trying to in your question.
Don't get me wrong, I love looking for deterministic measuring methods to increase precision; but it has to be make sense on a cost/benefit scale. Too complex and not a high value, or both, makes it an ineffective way to spend your time and effort.
Instead, rely on the tools nature has provided you with: pattern recognition. With repeated executions, you will start to intuitively understand and thus improve on approximating picking the right amount of sprigs the first time round.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.500353
| 2024-08-06T06:38:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128949",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Dan Mašek",
"Flater",
"Karl Knechtel",
"Tinkeringbell",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108968
|
What could this utensil pair be used for?
The photo is of a utensil found in a European (French) kitchen. What is its use?
The knife is 7 inches (18 centimeter) long.
The handle of the round plastic object feels really distinctive to me. It would clearly work with a normal hammer-like grip, but it also has the thumb-print inviting the user to choke the grip up close and apply lots of force. I'm pretty sure it's for scraping.
The metal tool is a bit confusing; it looks like it could cut, but it's clearly not a knife.
After a minute's thought, I'm comfortable guessing that this is a child's pumpkin-carving kit.
I'd never even heard of a pumpkin carving kit, but from looking at others on Google Images I'm convinced. The colour of the plastic parts ties in to that too.
@GdD How does it not answer the question? The OP asked what the use of the utensils is; ShapeOfMatter answered that the utensils are a child's pumpkin-carving kit.
I misread the question @dbmag9, my bad.
I think you might be right! I believe I've seen that knife for such things. In fact, Googling for "pumpkin carving knife" shows that exact one. I'm betting the other tool is for scooping out the insides.
The little saw is surprisingly effective at carving a pumpkin, and much safer than using a kitchen knife. Though they do tend to be flimsy and easily bent to the point of no longer being usable. They're very common in U.S. grocery stores around Halloween.
Yep, I have a pumpkin carving kit and it looks very similar to this.
As an adult pumpkin carver, I still like the location of that thumb grip.
My mom has a pumpkin carving tool with a blade that looks exactly the same as the blade in the question, with the same orange (pumpkin colour) handle of a similar shape. (We're in Canada, where Halloween is very much a thing, and jack-o-lanterns are common). Pumpkin flesh is easy to cut, and this blade can make controlled plunge cuts and turn sharp corners. This plastic scoop looks maybe sturdy enough to scrape out the inside of a pumpkin decently; I normally just use a metal dessert spoon because the plastic scoop that came with our knife is too flimsy to really scrape the inside clean.
I am glad the French are carving pumpkins. I worry there is not enough Halloween worldwide.
I found a Swiss website that offers a similar set of tools, called «Ustensiles à courge», which translates to «Squash utensils».
Squash utensils
I believe that @ShapeOfMatter correctly identified the purpose, so I am givng that person the correct answer status...
Luckily they offer their site in a language I understand better than french - it says "Set for hollowing out pumpkins, mellons and similar" ^^
Although the two sets seem designed for the same purpose, the ustensiles à courge seem to be meant for serious cooks. They're better made, and the serrations on the knife are sharp enough that you could cut your fingers. The orange-handled set has dull serrations that are child-safe.
It could also be a form of grapefruit knife I believe.
That was my initial guess too, though it looks like we've found what it is with certainty.
@Thomas Grapefruit knives are curved to follow the shape of the fruit, as you can see in your picture. The one in the question is clearly flat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.500973
| 2020-06-10T12:06:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108968",
"authors": [
"AndyB",
"Bloke Down The Pub",
"GdD",
"Joe M",
"Kat",
"Peter Cordes",
"Rob",
"Willk",
"bob",
"dbmag9",
"eagle275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79641",
"shadowtalker"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107309
|
Sourdough bread crumb ripped in two
I've been trying my hand at sourdough bread for a few months now and it is getting better and better, but this keeps happening, and I have no idea what might be the cause:
My impression is that during the rise, the crumb tears into two pieces in the middle.
This is probably relevant: The dough is 80% hydration white bread flour, around 3 hours autolysis, then lamination and three stretches and folds spaced out. Altogether around six hours of bulk fermentation, overnight in the fridge (5 °C), and baked in the morning on a pizza stone, with 250 °C with steam for 20 minutes and 220 °C for 20 minutes (the oven has the air convection turned on).
My problem is I have no idea which part of the recipe is to blame for the outcome, so I'm not even sure where I am deviating from the recipe I'm trying to copy (to be very exact, I'm trying to follow this one now: How To Make A Basic Open Crumb Sourdough Bread)
I'm not sure if this is important, but it also doesn't open up so well (but I don't have a proper lame, so I'm struggling with the scoring):
Even though the older question says "crust separating", your loaf is just not very high, so there is just a tiny bit more crumb sticking to the upper crust than in the old question, but it is still the same phenomenon with the same solutions.
How much steam are you using? You might try baking the first 20 minutes in a french oven* (aka enameled dutch oven) and then take off the lid, but don't add extra steam. If you don't have a lame, use a razor blade or a really sharp boning knife (or a sharp paring knife can also do).
This kind of problem can also be caused by underproofing, but it sounds like you're doing a good job there. Just make sure the bread doesn't spend too long proofing between your last fold and the fridge.
Also, just based on the shape it looks like your dough maybe over-hydrated.
*pre-heat the french oven and lid, though some people omit this step, drop in your bread, cover, bake for 20 minutes, then uncover and bake for 25-30 minutes longer.
I think I am using a lot of steam (after 20 minutes, I still have water in the pan, so I take out the pan with the water for the steamless part). Hydration: yeah, the dough doesn't really keep it's shape after taking it out of the banneton. My impression was that I probably don't fold enough, but maybe the flour I'm using doesn't take up water so well? The recipes I follow are usually made with specialty flours and although the one I'm using says it's bread flour, I'm quite sure it is not a high quality one :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.501286
| 2020-04-05T14:06:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107309",
"authors": [
"fbence",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79121",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116191
|
How might these prawns have been cooked?
Bought these prawns from Tesco. It says already cooked but not how, would these typically have been steamed or baked etc.?
When it says ready to eat, does that mean nothing the same way that raw fish is ready to eat since these would not have been reheated?
They are cooked...likely boiled (sometimes this happens on the boat, sometimes on shore...it depends on the processor), then frozen very quickly. "Ready to eat" simply means that they are already cooked. You just need to thaw (though, I suppose you could eat them frozen if you like), and they can be eaten cold.
They are cooked in seawater on the traditional costal ships and probably even on the larger ones
Video: https://youtu.be/xDo8iBfBqI4?t=223 - beginning is raw frozen shrimp, mark 3:43 shows cooking process
They don't need to be defrosted unless the OP has frozen them. As sold they are suitable for home freezing and have previously been frozen, but ate sold in a defrosted state, https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/301795289
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.501503
| 2021-06-23T22:39:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116191",
"authors": [
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"jmk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113709
|
Pan fried chicken taste like pan?
I just got some canned chicken and fried it with a little water I.e. pan fried without oil and just adding little bits of water as I go.
The chicken tasted like the metal pan itself if you know what I mean? Why did this happen and how can it be avoided?
Did it taste like the pan, or like the can? There are a lot of people who say that canned food tastes metallic
Pan frying with water?
@Joe it was the definately the pan. I have fried in oil as well as grilled etc but the chicken. Didn’t taste like a pan presumably since I didn’t use one.
@Johannes_B yes. I tried to fry without oil and online searches said add a teaspoon of water to prevent drying as you go and you should be able to cook it without oil.
maybe canned chicken is just a bad product to eat (flavour, taste, texture...)
When have you eaten pan to know what it tastes like @JamesWilson?
@GdD lol. Just tastes metallic but when I have used oil, grill etc this does not occur.
It can be avoided by throwing the canned chicken in the garbage where it belongs.
@eps why is there so much hate on canned meat on this board. I guess that could be a seperate question.
I suspect that's what going on is this:
There is an metallic flavor in the canned meat
Browning the meat either reduces that flavor, or masks it with other flavors
Steaming, poaching, or other water-based cooking method isn't going to allow it to come to a sufficient temperature to brown it. Grilling or frying (in oil) will cause the Maillard reaction (protein browning) which creates new chemical compounds.
If you have a microwave, try heating up a slice in there, as I suspect that it'll still taste metallic. If you don't have a microwave, you could try steaming it, or just sampling it at room temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.501630
| 2021-01-11T23:41:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113709",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"James Wilson",
"Joe",
"Johannes_B",
"Max",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115122
|
Is it normal for parts of fresh ginger to be chewy?
I have been trying to select fresh ginger by buying hands which are not wrinkled, light brown, hand peel-able, etc.
What I have found is that on some days eating raw ginger complete melts in my mouth and an other days bits of it remain chewy. Some parts also feel like strings.
I'm wondering if on those days bits of the ginger feel more chewy did I buy a less fresh piece or is it normal for parts of the ginger to be chewy so long as it's not the whole piece and therefore parts which feel like strings or chewy are still fresh so long as most of that piece was chewable?
Ginger is generally quite a fibrous/stringy root already, but will tend to become harder with time as it dries out or becomes less fresh.
However, the age of the ginger (i.e. when it was harvested) probably plays a bigger role in how fibrous it is; the older it is the more fibrous it becomes. Younger ginger is also sweeter and less spicy than older ginger as some sugars are converted to starches, and the colour of the ginger's juice also tends to become paler with older ginger.
Variance in stringiness in one piece of ginger might just be down to thinner parts drying out faster than thicker parts, but whether it's "fresh" is too subjective to answer - if you find it too stringy you could use it for something other than eating directly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.501805
| 2021-04-05T11:54:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115122",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63666
|
Crackling sound and a thin layer of something on the surface before water boils
I washed my cooking pot and put some water in it, and put it on the stove.
When the water came close to boiling, I started hearing crackling sounds and there was a thin coat of some substance on the surface.
I thought maybe the pot wasn't clean enough, so I washed it once again thoroughly, but the same thing happened again.
Then I used another pot and everything went fine.
My question is, obviously, what was going on with the first pot, and how do I avoid it?
The obvious theory to me would be that there was still some oil in it, but I did wash it properly and don't even remember putting oil in it recently.
Edit: I'm using electricity to cook (the oldschool 3D round thingie, no glass and no induction) and the pot is made out of stainless steel.
The crackling sounds are not from the pot being wet, they're similar but a bit different (and the pot was dry).
They could be from the pot expanding, but that wouldn't explain the thin layer on the surface of the water.
Edit2: video
What kind of pot is it? The cracking is probably just the metal expanding as it heats up.
@ElendilTheTall: I edited the question to answer your questions.
is your stove fairly old, and do you get the same sound from that pot on another burner on the stove? I think it's the burner, not the pot, making the sound. I think the sound is unrelated to the film. I'm writing an answer but felt the questions were better suited to comments than including in the answer. Regarding the film, were both pots cleaned in the same manner and are both the same color (for visibility of the film)?
I think maybe I should write the answer after going home and maybe making some experiments and possibly even videos of my own to support the "not the pot" theory. ;-)
Curious. I hear that a lot even with dealing with dry-bottomed pots when using electric heaters.
I am making a guess here, but a guess based on my own experiences.
You have an induction glass top stove, and you are putting the pot down on top of it wet. The water is getting trapped under the pot, and once it is able to reach boiling (just before the water in your pot does). It is starting to pop (like popcorn).
It pops because it is trapped. Because the pot is wet it gets "sealed" to the stove top, and the steam can't escape until it builds enough pressure to lift the heavy pot just enough for the gas to escape violently.
The way to make it stop is to dry the outside of the pot after you wash it and/or before you cook.
+1 for the effort, but no. I'll edit the question to add extra information.
I experienced this too and the same happened with that pan on an adjacent hob.
After I removed and washed the pan and it had cooled down it continued even 5 minutes later, on the draining board, to make several more cracking sounds!
An identical pan is fine on both hobs, so the fault is in the pan as it heats and also as it cools.
My solution is to replace the pan which is about 6 years old and under guarantee, but I did not keep the receipt
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.501954
| 2015-11-20T09:52:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63666",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Floyd Powell",
"Grace Wright",
"Jennifer Smith",
"Joshua",
"Martin Sharp",
"NadjaCS",
"Wendy Anderson",
"earline fisher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"iCanLearn"
],
"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
}
|
51582
|
How long do you have to cook adzuki beans in a pressure cooker before they're edible?
I'm not talking about taste, I'm talking about them not being a health hazard.
I cooked unsoaked adzuki beans for maybe a little less than 20 minutes on the lower pressure setting (don't know the numbers) in my pressure cooker. Then I waited for that cap in the pressure cooker to fall down and put the cooker under cold water, just to be sure, before opening the cooker.
The thing is, I don't usually cook them longer, but I don't open the pressure cooker for 1-2 hours. This time I opened it earlier, didn't think it would make so much difference because the cap was down.
I tried tasting the beans and I like the taste, it's a bit more sour than usual and the texture is a bit harder. I'm used to soft adzuki beans, but these are more like chickpeas, there is a chewing sound when I chew them. Also, they didn't expand as much as when I usually cook them.
I'd like to eat them but I don't know if they're safe, so what I'm asking is, I guess, how long do you have to cook them before they're safe to eat?
Edit:
I found out my lower pressure setting was 60 kpa.
I realise that my question might be too specific. If that's the case, feel free to broaden it.
Your question is fine. We prefer specific questions over general ones. Welcome to cooking.stackexchange!
I found out that my lower pressure cooker setting is 60 kpa, which is around 8.7 psi.
I also found this link, according to which i have to add cca 45% to the cooking time for a 15 psi pressure cooker.
Now, according to the ultimate pressure cooker chart, you have too cook adzuki beans:
2-3 minutes soaked (natural release)
5-9 minutes soaked (quick release)
14-20 minute unsoaked (quick release)
I didn't soak my beans and I used something closer to natural than quick release. I didn't let 100% of the pressure to get released, but the cap did fall down and most of the pressure was released naturally, so I'm going to add 50% to the natural release unsoaked time, just to be safe.
It can be deduced from the times mentioned above that soaking has as much of an effect as quick release, so let's say you need 5-9 for natural relased unsoaked 15 psi cooking time.
If I put everything together, the result is that I should cook my beans
5 - 9 + 50% because not completely natural release = 7.5 - 13.5 min + 45% because lower pressure setting = 10.9 - 19.5 minutes.
Assuming that the time needed to cook the beans in order to make them safe to eat is not higher than the minimum recommended cooking time, 11 minutes should be enough.
I cooked my beans for a little less than 20 minutes, so I think it's fair to say they're safe to eat.
ICanLearn: answering your own question based on links found in my answer and information you withheld from the original question is "dirty pool" as far as I'm concerned. I will not be answering any additional questions you post to this Exchange.
@FuzzyChef Your answer indeed was very helpful, and it's still there, collecting upvotes. Beyond that, let's keep in mind that sometimes fully answering a question is a collaborative process. Note that the OP did edit the actual pressure into the question, so it wasn't really withheld, and you're free to revise your answer further based on that knowledge. Do also note that this answer cites a different page from one of the sites you linked to, as well as an entirely different page. Sometimes one answer provides a starting point that allows another to go further, and that's a good thing.
iCanLearn: The only thing I can see that you could've really done differently is to have commented directly on FuzzyChef's answer with the new information as soon as you had it, rather than only editing the question and sneaking it into your reply to me, but I think that's more a matter of courtesy than requirement. Answering your own questions is definitely encouraged, so I don't see your answer as a problem - though of course be sure to upvote any other answers you found helpful!
Some pressure cooker tables assume relatively fresh dried adzuki as sold in Japan, some assume more stale or even overstored ones as found in markets where they do not sell much.
Consulting several sources about Adzuki beans (see below) they shouldn't take any special time to cook, about equivalent to Navy beans. Normal cooking times should be 15 to 20 minutes for non-soaked beans at 14 PSI / 90 kPa.
However, you cooked them at low pressure, which is usually 7 PST / 45 kPa, and is too low to make much of a difference in bean cooking time. I don't know how long they'd take to cook at that pressure, but I suspect it's not much less than they take to cook with no pressure at all. That is, you'd probably have to cook them for an hour or more at that pressure.
Sources consulted:
Lorna Sass's vegetarian pressure cooking book
HipPressureCooking
MissVikie
I didn't cook them at low pressure, I cooked them at the lower pressure setting (of the two available on my pressure cooker). I don't know how high that pressure is (it doesn't say on the cooker), but I'm 100% sure that I don't have to cook them for an hour, because they're overcooked if I cook them for maybe 30 minutes. Besides, the question was about how long you have to cook them in order for them to become safely edible, which should be lower than the recommended cooking time found in pressure cooker charts.
@iCanLearn What you're calling "lower pressure setting" is what FuzzyChef (and most pressure cooker recipes) call "low pressure" - there are two settings, "low" and "high".
@Jefromi: Well, yes and no. Most pressure cookers have two settings, but they're not necessarily low pressure and high pressure. If you look at the chart in my answer and if you look at FuzzyChef's answer, you'll see that they both define "low pressure" as 45 kPa, but the lower pressure setting on my pressure cooker is actually 60 kPa, which is referred to as "medium pressure" in the chart. That's a big difference - using 45 kPa might indeed not substantially decrease the cooking time, but 60 kPa does. If I cooked adzuki beans at 60 kPa for an hour, they'd be very overcooked.
@iCanLearn Ah, well that's a nice mess. Glad you managed to find the actual numbers!
@iCanLearn: you didn't put the pressure level of low pressure on your original question.
On the other hand, you did ask "safe to eat" rather than "properly cooked", so my fault for trying to answer the latter rather than the former. Adzuki beans should be safe to eat at any level of doneness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.502285
| 2014-12-14T16:49:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51582",
"authors": [
"Alannah Mills",
"Cascabel",
"David Tilley",
"FuzzyChef",
"Kathy Pedde",
"Leslie Lawson",
"Marek Pospisil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"iCanLearn",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"vwtechr32"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55086
|
home made cough sweets didn't set properly
Please could you help me find out what went wrong? I have made these before and they were slightly soft, but edible. This batch half set, but still runny
Ingredients:
1 cup sugar
1/2 cup water
1 tablespoon lemon juice
1 tablespoon honey
1/2 tsp ground ginger
1/4 tsp ground cloves
Method:
Simmer for 20 minutes on low heat
Take off heat and allow to cool slightly
Drop onto baking paper
Dust with icing sugar
Probably the sugar didn't get hot enough or the low simmer didn't give the water in the ingredients enough time to evaporate. You really shouldn't be making candy without a candy thermometer.
As Jbarker2160 stated this is purely down to not evaporating all of the water. It is possible to get "Hardball" stage sugar without a thermometer, however, my method Isn't exactly safe so I won't suggest it to anyone.
Never ever boil candy based only on time. You can do it without a thermometer, by testing it frequently, but with a thermometer is so much easier.
I don't do candy making, but my understanding is that before there were thermometers, you'd drop a bit of the sugar mixture into a cup of cold (ice?) water, and then check to see how it behaved ... 'hard ball', 'soft ball', 'hard crack' and the like. See https://www.exploratorium.edu/cooking/candy/sugar-stages.html
you need a Candy thermometer. Sugar needs to be heated to the soft or hard crack temps in order to set as desired. If the sugar does reach the needed temp, then it won't do what you wanted. Hard crack makes hard candies, soft crack makes softer but firm candies.
Your Sugar was having water content more than desired & hence it could have been runny.
My Cough Candy Recipe
1 Cup Sugar
1/2 Cup Water
1 Table Spoon Honey
1 Table Spoon Lemon Juice
1 Tea Spoon Dry Ginger Powder
1 Tea Spoon Licorice Powder
1/2 Tea Spoon Clove Powder
Methodology:
Mix all Ingredients in a Open Mouth Vessel
When all contents are mixed well, heat the Mixture over Low Flame
After 10 Minutes, increase the Flame by Half
After 10 Minutes take Vessel of the Flame and allow it to cool at Room Temperature
Drop the Mixture over Baking Tray or Non Stick Greased Surface, with Spoon, making small Lozenges
Allow to cool fully & dust with powdered sugar
In India Sugar Syrup, also known as Chaasni, form a core ingredient in many Desserts. Indians have their own traditional analysis method when cooking Sugar Syrup. A drop of cooked syrup is kept on tip of Index finger, its slightly pressed by thumb tip. On slowly raising the thumb, thin threads of syrup can be seen. The number of threads help identify consistency & usage of Syrup.
In case of Candy making, 5 threads syrups are the best.
I know it would be very primitive to use such methods, but really certain things rely on Intuitions & Proximity.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.502882
| 2015-02-24T13:27:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55086",
"authors": [
"Alison Lester",
"Caroline Corley",
"D Thompson",
"Doug",
"Eric Percival",
"Francisco Alvarez",
"Jeannine Broome",
"Joe",
"Maz Mcintosh",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Robin Edenfield",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50383
|
What is Canadian-style sour cream?
I recently bought a container of what was labeled "Canadian-style sour cream" at a produce market in the Bay Area. Being from Canada, I was curious to see what it was, since all the sour cream I've had in Canada was the same as the sour cream I've had in the US.
But when I opened the container, it sure seemed to be regular sour cream. So what's the difference?
Is that brand name in Cyrillic characters? So you bought a Russian brand of Canadian-style sour cream in California? I love the 21st century.
@logophobe It looks like the Russian just means "Canadian sour cream" and it says it's made with Californian milk so it's a Russian-Californian brand I guess?
Here in the Midatlantic US, the Russian stores usually carry "Amish," "Lithuanian," and "Homemade" styles in addition to "Russian." The biggest variant as best I can tell is fat content.
I'd guess it's a bit more trusting than American sour cream.
I realize this question was asked a million years ago, but Canadian style sour cream refers to sour cream that has different texture from that of a standard american sour cream, as well as a bit different taste. Canadian style sour cream is usually creamier and if you were to remove some sour cream with a spoon from the tub, you don't have a definite indentation or a hole left from the spoon (like you would also see in a tub with greek yogurt), instead the sour cream just flows back in to fill the gap. Also, canadian style sour cream is sweeter than the American style sour cream.
In short, if you want Canadian Sour Cream but don't want to pay extra for it, just stir the american sour cream with a spoon until smooth, then keep adding enough heavy whipping cream and stirring after each addition until it's desired consistency. I do this all the time :)
From this discussion it appears to be a way of differentiating it from Russian-style sour cream
or smetana. Maybe it came about during the Cold War and it couldn't be sold as "American-Style" so they called it Canadian-Style... or maybe it's just a marketing ploy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.503161
| 2014-12-06T22:17:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50383",
"authors": [
"Bianca",
"Cascabel",
"ESultanik",
"Fergus The Forager",
"Nikki Killick",
"Preston",
"Steve Hendrickson",
"charles bush",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27675
|
How to bake without an oven?
Possible Duplicate:
Is it possible to bake a cake without an oven?
I'm a poor lady who can't afford an oven. I have pots here, charcoal, and aluminum foil. What could be tricks to use charcoal as an alternative for me to bake? I really want to try bake cookies.
First world problem? Internet but no oven?
Baking cookies is exceedingly difficult without an even heat at a steady and reliable temperature.
Back when I was a poor college student, we would bake cookies in a toaster oven.
@TFD, hahaha. Well we have an oven toaster but not an oven. Cakes and oven cooking are not my family's thing, everything's done on a gas stove.
You can do anything with charcoal.
One trick that we used to do when we were camping was to line a cardboard box with foil. Several metal grates or skewers would be stabbed into the box walls and a grate with a few coals hung near the bottom.
We would use it to bake bread and pizzas. To control the temperature use more or fewer coals.
As long as you are building things- another option to consider is solar oven.
They consist of an insulated container, a transparent window, and a reflector. There are a great many models to choose from. Some of the more permanent models can get above 350F as long as there is direct sunlight.
This model was just one of top results from Google but it is a typical design:
Your answer AND the pictures ROCK, Sobachatina!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.503367
| 2012-10-08T19:26:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27675",
"authors": [
"Jürgen Paul",
"KatieK",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Mark Andrew Cagle",
"Me.suhaymi",
"TFD",
"funkyrailroad",
"giuppep",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7864",
"jfrankcarr",
"mamad",
"snerd"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
255
|
How to fix food that got extra salty?
How to fix food that got extra salty? I imagine this depends on what the food is. With spaghetti, you can add water or change water if you detect it on time. But what about grilled meat? Or a tomato sauce?
Determine correct ratio of food to salt.
Add more food until proper ratio is achieved.
Or just serve extra beer with it.
Serving extra beer with a meal can cover a multitude of errors. :)
That would work for tomato sauce or spaghetti, but it's hard to grow a chunk of meat :-), especially while cooking it.
@Vinko: well, you could always switch up and make hamburger...
Is this general "beer makes you notice less overall" advice, or does beer actually have some specific quality that diminishes salt flavour?
I sometimes add a bit of lemon juice... works to a degree.
Orange juice helps also. (Same principle as lemon juice, I assume.)
agreed. you're offsetting salt with tang and/or sweetness, which changes the nature of the flavor, but I've done it many times
Slice a raw potato and add it to the over-salted sauce. As it cooks it'll draw in the salty liquid.
You may need to add more liquids to keep the sauce from drying out.
Yes, the potato trick. Works! +1
I've never tried this trick, but am now inspired to over-salt something this week just to try it out.
This didn't work for me with chili. My wife says it doesn't work with soup either.
@neil fein: Those may be too thick? Seems like if it does work, the liquid would need to circulate freely. (Disclaimer: I've never used this trick).
The potato thing is a myth. Google "potato salt myth" and you will find many references.
This is not a myth. Cooks and chefs have been using this trick for ages quite successfully. Depending on the size of the dish you're cooking, you may need more than one potato. How much water the potato absorbs depends on its type. Boiling potatoes (which are often red) don't tend to absorb water at all, but they also take longer to absorb the salt and don't absorb as much. Baking potatoes (often white) absorb water, and also more salt than boiling potatoes because of that water they absorb. They also do it more quickly. But then you may have to replace some of the water they take out.
Good practice is to under-season food when cooking and adjust the seasoning at the end if necessary. It's very difficult to fix over-seasoned food at the end of cooking.
bad advice -- flavor from herb seasonings in some (most?) recipes only properly develop if you cook them a while, especially when you're working with dried stuff like the general home kitchen populace. while that doesn't apply to salt, it's still way better to let it absorb into things like elements of soups. ps: agreed @Garden
@zanlok - true, but it will be pretty difficult to reduce the saltiness of food if you over-season to begin with. Much easier to add more in the end if necessary, even if it won't necessarily taste as good as if you put it in at the start.
Whether or not this is bad advice, it doesn't answer the question that was asked. Presumably someone who has oversalted a dish knows to be careful the next time. Telling them to be careful is neither helpful nor does it answer the question.
Spice it generously with pepper, curry and/or hot chili! When's very hot and spicy you don't taste the salt as much any more. But you will be very thirsty.
Yes: cayenne is my favorite method, especially after a touch of sugar and/or lemon/vinegar hasn't fully worked :)
Parsley, or other very leafy stuff.
Specifically, I've noticed that adding parsley to a dish that's too salty works wonders.
It's good for almost any sauce you're making, as well as pasta or casserole.
Probably won't work so well with over-salted meat though. Perhaps a parsley and mint sauce for the meat?
That's interesting, because I find parsley to have a natural salty taste (though I might be biased from traditional meals where it was served in salt-water).
Fresh herbs and greens such as parsley add more bitterness than saltiness. Increasing the bitterness will distract the palate from any of the other four primary tastes - which means your food won't taste as salty.
If the curry gets too salty, adding 2 to 3 wheat flour dough rolls helps a lot. It just absorbs salt the same way as raw potato does. And for dry cooked food (i.e. food without curry) adding lemon juice works perfectly for me.
You can't remove salt from a dish once it's added, so Shog9 has the only correct answer to this question: add more ingredients to dilute the salt.
The commonly suggested "remedy" of adding potato in various forms is only really attempting to mask the salt flavor. It does nothing to actually remove the salt from the dish.
Any starch will lessen your perception of saltiness, hence why so many starchy dishes (think baked potato) require higher levels of salt to taste good.
Adding starch to the dish (potato starch, cornstarch, etc.) or serving the dish with a starch (bread, pasta, potato, etc.) can lower the perceived saltiness of the dish.
Do keep in mind that starch is not a panacea, as parts of the dish may still taste salty. Also, while starch does mask our perception of saltiness, it also masks other flavors as well, so your dish will taste blander overall.
Well, rinsing the pulled pork worked wonders! No problem bc we wanted to add sauce to it anyway.
Like a chef-instructor told us in one of our first classes: heavy cream fixes everything. Specifically, fat fixes oversalting if the dish can handle more fat. Fat coats the tongue which prevents as much salt from hitting your taste buds. If you have a very heavy, fatty sauce, it will need much more salt than, say, a tomato sauce. This makes heavy sauces challenging to season, but it can save your ass if you oversalt something.
If there is liquid in the dish (soup, sauce, etc) you can add peeled carrots to help absorb the salt. Pre-cut and peeled baby carrots work best. They aren't as easy to pick out at the end as a potato is, but you don't risk having the potato break down and over-starch/thicken your dish.
The potato thing is a myth; why would carrots work?
I add a large, peeled potato or several peeled carrots to the soup or stock as it cools. Cooking the desalinating root vegetable interferes with the osmotic process. As the salty soup cools, the starchy root vegetable(s) absorb the excess salt. This is not a quick fix and requires several hours or overnight refrigeration. Remove the root vegetable(s) and reheat. PS: Peanut butter (one big tablespoon) is a wonder for over salted, burned, or otherwise "ruined" dishes. Bon appetit!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.503578
| 2010-07-09T21:53:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/255",
"authors": [
"AmateurBaker",
"Bryant",
"DVK",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Jodi",
"Kurt Fitzner",
"Lacemaker in SW Ohio",
"LeopardSkinPillBoxHat",
"Lorraine Parente",
"Luc M",
"Mark",
"Martin Myburgh",
"Mike",
"Ocaasi",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Sean Moubry",
"Shog9",
"Stefano Borini",
"Stijn de Witt",
"Suppressingfire",
"Vince Bowdren",
"Vinko Vrsalovic",
"ZoFreX",
"dwj",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89",
"mjuarez",
"stephennmcdonald",
"x3ja",
"zanlok",
"zejam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113568
|
What kind of cream is used to make tomato sauce into an orange colour i.e. creamy tomato sauce?
What kind of cream is used to make tomato sauce into an orange colour i.e. creamy tomato sauce? (the creamy tomato sauce that restaurants serve with pasta)
I'm looking to buy some cream to do that but I'm not sure the right type.
Any milk or cream will change the color of your tomato sauce. It just depends on the fat content you want in your final dish. I would assume that many restaurants use a light or full fat, cream, but you could certainly achieve the color change with milk, half-and-half, or cream.
I've made tomato soup with half & half and it is a nice darker red before I add the "cream." Once the cream goes in it turns orange(ish). I just wish I could change it back! to dark red.
Or indeed a cheese like mascarpone or cream cheese.
Moscafj's answer is of course correct - any milk or cream will give you that look to the sauce. The heavier the cream, the more it will affect the flavour as well as the colour.
Anything milky, creamy, cheesy will do the same thing to greater or lesser degree.
However, you can even fake it a bit with just cornflour. As it forces emulsification of any oils in the sauce it will take on a slightly 'milky' and paler aspect.
Based on experience as a diner, I have always assumed a good percentage of them do it that way.
(This is actually one reason I never thicken tomato sauce, but that's just a personal preference; I like the 'shiny' dark red.)
Personally I like to add a bit of sour cream to it. To get that glossy shine I use a pat of butter. Both of these are added after the primary cooking is done, right before I sauté the pasta and sauce together and serve it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.504164
| 2021-01-03T16:25:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113568",
"authors": [
"BobKayser",
"Steve Chambers",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90396"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50453
|
Does wrapping banana stems actually prolong their life?
I've seen a few times the suggestion to wrap the stems of bananas to prevent them from ripening. Yet at least one person who was espousing this admitted it was based on a misreading of a study:
I made an incorrect leap of imagination about ethylene production and abscission, the natural splitting of leaf or fruit from stem. I re-read the Sauter paper and realized that I got a little too inferency. I thought that since ethylene caused abscission, it would make sense to cover the point prone to abscission. I didn't test when I saw confirmations from Lifehacker and eHow. (I know! Those were my sources after all the research I'd done?! I'm embarrassed for me, too.)
Is there any actual science behind this technique? Or is it just folklore?
To clarify: The question here isn't whether ethylene gas ripens bananas; that's a well known fact. This question is solely about wrapping the stem to prevent the banana's own gas from ripening it.
I would suspect that if it has an effect, it'd be more significant in packing boxes or other enclosed spaces. It may not be signficant if you already keep your bananas in a place with good airflow.
on a side note, wrapping would keep the tip of banana in nice condition. we've all had brown-mushy tops, no?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50282/cutting-the-stems-of-banana-instead-of-wrapping-them-when-preserving-them
Revised answer (old answer removed due to accidentally swerving off-topic and to some extent containing incorrect information)
Even though ethylene biosynthesis happens throughout the banana most-likely none of it occurs in the stem itself as it contains a small percentage of the metabolically active tissue. There aren't as many studies that focus on the stem of the banana specifically as I imagine it's not a very attractive topic, but the current-day findings that we have highly support the assumption of insignificant ethylene gas production (or none at all) in the banana stem and it's why wrapping it will pose virtually no difference in the further ripening of a banana.
Links to relevant studies: (1) (2) (3)
Great, can you link to some of those studies? I keep finding the claim that it's been studied but I can't find proof.
@Yamikuronue Please view my revised answer. By the way the reason you probably never came across any citations when looking at articles about this topic is because it's nothing controversial or new, instead it's a long known, well researched occurrence observed in all climacteric fruit.
Nobody's disputing that ethylene ripens bananas. The claim is that the tip of the stem is a significant enough source of ethylene that wrapping it tightly will prevent a banana from ripening.
@Yamikuronue I've revised the answer once again. It seems I've somehow completely gone off topic and based my answer on a skewed perception of your question. It ran pretty long and I assume my focus went fairly quickly this time, apologies.
Awesome, it's now exactly what I was looking for. Thanks :)
First off, let's clarify this a bit. The claim is not that this prevents the bananas from ripening; it allegedly prolongs their freshness or slows the ripening process.
This video shows a test where unwrapped and wrapped bananas are left to ripen side-by-side. They find that they all ripen at the same rate - so the wrapping doesn't appear to help at all.
I've also tried this myself and found that the wrapped bananas seemed to be a bit more firm than the non wrapped. I wonder if Myth Busters did a segment on this? What do you think, I'd say this is BUSTED.
If the decrease in firmness is just from the moisture loss, not an issue w/ ripening, it'd explain your findings. And the video having the control group next to the experimental group was bad.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.504345
| 2014-12-09T18:58:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50453",
"authors": [
"Alexis Carpenter",
"Cary Bondoc",
"Christina Marie Lacy",
"Joe",
"Mary Jane Bowman",
"Nathalie Glavin",
"Neck Pain Downtown",
"Pat Sommer",
"Peter Gollogly",
"Rainy Dawn",
"Raza Majeed",
"Selina Bennett",
"TJ sh",
"Yamikuronue",
"dijkstra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user120754"
],
"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
}
|
113412
|
What do I need to clean off before I season this cast iron?
Here's my cast iron frying pan. I had seasoned it before but wasn't sure if I'd got it right so I figured I'd start again. I'm not clear on what state it needs to be in before I do that.
I sanded a little bit to remove the bumpy black residue but it was an extremely slow process. What is the black on my pan and do I need to remove it all to be silver again before I season?
That "bumpy black residue" is the surface of the cast iron and you WANT IT! Eventually it may return with seasoning and cleaning as per the link in the previous comment. It is also possible that you have ruined the pan in your attempts to clean it.
@SteveChambers - the bumpy black residue is precisely bumpy black residue & you want rid of it to start over. The nearly shiny bit it where you should start. The bumpy bits are where over time it has got over-seasoned & it will start to come off in chunks. Clean start = clean bright iron. Optionally get it as smooth as possible. Old cast pans were surface polished before the customer got them. Modern ones they can't be bothered so you get them straight out of the mould, complete with rough surface.
Tom - I'd go with the recommended duplicate question (plenty of good answers there) but first I'd start by sanding off the existing coating, especially in the thickets parts. That aspect doesn't need to be perfect, but this is your opportunity to get rid of the heavy bumpy coating round the edges & up the sides & start from somewhere closer to the original iron surface. tbh, until it gets so think it starts to come off in chunks, cosmetic appearance of a seasoned pan is not your main consideration, but this is a good time to even it all up.
@Ecnerwal that's a good answer on how to season a cast iron pan, but it doesn't tell me how to get to the starting point or whether my pan is already in the right condition
For the condition that the pan is in, I would've recommended https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/91173/67 (although many of the answers are "you don't need to strip it), or https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/11592/67
Whilst the re-seasoning part could be considered a duplicate, that's not actually what this question asks. It's "What do I do with the existing surface?"
You sand it off, or you get it sandblasted professionally (or you get all chemistry class with lye baths & other potentially dangerous stuff;).
The cosmetic appearance is not vital, but your pan has built up a coating so thick that it can start to come off in chunks.
This is your opportunity to start afresh, so I'd try to get it as close to bare metal as you reasonably can, without being over-fussy about the last vestiges. As your start-point for the new seasoning you want an even surface, rather than a 'perfectly clean' one. New seasoning will stick just as well to remaining coating as it will to bare iron, so long as you re-season properly.
For that part I'd see some of the previous answers on this stack - but note, there appears to be no true consensus as to temperature, duration, oil type...
Is anything that's black 'seasoning', or is there a difference between the shiny seasoned cast iron I see in pictures and the dull black that's in mine?
In effect, everything except shiny bare metal is some part of the seasoning, from the smooth to the mountainous ;) Hence the idea that you sand it back to 'smooth' rather than 'perfectly shiny'.
Heh, "no true consensus" on seasoning cast iron sounds like a last-minute entry for understatement of the year...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.504802
| 2020-12-27T15:27:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113412",
"authors": [
"BThompson",
"Joe",
"Steve Chambers",
"Tetsujin",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87238"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113923
|
Margarine vs vegetable oil in baking
Since the ingredients of margarine tend to be vegetable oil hydrogenated to be firm, is there any point in using it over vegetable oil in baking where it will be melted into liquid anyway?
Same question for any other applications where it's not spread on toast
I thought this would be a duplicate, but only found examples of the other direction: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12749 and https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2323. If somebody can find it this way, please vote for closing.
Yes, it certainly matters. Baking is not about what goes in, it is about the structure in which it goes in (and as a consequence, the structure in which it comes out). If you start using oil instead of margarine, the results will be anything between "different" and " a disaster". Flour soaked in liquid oil behaves very differently than flour in contact with margarine, and until the time the margarine melts, a lot of other interactions should have happened, which will prevent the flour (or the other ingredients) to behave as if they had been in contact with liquid oil from the beginning.
Simply "different" is something you will get in some forgiving batters such as muffin batter (when made by the mix-everything-at-once method, also aptly named "muffin method") and some types of cookie, which will show difference in spread behavior and variables such as chewiness. Yeast doughs, which usually use the fat simply as a form of enrichment, will likely be the least affected, in fact many of them may direct you to melt a solid fat for easy mixing.
You can expect a very bad result in any short or flaky dough (pie crusts and many types of cookie), in recipes which rely on creaming the margarine (many cakes and cupcakes for the batter, and all sorts of buttercream), and laminated doughs. Probably also others, these are the ones that come first to my mind.
So for recipes where the margarine is melted it would make no difference? It's only when used as a solid that the structure would have an effect? I have had things go wrong when making a roux with veg oil + flour vs margarine + flour, even though they're both liquids when adding the flour.
Yes, if it gets melted first, there shouldn't be a difference, or only a small difference. The core recipe for roux is the same for solid and liquid fats, so your problem must have been die to something else, not the substitution.
Margarine is not hydrogenated in the EU & hasn't been in many years. (Almost nothing is hydrogenated, after health worries in the 90s).
Shortening works because it's solid at room temperature.
Using a liquid would produce different results - not that I've ever experimented outside a bit of oil in a pasta or chapatti mixture, but neither of those rely on shortening.
Pastry would be a whole different thing, though.
Pastry comes out 'poor' even if your hands are too warm when rubbing in.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.505090
| 2021-01-24T16:05:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113923",
"authors": [
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113865
|
Re-seasoning of cast iron skillet gone wrong?
So, we had some stir-fry burn up pretty badly in our trusted cast-iron skillet. Upon cleaning the skillet some of the coating came off with the burned food. I made a first attempt of re-seasoning it with avocado oil and putting it upside down in the oven for an hour at 375°F. The result was mediocre, there was some coating in the stripped areas but it didn't look like the rest of the surface, and you could see some bare metal shining through. Sure enough, food was sticking again to the stripped area.
My wife re-seasoned it again, this time following slightly different instructions that were on the internet: using olive oil and baking it for two hours right-side-up at 450°F. At the end of the process the skillet definitely had a new hard coating that was smooth and not sticky to the touch. However, there was an anomaly in the middle (probably around the same spot that got stripped originally, but we can't be sure). There was a raised ridge around the area, but the area inside the ridge still did appear to have a proper coating:
So, my question is: what went wrong here and how does it affect the usability of the skillet? Do we need to strip it and re-season it yet again? Can we ignore this anomaly? Is there anything we can do to prevent this sort of thing from happening?
It looks like the second attempt used far too much oil, which can lead to all sorts of uneven spots in the pan. Seasoning that thick tends to flake off when you cook with the pan. I would strip it and reseason immediately. In general you want to use a very very thin layer of oil, wiping out the excess from the pan with an absorbent cloth (I don't like using paper towels since they can leave residue in the pan) before heating. There should not be enough oil in the pan to drip down the sides or form a noticeable layer in the bottom like it has done in your picture. Placing it upside down in the oven is a way of ensuring that any excess oil drips out of the pan instead of forming drips in the pan or a too thick layer at the bottom. Then you repeat the process at least three times if you start from a completely stripped pan. It's normal to require several layers before the finish is restored.
If it feels sticky to the touch after you've washed and dried it, give it a scrub-down with a steel scourer until that stickiness is reduced. You do not have to go all the way down to bare metal, or even achieve a consistent appearance of the surface - just get rid of any major bumps and ridges. Rinse and dry. You'll now have to re-season the whole pan.
If it's sticky not to the touch, but to the food you're cooking in it, a whole-pan re-seasoning would also normally follow.
This can be done in an oven or on a hob, and in either case the key is little and often. Wipe it with less oil than could drip, burn it in, and repeat several times (how many times depends on too many factors even to estimate). Although the lightest oils (e.g. flax) are best because they burn off faster leaving a thinner layer allowing for more coats, any oil will do if it's applied thinly enough. I happen to use Canola.
Even if you're using an oven for this, there's going to be a lot of smoke, so open the windows and cover your hair if it's long. Having committed yourself to some fumes, then, a hob may actually make the repetitive aspect of the process more convenient.
For the wiping itself, I've found nothing better than a small piece of loofah. It's soft enough to move the oil around very well, stiff enough to keep your fingers from getting sizzled, and not so absorbent that it becomes saturated with hot oil. A small linen or cotton rag will do, as will cotton wool, but you'll have to use something to poke it around with such as chopsticks or a fish-slice. Loofah-less, I have also resorted to using unprinted bits of cardboard boxes, and even scrunched-up office paper.
Keep doing that until you like the look of your work. Cool a bit, rinse, dry. Use it for oil-heavy cooking for a while (onion rings, tempura, and the like), working through fried eggs, before working up to starchy risk-takers like pancakes and fried rice. Cooking, after a point, is as good as seasoning, as long as it's of the right kind to suit the condition of the pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.505315
| 2021-01-20T21:59:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113865",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114303
|
What should I do if I forgot to dry fries before baking?
What should I do if I forgot to dry off my fries before putting them in to bake?
And now they're seasoned and oiled up.
I appreciate that this question was asked in a hurry – if you have a chance to tidy it up and add some detail (what type of fries you are making, what your method was, etc) then it might be more useful for future readers.
Bake them anyway and accept that they might not be quite as good as they would otherwise be. A little extra moisture won't be fatal, and there's nothing you can easily do now. You could try patting them with a paper towel but it's likely to remove the seasoning more than it removes water.
Baking at a slightly higher temperature for a few minutes at first would also help evaporate off the water, which might let them crisp up more, like they normally would.
How about opening the oven door very briefly periodically to let out excess steam?
@Jessa If you found my answer helpful, you can use the button under the voting arrows to mark it as accepted. I hope your fries came out well! :)
You can still attempt to dry them with a hair dryer. This may sound weird to some people, but it's a thing, and I've done this once or twice when I'm having trouble drying foods.
Source
To avoid oil or seasoning from flying off of your fries, I recommend using the lowest setting on your hairdryer, or keep it a fair distance away from the fries when drying them.
if they're already oiled I imagine water will have a hard time evaporating off until the oil's already blown away
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.505649
| 2021-02-15T07:28:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114303",
"authors": [
"Tristan",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89371",
"senschen",
"stevec"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113181
|
Does cauliflower have to be parboiled before cauliflower cheese?
Most online recipes suggest parboiling. However, what are the benefits as it will be roasting for 30 minutes in an oven?
the taste is different, in both cases it can be very tasty - so it's just an matter of taste.
I make cauliflower cheese with raw chopped cauliflower, grated cheese and mayonnaise...
It might just be a timing decision.
Parboil it will take 20 mins in the oven. From raw, more like an hour.
Bear in mind how long it will take to heat to the centre whilst submerged in sauce compared to being boiled or steamed alone.
Some examples -
'Standard' recipe: parboil whilst making roux, add hot sauce to hot cauli, bake 20 mins.
Jamie Oliver's 'pre-cook' version: Make sauce, cool. Break raw cauli into dish, add sauce, save in fridge. On the day, 50 mins to an hour.
Gordon Ramsey: parboil cauli, cool, combine with sauce, 20 mins oven.
'Alternative': roast cauli with oil coating 20-25 mins. Add sauce, and another 20-30 mins in the oven. This one uses a well-darkened roux, so I think it's going for a much richer flavour than any 'regular' cauli cheese.
Generally, the time differences agree: Pre-cook, under 30 mins / No pre-cook, an hour (ish)
I love it when the Guardian does these 'test it every which way' experiments. I found one right on target… How to cook perfect cauliflower cheese
However, I would suggest if you're going to be doing this just the once for Christmas dinner that you don't play with the recognised timings. You don't want a dish of mush, yet you absolutely don't want crunchy cauli.
Four mins parboil (or personally I steam, maybe five mins maximum [depends on sizes & whether you cross-cut the stalks, like with sprouts], centres still more than al dente at that point) & adding hot to hot then 20-25 mins oven is safe… even if you have to hold dinner for unexpected last minute reasons, or have to juggle Yorkies, etc. Pulling it from the oven or even keeping it a few minutes more will not kill it.
Bear in mind too that the cauli releases some volatile sulphur-containing compounds when cooked, which will be trapped by the fat in the roux, and might make it a bit strong for some tastes.
You can eat cauliflower in every state from raw to overdone, and some people will prefer it in that state.
So if you like your cauliflower to have quite a bite and do not want to bother with precooking, chuck it in raw.
But if you want your veg to be super soft, you may even want to boil it longer.
Or you can do as my mother used to make it, prepare the cauliflower to be eaten without sauce. Make a cheese sauce and a tomato sauce (or put the ketchup on the table) and add them together on the plate.
(I was a picky one, not eating cheese at all, but I had a sibling who also prefered tomato on the cauliflower.)
These days I cut my cauliflower in tiny pieces and stirfry them, you can still add cheese or a cheese sauce, or tomato sauce or ketchup, although cut up fresh tomatoes are also great.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.505806
| 2020-12-16T18:22:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113181",
"authors": [
"JCRM",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81055",
"shabunc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112821
|
What would result from not adding fat to pastry dough?
I'm preparing some form of pastry. The usual ingredients: flour, water, and shortening. What would happen if I don't add shortening?
You'd end up with something somewhere between unleavened bread, pasta & laminate flooring, depending on what else you did with it.
The first two are what you'd get if that's how you treated them, the last is what you'd get if you thought you were going to get shortcrust pastry ;)
Late edit
This started out as one of my more flippant short answers, but has since hit the HNQ* list so naturally falls under more scrutiny.
The point of the 'flooring' aspect is that simple flour & water can be used as anything from wallpaper paste raw, or heated & dried as 'hard tack' which really is hard enough to break your teeth.
Pasta can also be made this way, you can omit both egg & oil, then dry it. Try eating dried pasta without re-hydrating.
Of course, such as chapattis are also made simply with flour & water (a splash of oil is optional) This, rolled & dry-heated is of course, absolutely delicious - so it's the treatment after mixing that determines the end product… & its actual edibility.
What you will never get from omitting all fat is pastry… & we're back round to my flooring joke.
*Hot network questions - in the side bar on the right.
From Comments (Thank you PLL) - Glen Baxter said it best (even if he had a different flour in mind)
@user253751 - You might have trouble nailing it. I'd definitely drill & screw it :P
It's not that I'd actually recommend it as a flooring material, but it would certainly be hard-wearing. You really wouldn't want, nor necessarily be able, to chew it.
Glen Baxter said it best
@PLL - I'm going to steal that (with credit) - I hope you don't mind ;))
Given that you can bake flour tortillas with a filling in (getting a nice crispy-in-places crust), you could do the same with chapattis. So make the flatbread, including cooking, then put that round a cooked filling and bake - carefully so as not to overdo it. It could end up quite nice
Surely the similarity between the words "pastry" and "pasta" is not coincidental.
@Tetsujin, The word "surely" in this context indicates it would be surprising for it to be otherwise, rather than that it would be surprising if the terms were etymologically related.
Your title mentions oil but your question mentions shortening. Be aware that oil and shortening are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other will change the results. Oil is fat that is liquid at room temperature; shortening is fat that is solid at room temperature (but usually not butter; if a recipe wants butter it will call for it by name). Some pastry recipes are made with shortening and others are made with oil.
If you substitute oil for shortening, you get some kind of pastry, but it's very different. First of all, a 1:1 substitution may not work well. Instead, follow a pastry recipe that uses oil instead of shortening (this one, for example). Oil-based pastries are usually crumblier than shortening-based, and sometimes have an oily mouthfeel. Imagine a slightly greasy shortbread cookie without the butter flavor. Shortening-based pastry can be flaky if done properly; oil-based pastry is never flaky. (At least not in my experience; if anyone has a recipe for flaky oil-based pastry please share.) Oil-based crusts are difficult to roll out, so the "pat-in-the-pan" shaping method is usually used.
Since American Thanksgiving is tomorrow, I imagine you may be making a pumpkin, sweet potato, pecan or apple pie.
An oil-based crust would work fine for a pumpkin or sweet potato pie. Pre-bake the crust before adding the filling, then adding foil or pie crust shields to protect the edge of the crust from burning. In my experience oil-based crusts have a strong tendency to melt and slide down into the pan during pre-baking. If you use foil or parchment paper to line them during pre-baking, the crust may stick to the foil and rip when you pull it off. A compromise is to carefully cover the edges and top with foil, but leave the base uncovered. Some sources recommend freezing a crust before baking it; I haven't found that helpful but your mileage may vary.
An oil-based crust would not work very well for an apple pie. Apple pies are usually quite juicy, and the crust will crumble and disappear into the filling, giving you something more like a crumble than a pie. If you must use oil crust for an apple pie, you'll get the best results with a pre-cooked pie filling, so the fruit juices are already reduced into a syrup. Use a streusel or crumble topping instead of trying to shape an oil crust into a top crust.
I haven't tried an oil crust for pecan pie. My experience with pecan pie is the crust usually burns, and oil crusts have a stronger tendency to burn than shortening-based crusts. So I expect the crust would end up unpalatably burnt. It might be okay if you use pie crust shields for the entire bake time. If you find yourself having to choose between raw filling and burned crust, go for the burned crust. You can always eat the filling by itself and leaved the burned crust on the plate, but you can't (or at least shouldn't) eat undercooked pie filling if the filling has eggs in it.
Our family recipe uses an oil based crust for pecan pie, it doesn't burn...but we also only leave a very small rim, not the huge decorative type of rim. The family recipe also uses Karo in the filling, to give an idea of what cuisine we're talking about.
@user3067860 I do tend to build up my crust rims pretty high. Next time I make a pecan pie I'll try using a lower rim.
This sort of pastry is known as short pastry, although it has variants (e.g. you can make flaky piecrust with these ingredients). It is mandatory that you make it with some form of solid fat, the only leeway you have is that you can use lard or butter instead of shortening, other fats such as coconut oil may already require advanced techniques. You also have to use the amount of fat stated, you cannot reduce it.
If you try omitting the fat from this type of recipe, you will end up with something that is nothing like the intended pastry, and it will almost certainly be inedible. Possible results include separate crumbs, a single tooth-breakingly hard crust, or stodgy balls with hard crust on the outside and unbaked dough on the inside, depending on the exact recipe you try to 'adapt'.
@J... well yes, that's exactly what I wrote in my answer, so I am a bit confused about the purpose of you repeating it as a commment - or did you interpret my answer differently and were trying to correct it?
@rumtscho No, I just misread. The leading sentence is misleading - the reader can be forgiven for understanding "This sort of pastry" to mean the kind of pastry OP is describing (ie: without fat). The sentence then reads "The sort of pastry without fat is known as short pastry", which isn't correct. Perhaps "There is a sort of pastry known as short pastry (made with less fat than typical pastry)..."
What you’re proposing to make is the start of what’s known as ‘hard tack’ although it usually has some salt in it, too
It’s a way to make flour shelf stable for a longer period so it could be used as army or ship rations. The dough was rolled out, docked, and then cooked in.a low oven and then left out to dry thoroughly so it couldn’t mold
To eat it, you would have to pour some liquid over it and let it soak for a while before eating or you might risk chipping a tooth
If you don’t cook it as long or at a hotter temperature, it would likely be more similar to a cooking technique from ancient times when ‘pie’ was something where you did NOT eat the crust. It was more like canning— you cooked the food in the crust, then you could hold the food for a few days unrefrigerated as the crust protected the contents. (But distribution of germs and bacteria were different back then, and people’s immune systems would have adapted to it). The ‘coffin’ (crust) would also hold in moisture and prevent the food from burning in a hot oven
Cooked flour isn't just more shelf stable, it's much more edible (in fact a recent bag of flour I bought said "must be cooked"). But hard tack would definitely need soaking
@ChrisH: The problem with raw flour isn’t the flour itself. It’s contamination like e.coli : https://www.livescience.com/55336-why-uncooked-flour-can-make-you-sick.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.506080
| 2020-11-25T18:02:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112821",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"J...",
"Joe",
"PLL",
"Tetsujin",
"The Photon",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"rumtscho",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116656
|
(How) Have I ruined my titanium pan?
I have a Zwilling Forte titanium pan with a five-layer T-Ix non-stick coating (which I understand is just the name of the titanium Layers). According to description it's supposed to be super durable (even using metal utensils; that's why I bought it) and suitable for oven up to 250 °C. It's just over a year old and so far I was very happy with it.
Recently it's started to lose the non-stick qualities. I noticed some black spots as well as scratches. I have to admit I'm not very good at caring for it properly so I wondered if it's just burned-on food.
I couldn't get it off, so I was googling how to clean very burned on food. I used just soap (Amway dish drops) and hot water. The final attempt was sodium percarbonate and some boiling water. I was scraping with a plastic spatula. The water came out pretty brown and now it reveals what appears to be peeled-off spots (see picture), and quite a lot of them.
Have I done that with the sodium percarbonate or some other way? I have used a metal spoon literally a handful of times when cooking, never a knife or anything sharp. It's been used a lot in the year, cooking basically everything, including acidic foods. It's been used in the oven quite a bit too.
I noticed some minor scratching after my first use of a metal spoon, but nothing too bad and it still worked pretty well.
Can I still use this safely? Should/can I season it like a cast-iron one to make it work again?
Note that the word titanium is used by more than one manufacturer to market a 'tough' product, I can find no evidence that the actual element Titanium is actually used in the pan, which is just coated aluminum.
IMO, nonstick pans should only be used for eggs. Buy a sheet or cast iron pan for heavy duty high heat sauté action. Season it properly and it's as nonstick as you could wish for. They have a lifetime guarantee (mine has a 30 year guarantee). It's far better value for your money.
Looks like titanium corrosion has occurred and it has "self-healed" much the same way aluminum behaves. Aside from re-surfacing the pan I don't think there is much you can personally do.
I would not eat from teflon coating (judging by the name, it could be DuPont's post-2015 GenX) that was overheated.
@GdD "Titanium" does not actually mean "titanium"? Screw marketing, words mean things!
I agree @htmlcoderexe, believe me I'm not saying it's a good thing. Who knows, there may be actual Titanium in the coating, but that doesn't mean a thing for durability.
well, I hope they're asbestos free, too then @GdD
@htmlcoderexe When you buy quality products from the "Asbestos Free" line of products, it obviously means that you get some asbestos, free of charge!
I'm no chemist, but a quick googling shows hydrogen peroxide [sodium percarbonate in water] to be quite aggressive on aluminium.
I'd guess that some light surface scratching, which would otherwise have been quite survivable* in itself, allowed the peroxide to leech under the non-stick surface, attack the aluminium substrate & allow larger flakes to break away.
Been there, done that, with similar aggressive chemical cleaning methods.
In future I wouldn't use anything other than Barkeeper's Friend &/or a mica block to remove any surface patina. See Removing long-term residue from teflon
Judging by the pattern of the damage, I'd say the pan has been used too hot on too small a burner. All the damage & discolouration is in the centre. 'Teflon' & non-copyright substitutes, no matter what toughened aspect the manufacturers claim, really can't stand very high burner temperatures.
As to whether you can use it safely - sure, most of these modern surfaces won't peel off in sheets like old-style teflon, nor are they 'poisonous', so it's reasonably safe to use. Can you get it back to truly non-stick… doubtful. You can kind of season aluminium, so you could give it a go - oiled, upside down in the oven, same as iron or steel, but don't expect miracles.
Personally, I'd mark this one down to experience & treat your next one more kindly. I'd also studiously ignore any claim you can use metal utensils &/or put in the dishwasher.
*A lot of these new style 'not teflon' pans seems to have a roughened surface, which I imagine allows the very tops of the 'bumps' to suffer some abrasion, whilst keeping the majority of the surface unscathed.
I now have a couple of these, one cheap as chips, the other an arm & leg; and shall be monitoring their progress over the next few years. So far, so good.
After a couple of years, how are the pans mentioned in your last paragraph holding up?
The original expensive on from my linked question eventually went to recycle. The cheap replacement is now only used for dry-frying [tortillas, chapatties etc]. The very expensive one I bought to replace it is now showing similar signs of coating. Repeated mica-block cleaning is eventually going to wear right through the coating, but it's holding up OK so far. My cheap as chips wok, on the other hand is showing absolutely no signs of wear, though it isn't used to fry steaks, bacon & eggs etc, which is the kind of thing I suspect is responsible for generating the coating in the first place.
While pouring a caustic chemical on your non-stick and scraping it with hard plastic didn't so your coating any favors it was very likely already damaged. How this damage came to be is impossible to say exactly, but here's some ways it could have happened:
Overheating: non-stick coatings have become more durable but they still aren't indestructible. Non-stick coatings can tolerate temperatures up to about 500°F/260°C, above that they break down. High temperatures close to 500°F aren't great for your coating. So if you've been using the pan at high heat a lot it's not that surprising, and if you've gone over 500°F then you'll lose your coating in short order - if it smokes that's your non-stick coating gone. Note the temperature range of these pans isn't about the coating typically, it's telling you whether the other components like the handle can handle the oven
Scraping: metal utensils are a no-no but you can still damage non-stick with hard plastic utensils if you are aggressive with them. Scouring pads can also damage them
Highly acidic foods: high acidity isn't great for non-stick coatings
Extremely rapid heating or cooling: immersing a hot pan in cool water is bad for you coating
Dishwashers: many pans are marketed as dishwasher safe. Safe yes, good for them no, there's harsh chemicals and rapid heating cycles. Hand wash your pans
Now all those are mistakes but it's entirely possible you didn't make any of them, you may have lost your coating just through use. Even if you baby them their coatings break down over time through repeated heating and cooling cycles, exposure to oils, acids, etc. All the 'tough' and 'durable' marketing stuff is a bit deceiving, these things may be more durable than their predecessors but they can only stand up to limited punishment. If you were cooking everything with this pan and not paying that much attention to how you treated it then it's probably done all right for you, in the future be a bit more careful and use your good non-stick for the appropriate cooking jobs.
Thanks for taking the time to answer in such detail. I think I may be guilty of at least a few of the things listed. Lesson learned. I did go for a decent brand (from what I could tell) but of course it still needs decent care.
Do you reckon I should toss the pan? Can it be unsafe? It's a titanium-alluminium alloy, from quick googles it seems fine..
It's not unsafe to my knowledge but you won't get a great cooking experience on it now @packo_cz. I'm not blaming you, IMO pan companies overstate how durable their non-stick coatings are. They'd have you think they could deflect shrapnel and still have your eggs slide off. My philosophy is to buy decent but not expensive ones. I usually buy middle-grade tefal, they last and they don't cost a bomb.
@GdD OT but what kind of pans do you have in your household? Especially for the acidic Stuff? I'd imagine one would want at least 1 Non-stick, 1 Castiron and a Stainless Steel one?
I've accumulated many pans over the years @SirHawrk, I have non-stick, cast iron, ceramic coated cast iron and stainless steel. I use them all in different situations, for acidic stuff I usually use my large stainless saute pan because of the style of cooking I'm doing - I'm not afraid to use my non-stick for tomatoes if the situation warrants or I need a smaller pan.
Looks like wear and tear. As others mentioned, non-stick coatings are gentle creatures. No matter what the manufacturer claims, I'd stay away from using any metal utensils, dishwasher, and any harsh cleaners or supplies. They will still wear out eventually, and to help me feel better about discarding a worn out pan, I just stick to the inexpensive Ikea ones (Zwilling Forte sure is pricy). Consider a cast iron pan for the more demanding cooking jobs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.506984
| 2021-08-02T06:15:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116656",
"authors": [
"Andrew Morton",
"BaffledCook",
"Doug Warren",
"GdD",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"SirHawrk",
"Tetsujin",
"htmlcoderexe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94951",
"packo_cz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122892
|
Correct use of a wood fire oven
I'm planning to build a small traditional wood fire oven, and I'm wondering how is the correct usage of the fuel (I'm planning to use regular firewood):
Do I have to wait, until all the wood burned down to charcoal or can I close the oven front door with some logs still burning? I don't want smoke to interfere with my cooking. I'm mainly thinking of cooking stews or making roasts, so cooking time will be about several hours, so do I have to wait until the logs are transformed into charcoal?
The oven will be located outside on a terrace and looks similar to this picture:
Yes to waiting for charcoal. When I had a woodburning oven it cost me exactly one pizza to learn that it was no bargain to put the food in too early. (Conceivably this would be different if you food was in a closed container, but I wouldn't risk it.)
Some Italian pizza restaurants will have a fire ongoing while operating their services, but these ovens have a) more space and b) try to maximize the heat over a long time (= serving pizza all evening). But it’s tricky, second the „avoid it“.
A lot of the cooking with an oven like that is intended to make use of residual heat stored in the brick, etc. The process of burning the wood down to coals heats up the brick oven itself which provides a easier, more consistent radiant heat. You're not really looking to do "campfire" or "fireplace" cooking here. Letting the logs burn down will also help reduce smoke, etc. As an aside, on a very high level, (not strictly pertaining to food preparation) we're looking at the differences between how an oven is intended to work as opposed to how a furnace operates.
You might need several hours to get the oven up to temperature to do any actual baking. Or, you could cook something like a lunch pizza making use of the smoky fire while the oven is heating up, and then slide in your dinner stew/roast to cook as the oven begins to cool down. Properly constructed the oven should hold heat for many hours. In some circumstances ovens like yours are kept at temperature for days on end and used for multiple baking tasks throughout the day.
Here's a breakdown of how to get the most out of residual heat and meal planning for wood https://www.fornobravo.com/brick-oven-cooking/brick-oven-cooking-techniques/retained-heat-cooking/
I imagine you might already be aware of this website (Forno Bravo) but it's a great source of information on wood-fired brick oven cooking, construction, and other resources. It also has a vibrant community of enthusiasts. There are many others available as well.
I didn't know about the link you mentioned, I've got completely hooked on "wilderness cooking" when I saw it for the 1st time. They use all these traditional cooking techniques and I decided to have one of these ovens :)
Two different things really... but very similar in a lot of respects. There is a lot of content on YouTube that concerns building and cooking with various kinds of ovens and techniques.
You might find this especially useful: https://www.fornobravo.com/brick-oven-cooking/brick-oven-cooking-techniques/retained-heat-cooking/
Does that mean that (in the example picture, say) once ready for actually baking (which would surely take hours and hours), the actual bricks on the outside, if you touched them with your hand, they would be extremely hot? Is that about right?
@Fattie - Not if the oven is built right. There should be two layers of brick with substantial thermal insulation between to not only prevent the outside from becoming hot to the touch, but also to mitigate heat loss to the outside world and keep the internal brick as hot as possible.
Wood burning ovens generally need to be preheated. Depending on the size of your oven, and the fuel you are using, this could take some time. You are going to have to get a feel for how your oven behaves. You'll want to get a good fire going at first, preheat, then (for stewing or roasting) feed the fire just enough to maintain the desired temperature (or, perhaps not at all if the residual heat holds long enough for your cook). If you have a chimney, such as the one in the picture, (and a reasonably hot fire or bed of coals) smoke should not interfere, but it is possible that you will pick up some wood smoke flavors...depending on what and how you are cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.507770
| 2023-01-01T23:22:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122892",
"authors": [
"Fattie",
"Stephie",
"Vickel",
"adam.baker",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90522"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114744
|
What is the best way to turn soup into stew without using flour?
I was hoping to make stew, but I made soup by forgetting to add thickener--my intended thickener was keto flour because, due to an autoimmune disease, I cannot have wheat or corn or potatoes.
I was just looking up how to turn soup into stew and found a recommendation of mixing flour with cold water, and adding that mixture to the soup.
Is there a way to thicken soup without use of flour?
would you consider corn starch as a flour for the purposes of this question?
I would consider such for purposes of avoiding any starch and wheat because of an autoimmune disease
You say you forgot the thickener in the original cooking. What were you originally intending to use a thickener?
arrowroot or coconut flour--I have an autoimmune disease and cannot consume wheat or corn or potatoes
@IsabellaLeonarda Hi Isabella. It would be a good idea to edit your question to include the information you have given in comments. Comments are liable to be deleted so all the relevant information is better in the question,
Have you considered sweet potato/ kumara for thickening instead of potato? My wife is on an AIP diet and unlike potato, its not a nightshade, but it thickens faster as it cooks faster.
Nearly anything dry and that absorbs water, if added as a powder, will thicken the soup. lentils, corn, rice, almonds, oats (like porridge oats) are tasteless fiber rich superfoods, they contain 30% protein and lentils is even higher. I know someone with an autoimmune issue he had almond powder bread rather than flour bread :) check porridge too generally, cook 2 mins in pre boiled water or milk mix in microwave, with any fruit like chewyraisins, leave to stand 5 minutes with mix a bit of probiotic yogz on top afterwards and a dash of sugar. my friend had chrones and recommended it.
Assuming you were going to use coconut flour, you could just add coconut cream to thicken.
Always nice to see confident cooking with a bit of C++ seasoning, wink, wink
@DeltaEnfieldWaid Please don't post answers in the comments section, that sounds like a fine addition to the answers in this question. Please post it as such.
I wouldn't actually call a soup with thickened liquid "a stew", for me a stew is a cooked dish with very little liquid altogether, be it thick or thin.
Because of this, I would suggest a very simple solution: pass your soup through a colander, catching the liquid. Then return as much liquid as you like to your vegetables, to get your stew. Keep the rest of the liquid to use as stock for another dish, or to drink pure as broth (you may have to freeze it if you don't plan to cook with it soon).
The second workable solution is to add more vegetables, grains or noodles and cook it more, as one of Juhasz's suggestions, but it has two drawbacks. First, it contradicts your keto restriction, and second, you will likely overcook the original vegetables, if you used sensitive ones.
All other solutions, including the starch, will produce a thickened liquid, but not actually a stew-like dish.
You can also reduce the broth on its own until it is your desired thickness, and then add back to the rest of the ingredients.
@StevenGubkin although that may cause other issues like an overly salty broth?
@Stephie Good point, if you have already salted.
Reducing the broth may or may not work depending on the stew: any fresh veg is likely to be turned to mush after boiling for a long period of time, but with some tougher ingredients you may be ok.
@StuartF for me, mushy vegetables are part of what makes a stew a stew; right now, I have in my fridge a stew made with onions, carrots, aubergines, mushrooms and beef - the recipe required me to stick everything in the pressure cooker and leave it under pressure for 30 minutes. I cannot differentiate the aubergine pieces from the mushroom pieces by texture or even taste; everything is soft (only the meat has its characteristic texture), has a uniform flavor and is very, very tasty.
Okra, in particular, is a fantastic natural thickener. Drop a bunch of fresh or frozen okra pieces into your soup and let it cook for a while, stirring occasionally. Often used in Gumbo and Jambalaya for exactly this purpose - thickening.
Let's leave aside the question of what separates a soup from a stew (there's no real answer, only mostly arbitrary opinions - which seems to be a somewhat widely shared belief around here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/20963/70120). It sounds to me like you have a dish with some liquid in it and you want to thicken it.
There are a number of ways that soups/stews are traditionally thickened. I'd break them into four or six categories depending on how you want to count:
Add starchy paste: this is the method you've already found, adding slurry made from flour and water. If you have a problem with wheat in particular, you could use corn starch, potato starch, etc. instead.
Add a starchy ingredient and cook it: a similar idea, but rather than adding a slurry of flour/starch and water, you add some starchy food like noodles, bread, or potatoes. If you cook these starchy foods in the liquid for long enough, the starch will leech out of the potato/noodle/bread and into the liquid, having much the same effect as the first method. You can speed up this process by adding smaller particles, for example, shredded potatoes, or bread crumbs.
Add gelatin: this is not much different than adding starch, except that you usually don't need to make a slurry, you can add the gelatin directly and it may have a lesser effect on the flavor. I'm including in this category thickeners like xanthan gum, or pectin, or other vegan alternatives to gelatin.
Add a gelatin-containing ingredient and cook it: rather than adding gelatin directly, you can add an ingredient with gelatin in it. The most obvious choice here is bones. There's collagen in animal bones, as well as in skin and connective tissue (like you'd find in a tough cut of meat) and when you boil them (especially in something acidic) you'll get gelatin.
Add cream: cream itself isn't much thicker than water, but the fat in the cream can make the soup/stew feel, well, creamier and less watery. Other milky ingredients can be used, including thicker ones like sour cream or yogurt. Generally speaking, the thicker the milky ingredient, the thicker the soup/stew, but if you add sour cream and then cook for a long time, it probably won't seem much thicker than it would have with milk. When we add thick milk products like sour cream and yogurt, we typically add them right at the end.
Blend the soup: rather than adding a thick or thickening ingredient, you can add structure to the liquid by blending in whatever you were cooking in the liquid. This is very common in French vegetable soups. Often only a portion of the soup is blended, so that you end up with a thicker liquid and some large pieces of vegetables and meat.
Particularly for soup->stew, adding potato would be good. Combining 2 of the tips above., some can be mashed and some left in pieces, for a greater effect.
@ChrisH : or you grate the potato, it will thicken in just a few minutes: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/88179/67
@Joe another good option. Stew, for me, would be slow cooked with chunks of potato in, so I didn't consider it.
@ChrisH : I just find it easier than trying to fish out the potato chunks and separating them from whatever I'm not trying to mash. (I do use a masher for other times ... like red beans and rice).
@Joe Ah OK. If mashing some, I'd just spoon a few out, not worrying if I got liquid or other veg, and mash in another container - but I probably wouldn't be mashing them in the first place.
@Juhasz : for the 'soup vs. stew' question, see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/20958/67
Awesome answer! One you might want to add: pectin is a good substitute for gelatin when making vegan stocks and adds a similar richness and glossiness.
Add a can of chickpeas to the soup/stew and include some of the liquid (Aquafaba) from the tin. The Aquafaba is an excellent thickener, even by itself.
For those who haven't used aquafaba before: it's actually whippable into a meringue-like texture!
You can mix it with mashed potatoes or with mashed pumpkin or butternut. You can overcook rice to the point that it becomes a mushy paste and use that as a thickener. You can even take stale bread pulse it a couple of times in the blender and then add it. Pea protein is another option. Can of peas, drain the liquid, mash the peas, use as thickener.
oh! Peas is something I wondered re as an option
pea protein avoids the top 8 food allergies completely, namely, peanuts, tree nuts, eggs, fish, shellfish, cow’s milk, wheat and soy. It is one of the more hypoallergenic foods out there.
Dal (boiled red or yellow lentils) works great as well.
Some other suggestions, appending the list given by Juhasz:
Psyllum husks can be used as a thickener but they might not be easily available. They don't have any taste whatsoever. The upside is that they are mostly non-digestible fiber which should play nicely with your condition. The downside is that they have a slight laxative effect, so use with moderation
The remains of pressed linseed ("Linseed cake") are a potent thickener with a slight oily aftertaste, well suited to stews and soups. Also mostly fiber and likely not an issue with your condition. Very hard to source locally unfortunately.
Agar-Agar may be used in place of gelatine (as a vegan option). Mostly tasteless, but tends to solidify a bit too much. Should also not be an issue with your condition
Obviously there are different other starches such as tapioka flour
The leafy parts of spring onions have a slight gelatine effect too
There is also Xanthan gum (I used while my partner was not eating gluten).
To turn it into a stew I use a family recipe that starts out looking like soup: tomato juice, V8 juice, beef, carrots, celery, potatoes and let it cook. Near the end we add red wine and some tapioca beads. Not many beads or powder is needed and that brings it to a stew consistency in 15-30 minutes. Add some dumplings or rolls and done. I used to cook this for dozens of friends on my dorm floor in college.
Adding to many other fine suggestions:
Add (cooked, drained) beans or (cooked or dry) lentils. The small red lentils, in particular, do a great job of thickening a pot.
Seeing that there is also a list of gluten-free flours that you may want to experiment with.Comments by the OP mentions auto-immune disease which to me means gluten intolerance. You do get some gluten free flours that can be used as thickening agents
Almond Flour
Almond flour is one of the most common grain- and gluten-free flours.
It’s made from ground, blanched almonds, which means the skin has been
removed.
Buckwheat Flour
Buckwheat may contain the word “wheat,” but it is not a wheat grain
and is gluten-free. It belongs to the family of pseudocereals, a group
of grains that are eaten like cereals but don’t belong to the grass
family.
Sorghum Flour
Sorghum flour is made from an ancient cereal grain that has been grown
for more than 5,000 years. The grain is naturally gluten-free and
considered the fifth most important cereal grain in the world.
Amaranth Flour
Like buckwheat, amaranth is considered a pseudocereal. It’s a group of
more than 60 grains that were once considered a staple food in the
Inca, Maya and Aztec civilizations.
Amaranth has an earthy, nutty flavor and tends to take on the flavor
of other ingredients. It can replace 25% of wheat flour but should be
combined with other flours when baking. The best use of this type of
flour is for making tortillas, pie crusts and bread
Teff Flour
Teff flour has traditionally been used to make injera, a fermented,
sourdough-like Ethiopian bread. It’s now also used for other foods
like pancakes, cereals, breads and snacks. It can be substituted for
25–50% of wheat or all-purpose flour.
Arrowroot Flour
Arrowroot flour is a less common gluten- and grain-free powder. It’s
made from a starchy substance extracted from a tropical plant known as
Maranta arundinacea.
Brown Rice Flour
Brown rice flour is made from ground brown rice. It’s considered a
whole-grain flour and contains the bran, germ and endosperm.
It has a nutty flavor and can be used to make a roux, thicken sauces
or prepare breaded foods, such as fish and chicken. Brown rice flour
is often used to make noodles and can be combined with other
gluten-free flours for bread, cookie and cake recipes.
Oat Flour
Oat flour is made by grinding whole-grain oats. It gives baked goods
more flavor than all-purpose flour and results in a chewier, crumblier
texture.
Baking with oat flour will likely make your end product more moist.
Due to its lack of gluten, some ingredients will need to be adjusted
to create light and fluffy baked goods.
Corn Flour
Corn flour is a very finely ground version of cornmeal. Cornmeal is
made from the whole kernel, including the bran, germ and endosperm.
It’s commonly used as a thickener for liquids and can be used to make
tortillas and breads.
Corn flour comes in white and yellow varieties and can be combined
with other gluten-free flours to make pizza crust.
Chickpea Flour
Chickpeas are part of the legume family. Chickpea flour is made from
dry chickpeas and is also known as garbanzo flour, gram flour and
besan.
Chickpeas have a nutty taste and grainy texture and are popular in
Middle Eastern and Indian cuisine. Chickpea flour is used to make
falafel, hummus and the flatbread socca.
It’s a good source of fiber and plant-based protein. These nutrients
work together to slow digestion, promote fullness and manage body
weight
Coconut Flour
Coconut flour is made from dried coconut meat and offers a mild
coconut flavor.
Its light texture yields similar results to regular flour and is good
for baking breads and desserts. Note that coconut flour absorbs a lot
more water than regular or almond flour.
It’s high in the saturated fat lauric acid. This medium-chain
triglyceride can provide energy for your body and may help lower “bad”
LDL cholesterol in combination with the flour’s fiber content
Tapioca Flour
Tapioca flour is made from the starchy liquid extracted from the South
American cassava root.
This flour is used as a thickener in soups, sauces and pies and has no
discernable flavor or taste. It can also be used in combination with
other gluten-free flours in bread recipes.
Aside from carbohydrates, tapioca flour provides little nutritional
value in the form of fiber, protein or micronutrients. In fact, it’s
considered inferior to other whole-grain, gluten-free flours and often
thought of as empty calories
Cassava Flour
Cassava is a starchy root vegetable or tuber native to South America.
It’s also known as yuca.
In contrast to tapioca flour, which is made from a starchy liquid
extracted from the cassava root, cassava flour is made by grating and
drying the whole root.
This flour is gluten-, grain- and nut-free.
It’s most similar to white flour and can easily be used in recipes
calling for all-purpose flour. It has a neutral flavor and is easily
digestible. It’s also lower in calories than coconut or almond flours.
Tigernut Flour
Despite its name, tigernut flour is not made from nuts. Tigernuts are
small root vegetables that grow in North Africa and the Mediterranean.
Tigernut flour has a sweet and nutty flavor that works well in baked
goods. Its sweetness allows you to cut back on the sugar quantity in
your recipe.
Note that it’s slightly coarser than white flour and likely results in
products with more texture.
SOURCE
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.508175
| 2021-03-11T23:58:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114744",
"authors": [
"Alex Reinking",
"Brondahl",
"Chris H",
"DBJDBJ",
"Isabella Leonarda",
"Joe",
"Michael",
"Neil Meyer",
"RedSonja",
"SnakeDoc",
"Spagirl",
"Stephie",
"Steven Gubkin",
"Stuart F",
"bandybabboon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91904",
"jdog",
"mcalex",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90328
|
Can I use aluminum foil instead of parchment paper for resting candied fruit?
I’m making candied fruit and I need somewhere nonstick to place them while they cool, but I don’t have parchment paper. I don’t know how much the sugar will stick to aluminum.
Aluminum foil is not non-stick, except for those specially silicone or otherwise coated foils that are explicitly marketed as such. (And which are probably even more of an environmental nightmare than regular foil, but I digress.)
If you see aluminum foil used in a candy making context, you will notice that they recommend greasing or oiling the foil before pouring or placing the sugary food on it. Personally, I’ve had mixed results, you really have to grease the foil well. If a bit of fat or oil is ok for you, you can use aluminum foil, otherwise I recommend either a shopping trip or checking your household for alternatives.
For your special case of candied fruit, you want the sugar syrup to drip off, not the fruit to sit in a puddle. Have you got a cooling rack at hand? Use it, ideally with a tray underneath to catch the drippings and make cleaning easy. The significantly smaller area of contact will reduce sticking, especially if you move the fruit a few times before they dry fully.
You can use non-stick aluminum foil, no greasing required. It's widely available in the food wrap section of any grocer.
One brand is Reynolds: http://www.reynoldskitchens.com/aluminum-foil/non-stick-foil/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.509345
| 2018-06-13T17:20:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90328",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79610
|
Why are german restaurants so underwhelming in the United States?
French, Italian, Korean, Japenese, all good foods with awesome representation in the United States. Why is there so little, if at all, Germany food in the United States?
All the german establishments i'm able to find are low to mid tier cuisine, at best.
What part of the US are you in... because the US is huge... Perhaps you could write your question in a more constructive way? Right now it looks like a rant. We don't know what you mean by "German food", what you're expecting, why you think this is the case... I'm not sure if this question is on topic but, as written, you're not doing yourself any favors.
What do you consider "low to mid tier", please? Or the other way round - what are you looking for?
@Stephie check out the "examples" provided below. The quality and presentation looks like the chef was classically trained at a diner and these are major internationalist cities brimming with "foodies".
But what foods are you looking for? If Americans don't know German food outside of brats and schnitzel, it's going to be unlikely to find the food you're talking about. I've always thought of German food as home-y... not fancy like French cuisine.
@Catija Somewhere, anywhere, with classically trained chefs or innovative representations of German Cuisine. I've seen Mexican Food Trucks in LA with more disruptive power than the sum total of all German restaurants i've seen in the US.
That still doesn't tell us anything. I've never heard someone say "I want modern German food"... I hear people say - "Want a bratwurst?" and "I could really use some schnitzel and spaetzle".
@Catija "I've never heard someone say 'I want modern German food' ", so you agree with me. You've never heard it because it doesn't exist.
... but you haven't shown that it actually exists at all. @Stephie have you any clue what it is?
@Catija are you asking me to find examples of something that I claim does not exist?
It's a bit silly to ask why there aren't any ground-breaking German restaurants in the US if there aren't any on the planet... If you can't show that they exist in Germany, I'm not sure what you're looking for. I find American German food to generally fit into the category of "nostalgic food"... it's not designed to be earth-shattering.
@Catija lol, well why aren't there any ground-breaking german restaurants on planet earth then?
That's really not a question that's on topic here.
If you're looking for modern, innovative German-ish creations, then you shouldn't be asking about German restaurants, which are going to tend to serve more traditional cuisine.
This would be a good question if you elaborated further and narrowed the scope. Since I can only comment as this is on hold... In post WWII US, you didn't advertise if you were certain nationalities (such as German or Japanese), even if you were a US citizen. So I think German ethnic foods outside the home or local ethnic community became uncommon. Popular cuisine in recent decades is primarily driven by TV programming. Back in the French Chef days, a German or Japanese cooking show would have been unpopular at best.
Recommendations are off-topic, but anyway my favorite German restaurant is Teske's Germania. I could even ask for something not on the menu with no problem.
See [chat] (http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36481589#36481589) for my five cents on what classifies modern German food. Probably equally hard to find it as "modern US food". (Note the problem here? What exactly would be "US food"? You have lots of regional cuisines, partly thanks to immigrants from all over the world, and so does Germany. And most other countries, btw.)
@user3169 Interesting ideas regarding attitudes toward German food. But doesn't hold up when discussing Japanese food. And ...Teske's Germania? : ok, point #1, it's in a city that doesn't matter.
I guess that largely depends on what portion of the country you reside in. In areas more strongly influenced by Germanic and Scandinavian immigrants (upper Midwest), German restaurants abound and even in eateries that aren't specifically "German," you get regular offerings like Bratwurst, which is a mainstay at Milwaukee Brewer and Green Bay Packer games, for instance.
The world's largest brat fest
The five best German Restaurants in Milwaukee
10 Old-Fashioned German Restaurants To Try in NYC
The 15 Best Places For German Food In Dallas
Yeah but that's Milwaukee, i'm talking about cities that actually matter like LA, San Fran, NY, etc.
@easymoden00b - "Cities that matter." LOL. They can't matter that much if you can't even find a decent German eatery there, now, can they? FYI, when I did the Google for the Milwaukee list link, NYC popped up near the top of the results that came back. I'll edit, accordingly.
top 10 german restaurants in New York City, salad looks like it came from the grocery store. The other list for Dallas includes sonic the fast food chain. Nice examples there mate
@easymoden00b It's already been pointed out that this site is not a good place for rants, and some kinds of judgments can come across that way. Please be respectful.
@easymoden00b - "Salad looks like it came from a grocery store" - German food = salads, to you? I wasn't expecting much from Dallas, either, but there are at least a couple actual German eateries, which disputes your claim of no actual German food in the entire USA.
@PoloHoleSet No, german food isn't salad to me. Thank you for proving my point. These places do not have classically trained chefs, nor do I think they'd even survive being sold out of a food truck in trendier areas of large cities, and these are supposed top examples. Sure they exist, but they aren't impressive.
@easymoden00b - you must not be looking very hard. They have a thing called "Google," you know - "classically trained German chef" - https://www.parkrestaurant.com/ Since when did having good food or representation rely on having a "classically trained chef" in that cuisine? 99.9% of the Korean food does NOT have such a cook in the kitchen, yet you seem to think it is well-represented.
@PoloHoleSet your most recent example looks generic, at best. No innovation, nothing next level, not even close.
@easymoden00b - Sounds like you're not actually looking for a German restaurant, if you're looking for some sort of innovation fusion-food. "They don't even have a classically trained chef" I showed you one. If your main purpose was to whine about German food in the USA instead of actually asking about if any exists, then you probably shouldn't post it as a question.
"cities that actually matter"? Really, that is a good way to get into a mode where no posts you make will be well received. Also, with a little research, on would likely find that US cuisine is heavily influenced by German heritage and, with American influence, enough of us would just classify German cooking as home cooking. Other than that we think of sausage = German = cook at home.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.509609
| 2017-04-03T19:10:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79610",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Lorel C.",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Stephie",
"dlb",
"easymoden00b",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57416
|
Food Safety of "Scavenged" Chicken Stock
I happened upon an article entitled "Please Pass the Scavenged Bone Stock" and discovered that there are many different opinions out there about the propriety of saving chicken bones for stock. The article reads like a polemic, but I'd like clearer answers to the following questions:
Is it safe to use leftover untouched chicken bones/carcasses for stock? How long can they have been sitting out, and what if I want to freeze them for later use?
Is it safe to salvage bones for stock if people have been eating off the bone? Is this a common practice, or is it considered "disgusting"?
I've cooked down turkey carcasses after thanksgiving (even though it sat out for a while) ... but I've never used bones that had been served to people that they might've chewed on. And I've never tried freezing them, as they're just so large that it's not practical. I cook it down that night (possibly leave it on low overnight and deal with it in the morning)
I agree with Joe. I often will rely on my crockpot for some great stock. Another tip, I know it kind of breaks the "rules" of chicken stock, but I like to save my vegetable trimmings to bolster the stock.
I use frozen trimmings and bones for stock on a regular basis and haven't ever had any issues (and I can't see why you would). However, parts from food eaten by someone may have contamination issues unless they only removed the bones and/or skin with clean hands (which you could have done yourself before serving them).
I don't follow many rules for my "stock" either. I figure I can get vegetable flavor from vegetable stock, so I keep my meat stocks just to the meat trimmings and bones as much as possible (I do regularly and unavoidably end up with herbs and spices from rubs and marinades), let them simmer in a crockpot for days, and then reduce them. They are not clear like traditional stock, but I rarely need a clear stock--mostly I just want to extract all the good flavor for sauces, soups, and stews, and that is very successful with this method.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.510126
| 2015-05-12T17:12:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57416",
"authors": [
"Brett Johnson",
"BrownRedHawk",
"Joe",
"Kayla Lucas",
"Laura Whitley",
"Linda Gifford",
"Pamela Tingle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33356",
"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
}
|
53985
|
Black Beans - Toss the soak water?
I'm making a two pounds of dry black beans by:
Sorting out the rocks, dirt, malformed beans
Washing any dirt or mud from the remaining beans
Soaking for only 1 hour in 2 gallons of water and 2 Tablespoons of salt
Add any non-acidic ingredients and spices
Heating stove top until 212 F
Maintaining temp in oven at 225 F for 3-4 hours
Adding any acid like Tomatoes after cooking is finished
My Logic is:
Soaking for 1 hour is reported to decrease cooking time
Soaking for 8 hours only decreases cooking time by 30 minutes and makes more beans fall apart
Soaking / cooking in salt reduces skin toughness
Using the soak water in the final product improves taste, nutrients, color, as reported by Alton Brown, many other pro chefs, and most traditional Cuban and Mexican cooks
Salt content of the soak water is about what I'd like in the final product
Using stove top is fastest method of reaching 212 F and avoiding 170-180 F, which increases phytohaemagglutinin (phytohemagglutinin) by 5 x at that temp
Using oven avoids stirring / sicking to the bottom of the pan
Adding any acids like tomatoes increases cooking time
Answers and feedback requested:
The CDC reports that pouring off the soak water decreases phytohaemagglutinin in the final product. However, if 30 minutes or more removes most all of the phytohaemagglutinin, why would throwing out the soak water help, and if so, by how much?
Soak water also contains other non-digestible sugars and proteins that can cause problems. However, extended cooking is also supposed to break these sugars and proteins down. So, will this increase digestive problems, and if so, by how much?
Any other comments of answers to critique my methods are welcome.
For an extremely detailed discussion with many references:
By "Captious" - 2006/05/01 -
Common Bean Myths
Pressure cookers and tossing the soak water do decrease non-digestible sugars:
Thai Science -
Effects of Tossing the Soak Water and Pressure Cooking Beans -
Research Report on Detailed Scientific Experiments.PDF (Title is mine)
Summary: Don't toss the soak water.
First, to address the food safety issue, phytohaemagglutinin is gradually destroyed by temperatures above 175F or so. The FDA has referenced studies (see pp. 254-256) which show that 10 minutes of boiling will completely destroy any of that toxin in beans, though they recommend 30 minutes at boiling temperatures to be on the safe side. Yes, some studies have recommended discarding the soaking water to decrease amounts of toxins before cooking, but there's no need to as long as you are certain to have your beans at or near boiling for at least part of the cooking time.
Also, just to clarify your statement about temperatures near 170F increasing the toxin -- it's true that undercooked beans which never reach higher temperatures will release more of the toxin than raw beans. However, I see nothing so far in the literature that suggests a problem if the beans spend some time at that temperature as long as they spend at least 10 minutes (and preferably 30 minutes) near boiling during the simmering. (As long as your beans are actively simmering for a good portion of the cook time, the toxin should degrade: the real problem comes with slow cookers which never reach a boil or even a decent simmer and might maintain a constant temperature that never rises above 180F to destroy the toxin.)
Finally, I should also note that you've asked about black beans, and the concern with phytohaemagglutinin is greater for red kidney beans and a few other related beans where the concentration is particularly high. Thus there are sometimes recommendations for discarding soaking water for those specific bean types. The concentration is significantly lower in black beans, and while there many be some other lectins in black beans to worry about, as long as they are cooked thoroughly, including boiling for at least 10 minutes, there is no reason to worry.
Regarding your other questions about nutrients, flatulence-causing agents, etc. and the soak water, I quote Harold McGee (who is also referenced in one of your helpful links) from On Food and Cooking (pp. 486-487):
A commonly used method for reducing the gassiness of beans is to boil
them briefly in excess water, let them stand for an hour, then discard
the soaking water and start the cooking with fresh water. This does
leach out most of the water-soluble oligosaccharides--but it also
leaches out significant quantities of water-soluble vitamins,
minerals, simple sugars, and seed-coat pigments: that is, nutrients,
flavor, color, and antioxidants. That's a high price to pay. An
alternative is simple prolonged cooking, which helps by eventually
breaking down much of the oligosaccharides and cell-wall cements into
digestible single sugars.
In line with McGee's recommendations, I generally don't bother soaking at all anymore, since the longer I cook the beans, the more I break down the gas-causing elements. (Also, except in unusual cases, I find soaking -- even long-term -- rarely saves me more than 30-45 minutes of cooking, and for beans I'm going to simmer for a few hours anyway, that doesn't seem to help much.) Regardless, I never discard soak water, since I prefer to preserve the flavor and nutrients.
Some people still find that soaking for a short time will improve final texture or keep beans from bursting or breaking apart or whatever. If you find that it makes a difference for you, soak. But aside from an odd batch here or there, I found that the best textured beans I've made generally have not been soaked at all.
One other minor point is that, while I do sometimes use the oven to cook beans, there's no reason not to simmer them on the stovetop as long as you use a heavy pot. If you're really concerned about toxins, bring them to a boil early (while there's still a lot of liquid), but after 10-30 minutes, you can turn them down to a simmer. Unless you tend to cook beans to the point that they burst and cause the liquid to thicken significantly, you shouldn't need to stir them often (or at all) to avoid sticking.
You can add tomatoes or other mildly acidic ingredients once the beans are near-done, say for the last 30 minutes or so. You're right that you shouldn't add them at the beginning, but adding them a little before the end can allow flavors to permeate the beans more (if you want that). Also, adding small amounts of acid toward the end will actually strengthen the beans somewhat and preserve their structure even if you overcook them a bit.
Otherwise, I agree with basically all of your ideas, which seem well-researched. You'll find similar advice given in many other questions here.
I'll update my question with approximately what I did. I agree with your analysis. I think you'd agree that, although I kept the water, to some extent, this still increases both the remaining toxins and sugars. Mine should be about zero, since I baked 6 hours for texture, then added 6 hours at 170, (partially because I was too lazy to bag it up last night).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.510331
| 2015-01-25T20:23:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53985",
"authors": [
"DaaBoss",
"Deon Marlow",
"Farid Rezaei",
"Michael McLoghlin",
"Paki Holvander",
"Pat Buckle",
"Shaun Maxwell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32998"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88024
|
Ground beef burger patties turn gray not brown
Every time I try to cook burgers or meatloaf, my ground beef just ends up turning gray/white, instead of normal charred dark brown. I cant understand why.
I have tried buying lean ground beef and regular ground beef and I always get the same result.
I have tried cooking them in the oven and on a cast iron pan.
I have even tried leaving them in the cast iron pan till they start to burn. (The meat just develops a sort of thin burnt, light brown crust, on top of the gray patty, which you can essentially peel off. The whole burger doesn't develop a nice dark brown crust)
I have tried making the burgers with egg, with breadcrumbs, and without either. I get the same result each time, just a unappetizing gray lump.
The patties are never crowded, I have even tried doing one at a time.
None of my raw ground beef is gray either, it is nicely red. It just slowly goes gray when cooking.
Please explain why this keeps happening.
Edit:
I have seen this link already Cook Burger on Stove - Turns Gray
This does not help me as I have already tried putting oil on the burgers and putting extra oil in the cast iron pan for them. Frying them does not make them dark brown either.
I also already mentioned I have tried making the patty without egg and breadcrumb.
I also mentioned I tried different variants of fat content. My supermarket only has mince labeled as lean, regular, and fatty (which is more fat than meat) . There are no fat percentages on them. I have tried Lean and regular separately, and I have tried mixing the two.
My cast iron pan is a large 30cm pan and is utilizing the largest gas plate on the grill, on its highest setting, therefore the temperature must be hot enough.
If there is something I seem to have missed from that "duplicate post", I would appreciate it if you could kindly point it out, otherwise can someone please possibly shed some insight as to why this happens? My burgers always end up as a gray lump throughout, sometimes with partial light browning due to overheating/crusting.
Thank you
Related / Possible duplicate: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13001/cook-burger-on-stove-turns-gray?rq=1
edit applied, that question did not solve my problem, this is an elaboration on a similar issue.
Have you checked the label or print on your ground beef to see if it contains any added salt solution?
Or just heat your cast iron pan until smoking and see if that helps. Also, don't touch the meat for 3 or so mins so it can form a crust. Usually when you're not getting a good crust it's either the pan isn't hot enough or the food is continually moved around/stirred.
Are you putting a cover on the pan?
What country? China has fake beef that turns grey, it's not really beef.
Brown meat tastes good - Anne Burrell
Of course you know this, the browning of the meat is a result of the Maillard Reaction, if you are not getting this result you are probably not cooking at a high enough temperature.
Temperatures need to be high to bring about the Maillard reaction, but
as long as the food is very wet, its temperature won’t climb above the
boiling point of water. At atmospheric pressure, only high-heat
cooking techniques can dry out the food enough to raise the
temperature sufficiently. It’s not the water that stops the reaction,
but rather the low boiling point...
Too hot, however, and you end up with a patty that is raw in the middle and crusty on the outside. To counter this there are two separate techniques I will use (depending on the weather...)
In fair weather (using my grill outside) I will heat one side of the grill to "High" and the other side to a medium temperature. First I will 'sear' the burger patty on the High side (both sides of the patty) then move the burger to the medium side, where it can finish more slowly and thoroughly. You can do this in reverse if you like.
In inclement weather (using my oven's broiler) placing the oven rack on the highest setting preheat a cast iron skillet under the broiler for 5 minutes. Place your patties in the skillet and return it to the broiler for 3-5 minutes per side (+/- your patty thickness). Because the broiler is acting on the TOP of the patty rather then the bottom the juices flow away allowing for a quicker maillard reaction. When done set your skillet on the stove top (cool) for a few minutes to let the meat rest and reabsorb some of the juices that should be in the pan at this point. (note: cheese should only be added in the last minute of this technique)
You can accomplish similar results using a pan on the stove top, but I prefer either of these methods.
I always know we can rely on you for matters of beef.
Beef - It's what's for dinner :)
Cooks illustrated (recent recipe) suggest mixing in baking soda to ground beef, wait about 20 minutes... then cook as usual ..this helps the PH level.
They recommend 3/4 tsp to two lbs of 85% ground. I have tried it and it works
You could use a hot pan for searing the sides and outside. Then finish it off in the oven if it is still raw in the center.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.510876
| 2018-02-27T09:05:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88024",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Cos Callis",
"Sobachatina",
"gunter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65426",
"lspare",
"paparazzo",
"seasoned"
],
"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
}
|
99614
|
How to decode some less common food Expiration Date/Date Manufactured codes (US)?
I was cleaning out and found some snack chips with date codes that are not in an obvious Day/Month/Year format. For example:
028 B2 A1 (Bloom's Potato Chips)
021 T B4A1 (Lieber's Tortilla Chips).
Further complicating, neither says if it's a Best Used By date or a Date Manufactured (see pic).
How to decode these?
Manufacturers usually will decode the date if you call them, which I did. I am sharing the codes I have gathered for easier reference. Other users may wish to click Edit and add other manufacturers' codes.
BRAND / CODE / TYPE(BEST-OR-MFG) / DECODE / NOTES
Lieber's: 021 T B4A1: BEST: The 021 is 21st day of the year i.e. Jan-21. "T" (20th letter) is for 2019, as "A" is Year 2000.
Blooms: 028 B2 A1: MFG: The 028 is 28th day of the year i.e. Jan-28. The year is not in the code.
Here is a list of some more common codes, from Bush Brothers to Stagg Chili:
http://www.foodreference.com/html/tcannedfoodshelflife.html#datecodes
Accessed July 2019
Here is another, very long list from 3 Springs Water through Zatarains:
http://www.eby-brown.com/sites/default/files/u3/EbyCodeDateCatalog_0.pdf
Accessed July 2019
This type of BBD date coding format is known throughout the industry by a misnomer of "Julian date code". In actuality, the proper name is "ordinal date coding", but if you say that most QC/QA staff wouldn't recognize it. I've made a calculator for this type of date coding, for your future reference: Ordinal Date Calculator.
Nissim, great find! I used that source (or one very similar) 25 years ago and had been searching for it! But it still amazes me how complex some companies make it. A good example is McCormick, found on page 433.
Exactly. Each company has their own coding pattern so it is better to call them and ask. FDA requires all of them to be able to run full traceability on the production records (up to a certain period after the production date, usually 0.5 to 2 years after expiration date then they're allowed to dispose of the records) so they should be able to at least tell you when that lot was made if nothing more.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.511307
| 2019-06-19T14:54:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99614",
"authors": [
"Arctiic",
"Cindy",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122765
|
How long to heat up a cast iron pan for cooking
There are many articles and Reddit posts saying to heat the cast iron on low for a long time and then cook in it. Apparently it’s a bad idea to heat the cast iron on high as heat doesn't flow easily through the metal bulk.
So, how long should I heat up the cast iron?
Normally I put a few drops of water in the pan to check the temperature, but clearly that is not a good idea with cast iron.
Why are the drops of water a bad idea? That is my method too. Am I going to break something?
My infrared thermometer I got from Amazon is the best cooking-related $18 I've ever spent. I generally bring a pan to around 370 then add in my oil and start cooking.
@Willk I’ve heard stories of cast iron cookware cracking because of people pouring cold water into a (nearly) red-hot pan. But a few drops of water should be fine – it would take a lot more for stress cracks to appear.
"until you can hold your hand about 6-inches above the cooking surface and feel the heat radiating upward." https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5815/why-does-my-food-turn-out-poorly-using-an-all-clad-stainless-steel-fry-pan "Heat the empty pan, once heated, add a drop of water. If the water stays in a single drop and glides across the pan, you're probably ready to add the oil. If the water splits into smaller drops, it's not hot enough. This is caused by the water that first touches the pan immediately vaporizing, the rest of the drop floats on the steam."
You heat it until it has reached the heat you need for the recipe you are going to make. It doesn't matter how long.
You can use any method you like to decide when it's ready. You mention that you are comfortable with a water drop method; that's great. You can use it on your cast iron pan, there is nothing to speak against it, and it will work.
Also,
Apparently its a bad idea to heat the cast iron on high
This is nonsense. Of all pan materials that exist, cast iron is the one that is most forgiving to overheating. It also takes longer to preheat than others, so using a high setting for preheating is really practical.
"As long as it takes" is clearly the right answer ;-).
I think it's more accurate to say "using high heat to preheat a cast iron pan is not always as useful as it would be with other kinds of pans".
Imagine that your pan is bigger than the burner. In that case, a heavy-weight aluminum pan will diffuse the heat sideways, and the whole pan will heat evenly. But with the cast iron pan, it will take a while for the heat to reach the edges. If you use higher heat with cast iron, you'll still have to wait for the heat to equalize across the surface of the pan.
But the high heat won't hurt the pan at all (unless it's so very hot that you burn off the seasoning). And the water-drop method is a fine way to test.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.511512
| 2022-12-23T14:50:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122765",
"authors": [
"Banjoe",
"Mazura",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93193",
"user149408"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122890
|
Why is the outside of grilled cheese buttered?
Most grilled cheese recipes call for the outward faces of bread to be buttered, while the inside faces have the cheese inserted.
However, this tends to cause your hands to become very oily when eating them. What's the motivation behind buttering the outside, as opposed to the inside with the cheese?
As an alternative, I've got things called "toasta bags" that are non-stick pouches. You use them in a pop-up toaster (one with fairly wide slots) and don't need to butter the outside
...and now I want a cheese toastie....
it's not.. you can use oil as well, don't worry about it.. but butter tastes better. The reason of course why it is buttered is obvious.. not everyone has brand new non-stick pans, and, even if they did it would still taste better buttered. And of course as people point out, the texture/taste is different. You could always try to make them in a sandwich maker without butter or oil, but those are an entirely different species of cheese sandwich I'd argue.
Buttering the actual bread is too much for me to handle, at least - too greasy. I just throw some butter in the pan and a little more when flipping.
I butter both sides and fry/toast/etc. both sides - even better taste/texture!
I do this: Butter the slices of bread as normal, put them together with butter inside. Get your fillings (usually cheese) place them on top of the 2 slices. Pick up the top slice with all the fillings balanced on top and place it into the toastie maker. Pick up the bottom slice and place it on top (butter will be facing up). No mess at all. The butter acts as oil to prevent sticking, gives the outside shell a crispier texture, and adds a bit of flavour, but it is not essential.
The part that is buttered is the part that comes into contact with the cooking surface (a pan or a toastie maker). By adding fat the surface of the bread is fried rather than merely toasted, giving a different flavour and texture.
And the butter makes the toast maker surface more "non-sticky" so that the bread doesn't stick it to it when cooking, and we get perfect sandwcihes instead of broken ones.
In some countries, we do not use butter that much. I guess the same effect is for olive oil? I always do it that way and the flavour is very nice, although I woulnd't say "fry". That would take a lot of the fat/oil, right? Just grilled (?).
@M.K it's still be fried, just not deep fried which specifically refers to submersing your food in cooking oil.
@M.K everything works the same with oil, minus some of the "buttery" flavors. But most of the effects of butter come from the fats in it, which can be replaced with any other oil/fat used in cooking.
@M.K (in the UK) it's common to use "spread" (AKA margarine) rather than butter here as well as in sandwiches, baking, stopping cakes sticking to their tins, etc. This isn't really thick cooking oil, but it might as well be in this context, and is easier to apply (if using a toastie maker, it might be easier to brush oil on the relevant surfaces of the machine instead of the bread). BTW the verb is still "butter" even if using margarine
Mayonnaise also works quite well and is convenient if you did not have the foresight to leave some butter out to become soft.
@M.K 'Grilled' is a bit of a misnomer here. Grilling is generally over some sort of open flame.
If that is true, then it is a language confusion from my side! My apologies! In Spanish, when we cook with a little bit of oil (mostly meats, sanwiches when toasting them, a Bikini f.g), we say "a la plancha", which traslated is "grilled" but the literal translation would be "to the iron/" @JimmyJames
@M.K It's one of these terms which has different meanings in different contexts, including between different regional varieties of English. The classic American grilled cheese is cooked a la plancha, or using a cast-iron skillet to substitute.
@M.K That's interesting. No worries though. It's not strict rule, by any sense. But if someone invites you over and says they are 'grilling' it means they are going to be outside. It's not uncommon for a large flat metal surface to be called a 'grill' in a restaurant, though. Spanish is a lot more logical than English, IMO.
@JimmyJames If someone says they are 'grilling' in the United States it means they are (probably) going to be outside. In the UK that activity would be called 'having a barbeque', whereas 'grilling' would be what Americans call 'broiling'. As I said in my other comment, 'grilling' is a term with lots of different meanings!
@dbmag9 Thanks for that clarification. I had no idea. English (or Mericun) is crazy but that's sort of the fun of it.
@JimmyJames That is technically a flat-top grill (as opposed to a BBQ grill), but one of the main points of language seems to be to leave half of everything implied. I wouldn't doubt that a large flat-top heating element, with no parallel bars in sight, being coined a flat-top grill was the idea of some marketer. And in a few years I wouldn't be surprised at people having this same conversation when discussing the similarities/ differences between a horno de conveccion and an (air) fryer. "Where I'm from we just call that a convection oven."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.511896
| 2023-01-01T22:14:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122890",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Criggie",
"Hobbamok",
"JimmyJames",
"Joe M",
"M.K",
"Martin",
"Nils O",
"RIanGillis",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81059",
"sfxedit",
"vir",
"ycomp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100543
|
Is there a way to harden soft braised carrots?
After placing meat on a bed of veg and braising in a wine/stock mixture for a few hours, the carrots taste great, but they don't have a nice texture.
How do I harden the soft mushy carrots after a slow braise?
I don't think frying them would help, maybe broiling them?
I am not looking to "un-cook" the carrots, just change the texture. Like grilling pineapple would cause it to dry and become more rigid.
After braising, the only way I know to change the texture of a carrot would be to dehydrate it, but that would certainly not be the texture you are going for in a braise. Dehydrating would take several hours, and would result in more of a pliable texture. Sure, broiling or grilling might put a char of the exterior, but you are still going to have a mussy carrot interior.
I don't even agree that grilling pineapple make it more rigid. In my experience they get softer and caramelized.
Freezing would harden them, but I don't think that is what you are after.
I found the other day if you fry sliced carrots for long enough they stop being (somewhat) mushy and become chewy.
Not an answer to your question, rather a suggestion for future success. Braise your meat on the bed of vegetables as you do now. After a length of time when the vegetables are done to your liking, remove them from the pan and let the meat finish cooking in the braising liquid. At that point you have the added flavor from the vegetables in the braising liquid and don't need to continue cooking them.
Your only option is to cook them separately from the braise, then add them when plating. That way, you can maintain the consistency that you like. There is no way to firm them up after they've been cooked through. If you like the flavor that braised carrot adds, do both...some carrot in the braise, some carrot cooked as you like for serving.
The carrots can't be 'un-cooked' once they're cooked, so as moscafj says, cook some separately for serving.
Don't waste the cooked carrots, though - blend them into your sauce.
Best of both worlds.
I know I cannot "un-cook" them, but I want to change the texture by drying them out
The cell walls are gone. Drying them out wouldn't restore their original texture. Best you could do would be make them harder & harder until they eventually became like the chunks you find in packet soup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.512332
| 2019-08-02T10:56:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100543",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Ross Millikan",
"Ross Ridge",
"Tetsujin",
"Zak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76716",
"moscafj",
"seg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
101165
|
What exactly is apple cider?
What exactly is apple cider?
I've been using Apple Bandit Cider for some recipes in which I needed to reduce the cider. However the Apple Bandit Cider is like a low-alcohol fresh cider/beer kind of drink. And I recently heard that this is an incorrect literal translation of the apple cider. Apparently there is a difference in what we call apple cider in the EU vs. the US.
So when using apple cider, is it best to just use an unfiltered sort of apple juice, or what is the closest description of the actual good?
We do have a generic Q/A on differing terms, and I think it also covers cider - let me check that for you...
The part of “what is cider” will depend on where you are (or the author of the recipe you are using). See here under “other foods”. If that answers you me question, we can close it as duplicate. If you have questions about what product to use, we’ll need a bit of clarification.
That stuff appears to be 'fake' cider aimed at the mass market. It contains actual cider but is made from concentrate - https://ciderexplorer.wordpress.com/2017/05/14/apple-bandit-crisp-apple-cider/ - is fairly scathing about it. I think you could find a lot better.
@Stephie yes you are correct I am mainly looking for the proper substitute. But since I'm using it for a lot of different recipes, ranging from cocktails to reducing it into sauce. I was mainly interested in a sort of personal view of substitutes. Because we do have unfiltered unsweetened apple juice. But is this apple juice then the same as the apple cider as they know it in the US
Where are you? Or where's the recipe from? I've recently started seeing the term used in the UK for something different to its American meaning.
The cocktail book I'm referring to is by a NYC mixologist, the other book is by a UK based tapas chef
@Stephie I would agree with the mass market fake cider comment looking at the ingredient list. The fact that malic acid had to me added would definitely point to culinary apples, not cider varieties. Sugar means the apple juice was not even from better table apples and carbonated water says they did not even go for natural carbonation. I would pass on that one for most any usage, but that is my personal taste.
Possible duplicate of Translating cooking terms between US / UK / AU / CA / NZ
What is apple cider?
In earlier times, it just meant "apple juice". Nobody had different words for the non-alcoholic and the alcoholic variety, because the freshly pressed (and sometimes cooked) juice fermented on its own when stored unrefrigerated.
In the days of refrigeration, there are different products made by pressing of apples, and stabilized to keep their properties when refrigerated. It just so happens that linguistically, the name "cider" has stuck for a non-fermented variant in the US and for a fermented variant outside. Besides, there are companies who have been using modern technology to approximate the fermented version without following the exact process, this is how products like the Apple bandit come into being. (There are also companies who approximate the non-alcoholic variety, but I think they market it simply as apple juice).
So the word has no single "exact" meaning. All three types are a cider.
Which one is better to use?
The answer may sound disappointing, but it is best to use the type meant by the recipe author. Ideally, the author would have known of the linguistic problem, and specified what they mean. Since the ideal case rarely happens in reality, you have to take your best guess based on what you know of the recipe source. That is, if it is an American recipe, use unfiltered apple juice, if it is European, use the alcoholic kind. Also, especially for older recipes, or ones which require much manipulation (such as your reducing step), it is preferable to use traditional-process cider. The modern style cider like Apple bandit is fine-tuned to taste good when drunk straight from the bottle, but it might behave very different from old time cider when heated.
In the end, if you have no idea where the recipe came from or who the author is, you can just start with whichever type is easiest for you to use, and see if you like the result. If yes, stay with it. If not, try with a different type.
"whichever type is easiest for you to use" I would expect an educated guess to be possible based on the recipe and how you expect it should taste. Maybe you should or should not taste the alcohol or sugar that one or the other version contains (or both in the case of that abomination).
Your statement that cider originally meant "apple juice" is not in agreement with the etymology provided by, for instance, the Oxford English Dictionary. Nor does it agree with the etymology of "cidre" given in the Larousse. They both derive it ultimately from a Hebrew word for intoxicating liquor, via Greek and Latin (in the Vulgate).
@RobertFurber yes but in ye olde times all apple juice was fermented whether they wanted it or not. We just figured out how to stop the process a short while ago.
I meant it exactly in the way Borgh said - today, we don't have two different words for firm young camambert and the liquidy smelly camambert into which it turns after three weeks of sitting around, at best we use some descriptors like "young", "fresh", "unripe" vs. "aged", "matured" or similar. Analogously, I don't think people back then thought of the unfermented juice as a different foodstuff, they just regarded it as a short phase in the lifecycle of the cider.
@rumtscho Be that as it may, there is no known record of cider being used to refer to unfermented apple juice before the 19th century (if you know of one, please submit it to the Oxford English Dictionary). I don't agree with claiming words were used in the past without evidence about how language was used in the time period (stereotypes about "ye olde times" are not good enough).
@RobertFurber you make a very good point here! I based it on usage I have heard in other languages for apple beverages (e.g. Most in German) and other similar drinks (I come from a wine producing region, and when the wine is drunk in the first few days before it starts fermenting, it is called "young wine", not "grape juice" - it is a usage I see in modern times among people who brew by traditional methods). I don't have solid proof that the old usage of "cider" in English was the same as the current usages I have observed in similar contexts. So it could be a wrong assumption on my part.
@rumtscho the term may still be used, but in German, kinder cider was "kid's cider". The term was used in the US some in New England, but more in Pennsylvanian at least in Colonial days. It was made by taking the apples that were already pressed and putting water on it, letting it sit briefly and pressing again. Because it was much weaker but still fermented to preserve it, it came out of about 2% so was considered for kids and those who wanted little to no alcohol effect. I have not fermented it, but made fresh 2nd pressings and it actually is not too bad from good apples.
PS, I have also seen attempts to resurrect the kinder cider name, but pronounced like kind-er (more kind) rather than the German kinder.
@dlb interesting. I have rarely heard the word "cider" in Germany, it is a dialekt pronunciation of Apfelwein where I live now. If you are interested, the German Wikipedia has a whole page on cider (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apfelschaumwein) with a section listing names in different countries. Note hat I have never heard somebody say "Apfelschaumwein" in real life, I suppose they needed it because they have a separate page on "Apfelwein" (all types of wine made from apples) and "Apfelschaumwein" (litterally: fizzy wine made from apples, that covers roughly my idea of cider).
My understanding is that the idea of cider as non-alcoholic unfiltered apple juice in the US was a development of prohibition. Fermented cider was the main alcoholic drink in the early days of the colonies/states and would have been the only thing available in frontier areas. The famed Johnny Appleseed planted apples from seed (hence the name) which means they were not for eating. My grandfather was a teetotaler and would ferment apple cider (made from apples from his orchard.) I understand this attitude was prevalent: fermented apple cider was not really alcohol.
@JimmyJames - I like that rule… I made it myself so it's not really alcohol. I'm sure that would also apply to AppleJack or Scumble [which is defined as 'made from mainly apples' & can take paint off ;)
@Tetsujin I think the rule was more like "God made it". You leave the cap loose and let it sit out for a week or two. Then you can cap it put it in the fridge to get some fizz. Careful, though, I once did this and left a glass jug of it in the fridge for a month or more. It continued to ferment and exploded. I got a call from my spouse that I had a nice mess to clean up. It was next to a bottle of maple syrup which was also obliterated. I had to clean everything in the fridge as well as every surface on the inside to get rid of all the glass shards and syrup.
@JimmyJames - That's why it's safer in a barrel, outside in winter ;) Just remember to take the ice out every morning ;)
@rumtsho I actually love Apfelwein myself and think that have become much more the style preferred in much of Europe rather than the more draft style. Even in bygone days the kinder cider may well have been a more common name in the heavily Dutch and German influenced areas of the US like Pennsylvania than on the other side of the ocean. My family always broke out the pretty harsh home fermented stuff at Christmas. Was the only alcohol I ever knew my grandmother to touch as she had to take the first sip to make sure it was not too strong for the kids. Sorry for the comment hijacks. ;)
It's not just alcohol content that varies, it's also sugar content. There's a world of difference between a dry and a sweet cider. And Normandy cider is completely different from English cider. So if you're cooking with it: well I guess, just taste it as you go and do what tastes good to you.l
My add to my understanding of cider vs. cider meaning:
The original origin of the word meant "strong drink". Some take that to mean fermented, and by some I mean most of the world except the US and Canada. Here in the US, cider meant more of strong as in a stronger taste as opposed to the clear filtered flavored water sold as apple juice. Even in the US, that was not really the case before prohibition, when cider was common alcoholic drink and applejack was a common hard spirit, but we hijacked the common meaning of the word and changed its usage at that time. And even here, that meaning is deteriorating as you can often now find products that are filtered apple juices sold as cider.
Even within fermented product, you will have wide variance. In the US, there are tax implications for going over certain percentages of alcohol, so the hard ciders tend to be limited. Also in the US traditionally common culinary apples were used to make hard ciders. That is not the case most other places, with some countries required that only specific cultivars are used. These apples often are ones that are so acidic or astringent that most would find them inedible raw. They are grown strictly for cider. The quality of the fermented product is anywhere from a cheap back shelf beer to a high quality sparkling wine depending of the method used and the qualities of the apples. In the US without the strict naming and ingredient laws of some countries, France coming to mind immediately, it even allows for things like ales made from fermented grains to be flavored with a little bit of apple juice or even artificial apple flavor, and then sold as a cider. As a fan of quality ciders, including attempting to get my own orchard with old French, American, English and Irish varieties going, I am not a fan of the entire image of the product being cheapened by this being permitted.
The book authors are doing you a disservice by not recognizing the range of what the word cider can signify. I can mostly only back up the general statement of others to go by where the author is and their probable audience. If from France they would likely mean a more wine like product. In the UK, a pub style fermented drink. From the US, an unfiltered fresh juice with particulate and usually a darker brown color. It is a careless, but common and unfortunate type mistake by food/drink authors, such as US authors using wet measure for dry ingredients and not differentiating between spoon sizes because they assume a US audience. In this case, it is especially important to differentiate though because you are talking about a product that might be flat, lightly carbonated, heavily carbonated, fresh juice, light fermentation, or up well over 10% alcohol. Those all cook, taste, and mix very differently and potentially violate religious and cultural rules.
I personally tried for years to use the French spelling of cidre to mean hard cider to differentiate, but it just confused people more in the US. The few that understood somewhat thought I meant they needed to go and find a good French cidre.
While the American meaning is a cloudy juice, in the UK Apple Cider is used as branding on cheap alcoholic products based on but not entirely made from fermented apple juice - the ingredients on the product I've linked say "Cider with added sugars and sweetener". These are clear and sparkling, so if you're following an American recipe calling for apple cider, the UK product under the same name won't be a good substitute.
Acording to Wikipedia:
Apple cider (also called sweet cider or soft cider or simply cider) is the name used in the United States and parts of Canada for an unfiltered, unsweetened, non-alcoholic beverage made from apples. Though typically referred to simply as "cider" in those areas, it is not to be confused with the alcoholic beverage known as cider in other places, which is called "hard cider" in the US and Canada.
It is the liquid extracted from an apple and all its components, that is then boiled to concentration. The liquid can be extracted from the apple itself, the apple core, the trimmings from apples, or apple culls.
My experience with apple cider and apple juice is from the US in the 1980's to now.
Apple cider was generally served warmed/"hot" and with extra spices in it, such as cinnamon, a little sugar, and maybe a few other things. It was basically a liquid form of apple pie, apple crisp, or apple cobbler. It was sometimes served cold and without the extra spices, but in my experience not as often. Apple juice is almost always served cold and generally didn't have anything added before drinking.
Cider is/was non-alcoholic, as mentioned as in other answers, so I drank it as a kid. Usually, this was during fall or winter (being a warm drink) and used to warm up after being outside for a long period. It was also cloudy to the point of nearly being opaque in the center of a large bowl or jug. Apple juice would be clear and used to cool off in the summer.
As others mentioned, the alcoholic version is usually prefaced with the word "hard", so a hard apple cider would have the same alcoholic content, by volume, as a standard beer.
This is too US-centric to really be useful. Warm cider with spices & sugar … mention that to any Somerset farmer & you'd be strung up by the ankles. British cider is never called 'hard', that's a purely US term. It is also never alcohol-free [unless the alcohol is actually removed afterwards, so you can drink & drive] Though it may predominantly be 'beer strength', 5% it's often 8.5% or more, for the 'good stuff'. Apple juice is just apple juice in the UK & never called cider.
Then Somerset farmers would be at a major war with Midwest farmers, since warm, spiced apple cider is a favorite drink between harvest and Christmas, and not just with orchard farmers. My family, specifically, would go to the apple orchards in mid to northern Wisconsin each year for their apple harvest festival and get it fresh.
if it's not alcoholic but freshly-squeezed, it's not 'cider', it's 'apple juice'. if you want sweeter cider, use sweeter apples. There are ciders here I cannot bear, they are so sweet. Conversely, there are ciders that are dry as alum. No doubt someone, somewhere, will mull some for xmas, but that's not really at issue here. To refer back to the actual question [I know this has got very broad in the discussion] it depends on where the recipe came from as to what the actual ingredient should be. The Heineken stuff is not going to be the right ingredient for anyone's definition ;)
@Tetsujin, I didn't know Heineken made hard apple cider. I usually see it from Angry Orchard, which has several varieties. Also, I didn't say that anything about my answer being about what to use in a recipe, just the definitions of "apple cider" vs "apple juice" that I was familiar with. The title and the first question is about the definition. Background info talked about a recipe and the second question hinted at a recipe. I thought the definition was most important and the OP could make a decision from there.
It's right there in the question "Apple Bandit Cider" is Heineken. It's cheap, nasty, fake, pretend cider for the mass-market. No-one who knows cider would ever drink it. Without knowing the origin of the recipe no-one will get any closer than "don't use Heineken" The question title is a red herring, the question within a question is "how do I choose a cider appropriate to my recipe" to which we have no real response from the OP. So, no matter how much interest this question has generated because it hit the hot-list, there is still no definitive answer because there is no definitive question.
@Tetsujin, I figured "Apple Bandit" was the brand. And I took the OP at their face value, without looking into the deep dark "underlying" question. Maybe you should suggest the OP edit their question, instead of assuming people read all of the comments?
I grew up in the Midwest US in apple country. No, to most, "cider" there does not represent a warm Christmas drink. That certainly is drank, fake stuff as and alternate in the winter for those who do not drink tea or coffee, or mulled, but I have never, ever heard it referred to as cider. It is always either hot cider, or mulled cider. Just "cider" would always have been cold with no additives, and no alcohol. Anywhere except the US or parts of Canada, if one asked for cider, they would get alcohol. And the US did not invent the word, we corrupted it.
The date of the recipe is very important on this matter. Historically the word "cider" referred to a fermented beverage [1], whereas "sweet cider" [1] referred to the unfermented fresh product produced at the time of pressing apples. Contemporary usage of the term "apple cider" (at least in the US) refers to freshly pressed juice that has been refrigerated and not allowed to ferment [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cider
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_cider
Outside North America, the date is irrelevant: "cider" has always meant fermented.
I'm realizing that the tricky thing about the OP's question is what is "apple cider" not "cider".
Outside the US it means cider made from apples, as opposed to pears etc. Outside the US, 'cider' with no other qualification is 'a fermented alcoholic drink made from apples'. The fermentation & alcohol are a part of the assumption. You couldn't sell plain squeezed apple juice as 'cider' or you'd be pulled in front of the Advertising Standards Authority for mis-representation.
@Tetsujin "American-style non-alcholic apple cider". ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.512619
| 2019-09-05T09:07:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101165",
"authors": [
"Borgh",
"Chris H",
"David Richerby",
"JimmyJames",
"Michael Kay",
"Nobody",
"Remco Vink",
"Robert Furber",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Tristan",
"computercarguy",
"dlb",
"eirikdaude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409",
"nick012000",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125666
|
I bought a sourdough starter from a bakery, fed it too much, and it overflowed the jar overnight. What should I do now?
I bought a starter from a bakery, and I think I overfed it overnight. It overflowed from its jar. What should I do now?
I been baking with the same starter for a few years now, and found this strategy to work really well: very little waste, and I keep the starter in a pint mason jar in the fridge: https://youtu.be/xBvvlcdO93I?si=Cc53fygrgWVevo9G&t=108 IMO it's not necessary to have complicated feeding strategies or to keep large amounts of starter on hand.
Book recommendation: "A Wizard's Guide to Defensive Baking" by Ursula Vernon. It's young-adult fantasy, and good, as well as somewhat relevant.
All you need to do is clear up the mess, and make use of the active starter. Maybe find a bigger jar as well.
You've got a good healthy starter by the sounds of things. If it's from a bakery it's probably used to being used daily; home bakers often keep starters in the fridge. For example I take mine out a few hours before feeding, assemble my loaf another few hours later, then put it back in the fridge. It will evolve for your kitchen anyway, but if you do go for fridge storage, it will have to adapt a bit more.
Cleaning it up isn't all that easy. It ideally needs to be really wet but really dry means it can chip off surfaces.
If it has dried out, I would highly recommend soaking the object/area with water before trying to scrub it off. Dry starter is like cement.
@preferred_anon I have solid oak worktops. They don't like being soaked for long, so any spilt starter that doesn't get wiped up promptly has to be knocked off, and dry is better than damp. Then the last bit can be scrubbed
What you do should now? You should be happy to have a good and active starter, clean up the mess and proceed feeding what’s left in the jar - with a larger jar or less starter.
Seriously, apart from the mess, there’s nothing wrong. I guess it’s happened to most of us, me certainly. A well-fed, active sourdough will easily double in volume and depending on its characteristics (they can behave differently, due to the particular composition of yeasts and bacteria) and environmental factors, I have seen some almost tripling.
So I never fill my jars more than 1/3, maybe 2/5 if I have a particularly sluggish one on a cold day. A lid can help prevent overflowing to some degree, but it shouldn’t be tight-fitting and it will not work if there’s a lot of expansion.
I assume by ‘clean up the mess’, someone should just save the uncontaminated bit that stayed in the container, and not try to save the portion that overflowed.
@Joe good point - edited.
Thank you all. and it looks great today...has holes and looks active. I changed to a bigger jar...used a circular piece of parchment paper and only the ring from the jar to cover. I'm taking a part away and then feeding. I'm new to this, soo learning by doing!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.514545
| 2023-10-28T17:17:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125666",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"John Dallman",
"Matt Morgan",
"Michelle B",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"preferred_anon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91669
|
What is the opposite of cuvée?
I know that cuvée is wine produced from several types of grape. Is there a word to describe wine made from a single type?
And the meaning of cuvée is essentially "vat": Wikipedia: "Since the term cuvée for this purpose is unregulated, and most wines have been stored in a vat or tank at some stage of production, the presence of the word ... is no guarantee of superior quality.... In some regions, cuvée specifically means a ... mixture of several grape varieties ... This is especially true outside France."
A cuvée usually means that the wine if made from the same batch of grapes, harvested at the same time (year), from a particular plot of land.
A cuvée can either be a single grape varietal , which is called a mono-varietal cuvée or different varietals, which is usually called a blend.
For example, a Bordeaux wine can be made with different grapes varietals (merlot, cabernet franc, cabernet sauvignon...); the Bordeaux AOC allows such blends.
On the other side, the Burgundy wines, are mono-varietals, they only allow for Pinot Noir for the red wines and Chardonnay for the whites (*)
(*) There are other types of grapes, like gamay and aligoté, but still, they will not be blended (AFAIK).
Sometimes, cuvée is used in association with the vintage (year) of the wine.
People will say "the cuvée 2015 of such and such wine is more rounded than the cuvée 2017, because the weather was dryer"
It's the signification of the word cuvée in France. However, accordind to Wikipedia : In some regions, cuvée specifically means a blend [...] This is especially true outside France. I think it's fair to assume that a cuvée outside of France is an assemblage. So the answer to the question would be mono-cépage
A note on terminology : the conventional meaning of varietal is a wine made from a single grape variety (as noted by moscafj). So the term mono-varietal is, in conventional terms, superfluous : the word to use is simply varietal.
A varietal is a wine made from a single type of grape.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.514924
| 2018-08-13T12:39:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91669",
"authors": [
"Lescurel",
"Nigel Touch",
"Vince Bowdren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68698"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91858
|
Sweet pickles for home canning
I want to substitute some natural cane sugar for white sugar, because I don't have enough of the white to make pickle recipe. The recipe calls for 7 cups of sugar, and I have 4 1/2 of refined white sugar so I want to use the rest in natural cane sugar. Will this work?
Yes, you should be fine with a mixture of sugars as it is mostly for flavoring. The main point is to make sure the sweetener is fully dissolved in your pickling liquid.
One user asked a similar question about using honey, and searching the web also produced recipes for how to use sugar substitutes in place of sugar for pickling.
thank you, wasn't sure, will know for next time, I have done so many pickles this yr. probably close to 100 jars of all kinds, and my cukes keep coming faster than I can process, I ran to store and got the white, that is the only time I use refined sugar, so didn't want to mess up my recipe for lack of trip to store
I haven't been canning or pickling for too long, so treat this accordingly, but I routinely use natural sugars as a substitute for the pure-white refined stuff and have seen no adverse effects whatsoever. If anything I think it tastes better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.515111
| 2018-08-23T15:05:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91858",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68860",
"kathy",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129260
|
Can someone share a comprehensive website to discuss identifying, choosing, prepping and cooking heirloom squash and pumpkins?
I realize Stack Exchange can't be the type of forum that could be used for users to start a discussion about this subject that isn't well understood by the target audience: Heirloom Pumpkins and Squash Varieties - Flavor Profiles with Prep Tips.
Once the discussion is started, I'd guess there will be hundreds of questions and answers. Of course, this is impossible until enough are interested and at least somewhat knowledgeable.
Squash is one of my favorite vegetables in winter, and I love a number of them. Acorn, Butternut, Buttercup are favorites with great flavor of course, each with their own unique prep, cooking, and best practices. Aldi used to sell all their squash at an "each" price of about $1, vs by the pound today. It was a great deal, and I'd often come home with 20-40 lbs to cook up and freeze. Today however, a +$1.00 / Lb, not a great deal.
But now, I'm tempted to go a different route. Why pay +1.00 / lb when I can buy a 30 Lb squash for $5-7, or under $0.30 / lb? How??
Even in Florida, now there are a number of "heirloom pumpkin" providers that sell huge pallets of huge "pumpkins" and squash that I don't recognize. Each are 10-50 Lbs and cost $5-7. They are "squash", and many seem to be great for cooking, but they have huge variations on flavor and prep. There are few great guides, even from their providers.
For those of us that cook, making a mistake with a 30 lb squash would just quash my desire to keep experimenting. So, either here or on another site, let's try to nail down at least a few varieties that are "huge bargains", with "huge great flavor profiles". We know that the traditional decorative pumpkins are a huge disappointment, watery, with little to no flavor.
Example tips:
Acorn Squash -- You'll find lots of great recipes, but let's just deal with how to easily get the meat out, after gutting the seeds, without a lot of work or ending up with those very large inedible threads. I've tried to cut them up into each of the raised sections, like sectioning a grapefruit. But then you have to find and cut out the cord that evidently is so tough, that the cord restricts growth, which is how they end up with that acorn shape, instead of just round. After sectioning, There is one tough cord for each indent. Next, there are the ends, both at the tip and at the stem end. These too are very tough, and so cut them off, usually about 1/2" on each end. Next, I have to try to cut that cord out, which is hard to see, and easy to miss.
I then try to "peel" them, using either my great 8" chefs knife, or a veg peeler. Both methods are difficult and time consuming. As a result, I seldom buy these acorns, since they are just too much trouble. Or, I simply follow the common method of cutting in half, gutting the seeds et al, filling or prepping, and then roasting. Of course, then you still have to try to eat while avoiding the skin and that cord in each section. Nah, even with it's unique and great flavor, I'll use the other varieties of butternut or buttercup.
I still want to find a great guide to help sort out which "giant pumpkins" will be great to cook with. Today I have a "nice 22 Lb" turban-like squash I'm going to try to "process". I'm tempted to either drop it from about a foot or so up, or get my machete that I use to cut brush, just to get started. I'll likely try my chefs very thin tapered blade and see If I can cut a "pie shaped" piece out and cook that. I'll get a decent picture of it before I do.
Here's one guide, with has a lot of pics and a few descriptions. I'd like a lot more detail though for each. I'd also like to just concentrate on the huge kind being sold: https://www.liveeatlearn.com/types-of-squash/ Any tips, guides, or other website links would be great. (I know that in the S.E. format, there's no specific "question" and no specific "answer" per se, but I'll try to use this forum first. If that doesn't work, I'll add or create content elsewhere, and invite your help, advice, and contributions.)
Actually, this forum is designed for specific questions that lead to specific answers. It would be helpful if you remove all of the extraneous information and specify your question. For example, "Can someone share a comprehensive guide for identifying, choosing, and cooking heirloom squash?" or "How does one choose an heirloom squash for cooking?" Please keep it to one question, but feel free to create a new post with a new question.
Most of the pumpkins that are grown for size or longevity for jack-o-lanterns aren't particularly flavorful. And make sure to clean you machete very well... the oils from poison ivy can stay on there for quite some time
moscafj -- Thanks for trying to help. Your reformed question seemed to me to not only be acceptable, but specific, asking only for a different website entirely--a site that can accept new (and existing) user's contributions without learning the nuances of the platform. I'd forgotten why years ago I stopped contributing on anything related to any Stack Exchange forums. I spent considerable time trying to shoehorn my inputs into this restricted format. -- Sorry, not worth the effort anymore.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.515237
| 2024-09-22T20:43:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129260",
"authors": [
"DaaBoss",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110874
|
Why do cooked potatoes taste bland when they cool down a bit?
Plain cooked potatoes have become one of my favorite go-to foods during the recent months. I just wash them, put them in a pot, cover them with water, put in a bit of salt, cook them until they are completely tender (about an hour for the average-sized ones) and eat them with the peel on, only adding salt and butter.
During eating, which probably takes me 10 minutes, the first potato always tastes much better than the last one. It's hard to describe the difference, but I'd say the first one is mellow, creamy and flowery, while the last one is more chewy, bland and boring.
What kind of effects could cause this (in my opinion, pretty significant) taste difference? And could something be done to lessen or avoid it? I suspect the 10 minute cooling time on the plate has something to do with it, although reheating an already-cooled potato doesn't seem to improve it at all. Any ideas?
I don't know what's causing your problem. I always chunk up potatoes before boiling them 20 minutes. Your hour long boil might be overkill for some flavor component. Most times with whole tates, I'll stab them repeatedly with a fork, put in a covered bowl and nuke for 6-8 minutes. They taste good. Microwaving one are time might solve your going blandish the next day problem. There IS no next day with this cooking method.
@WayfaringStranger Unclear wording on my side, sorry. I'm not saving some for next day, I'm eating all of them immediately, so they just cool down a bit on the plate, that's all. Long cooking time can't be the problem since fresh out of the pot they taste just as I want them to.
Maybe your salt is diffusing into your potato in a short time frame, decreasing a flavor gradient you find tasty? Seems plausible, but I doubt there's experimental evidence in the "Journal of Food Science" to back that up. -It's a guess.
@WayfaringStranger If you mean the salt I put on before eating (and not the one in the cooking water), that can't be the reason either since I cut the potatoes in half one at a time. When cooking is finished I put them all on a plate, then I cut the first one in half, salt it and eat it before going to the second one (to keep them as warm as possible).
I can't say more than the fact that the first bite of anything is the best or worst and your mind or palate gets used to that. There are studies I can't point to and common knowledge and advertising slogans: "Good to the last drop!"
the potatos continue to cook after you take them out of the pot ... maybe they are simply overcooked ... next time put a couple of them into cold water to stop the cooking process ... after you finish your meal, warm up the cold potatos in a microwave oven and taste them
I see multiple possible reasons for this. Here are some tests you can run. Be sure to run each test on a separate day, so you have a normal appetite for every test.
The first two tests are to determine if the change of temperature is actually the cause of the loss of flavor. The last two tests are to examine some other possible causes.
Test number one
Cook a potato as normal, put it on your plate and let it sit for 10 minutes, as though this is your second potato. Eat the cooled potato, and compare to how you remember your usual second potato tasting.
If the cooled potato seems just as bland/boring as the second potato normally is, you now know that temperature is a significant factor.
If you enjoy the cooled potato as much as you normally enjoy your first potato, you now know that the temperature is not what makes the difference.
Test number two
In this test, you eat two potatoes. The first potato is cool, and the second potato is hot. Start cooking a potato. After 20 minutes, start cooking another potato of the same size. When the first potato is cooked, take it out of the pot, put it on your plate, and let it cool for 10 minutes (just like in the first test). Eat the cooled potato. When you're done eating the cooled potato, the second potato should be finished cooking. Eat the second potato.
If you enjoy the second, hot potato more than you enjoy the first potato, you now know that temperature was the main issue.
The solution is to cook your two potatoes sequentially. Start cooking the second potato ten minutes after you start the first one. Eat each potato as soon as it's ready. That way you can eat both potatoes hot.
Or, use an insulating wrapper to keep the second potato warm while you eat the first potato. An oven mitt would probably work well for this purpose. However, as Kat suggested in the comments, it's possible that the second potato is actually getting over-cooked while it sits. If that's the problem, insulating the potato to keep it warm would make the problem worse. So you could do another test comparing the two methods (staggered cooking times vs same cooking time + insulating the second potato).
If you don't enjoy the second, hot potato as much as you enjoy the first, cold potato, you know that temperature is not the main issue. Proceed to the next few tests.
Test number three
I always find my mouth feels quite dry after eating a potato. Perhaps you're not drinking enough water with your meal. After finishing your first potato, get a full glass of water. Drink the entire glass (at a reasonable speed, not gulping it). Let it settle. Then eat the second potato.
Test number four
Sometimes the tastebuds get tired of eating a single thing. One solution is to introduce a small amount of a strongly contrasting flavor. So, try eating a palate cleanser between the two potatoes. Since potato is a very mild taste, you will probably want a sharp flavor, either spicy, sour or bitter. Some options include: pickles, pickled ginger, a slice of apple, bitter herbs, a dab of horseradish sauce, sauerkraut, chutney, kimchi, a slice of lemon or lime (eat the fruit and the rind for a combination of sour and bitter).
The palate cleanser doesn't need to be major component of the meal, but rather a garnish of something that will startle, surprise or shock your tastebuds. After a bit of this surprising flavor, returning to the potato should seem safe and comforting. Like how a chilly breeze makes you enjoy snuggling into a warm sweater.
Potatoes are actually known to have a high satiety index compared to nutritionally similar foods like pasta and rice. That means they give you the "physiological and psychological experience of fullness." Because of this, some people actually recommend potatoes as a food to help you eat less.
If none of the above tests helps you find a solution, it might be that your body is telling you not to eat the second potato. Perhaps it's telling you you've already had enough calories. Or, maybe you still need more calories, but your body wants them in a different form (such as green vegetables, protein and/or fat). It might be worth comparing your usual daily food intake to a recommended balanced diet, just to make sure you're actually getting the nutrition you need.
Another possibility: maybe it's not the temp, but as it sits, it continues cooking? So once you get to the second potato it's overcooked. Maybe you could test this by letting the potato sit in something that would keep it warm for ten minutes? That'd differentiate between cooling and extra cooking.
@Kat That's a reasonable possibility. I added a note to my "test number two" about it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.515661
| 2020-09-27T21:41:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110874",
"authors": [
"Kat",
"MaxD",
"Rob",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"jsotola"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108893
|
Are there any resources specifically on cooking with high-heat wok burners?
I recently got myself a high-power wok burner, like the ones they use in professional Asian restaurants. Cooking with it is a ton of fun, but sometimes I find myself overwhelmed by the heat output. The wok is getting too dry, the seasoning is burning off, stuff starts to stick like crazy, and so on.
Are there any books/video guides/websites on specifically cooking with high-power wok burners? I know there are many Asian cooking channels on Youtube, but the ones I found just cook, and don't explain any theoretical basics.
Just found this thread: https://forums.egullet.org/topic/158134-info-on-how-to-learn-high-heat-chinese-wok-cooking/ Pretty much exactly what I'm asking, but unfortunately there's nothing useful in there, just some of the usual nonsense aka »it's a matter of experience and can't be explained in theory«.
You're in luck -- there was a paper earlir this year than analyzed the physics of making fried rice by professional Chinese chefs:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsif.2019.0622
My take away from that was that you have to flip things fast when you're dealing with high heat -- three times per second.
Almost every list that I've seen of wok cooking recommendations calls for re-seasoning at the beginning of your cooking. Most go into wok selection and what's needed to initially season a wok. Some discuss prepping all of your food in advance, as when you're cooking with that sort of heat, taking a minute to chop up the next ingredient means you've already burned what's in the wok.
Here's a small sampling, although not all are specifically about high heat cooking (except maybe for the one that's from a manufacturer of stoves, so it seems a little spammy):
https://inquiringchef.com/how-to-cook-with-a-wok/
https://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/how-to-cook-with-a-wok-article
https://www.seriouseats.com/2010/06/wok-skills-101-stir-frying-basics.html
https://firstwefeast.com/features/2016/10/how-to-cook-with-a-wok/wok-two
https://www.bluestarcooking.com/top-10-tips-for-mastering-wok-cooking-at-home/
Most of the links I already came across while googling, unfortunately rather generic stuff that doesn't mention any of the problems I'm encountering. The paper looks awesome though, looking forward to read it when I have time. How did you find it?
@MaxD : I have no idea. I used to be an admin & webmaster on Fark.com, and have a rather strange background (civil engineering, library & information science, computer programming / system administration, and I support solar physicists) so I read a lot of strange websites.
Oh, and I also saw that NewScientist had an article last month that might be of interest, but I no longer work for an institution where I have access to it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0262407920308654 . (access is only $2, so it's more affordable than most science journals, but you should check your local library, and if they don't have it, ask about ILL (Inter-Library Loan))
Don't know this site too well, but if I click the »Get Access« button on the top left, it says 30$ for me. Also, if the summary feels it's necessary to mention that ingredients should be prepared in advance, it's probably way too basic for what I need anyway.
@MaxD : and this is why I hate scientific publishing. They often have different pricing depending on where you are (country & institution), giving discounts to the richer / more prestigious places because they want you to read it and cite it, so other people will then pay to get access to it. If you're going to spend $30, you'd probably get more detail from Grace Young's book : https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003IYI70A/
I already have that. It's specifically focused on working around the limitations of the low heat of a standard home stove, which makes it pretty useless in my case.
Through an endless clicking odyssey, I finally discovered this youtube channel.
It has both explanations and flawless English subtitles, and is by far the most useful resource I've seen so far.
This channel is also great, although not as helpful because there is just the cooking without any explanations.
To add to the existing answers, J. Kenji López-Alt published The Wok: Recipes and Techniques in 2022; it collects similar information from the above in book form. (López-Alt is one of the authors of the Serious Eats page in the accepted answer.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.516278
| 2020-06-06T23:31:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108893",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"MaxD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33029",
"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
}
|
125786
|
Difference between wine and sparkling wine in cooking?
Would there be any point to using sparkling wine over ordinary white wine, when the gas will escape in cooking? I suppose bubbly might have some variant flavor profiles, but Serious Eats says that beyond sweetness and tartness, picking different (flat) wines will impact the final dish but subtly or negligibly most times. Has sparkling wine got anything that straight wine couldn't offer, or might it give any trouble? Googling suggests it doesn't, but I want word to trust.
Just to be explicit. the 'wine you'd drink' meme is not pertinent.
Well, it's become a stock phrase, to the extent that your oblique reference was possible. And I've sometimes seen it thrown off in lieu of going into things. Whether any Funny Videos are based on it I wouldn't know...
No. I'm not asking which wine is better but whether (degassed) bubbly differs in properties from wine. The Eats article doesn't mention sparkling wine. That's why I said the matter of quality/price wasn't pertinent.
Sparkling wines are more acidic than most still wines, and the acidity will be noticeable in your food even after cooking. They are not more acidic than some acidic wines like Vinho Verde, though, so if you'd normally use an acidic white in the dish, a sparkling will work. Or you can cut back other acids in the recipe.
The only place I can imagine the carbonation making a difference would be in batters, where it might supply some additional rise. However, there are very few batter dishes that use wine as an ingredient.
There are some dishes which expect, and need, sparkling wine. Zabaione, for example, or Champagne mousse. What these recipes share in common is that the sparkling wine is not cooked, since (as you guessed) doing so will cook off most of the carbonation. There are baking recipes that claim that using sparkling wine makes a difference, but I haven't found any from sources I trust.
There are a number of batter dishes that use beer as an ingredient that could have the sparkling wine swapped in as a substitute, and you could probably use it in a bread or cake as a leavening agent.
@nick012000 Batter, probably yes. Bread and cake - not if you are counting on yeasts, and the carbonation is probably too weak to be effective in quick bread or most cakes.
Cool. How is it that you say sparkling wine tends to be sweeter but Sneftel says "wine used for" sparkling tend to be dry?
It turns out that @Sneftel is right and I'm wrong on this. While sparking wines taste sweeter, they aren't actually sweeter, it's a result of the carbonation and other differences in composition: https://vinifero.ch/blogs/discover/the-sweetness-levels-of-sparkling-wines ... so updating my answer accordingly.
Well, just to get it out of the way, carbon dioxide dissolved into water partially transforms into carbonic acid, which gives it a bit of a tang.
But that’s going to be entirely drowned out by the qualities of the wine itself. The wine which is used for sparkling wine tends to be quite dry and mineral, with no oak character.
Those are the only relevant differences for cooking with wine, other than in something like a gelatine where the gas would not be allowed to escape.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.516630
| 2023-11-11T17:52:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125786",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Stephie",
"ariola",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91896
|
The quest for the perfect croissant
I've been practicing baking croissants for a couple months now. I'm getting the hang of it (I feel) but I'm missing a crucial step that I cannot master and can't put my finger on how to fix it. I'll share my process below and I'd appreciate advice on the process. I like being an 'exact' (nearly science) cooker, so to understand my process, ingredients and temperatures. Please feel invited to be critical!
Ingredients:
- 300g flour (10.7g protein / 100g),
- 150g french butter
- 150ml/g water
- 10g sugar, 8g salt, 8g dried yeast
Step 1:
I mix the dough and kneed it for about 5 minutes. The result:
Step 2
I roll the dough to a (near) rectangle with a thickness as shown by my finger.
Step 3
I place the slab in the fridge for about 40 minutes, after which it emerges quite hard, but still sufficiently foldable. Three-quarters or two-thirds of the slab is coated with the butter (all 150g of the butter)
Step 4: Starting of lamination
I fold the dough as such, followed by rolling it out to a thickness of 1 cm again, and then another fold as also shown below:
Step 5
I let the dough rest for 40 minutes in the fridge, and then perform another double fold, followed by 40 minutes, and another fold.
Step 6
I let the dough rest in the fridge overnight, using a partially wet towel, or other semi-air tight cover
Step 7
In the morning (+8 hours), the dough is taken from the fridge and feel fluffy and soft, as expected with a risen dough. I roll it out to a final thickness of 1 cm as shown:
Step 8
I cut triangles using a regular kitchen knife and add the little cut at the long end to start rolling (shown in front):
Step 9
This is what they look like after rolling. I let them rise for another 30 minutes before entering the oven, pre-heated to 230 degrees C, or 450 Fahrenheit. There's also eggwash on top for a nice brown tan.
Step 10
After 20 minutes, they emerge as such:
Examining
The taste is great, really. But I'm not content with the structure. It's too bready and I feel croissants should have a web-like structure with very thin layers within.
In particular with the result, I wonder what has happened. What I observe is:
The oven tray is quite wet after the croissants emerge from the oven. Is it the butter that ran out? Why?
Even though the top of the croissant has great flaky-ness, the inside feels more like a regular bread but with butter infused into it.
I would suggest you check the water content of your butter. Different brands can have widely different base water content. Based on recipes I’ve used to make croissants (try Paul Hollywood or a blogger called Joanna Cismaru ‘JoCooks’. I believe either one or both go into detail about this aspect of croissants. Preferably look for 95% butter - so less than 5% water. Good quality French butter is a good place to start. I use President brand when I want to make pastries.
I’m suggesting this because you mention that your baking tray is wet after baking, which signifies that the water content from your butter/dough is leaking out and there’s a lot of excess steam being produced which stops the pastry drying in the oven heat and result in slightly soggy heavy bakes.
Another thing that might help - it looks like you’re spreading the butter on the dough before folding? The recipe I use actually has you roll the butter to size between baking parchment then chilling until hard, this stops the butter being absorbed into the dough as much and keeps your layers more distinct. On subsequent rollings you want to work quickly so the butter doesn’t soften too much before re-chilling. Again, my recipe allows 2 hours between rolls rather than your 40 minutes.
Also you might think of repeating your lamination roll/fold/chill process a few more times. The more folds, the better the lamination.
Chilling the butter sounds like a sound strategy, but I'm less sure about your mention of the water content of the butter - I don't think water from the butter would be able to make the pan wet, between the small amount of actual water involved and the evaporation that goes on in a baking oven. It would make more sense for it to be actual butter that leaked out - which adding a few more folds as you suggested may fix (for increasing the surface area available to hold the butter).
I think that your butter was too warm. Here's a good trick to remedy this: take a piece of wax paper or food wrap, fold it in half, put your butter in the fold, roll it out, and square it up. Once you got have a square of butter, put it in the fridge. Roll out the dough and when you are ready for the first layer, chill the dough and then place the square of butter on it. After each fold, chill some more, basically your looking to get separate layers of butter and dough.
It sounds like you're baking the croissants very soon after rolling them, specifically I'm not seeing a reference to another rise before baking, and the rolls in your photo don't look just-risen, either (sharp edges where rising tends to smooth things out). This can lead to a denser end product, and breadlike rather than flaky seems a likely consequence.
I would suggest add another rise just before baking, let the dough relax and the yeast re-puff the dough. That is, after all, where the interior web comes from, the little air pockets formed by the yeast.
Apologies Megha, I should have added that before entering the oven, and after taking them from the fridge, I let them proof for another 30 minutes. I added that to my original post now. Would you say that should be sufficient?
@Grassant - It could help a lot, though I'd be surprised if 30min was enough - usually raising dough to double takes an hour over here, though I suppose different environments (especially temperatures) can make a great deal of difference. I would suggest trying to add a bit more time to the rise (it takes little effort to test out if it helps) but beyond that, as Barbara suggests, keeping the butter chilled might help separate the layers a bit more.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.516903
| 2018-08-25T08:34:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91896",
"authors": [
"Grassant",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67665"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100624
|
How long does pizza dough keep in the fridge?
The recipe is 500g flour, 325g water, 20g cake yeast, 10g salt and 20g of olive oil. After kneading I split it into 4 and store them individually in oiled freezer bags and store in the fridge at 1C.
Usually I eat them within a week but sometimes it happens that the last dough gets baked after up to 2 weeks of refrigeration. Today was one of those days and it got me wondering, how long can it really last?
Googling gave me the answer of 3 days... yikes
I've probably made over a hundred pizzas well past the 3 day mark though and even at 2 weeks they come out perfectly good.
The flavor peaks at around 48h of refrigeration IMO, after that it keeps getting more sour and yeasty but not to the point where I'd consider it bad. Also the rise that goes into the edge of the crust isn't as impressive after 72h but pizza is mostly flat anyway!
So.. whats the real limit?
As long as there's no mold in it your dough should be ok. Flavour and texture will start to degrade due to the yeast dying out (as you found already).
Technically, you'd get better results if you feed that dough regularly with more flour like a sourdough - which can last virtually forever!
Other than that you could also freeze the dough balls and just defrost a day before you use it. Frozen dough should last for months with no change in texture or flavor if there's no freezer burn.
I didn't know that dough freezes so well. I've generally had pretty poor results with freezing stuff but I'm a fan of preparing big batches for later use so I gotta try this out.
@user81993 I usually split my pizza dough in balls after the first proof, brush them with olive oil and freeze them in ziploc bags. Whenever I want pizza I just put one in the fridge overnight and take it out 1h or so before shaping it.
There isn't a specific limit.
Two bad things will happen to dough in the fridge as it ages:
The yeast exhausts all available food and dies, leaving the dough underinflated, sour, and even alcohol-tasting;
The dough gets moldy, which happens at some undefined time based on the presence of viable mold spores in the dough or in the fridge.
As you've already observed, if you're lucky both of the above things can be at tolerable levels even after a few weeks.
Wheat gluten is extremely stable (7-10 years), so I don't think it will degrade within reasonable refrigerator times. Presumably other ingredients in the dough would suffer some kind of degredation over weeks or months, but I don't know what those would be.
That said, if you're planning to keep your pizza dough for more than a few days, consider putting it in the freezer where it will last for months to years.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.517484
| 2019-08-07T06:38:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100624",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67767",
"user81993"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119989
|
Getting the right dough for semolina-water pasta
I'm making pasta from scratch pretty much every day now. Any time I cook long noodles, they break up once I toss them gently in the sauce after boiling. What could I improve to make them stronger?
Preparation
I don't use recipes, just go by how the pasta looks and feels, so unfortunately unable to provide any measurements. I also only use the semolina-water mix (S Italian style), so not sure if there are some specific things I should do/look for when prepping my dish.
The texture of my dough seems right, smooth and dense like Play-Doh. I only knead until smooth all throughout, not necessarily 15-20 minutes like some recipes say. I've noticed when I press into the dough ball, it doesn't bounce back very quickly like some online demos show. Not sure if that's an indicator I need to add more flour or knead more.
I usually let the dough rest in the fridge for a few hours or overnight-- i.e. I usually just mix it up in advance and forget about it until the next dinner hah
I roll the dough with a pin until it's a little see-though and then cut into .5-1 inch strips depending on the recipe. The noodles are well dusted to keep from sticking to each other.
I cook for about 30 seconds in salted water and then cook the rest of the way in my sauce.
The pasta never tastes overcooked, it has a nice bite to it. The dish turns out delicious, just disappointed when the noodles break up in half or thirds :)
Flour and water might be the only ingredients typical in dry pasta, but fresh pasta is a completely different dish. Serious Eats did a study of fresh pasta last year, including variations on how mich egg to use: https://www.seriouseats.com/best-easy-all-purpose-fresh-pasta-dough-recipe-instructions
@Joe Oh do you mean the semolina-water recipe has to be dried??
@Joe I guess I don’t mind using egg but was keen to stick with semolina for health reasons hmm… thanks for sharing the article, will read through it!
Bon Appetit channel was my first reference for pasta shaping with semolina dough, I assumed they were used fresh because they include stuffed pasta examples: https://youtu.be/Ew-3-8itpjc
It doesn’t have to be dried, but it’s just not as sturdy as pasta with eggs in it (especially egg whites)
There are plenty of fresh pasta recipes without egg (just flour and water)...not sure lack of egg is the issue here. Are you using durham flour, semolina, or a mix?
@moscafj fine grain semolina
Traditionally in Italy, hand made semolina pasta is generally of the shorter/thicker kind, such as orichiette or cavatelli, and not long/thin strips. Maybe try some of those instead.
Industrially processed semolina pastas such as spaghetti or lasagna are made using extrusion equipment at high pressures, which I believe strengthens them. Not sure if you could do this by hand to be honest.
pici is a hand-rolled noodle, made with flour and water, common in Tuscany and Montalcino. It can easily be several inches long. Certainly thicker than the OP's rolled out noodle, but just pointing out that semolina-water pasta isn't always short types.
Helpful— so the dough is essentially better for a denser pasta shape, regardless of length. I also had success with this dough and ravioli, but I think the shape supports holding it together.
@moscafj : pici is rather thick, so although it may be long, it’s not as slender as most strand pasta.
@mascafj - yeah but pici is still much thicker than something like spaghetti. I said "shorter/thicker". I think the issue here is the noodles the OP describes are probably both longer and thinner, which is why they are so fragile and breaking up.
@Joe ....as I state in my comment. Yes, that is correct.
Yeah what I made was essentially pappardelle, wouldn’t hold up like pici
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.517753
| 2022-02-28T19:17:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119989",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Joe",
"Ryan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92119
|
Food industry: where does buttermilk go?
I've recently home- made butter.
Starting from 500g of cream I've obtained, let's say, 250g of butter and 250g of buttermilk.
The fairly big amount of by-product/scrap, the buttermilk, due to:
half of the initial cream mass
the high cost of cream
(at least in Italy) it is a ingredient used in really few recipes
This, let me think on how dairy industry deals with it, because I do not see many uses of buttermilk so:
Does dairy industry produce buttermilk in that way?
Are there any other uses for buttermilk?
Is buttermilk converted into other food?
EDIT: First, mine it is a pure curiosity. I do not need to use buttermilk anywhere or in any recipe.
Second, here in Italy, buttermilk is a very rare product: I've never neither seen my mother or my grandmother using buttermilk in recipes for e.g. cakes nor listed as ingredient in industrial cakes or other desserts; furthermore, I've never used it as beverage. Even tough, Google returns some recipes with buttermilk.
There are lots of tasty recipes that use buttermilk available if you do a basic search for them. They're about the only thing that can answer your question (because "other uses" and "converted into other food" are both just convoluted requests for recipes, which are off-topic here). But in short, you can't make butter without making buttermilk, which has plenty of uses. Enjoy trying them out!
Asking if other foods are made from something is surely, at face value, a request for information not recipes?
"Convoluted" request for recipes? -- Prob. not.
I see this as an interesting question and something I'm curious about myself, not some weird way to ask what @mattia.B89 can do with it.
@AllisonC there's a difference between cultured buttermilk (what most recipes expect) and this sort of buttermilk, and a straight swap may not work as expected.
Updated OP, with other info
I imagine that most such buttermilk is fed to animals, as is the remaining whey from cheese production.
@LeeDanielCrocker that looks possible; do you have any reference source?
If it's made from 'sweet cream', and not soured milk (it's easier to churn soured milk, so this was typical in the old days), then what's left is skim milk ... although there might be an extra buttery taste to it.
Some of it's used to make powdered milk; I don't know if any is actually resold as skim milk. It's possible that cultures are added to make 'buttermilk'. And you might think 'there'd be way too much milk powder left over vs. the amount of butter made' ... but it's used in protein powders for body builders and infant formula.
... and it can be used for animal feed. (and it's safer than other milk by-products, as it won't cause as much indigestion as the whey left over from cheese making (salty), or drained from greek yogurt (acidic).
Update: I was basing my answer on something that I saw years ago (How It's Made, Unwrapped, some other similar TV show), and some knowledge of uses of powdered milk. However, in doing some additional research:
Skim milk is separated off before the butter making process. It's done by centrifuge, so the input to the butter making process is higher fat content (and lower moisture) than what a home butter-maker would be working with.
Protein powders are typically made from whey powder, not non-fat milk powder
Much powdered milk gets shipped to developing countries, as it's cheaper to ship and store. (less weight and volume, and doesn't need refrigeration) ... but much of that is full-fat powdered milk
Non-fat milk powder is used in a lot of baker products and processed foods, as it can serve as a thickener, increases protein content, and promotes browning of baked goods. (and it can be lower cost, due to reduced shipping and storage costs) So when you see 'milk' on an ingredient list, it might actually be powdered milk.
So, there's probably not as much left over as we'd expect based solely on knowledge of home butter churning and the amount of butter production. And I was off on where all of the non-fat powdered milk gets used.
I upvote and attach that in Emilia region, birthplace of Parmigiano cheese, butter is made from by-product of Parmigiano, then buttermilk goes to pigs or filtered for protein powder
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.518070
| 2018-09-06T16:41:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92119",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"Erica",
"GdD",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"Lorel C.",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69105",
"mattia.b89"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92263
|
Why is my pizza dough so tough?
I'm using Ramsay's recipe from the US version of his Home Cooking book. The recipe is:
4 cups bread or 00 flour
Two 1/4 oz packets of yeast
1 Tbsp sugar
1 Tbsp fine sea salt
1/4 cup EV olive oil
1 and 1/3 cup warm water for the yeast
The first few times I've made this I just used AP flour because that was what I had on hand. I bought some bread flour to see how much of a difference I noticed. With the AP flour after about 10 minutes of kneading it gets nice and smooth. But with the bread flour it was tough, rough, and just wouldn't get into a nice consistency. I added water little by little to try to get it right, but it still never became smooth.
Does one need to use more water with bread flour?
(I've only been cooking for about a year, so when things aren't consistent I get confused.)
What style of pizza are you looking to make?
Neapolitan I guess. Just something thin that bubbles a bit when cooked. That's what I had with the AP flour.
If I'm understanding correctly, the crust came out okay when you used AP flour, but was more difficult to work with and came out tough when you used bread flour.
So to answer your question, yes, you do need more water when working with bread flour than when working with AP flour. From Serious Eats regarding bread flour:
Will it produce a traditional Neapolitan pizza with a super-crisp, airy, and delicate crust? No. But the pizza it does produce is great for its own merits.
Bread flour requires a little more water than most other flours to produce doughs of equivalent viscosity. Because of its high protein content, some people may find bread flour doughs a little difficult to stretch — it has a tendency to bounce back. The key is to make sure that it's well-rested before you being to stretch it.
You may find that the linked article has a lot of good information about different types of flours.
From what I've read, because bread flour is a strong flour, it requires less kneading that AP flour. And a personal observation, regardless of what I am making - biscuits, a loaf of bread, a pizza dough - when I need to add more liquid later in the process rather that at the beginning, it somehow affects the results.
I would say that if you're happy with the results using AP flour, keep using AP flour. If you want to experiment using bread flour, add extra liquid at the beginning and knead less, making sure to rest the dough before forming the crust for baking.
You may also want to try other recipes. The pizza dough (for a thin crust) I make doesn't use any sugar and a very small amount of oil. And I've read that traditional Neapolitan crust uses only flour, water, yeast, and salt.
I read the question and Googled lots of sites. I think the problem might be one of trying to match the flour mentioned by Gordon Ramsay in the recipe to what you are buying for your use in a supermarket, online or elsewhere.
A Google of 'What is the protein content Tipo 00 flour' yields answers that are all over the protein scale I'm used to (mind, I am in the United States and never baked with flours grown elsewhere). Tipo 00 flour ranges in protein from what we call 'cake flour' to what we call 'bread flour' ('strong flour' to my friends in the UK and Gordon is from Glasgow).
Tipo 00 milled from soft white wheat is like our cake flour. Flour milled from hard red wheat is like our bread flour. It is my understanding that Tipo 00 refers to a very fine grind, not the type of wheat or its protein content.
King Arthur Flour's bread flour is milled from hard red wheat with a protein content of 12.7% (good luck trying to pin down other flour manufactures as to what kind of flour and what its protein content is!)
General Mills is very evasive! They told me their AP flour is a blend 'various flours' and its protein is a range from 9.5% percent to more than 10.5%. I stopped using General Mills flour when they had a big recall a couple of years ago and they wouldn't tell me specifically what flours they were recalling (I guess it was a blend)
Mind, recipes are ONLY guidelines! If you had good luck with the brand of AP flour you used, stop experimenting with a questionable non-specific recommendation of a wealthy celebrity who is not stating at all the specification of the main recipe ingredient and causing your pizza to be unsatisfactory! Gorden is making his wealth from the 23, or so, restaurants he owns worldwide and performing as a television entertainer, NOT cooking pizzas!
I took the liberty of formatting this answer because before the edit, I found it very difficult to read. Now that I can read it, I find it quite helpful. +1 When composing posts, consider that a large portion of your readers have less than perfect vision. Walls of text are difficult for many of us to navigate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.518441
| 2018-09-14T20:26:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92263",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Josh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69237",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110200
|
Variations in cooking method for Jasmine rice
I was at the supermarket today and noticed that the 2 brand of Jasmine rice that they sold had very different cooking times.
Tesco own brand. 75g rice with 113ml water. Simmer for 20 mins, drain, rinse in boiling water and serve.
Tilda brand. 60g rice in boiling water. Simmer for 10-12 mins, drain, cover, stand for 3 mins and serve.
Is this just a different cooking method (ie the first aims to use exactly the right amount of water so there is am element of steaming, whereas the 2nd uses excess water, and is thus simply boiling) or would it be a reflection of the way the way the rice was processed ?
Also, in the first method, what would be the best method to rinse ? E.g. pour it all into a fresh pan of boiling water for a few seconds, pour boiling water into the pan after draining; put it in a sieve and poor boiling water over it, or somthing else?
I have no idea how best to rinse with boiling water; I've never prepared rice that way.
That being said, there have been many studies of how much water to use with rice, and most have shown that the vessel that the rice is being cooked in is quite significant.
It mostly has to do with how much moisture evaporates as you're cooking, and so cooking larger batches of rice typically requires a lower ratio of water than a smaller batch of rice. Changing to a tighter fitting lid would also mean less evaporation loss.
And so the first set of instructions, in which you drain the rice after cooking is going to be more reliable for someone who is a novice at cooking rice.
But rice will also change some as it sits in storage. It's possible that you might have a brand that is not "new crop", and thus has dried more from when it had been picked than some other brand.
And there are differences between strains of rice. Although "jasmine rice" is a major category, there can be some subtle variations between strains, and between even the same strain growing in two different places. So this can account for differences in cooking recommendations, but the really special variations are going to be held aside and sold under a more specific name in a country that appreciates rice more (and thus will pay a higher premium for it)
You can also get differences in rice with how it's milled -- that is, the outer layer is scraped off to remove the bran layer that would make it white rice. This will dramatically affect cooking time, and may affect recommendations for how or when to rinse the rice. The 'fine bran' on the rice can give an off flavor, but newer milling techniques has created 'no rinse' rice that doesn't require trying to rinse it off before cooking.
And then we get into issues that different people prefer their rice cooked differently. Do you want a drier rice where every grain is individual, or do you want something stickier that clumps together?
So basically ... neither of the instructions are necessarily wrong, and neither one is necessarily better without knowing what type of result you're going for. Both actually do steam the rice some, as there's the bit of time on the second one where you leave it covered for a few minutes.
I would try to cooking rice according to the package instructions the first time, and then modify those instructions if the results aren't quite what I wanted. Unless you have a rice cooker, in which case, use the appliance's instructions the first time.
Yes, those are two boiling methods.
One is using "right" amount of water that get absorbed by rice (that indicate rice being dobe) and second one is using excess amount of water. Both methods are valid although first one is much more water savvy.
But I have no idea why (and how) rinse cooked rice with boiling water. It's similar advice to using pasta water to help the sauce stick but properly cooked rice have enough surface on itself.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.518804
| 2020-08-15T10:26:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110200",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116836
|
Is there some "trick" to be able to eat jalapeños without getting an "upset stomach"?
As a young teenager, I used to eat pizzas full of jalapeños and Tabasco on them, and very much enjoyed the spicy taste. In my mid-to-late 20s, I started feeling really sick when I ate these, even though at that point, it was far more infrequent.
Now, in my post-35 age, I tried making a pizza at home with jalapeños (no Tabasco) on it for the first time in a long time, and the eating experience was indescribably good. As in, it turned the entire pizza into a completely different dish; from something rather bland into an explosion of taste in my mouth! This is what pizza is supposed to be like! Wow! I immediately told myself that I'm going to buy those little glass jars with jalapeño slices in them every time I make pizza from now on...
Of course, X hours later, the next day, I "paid" for this lovely eating experience in the bathroom. What a nightmare. The less details I give about this, the better. You can probably imagine the kind of pain. I became completely sick and felt horrible for the longest time, shaking and freezing, lasting days. Clearly, my body is no longer able to handle/process the jalapeños, which couldn't make me more sad.
I don't remember ever having any such problems whatsoever as a kid, or even until my (roughly) mid-20s. Possibly it's related to stress-induced internal stomach wounds or something.
Is there something -- anything -- that can be done in order to allow me to eat these wonderful jalapeño pizzas yet not suffer that kind of torture afterwards? As fantastic as the taste was, I simply cannot justify putting myself through it again, knowing what it results in afterwards.
....welcome to post-35...
I have little to offer aside empathy. I now order my Mexian food "hot or mild?" with a very despondent "mild." Feels like a defeat every time. Finding good flavor is still possible...but I miss me some super spicy fer sher. :,(
Don't eat chillies on an empty stomach
I would like to remind everybody who wants to answer or comment that we take our "no health-related advice" very strictly. First, please do not discuss the possibility for other causes for the reaction. Second, do not post any suggestions which are not culinary in nature (that is, how to cook or serve the jalapeños. It doesn't matter if other solutions exist, they are off topic and will have to be removed.
@rumtscho: this is not a case of ‘what’s the healthiest way to prepare (x)’. This is a ‘you might have poisoned yourself’. Should we also delete every question about dealing with allergies? Getting chills and shakes from food is not normal
@rumtscho: I kind of agree with Joe. Frankly if you want to fairly remove all health advice, you need to remove all mention of food poisoning as well, since OP didn't ask about it. Also, I don't see how "look for a substitute that doesn't elicit the same reaction" is not a culinary suggestion, but "it was probably food poisoning and the jalapeños might not have been to blame" is...? Unless the other answer isn't hidden because of the reputation difference? I don't know. Not my problem. Have a nice day!
@kitukwfyer you are right, I missed that answer when removing the others.
@Joe I wouldn't delete the questions about dealing with allergies. The problem I had with some of the answers and comments is that we were basically trying to diagnose a medical condition triggered by the meal. Our voting system is not suited for picking the truth out of "you have food poisoning", "you have an allergy to jalapeños" and other suggestions in that vein. Answers will have to assume that the OP knows the correct diagnosis. If you are worried about the OP's health, I can imagine leaving a comment suggesting that it might be prudent to get checked by a qualified professional.
@rumtscho but the comment suggesting it might be something else like food poisoning was deleted.
@Kat such a comment would have to be worded carefully. I went through the deleted ones, to see if there is one that I should undelete. They are about guesses at what this might be, and/or questions about further symptoms. They might imply the potential of the problem being misdiagnosed, but they do not state that outright, and are also misleading in the direction that we might assist in finding a diagnosis.
This question needs to be removed. I has no relevance to cooking (e.g.how to prepare foods). The normal reactions to eating jalapenos do not include "upset stomach" and indicate food allergies, food poisoning, or similar...so the only relevant answers have been dis-allowed (perhaps rightfully so). Essentially, the moderator(s) have forced answers be confined to speculation, superstition or wive's tales.
@GregNickoloff please see the corresponding meta question. In short, we have kept it until now because in some cases, cooking technique and kitchen methods can matter physiologically - e.g. how to prepare beans to reduce gas. We have not “forced answers to speculation etc.”, and I am pretty sure that the community would deal with that kind of response accordingly.
@Stephie It is because of the meta question that I say this posted question is not relevant to cooking. The "beans" argument supports this position as well. Science suggests to us that various processing and cooking methods do not affect gas levels produced by eating various legumes, but physiological variables and regular diet do.
Well... First of all, no. As alluded to in a comment, as one gets older, one's digestive system tends to be less accepting of what one puts in it.
Nevertheless, "the dose makes the poison". You probably can't eat an inch-deep layer of jalapeños on your pizza anymore, but that doesn't mean you can't have an "explosion of taste".
For one thing: Pickled jalapeños aren't just spicy. They're also vinegary and salty. And if I had to pick out what about a jalapeño pizza makes for an "explosion of taste", I'd actually rank the vinegar above the spiciness. Now, brands of pickled jalapeños also vary quite widely in spiciness, and in vinegariness. So if you could find a brand that was quite vinegary, and not as spicy (relative to the vinegar), you'd likely regret things less the next day.
The other thing to consider is that when you eat the pizza you mostly taste the outside of the jalapeño; but your intestine is tasting the whole thing. Thick pieces of jalapeño, with a low surface-to-volume ratio, won't be much more taste-explodey than thin ones, but they will be more other-things-explodey. As an extreme example, if you swallowed a whole jalapeño without even chewing, it wouldn't taste that spicy... but you'd still pay as though it was. So consider mincing the jalapeños up. For that matter, consider sprinkling some of the jalapeño brine on the pizza after cooking.
You may also be able to retrain your system to some extent, if it's been a long time since you've had that kind of spicy food
I think your last paragraph is key here. Consider the difference between a whole or coarsely sliced garlic clove and a crushed one. I've never tried putting a jalapeño in a garlic press, but I might now.
Your reaction sounds like it might be a medical problem of some sort. It doesn't match my personal experience of over-indulgence in hot peppers. I'd advise talking to your medical provider before experimenting further.
I don't know about the day after but eating yoghurt or crème fraîche or filmjölk calms down my stomach while eating.
No. there is no "trick."
We really don't know all the variables at work here and many of the solutions that could be proposed are not cooking or food handling techniques, per se.
People tolerate various foods individually and the vast majority of people are able to eat jalapenos (and other peppers) without adverse side effects at any age.
Many foods, when eaten in various quantities will produce adverse side effects in some people. Some people do develop seemingly new digestive sensitivities (or seem to lose them) as they age. The question becomes is it the "hotness" of the jalapenos that's bothering you or the "pepperness" that's doing it? Would hotter peppers make it worse? Or, would the same quantity of bell peppers be uncomfortable for you as well?
On the other hand, the reaction you experienced certainly could have been due to factors other than the jalapenos themselves. Food poisoning, contamination, allergies, etc. are legitimate possible causes of your "non-standard" reaction to ingesting jalapenos.
I can only suggest that you experiment with it and see if you can find your "happy place" in regard to "flavor explosions" on your pizza. With the information supplied, this is the only way to narrow down the cause and maybe find a "trick" to it that works for you.
Try eating smaller quantities of jalapenos and see if your personal side effects are lessened. If you're after "the burn" try eating lesser quantities of hotter peppers, or the converse, greater quantities of milder peppers and see if the outcome is more to your liking. Some people have told me that varieties of jalapenos that are pickled with carrots in the jar are less "reactive" than ones without. Try eating fresh jalapenos instead of the varieties that are cooked and pickled.
As Chris H. suggested, you might be able to "re-train" your digestive tract to tolerate the desired "taste explosions" by working up to it by eating increasing quantities or including jalapenos in your diet more frequently in contexts other than pizza.
As an Indian who grew up on hot, spicy food, I used to make fun of co-workers in restaurants in US and ask for everything on hot level at ethnic speciality restaurants. I paid for this in some years, when my older body no longer had the ability to take the spice. Now even in India, i avoid spicy food like the Andhra-style cuisine. Long story short, i think as you get older the tolerance level goes down, as with many other functions in body. Lower your dose and it will still be spicy but manageable.
as another old guy that likes hot and spicy stuff, here are a few things that i have found out:
as you eat hot spicy food, the time it traverses your mouth is a lot less than the time it traverses your 'lower digestive system' and the mucus membranes are similar in some respects..
hot spicy food is something that you build tolerance for. if you start slow, you can certainly acquire a pain free enjoyment of hot foods. or, you can just hit it hard and suffer a while and you will get there that way too.
if you dont eat hot spicy stuff for a while your tolerance will fade and you will again get the stomach problems until you can get used to it again
bottom line is this is a tolerance issue like growing calluses for playing guitar
Try taking a dose of Pepto before you eat. I love spicy food but if it's been a while since I've eaten any, I have to coat my stomach with Pepto first or shortly after. This works for me and my daughter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.519151
| 2021-08-13T14:03:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116836",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Kat",
"Neil Meyer",
"Stephie",
"Theodore",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95657",
"kitukwfyer",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"zedmelon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115373
|
Is MSG able to penetrate meat like chicken breast and steak when dissolved in a brine?
I am trying to figure out whether adding MSG to a water based brine will allow the MSG to 'penetrate' the meat. I know it is soluble, but I'm not sure whether this means it will be able to diffuse into the meat in the same way regular salt does. I remember reading a claim (a comment online) that the size of the molecules involved in the MSG means it will not work.
Is this true? I am hoping to actually try this out, but it would be helpful to know the basic food science/chemistry behind it to figure out the optimal concentrations etc.
I know that applying MSG directly to turkey works well, and no need to brine!
Yes, MSG will penetrate, and it appears to diffuse about 1/3 as fast as table salt. You will learn a lot from this link. You'll need to scroll down quite a bit, or search the page for MSG.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.520332
| 2021-04-22T15:21:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115373",
"authors": [
"Mark Stewart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78955"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113404
|
Chocolate won’t harden up on my cookies
I melted chocolate chips and a small amount of oil and coated cookies. Here's the problem: the chocolate won't harden up. Is there anything I can do NOW to help the situation, or is this just a sticky, melty, lost cause?
The best part about making a mistake with cookies is that you've now got an excuse to eat them all and start again.
Well, you could melt more chocolate, without the oil, and try over-coating the cookies. Basically, trying to encapsulate the still liquid spread. You could also try serving them frozen, or re-coating while frozen/cooled. What happens, or what would be a good idea, other than just eating the cookies, will largely depend on what you really did. You haven't described it in enough detail for us to know. Other than being able to say that the current coating isn't ever going to be hard at room temperature, there's really not much we're going to be able to say without more detailed information.
why did you add oil to the chocolate? oil (what oil, btw?) is liquid at room temperature, so it would lower the melting point of the mixture.
Cookies with gooey chocolate on top? I'm not seeing the problem... but I would be happy to taste it!
The problem is the “small amount of oil”. If you measured wrong or just eyeballed it, you now have a chocolate spread instead of a solid coating.
Storing the cookies in the fridge may or may not be enough to solidify the chocolate coating, but apart from that, there’s nothing you can do to change the chocolate. Depending on what matches the cookie flavor, dipping the sticky part in something like grated coconut or ground almonds may at least protect your fingers somewhat.
A dusting of cocoa could help with the stickiness as well.
Also possibly what kind of oil, and how fresh is the chocolate. I made some chocolate-covered vanilla fondants as "favours" for people around the place using leftover chocolate a few days ago (without trying to add oil), and they were OK but inclined to "sweat". The really rough stuff- scraps and shavings of various types- I saved for myself and added a little olive oil since that's what I had to hand, it's ended up a bit gritty but still looks a bit sweaty.
In addition to Stephie's answer, when melting and re-cooling chocolate, it needs to be tempered properly. That refers to how the chocolate is cooled and "seeded". The fats in chocolate can have several different crystal structures. That affects the texture of the chocolate.
The particular structure your chocolate has depends on how it's tempered. Here's one method from Ghirardelli:
Grate or chop the desired amount of chocolate. Place two-thirds of the chocolate in the top pan of a double boiler. Heat over hot but not boiling water, stirring constantly, until chocolate reaches 110°–115°F. Place the top pan of the double boiler on a towel. Cool chocolate to 95°–100°F. Add the remaining chocolate to the top pan, stirring until melted. The chocolate is now ready to be used for molding candies, coating, or dipping.
Adding the unmelted chocolate is adding a "seed" of the desired crystal structure so the melted fats will match the structure of the unmelted crystals.
It may have something to do with the temperature that the coated cookies are stored at, I mean, some room temperatures can be significantly higher than others. Perhaps the chocolate will harden in the fridge?
If the temperature is not the case, get this: You can drizzle or brush on another, likely thin, layer of pure melted chocolate (who doesn't love more chocolate :p) over the existing chocolate coating.
If my calculations are correct, pure melted chocolate will harden on soft surfaces (like Nutella) just as well on hard surfaces (like more solid chocolate).
I would say take one cookie, turn it upside down and place it on another cookie. Unless the mixture is too fluid you should be able to eat the cookies this way.
Maybe try sugar powder or cocoanut flakes to bind the oil? If that fails you can still take one cookie, turn it upside down ....
Welcome to SA! I'm afraid this answer isn't related to the actual question. The question asks for a solution to salvage the coating.
the second part is
Sounds like you might have messed up the tempering of the chocolate.
In order to get chocolate that doesn't melt easily at room temperature, you need to properly temper the chocolate. This is a very complicated process involving holding the chocolate at specific temperatures for a specific period of time. Additionally, adding oil to the chocolate might have resulted in the tempering time and temperatures being altered as a result of the adulteration of the chocolate.
You may need to throw away all of the chocolate and making new, unadulterated chocolate that has been properly tempered, but if the problem is that the chocolate hasn't been tempered properly and the adulteration haven't altered its characteristics too much, you might be able to save it by scraping it all off of your cookies, then melting down some chocolate and adding your adulterated chocolate into it before following a proper tempering process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.520458
| 2020-12-27T04:39:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113404",
"authors": [
"Amazon Dies In Darkness",
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"GdD",
"Makyen",
"Mark Morgan Lloyd",
"Miarau",
"Richard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90482",
"njzk2"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113497
|
Are these green areas on my cured ham a health problem?
In below images I highlighted a green coloration on my cured boar ham. It cured for 5 days in an open plastic box in my cellar. I put a lot of salt around it and a weight on top (it was maybe 75% submerged and fully coated with salt and powdered celery).
I then hung them in my cellar, but when I was cleaning them I saw what I encircled in the images below. These seem to be near the holes we used to hang the animal from. When I smell the holes there is a very faint smell of maybe sweat or something. It is hard to tell if it is actually a bad smell from the boar or not.
This is my first time curing/drying meat so I am not very confident obviously, can anyone see if I have a problem? (P.S. I know the lighting is not ideal in the pictures, sorry)
It's not going to be possible for us to determine safety. However, I will say that 5 days in salt does not sound like long enough for something that size. For example, when I make bacon, pancetta, or guanciale, I am curing for at least a week...and that is for pork belly or jowl...significantly thinner. Recipes for home-cured prosciutto that I have encountered call for 3 to 4 weeks in salt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.520900
| 2020-12-31T15:26:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113497",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121579
|
What liquid should I use in a mango curry?
I want to make a curry using mango (frozen as there aren't any fresh mangos where I live). I usually use tomato puree for curries, but I am never happy with the result.
Even after simmering for two hours with generous amounts of spices bloomed in oil it still just ends up tasting like tomato. I tried coconut milk, but it just caused the same issue, but even worse. Is there something I'm doing wrong? Should I use a different liquid?
Authentic to what cuisine?
Honestly i dont know, really just anything that isnt a basic "add curry powder to tomato puree and cook for 20 minutes" there is probably a better word i could have used but i cant think of it
"authentic" curry doesn't really have a lot of liquid at all. See this recipe, for example, that uses a bit of coconut milk but says you can even skip it and basically just have mango with spices, cooked.
That's only the case for a single quisine @Esther. Thai curries have a lot of liquid, for example.
I've changed the question to remove the word authentic because the replies are just becoming about that word and not the answer i actually want, which is what liquid i should use to best bring out the flavour of the ingredients. That recipe looks good and i might try that but i do generally just want to know what liquids are typically used in curries and whar effexts they have on the dish
Tomato & mango are not a great combination, FWIW. Generally, mango curries have coconut milk/cream.
If your curry tastes flat/bland even when using generous amounts of spice it is very, very likely you are not adding enough salt to the dish. You can add salt to a curry with regular salt, soy sauce, or fish sauce.
If you want a curry to taste strongly of mango then the liquid you should use is...mango. Eaten by itself mango is very flavorful, especially when fresh and ripe, the frozen mango I've used is not that strong and can be overpowered by other flavors. So start with mango as the base, and add other liquids like stock, yogurt or coconut milk sparingly.
If it's the spice not coming out then you may need to rethink the definition of generous. Good, strong curry flavor needs good, strong heaps of spices, especially if they aren't fresh or are weak to begin with like you get in many supermarkets. If you can source your spices from an asian supermarket, health food store or anywhere else that they get good quality. Buy small amounts often rather than big packets which then sit around for ages losing flavor.
maybe you should add mango jam ?
Welcome to the site! While you may be onto something your answer is a little light on detail and seems like a comment. What aspect of the question are you addressing and how will your suggesting improve the result? There's nothing wrong with using the edit button to improve an answer.
From what you have shared @ShadySpiritomb, I think the root cause could be the use of frozen rather than fresh mango. Most fruit has a very high water content, and freezing will cause the cell wall to rupture. When defrosted, the fruit will have a mushy consistency, and the flavour may be diluted by any additional moisture captured during the freezing process.
The first thing I would do is defrost your mango in a sieve over a bowl in a refrigerator. That way, you can reheat the flesh separately in the sauce until you reach the correct consistency that you want for your curry. Before doing that, though, I would prepare a basic curry sauce by frying off onions, garlic, and whatever spices etc. you intend to use. Once these have been cooked off, I would add the reserved mango juice and reduce this by 30-60%, continually tasting until you are happy with the balance. By reducing the liquid, you will concentrate the mango flavour.
Once this sauce is ready, add the mango and heat through. Depending on the condition of the defrosted mango, this may not need a long time; if the fruit is really "mushy", heating through will probably be sufficent. If it needs longer to soften, add earlier in the process.
If desired, any tomato or coconut milk etc. should be added after the mango juices have reduced and before you add the mango flesh.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.521037
| 2022-09-06T10:55:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121579",
"authors": [
"Banjoe",
"Chris H",
"Esther",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"ShadySpiritomb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93193"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
127822
|
How can I remove the smell of bicarbonate of soda?
I used sodium bicarbonate to soften chickpea curry.
Now I cannot eat it, because it smells horrible.
How can I remove this smell?
Recipe:
Soak 400 grams of chickpea in water for 24 hours
Add one sliced big onion and one cubed big potato to hot oil
Add tumeric powder, coriander powder, and cumin powder—1 teaspoon each
Add 2 teaspoons of garam masala powder
Add 2 teaspoons of salt
Add chickpeas
Stir everything for 20 minutes
Add 2 liters of hot water
Add 2 teaspoons of bicarbonate of soda and cover with a lid
Cook for 1 hour
Can you describe your cooking procedure and/or recipe here? If there's baking soda in the curry, it sounds like you have some steps out of order.
@FuzzyChef, Check the edit.
That also seems like too much baking soda. When soaking ahead of time I found a little goes a long way
For the record, sodium bicarbonate has no odor at all. Any atypical smell in the final dish will be the result of some reaction between it and another ingredient during the cooking process.
... but bicarbonate of soda (more often called "baking soda" by cooks in my part of the world) does have a strong, bitter flavor.
I would leave the bicarbonate of soda out altogether, and cook the chickpeas longer (e.g.: an extra hour) - or use a pressure cooker.
I'm troubled by the "add" at the start of step 2. Please confirm that after step 1 you drained, rinsed and set aside the chickpeas, and that step 2 would better read "put onion in oil" etc.
@MarkMorganLloyd, Yes, I did ringe and wash the chickpeas well.
@user366312 OK, let's investigate another possibility. Roughly speaking, what was the temperature when you did the soaking? Was there a layer of slimy scum (as distinct from a few bubbles) on the top when you went to wash them? How long did they stand after being washed before you started cooking them? While- as most others agree- bicarb doesn't have significant taste, my suspicion is that your peas were spoiled by a lactobacilllus or similar.
@JohnBollinger I suspect that you're confusing "baking soda" i.e. sodium bicarbonate with "baking powder" which contains tartaric acid or similar.
Generally when one is cooking chickpeas with soda to soften them, one par-cooks the chickpeas with just water and soda, drains them, rinses them, and then finishes cooking them with the other ingredients. You can also soak them overnight in cold water with soda instead of boiling them with it, but in all cases you throw away the water with soda in it.
Putting the soda in the curry like you did is very unusual, and I would expect it to taste bad.
if it's only a pinch (1/8 tsp or less, I guess? for about 200g dry chickpeas) you don't taste it in the final product. I've seen recipes that use similar amounts directly in the food, and I've done so myself with no ill effects. The amount here, though, will not hide nicely.
Esther: yeah, but if you want to actually soften them, you need more soda than that ... like 1/2 tsp.
I don't think you can remove the smell, it might be best to throw those ones out and start again.
You have added a lot of bicarbonate for the amount of chickpeas. Recipes that include bicarbonate generally seem to go with a half teaspoon per pound (roughly 2.5 g per 450 grams), not 2 teaspoons per 400 g.
There is generally no need to soften them with bicarbonate at all. A gentle boil or simmer for an hour or two is usually sufficient to cook them completely after an overnight soak.
If you wished to cook them in the curry, leave the salt out until the chickpeas are cooked or close to cooked. Adding salt (or at least calcium and magnesium salts, which are part of sea-salt) tend to harden the chickpeas so that they don't soften as easily. With added salt, they should still cook but it will generally take longer to do so. Though apparently soaking in salt water can soften beans more readily according to this Cooking SE page.
According to the FAQ on the site HeyNutritionLady.com, the causes of hard beans are not usually related to cooking, but rather to age of the beans. Apparently soaking only reduces stove-top cooking time by about 10 minutes, but can remove things from the chickpeas that cause gas and bloating in some people. They also say that hard water (high calcium content) can also cause the chickpeas to harden when cooking - bicarbonate can lower this, but you shouldn't need much.
It's pretty unusual to add the bicarbonate during cooking.
The way they taught me, the bicarbonate goes in the soaking water. You let sit overnight then throw away the water with the bicarbonate, rince and cook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.521421
| 2024-03-07T00:55:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127822",
"authors": [
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"Esther",
"FuzzyChef",
"John Bollinger",
"Kingsley",
"Mark Morgan Lloyd",
"hodale",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97812",
"user366312"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125647
|
I have 12 cups of tomatoes, but my recipe calls for 10. What do I add?
I'm making salsa, and the recipe calls for 10. What do I add to make this turn out?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! If you can include the full recipe and a brief explanation about why you need to use all 12 cups, that'd likely help us understand the question better. While I could understand confusion if you have too little of an ingredient and need to reduce the recipe, I'm not quite sure why you need to use all 12 cups. Thanks!
It calls for 10 whole tomatoes, or 10 cups of tomatoes? If the latter, what's stopping you from just following the recipe, and using the rest of your tomatoes in something else, like a salad. (Or if they're canned, heuvos rancheros or something else the next day.)
Without seeing the recipe the only way we can advise you is to give you a few general options:
Don't use all 12 cups of tomatoes.
You say you're making salsa, which generally calls for fresh tomatoes. If that's the case, just don't use them all. Set aside two cups worth and go ahead with the recipe as written. This is likely the simpler option in that it doesn't require math.
Use them but don't change the recipe.
While 20% extra is a good amount, salsa is generally the sort of thing that's pretty flexible and you're going to do a lot of adjusting to get it to taste the way you want anyway. Prepare it to the recipe with the extra tomatoes and adjust the taste at the end.
Scale everything up by 20%
You have two extra cups over 10 cups, which is 20% more tomatoes. If you multiply all of the amounts in the recipe by 1.2, you should get an exactly scaled-up version of the recipe. This can get a bit weird if a recipe calls for things like whole eggs (which I'm assuming this does not) but as noted in point 2, the precision of the recipe amounts is unlikely to matter much.
The key takeaway here is that it's salsa - that's a pretty flexible thing, to be honest. The spice level of the peppers you use will vary drastically based on various factors, even within a single variety. Similarly, the flavor of the tomatoes and onions can be quite different depending on which types you use, so you're never going to get exactly the same thing twice in a row.
The important thing with recipes like this is to recognize that you can just wing it a bit and that you want to get to something you like the taste of, not something that's precisely followed a recipe.
Prepare the recipe with 10 and then add the extras at the end if you think it can handle more tomatoe.
"Don't use all 12 cups of tomatoes." This is so obvious that OP must not have explained enough in her question.
@RonJohn Sure - which is why I asked for more details to be added to the question... but it's answerable even without them.
It’s all about ratios.
If you want to use your original recipe, note that 12 instead of 10 cups means an increase of 20%, or 1/5. If you increase all other ingredients by the same ratio, you get the same salsa, just more of it.
If you, for example, cut the tomatoes by accident and don’t want to make more salsa (or don’t have more of the other ingredients at hand), just leave the extra 2 cups out and use them in another dish.
You can even freeze the leftovers. For cooked dishes like pasta sauce, it shouldn’t matter whether you use fresh or frozen tomatoes.
For all other options, like altering your recipe, we’d need more details.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.521820
| 2023-10-26T04:27:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125647",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Peter Cordes",
"RonJohn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126487
|
Can I use a can of 'make your own' marmalade beyond the 'best before' date?
I have a can of ‘make your own marmalade’. It’s three years after its 'best before' date. Will it be safe to use?
Can you tell us more about the product? Perhaps share a photo?
Where does the "best before" date come from in a marmelade you made yourself?
@njzk2 - Not a marmalade they have made, but a can of Seville oranges already peeled and cut up so that you only have to cook them.
@KateBunting why would anyone do that? Did peeling and cutting oranges became suddenly a mildly complex task?
Not 'suddenly' - canned Seville oranges have been on sale in the UK for many years. Fresh ones are only available for a short time and I suppose it is quite troublesome to prepare enough of them for a batch of marmalade.
Canned foods should be stable for many years, and I've certainly used Ma Made brand well after its date. It is after all a best before (quality) and not a use by (safety) date.
However I've also rejected a tin only about a year out of date. It was slightly bulging and may have leaked (if not something sticky had got on the bottom edge somehow). When I opened it, to get rid of the contents, there was obviously excess pressure. It smelt slightly off, I think, but I didn't have a known good tin for comparison and the smell of Seville oranges is a bit unusual anyway. I've had similar with tinned tomatoes well past their date - my guess is that if there's a pinhole in the coating on the inside, acidic foods react with the tin.
So exercise a little caution, including when opening if in doubt.
I've had "neglected too long" canned mandarin oranges eat through the can. +1
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.522120
| 2024-01-27T14:30:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126487",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Kate Bunting",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"njzk2"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114797
|
Can I use liquid-form sugar to replace powdered-form sugar in meringue or sponge cake?
Borderline diabetes runs in my mom's side of the family so I'm taking some proactive steps to reduce empty carbs as much as I can. Sponge cake is something I make often and I always put less sugar than the recipe calls for.
But I'm thinking of replacing it entirely with something healthier. We already use honey or palm sugar syrup in drinks and other desserts, but I have not tried it on a meringue, which is a prerequisite for sponge cakes. Anyone here tried it? If yes, what was the result?
I also read in another post that you can replace sugar with corn starch for meringue if one does not mind having no sweetness. Anyone tried it before, and did it work?
In theory you should be able to replace the sugar with a liquid form. The purpose of sugar in meringue is to stabilize the foam generated by the whipping. It does this by preventing the foam from drying out and collapsing as the structure becomes weaker from a lack of water. Hence anything that can retain the water will help.
The one major difficulty that you might encounter is that liquid sugars contain water already, so they might make the foam too liquid/soft to retain the meringue texture. You may be able to overcome this by whipping a lot more, but it might not work. To get around this you could substitute some of the sugar with guar gum or xanthan gum, at 0.04%, both of which appear to stabilize the foam formation (PDF; see page 88).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.522420
| 2021-03-15T08:47:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114797",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114806
|
How to check if a vegetable is bitter without eating it
I want to know if my cucumber or ridge gourd is bitter before cooking, but for some reason, I can't eat or smell a slice of it to check. Is there any other way to check its bitterness?
(I'm hoping that there will be another way, for how else would factories that produce bulk food products use cucumbers or ridge gourds unless they have an army of workers whose job is to eat slices of each cucumber :-))
Food companies do have armies of tasters. They don't taste each one, they taste each batch, before & after processing; then they blend batches to arrive at their 'house' flavour.
@Tetsujin that's true for many processed products, but not for whole fruits.
See also How to prevent cucumbers from tasting bitter? for what to do if you do have bitter ones.
No, there is no other way. You have to taste it. Smell is a second best, but not as reliable, and almost unusable on a whole cucumber.
In recent years, there has been some quite good research on automated sensors for the detection of flavors or specified substances, and they can probably do it too. But beside all the obvious drawbacks, they are not magical, and they also need a slice of the cucumber to "test".
As mentioned in other answers and comments, companies don't have a way to escape that either, they use produce that is grown to be non-bitter (very interesting information from ChrisH how this happens for cucumbers) and they also have people whose job is to taste-test.
For cucumbers in particular, it's quite interesting.
Commercial growers use F1 hybrid varieties that produce only female flowers, and grow them in green houses or polytunnels, or under netting.
The reason for this is that in many cucumber varieties, the fruit from pollinated flowers is bitter; from unpollinated flowers it isn't. Picking reasonably early and ensuring even watering also helps.
When growing traditional and outdoor varieties you can remove the male flowers (identifiable by the stalk behind them) to avoid pollination, or buy all-female F1 varieties - but neither approach will help if there are male flowers growing nearby.
To answer the question, probably not.
But if you have access to good local in-season vegetables, there might be less chance of being bitter than vegetables that come from half a world away.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.522578
| 2021-03-15T17:44:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114806",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115046
|
Does freezing raw milk kills harmful bacteria present in the milk?
I have been drinking shakes made from frozen raw milk; just wondering that could it lead to any illness.
Does freezing raw milk kills harmful bacteria present in the milk?
You have many misconceptions about milk.
No, freezing in a normal home freezer does not kill bacteria. They typically just enter a dormant state and reactivate as soon as you thaw the milk. Freezing a safe food extends the storage life, but does not make an otherwise unsafe food safe.
The one exception to this I can think of is deep-freezing fish or meat to kill (certain kinds of) parasites. This doesn't apply to the OP's case, of course... different food, different bad bugs, and a home freezer can't get nearly cold enough for it.
@Sneftel - in the case of bacteria etc, colder won't help. They are routinely stored at -80 C or even liquid nitrogen (-196 C) in the lab. In fact, they are more stable at these lower temperatures than at -20 because of the ice crystal formation that goes on at -20
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.522803
| 2021-03-31T09:39:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115046",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Sneftel",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"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
}
|
115281
|
Reverse-Engineering Trader Joe's Garden Vegetable Soup
I'm trying to reverse-engineer Trader Joe's garden vegetable soup. I have the full ingredients list and the nutrition facts. However, I don't know what ratios to use (the recipe itself is very simple) for a 12-cup batch.
I'm guessing that reverse-engineering this soup formula is going to take some trial and error, but I'd like to make this as efficient as possible. Any suggestions?
Here is the ingredients list:
VEGETABLE BROTH (WATER, VEGETABLE BROTH CONCENTRATE [MIREPOIX {CARROT, CELERY, ONION}, SALT, ONION POWDER]), DICED TOMATOES IN JUICE (TOMATO, TOMATO JUICE, CITRIC ACID [ACIDIFIER], CALCIUM CHLORIDE), SWEET POTATO, CARROT, ONION, CELERY, TOMATO CONCENTRATE, MIXED GREENS (KALE, SWISS CHARD, SPINACH), POTATO, TOMATO PASTE, ZUCCHINI, RED BELL PEPPERS (RED BELL PEPPERS, WATER, SALT, CITRIC ACID [ACIDIFIER], CALCIUM CHLORIDE), LEEKS, EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL, SEA SALT, GARLIC, SPICES (BLACK PEPPER, THYME, RED PEPPER), CITRIC ACID (ACIDIFIER).
The ingredients are supposed to be listed from (largest amount used) to (least amount used)
The nutrition facts per cup are linked here
I know that based on the amount of fat per cup (2g), 4 tsp oil would be used per 12-cup batch.
The trouble with trying to reverse engineer something like a commercial soup is you can’t put it through the same heat process. A friend of mine won a competition to have her soup made commercially & they never did manage to match it from her original recipe. The manufacturer was one you would qualify as a ‘fresh’ soup, refrigerated carton not can. (Covent Garden for those from the UK)
How does the commercial heat process change the flavor?
I honestly don't know, but apparently it does.
Also there are very subtle differences such as water quality, PH etc. that may affect the outcome e.g. Scotch whisky etc.
I would sweat one of each of the vegetables (chopped) in 4tsp oil, beginning with the onion, leek, carrot, celery, and 2 sliced garlic cloves. Then add a TBS of tomato paste. Add zucchini and sweet potato, one each, chopped, Cook for a minute or two. Add 1/4 tsp black pepper and red pepper. Add 1/2 tsp thyme. Toss in one roasted red pepper, chopped, along with a 14 oz can of chopped tomato. Add 12 cups veg. broth and bring to a simmer. Toss in a couple of cups of chopped mixed greens. Cook until potato is done. Salt to taste.
wont the pepper and zucchini be mush by the time potato is done?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.522923
| 2021-04-15T20:56:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115281",
"authors": [
"Greybeard",
"Sophia ",
"Tetsujin",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93443"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78293
|
Can I use amaretti cookies in a cheesecake crust?
I'm making a cannoli cheesecake from this recipe (http://www.delish.com/cooking/recipe-ideas/recipes/a43604/cannoli-cheesecake-recipe/). I will be adding 1-2 tsps of cinnamon to the cheesecake batter and possibly almond extract. All the recipes say to use a graham cracker crust, but that doesn't seem like it would be as authentic. Can I use crushed (ground) amaretti cookies, like in the cookies below? It seems like it would behave similarly to graham crackers or Nilla wafers.
Again, I'm asking about the crust and the use of a different cookie (since I've never used something outside of wafers or graham crackers or Oreos for crusts). I understand that this will not be actual cannolis but a cheesecake designed to remind you of a cannoli. I've updated the title as well so hopefully my request for help is clearer.
"Cannoli cheesecake" doesn't sound very "authentic" to me - cannoli are deep-fried rolls of dough.
Thank you Stephie. That was very helpful. I know what cannolis are. And I understand that a cannoli cheesecake isn't the same as an actual cannoli, but I'm trying to get it as close as possible in cheesecake form. I had hoped that it was understood that I actually do know the difference between a real cannoli and cheesecake.
Hi OP. Please can you expand/explain the cannoli part of your question, because as @Stephie states it is dough. Edit: Sorry my comment came in at the same time as yours.
I think using all amaretti might create a crust that bakes too flat and too hard, since they contain no flour and are all egg white, sugar, and almond paste. For that same effect, you could use a mixture of shortbread cookies (such as Walker's) and almonds, along with about 1/4 teaspoon of almond extract. Run it all through the food processor and add the melted butter.
Thank you Dorothy. I know some flours aren't really flour but ground whatever (almonds, rice, etc.) and they still work in place of wheat flour. I wasn't sure with these cookies since I've never used them. I liked the almond flavor they would have imparted but don't like the flat, hard crust you suggested they might create (which is probably very accurate now that I see they don't have any real substance).
Sounds nice to me.
Sure you can. Just blitz the cookies in a food processor, and add a stream of melted butter until you can form the crust into a ball in your hand. Then just press the cookie mixture into the pan you want to bake the cheesecake in.
I concur. Just about the only function the cookies have in the "graham cracker" crust is to sit there, look nice, be delicious & soak up liquids if the need arises. No need to perform other chemical reactions. Any dry cookie can do the job.
I would hesitate to use amaretti for the crust. As Dorothy stated, they are related to macarons, baiser and other egg-white-based cookies. I'm afraid they'd give you a very rubbery crust or soak up too much liquid from the filling. You want something "sturdier", and graham crackers or any other "robust" cookie fits the bill. If you use a cookie with lots of fat, you might want to play with the crumb-to-butter ratio a bit to prevent greasiness.
You also wanted to be "authentic", so if I read your questiin correctly, tasting "more Italian".
But in this case, there is no need to use amaretti for the almond or amaretto flavour for "authenticity", a cannolo siciliano does not have amaretto anywhere, at least judging by a quick scan of recipes online.
I swear I hate the internet sometimes! I found several recipes two days ago that all had almond (in some form - sliced, paste, extract) in the ingredients (even when I looked up cannoli recipes). Now every recipe I see has white wine and lemon juice and/or zest. sigh I just don't want to end up with a cinnamon chocolate chip cheesecake. I do agree that the amaretti cookies wouldn't turn out well. I sort of feel like I should rethink the whole cannoli cheesecake thing. LOL
And you're right that I want it to taste as much like an actual cannoli but in cheesecake form. I'd make actual cannolis but the self life isn't as good, hence the cheesecake idea.
@Brooke for that, you might buy premade cannoli shells, crush and use them for the crust, and make a ricotta pie filling. That would hold longer, and could be frozen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.523155
| 2017-02-10T14:06:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78293",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Doug",
"Giorgio",
"Lorel C.",
"Stephie",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57611
|
How to get the pits out of clingstone peaches for peach butter
I'm making peach butter. The recipe I have uses the skin on the peaches (you put the peaches in a blender, put them in the slow cooker with sugar and spices, then use an immersion blender at the end to blend it all again). Unfortunately the peaches I got are clingstone. And they are small (like tangerines maybe), but the flavor is really good. If I just roughly chop the peaches and throw them into the slow cooker (pits and all), will the peaches eventually cook away from the pits, making it easy to remove them? Or will cooking the pits give off a yucky (bitter) flavor and taint the peach butter? Or is there a super simple way of removing the pits in clingstone peaches? Thanks. :)
Update 20 May: I forgot to mention that the peaches were about the size of plums. Of course a little more challenging. I ended up cutting chunks off with a paring knife and was able to get pretty close to the pit. Of course it was really messy, especially with the much riper ones! All the peaches have been blended and are in the crock pot slowly turning into peach butter! Next time I ask someone else to get me a ton of peaches, I'll make sure to specify freestone! :D
Update 21 May: I came home to a disgusting smell and mess in my slow cooker yesterday. I guess the temperature was too hot (it was on low) and it all burned into a horrible mess. I only had three ingredients in the slow cooker. $40 worth of peaches, 2 1/2 cups brown sugar, and 1/4 cup homemade vanilla extract (bourbon and vanilla pods). It was on for five hours overnight and looked great in the morning but it was still very thin (in fact it seemed thinner than the night before), so I left it on low while I went to work. I was gone eight hours and came home to a gross looking and smelling mess. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to attach a picture. :(
I've used a grapefruit spoon before ... not sure how much trouble that'd be with smaller ones, though.
Joe, how much fruit gets left behind when you use a grapefruit spoon? Obviously, I want to use as much of the peach as possible.
more than if they were freestone. I just find it's a useful shape to scoop around the pit, and the edges have the serations to help if you have to cut through a peach that's still a bit firm. Although, reading up on clingstone vs. freestone, I think it's possible that I was just dealing with less ripe freestone, as I'm typically able to halve the peaches without too much difficulty. (bits of the pit might stick to one side that needs to be cleaned up, but 95+% of the time, I can get 'em to seperate)
Sorry, still no picture. (and I forgot to mention that for the < 5% case, I can typically make a second slice and extract a quarter (sometimes prying it out, if it's still firm), then I take the grapefruit spoon to it). ps. that sucks. I wish there were 'smart' slow cookers that took a temperature, even if it weren't of sous-vide accuracy & precision rather than just 'low' and 'high'
@Joe, between the really slow computer I'm using at work and Stack Exchange saying they don't allow framing on pictures, I'm having a hell of a time. I don't have a frame or framing on the picture, so I'm not sure what it's talking about. It says to click if I want them to remove the frame so I click then it gives me an error. :(
As for the removing the pit method, I'll try that next time I end up with clingstone peaches. The paring knife worked OK since they were little peach nuggets instead of large peaches. LOL And, yeah, it would be nice to have at least four options for temperatures on slow cookers. Thanks.
sorry, no idea on the images. (I've been here for years, and have never inserted an image) ... but I know your pain -- I spent a day trying to submit a paper to IEEE last year, and they kept rejecting my PDF, claiming I had bookmarks in it, and other strange stuff that my PDF editing software showed none of. (and when I gave it to them to generate the PDF, it screwed up the fonts). At least StackExchange won't decide to block you after you try 5 times.
Your question about why it ended up a mess counts a second question you should ask in its own separate post.
@Ross Ridge, I edited to remove the extra questions.
You may try a mango pit remover. Slide the peach up as far towards the small size as possible. This is just a thought, I have not tried it.
Cut the peaches all the way around following the cleavage. Twist the fruit apart, then carefully trim the pit out of the half that held on to it with a paring knife.
If you were making slices for a presentation, then cut all the slices down to the pit. The first slice will need to be removed by rocking the knife back and forth across the pit to get it out, but the rest of the slices can be either snapped out or pared out if the fruit isn't coming free very well.
With a real clingstone peach, there is no "half that held onto it", it is "the 70% peach still sticking to the stone on each side" as opposed to the small rag which came off into your hand.
Although some fruit will be left behind its not all that much, and since the OP is making butter with it, just trim the meat off the pit. Although it might not be as clean, the twist method works for for cling fruit too. She's making a butter, not slices for presentation. I edited my answer to include making nice slices for presentation.
The stones seem to have an "equator" where they can be split with a very sharp knife (so you get two halves with spoon access) but that is murder on said knife :) What could help is quartering or eighting leaving the quarters/eights attached, then sacrificing one unclean quarter/eight (eat it straight if there is no other use) for paring knife access for cutting the rest off the stone.
I have a small handheld thing that looks like a spoon with sharp sides and a wooden handle that works great for clingstone peaches.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.523516
| 2015-05-19T13:29:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57611",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Christina Doble",
"Delores Chandler",
"Ella Yebba",
"Escoce",
"Freya Evans",
"Joe",
"Neeraj Neeraj dubey",
"Ross Ridge",
"Somar Chimon",
"a friend",
"flavourandspice",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125129
|
How tight should a vacuum sealed bag be?
From what I remember from new, my vacuum sealer doesn't seem to suck air out of the bag as well as it used to. While the bag does "Crinkle up", there seems to be more air inside the bag than I remember when the device was brand new.
I have used the same brand of bags since purchase, while they are thicker than regular polythene sandwich bags, they are not especially heavyweight or heavy duty.
This seems to be particularly noticeable with ingredients like pulses etc, sometimes the sealed vacuum bag is really rigid, sometimes it is not.
Would it be worthwhile trying another brand of bags or is my vacuum sealer showing signs of old age? The bags are smooth on one side with a criss-cross pattern on the other to allow air to escape. I have also checked the seals are seated properly and made sure the device is clean etc.
A little bit of air remaining won't be a problem. For sous vide, you don't need a hard vacuum. You're just trying to keep most of the food in contact with the bag.
Food that isn't touching the bag will transfer heat more slowly and take longer to come up to temp. But most sous vide recipes will be very resilient to small changes in temperature rise.
If you're able to, just test the temp of some of the food as you pull it from the bath. Then you'll know for your bags and your preparation that the recipe is sufficient to bring it up to your target properly.
You don't need a vacuum at all. You can use a ziploc bag and just force the air out. You do need the air out for the purpose of heat conductivity. You could also put some oil or other liquid in the bag, to both force the air out and aid in conduction. A couple of air bubbles is ok, as long as the food is submerged. For chicken breast (the post you refer to), I use a ziploc bag and some olive oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.524059
| 2023-09-01T15:56:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125129",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121774
|
Is a polypropylene container safe for sous vide use?
I have recently purchased a 10 litre semi-opaque (grey) plastic container which appears to be ideal for sous vide cooking. It was sold as food grade, freezer & microwave safe, and has all the relevant marks on the bottom to confirm this rating. It is manufactured from polypropylene and is (PP5) graded.
Looking online, all the other sous vide baths I see are manufactured out of much more expensive polycarbonate, and this container was a fraction of that cost. I assume here that polycarbonate has been chosen because it is more rigid than polypropylene.
I have tested this up to 85 Centigrade and the walls of the container flex and bow only slightly more than they do when cold. I doubt if I will sous vide beyond 75 Centigrade, am I taking a risk using this product here?
I don’t know if all polypropylene is the same, but I did find mention that 180°F / 83°C is the maximum recommended temp from one supplier (they said strength decreases above 180°F). I couldn’t find any strength vs temperature charts, though
Polypropylene is fine for use up to (or even past) boiling temperatures. I scald milk for yogurt by steaming it in used PP5 yogurt containers.
Indeed, this list rates PC as 10°C lower service (90-125°C) than PP (100-130°C), or basically equivalent for "high heat" PC at 100-140°C).
If you intend on using it as a container for your bath water, then the concern is mainly for long-term durability compared to polycarbonate. Often part of the added cost for 'nicer' polycarbonate containers is NSF/other certifying body testing and validation for commercial use, including durablity and ease of cleaning - liability control in industry, more peace-of-mind for home cooks..
If the flexing is acceptable to you within the temperature ranges you cook at then there shouldn't be a problem for flexibility.
Polypropylene has a melting point above 100C/212F and can be used above this temperature[1,2]. Microwave heating is very uneven and it's typical to develop boiling or even superheated hot spots along edges and corners - you may see some small melted rough patches on old microwaved Ziploc etc. food containers. In contrast, normal sous vide temperatures are very evenly below boiling, let alone polypropylene melting temperature. The risk of plasticizer/additive leaching from container > water > bag membrane > food is even lower.
Non-thermoset plastics lose strength well before they get to their melting point. If it starts to deform, you can get necking (reduction of cross section), which can cause rapid failure as the item can no longer support the same maximum force. (I’m working from memory: I took materials science 25+ years ago)
@Joe that's true - though at sous vide temperatures polypropylene can still support hundreds of cycles of strain stress on the scale of MPa's, while the hydrostatic pressure in the container is orders of magnitude lower - https://doi.org/10.1002/app.1981.070261141 , https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.11131
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.524245
| 2022-09-24T14:37:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121774",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"borkymcfood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99917"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124179
|
What effect does fat and sugar have on homemade bread?
I have been experimenting lately with different bread making techniques, particularly sandwich bread or 'Pain de Mie'. This differs from the previous recipes that have yeast, water, sugar, fats and salt in that it contains a lot more sugar and oil/fat - often tablespoon measurements rather than teaspoon.
These loaves have turned out really well, very soft and light and they also keep longer than the equivalent bread recipes. The dough has been quite "energetic" when rising, often to the top of the bowl on first rise, something that is generally alien to me as I have very cool kitchen.
I understand that the higher sugar content will cause the dough to rise more, but what role does the increased fat content play in this outcome?
When you say "keep longer" do you mean it's longer before the texture starts to degrade, or it last longer without growing mould? This could well explain the role of fat.
The bread stays softer without going as hard. Homemade bread doesn't last long enough in this house to grow mould !
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4032/what-job-is-the-fat-doing-when-i-prepare-bread-dough-and-what-to-expect-if-i-us
Adding fat to bread dough makes it softer and makes it stay moist for longer. The first effect, a more tender crumb, is a result of fat coating gluten molecules and preventing them from forming long chains. The improved shelf life is a result of the fat not evaporating the way water does, so it stays and gives the impression of moistness. Small amounts (a few tbsp) of certain fats can also help bread dough rise more (specifically saturated fats and mono-unsaturated fats).
Sugar, of course, gives the yeast easy food to work with, which makes it more active quickly. However, larger amounts of sugar can reduce yeast activity and make it take longer for the dough to rise. Being hygroscopic, sugar can also help keep moisture inside of the bread and keep it fresh for longer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.524515
| 2023-05-14T16:38:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124179",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Esther",
"Greybeard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"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
}
|
115420
|
Can I dissolve mint in water and drink it?
I like mint and sometimes put some in a cup of water. My question is can I grind the mint into a fine powder and dissolve it? Maybe if the water is warm? Usually mint like in this pic
just settles on top of the water and the flavor slowly seeps into the water. If I grind it up even finer will it dissolve? What should I use to grind it?
What you are asking for... Is it mint tea?
The OP is one of today's lucky 10,000 to learn about mint tea! https://xkcd.com/1053/
You can buy mint tea-bags, many types - saves all the faff getting the leaves back out, but if you really like mint, nothing beats using fresh leaves [same as most herbs].
I think the closest to "dissolving" mint is making syrup from fresh mint. That at least extracts quite a lot of the plants oils and menthole. But it's a wholly different taste than tea from the dried leaves.
@Tetsujin Unnecessarily buying single-use tea-bags is irresponsible for the environment, and the leaves aren't that much of a problem anyway. If they are, get this IDEALISK tea infuser from IKEA. I have one and gets the job done just fine.
@WhatHiFi - tea bags go straight in the composting, no worries.
@Tetsujin There is still a carbon cost associated with the manufacture and transport of any consumable, regardless of its ultimate fate (i.e. whether or not it is recycled). With that said, I think there are bigger climate change battles to be fought than teabags. Loose leaf/fresh tea/herbs do however taste much nicer.
@Tetsujin: Plus, if you have one mint plant in your garden or on your balcony, you'll probably have 20 of them next year. And the taste of tea with fresh mint leaves is incredible compared to any tea made with dried leaves.
You can also make mint sauce with a bit of vinegar and sugar, which is an excellent addition to a lamb roast.
I'll add, mint is an easy plant to grow and is very hardy. It responds well to being cut back which means you can harvest it often and it'll keep you in mint and it in health. Cut from the top just above a pair of leaves and those leaves will become new stems with more leaves. Enjoy!
No, mint won't dissolve in water (leaves are mostly cellulose), but it does make excellent tea.
Boiling water, steep 5-6 minutes.
For best results, I recommending purchasing whole leaf mint intended for use as a tea. That way you can experiment and determine which kind of mint you feel makes the best tea (or make your own blend, I like spearmint tea with a single peppermint leaf thrown in).
Thanks man so I can just buy whole mint leaves chuck em in some hot water and drink it after a bit?
@Jack Yes. You could even invest in a tea strainer, which lets you steep the leaves and then remove them easily (playing the same role as a prepackaged tea bag).
Op you can also make tea tea plus mint. Or green tea plus mint.
This does leave me wondering if one could grind mint the way that matcha is ground, to a very fine powder, or whether the oils would either be lost in the process or 'gum things up' and result in something closer to a paste.
@StevenStadnicki Theoretically, but I expect the oils would make it resist achieving a suspension. You would also be more likely to leave much of the essential flavor in the grinder. I would be interested in knowing if anyone has the interest to perform the experiment.
@Jack You can also grow your own. Mint is pretty low maintenance. It's one of the few things I've been able to grow in life with my "black thumb". Grabbing a couple of leaves when you need them is much cheaper and more convenient than buying them at the grocery store every few days
"so I can just buy whole mint leaves chuck em in some hot water and drink it after a bit?" That's what Brits did for ages with tea leaves... You can also grow your own mint.
Don't forget to add some vinegar for the best New Year Eve taste.
@Kevin mint itself is low maintenance, but defending other things from mint might not be - beware where you plant it, it can easily take over a vegetable garden.
@ptyx I can vouch for that: mint will spread to fill the available area and is extremely difficult to eradicate. But plants can be snipped and dried from the time they first shoot (i.e. now) to the point at which they flower, and a modest container will provide a very good supply.
@Kevin Noting of course that there's lots of varieties of mint, and lots of things that are members of the lamiales but aren't edible. Apple Mint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentha_suaveolens is a good start.
Mint leaves, and plant matter in general, won’t dissolve in water no matter how finely you grind them. They are largely made of substances which are simply not (very) soluble in water. At best you’ll achieve a “suspension”, where the particles remain suspended in the liquid for some time; but it won’t be stable, and eventually they’ll sink to the bottom or rise to the top.
If you want to make mint tea, strain the leaves out once it’s brewed.
Matcha is a suspension, isn't it?
Yes, it is. Similar thing there.
You have several options for mint-flavored water, and none of them includes dissolving dried mint leaves in it. As others said, leaves don't dissolve in water (plants would be in a lot of trouble if they did!)
You can make a mint tea. You pour hot water over the dried (or fresh) leaves, leave it for a few minutes, then strain it. Buying mint tea in bulk will be cheaper than buying it as seasoning, but make sure you buy the mint you want - teas are more commonly peppermint, while seasoning is more commonly spearmint.
You can place whole fresh mint leaves in a water carafe, then drink the water throughout the day.
You can buy mint essential oil and drop it into water. Be very careful with dosing here, the ratio is in the range of a drop or two per liter, or even less. The taste will be quite different from using dry leaves, but you might find out you like it.
You can buy commercial mint flavoring and dissolve it in water. The taste will be close to the essential oil, but easier to dose.
You can buy candy with a strong mint flavor and dissolve it in water. The taste will be again very close to the flavoring, but it could be easier to find the candy than the flavoring, and if you find out you don't like it that way, you can still eat the candy, while you will have less use for a bottle of mint essence.
You can buy commercial mint syrup (will contain sugar and coloring in addition to the flavoring) and dissolve it in water. The taste will again be close to the essential oil.
You can keep simply drinking the combination of dry leaves and water (or, if you prefer, pass it through any kind of mill you want, such as a spice mill or a coffee mill). It won't dissolve and you will have to drink the leaves along, but there is no harm in that. The taste will be different than mint tea - it won't be as "cooked", but it will also be much weaker.
You could theoretically look into making your own non-water infusions and extractions. This is mostly an enthusiast's niche.
For ordering the alternatives, I used a rough combination of taste, convenience and sensibility. You might find that your preferences differ, and that you are happiest with something that is not at the top of the list.
When you say essential oil, do you mean essence (or maybe extract these days)? I wouldn't consume any essential oils not marked 'edible'
@mcalex I mean real essential oil. There are edible essential oils made from kitchen herbs. What you posted is what I call "commercial mint flavoring" under point 4. And yes, essential oils can be problematic for consumption, that's why I included a caveat on dosing.
Take rumtscho's warning about dosing seriously. Undiluted, the mint concentrations found in essential oils are high enough to be poisonous. Also, wash your hands immediately if you come in contact with undiluted essential oils, as they can easily cause rashes (it's often obvious if this happens; your skin will feel cold).
In pure water, no plant matter will actually dissolve. You can get close by forming a suspension (this is how green tea made using matcha is made, as well as hot cocoa), but it will not actually dissolve because cellulose and lignin are very insoluble in water and account for a majority (by mass) of all plant matter.
There are three other methods used instead to produce beverages, sauces, and other water-based liquid derivatives from plant matter:
Decoction: This is the process used to make true ‘Turkish’ coffee, and consists of making a paste out of the plant matter and then boiling that. It tends to be the best option for extracting things that don’t dissolve well in water but dissolve well in oil or fat, and is also better than infusion or percolation at extracting things from roots, bark, and other woody plant parts, but is also the most actively involved of the three processes.
Infusion: This is the process used to make most teas, traditional maté, and traditional western-style coffee, as well as being the main process used to extract essential oils. It consists of simply putting the plant matter in water (or alcohol, or oil, depending on the type of infusion) for an extended period of time and letting stuff leech out through diffusion. Infusion can be done hot or cold, and in the context of teas is often referred to as ‘brewing’. This is the easiest method in general, as it requires very little supervision when done hot (just make sure it doesn’t boil over or end up with too little liquid) and essentially no supervision when done cold. The flip side is that it takes longer than decoction for an otherwise roughly equivalent strength preparation.
Percolation: This is the process used to make modern western-style coffee, and consists of preparing the plant matter in some way to make the compounds you care about more soluble in water (for example, roasting and then grinding the coffee beans for western-style coffee), and then pouring (usually boiling) water over the result into another container. This method is best used to control the concentration of things in the resulting mixture as the resultant concentration is largely just a function of the volume of water, volume of plant matter, and temperature of the water, unlike infusion or decoction where the total time taken also impacts the concentration. Repeated percolation can be used to get higher concentrations easily as well. This tends to work best with stuff that can be ground down into a coarse powder (like coffee beans or cinnamon bark).
For most plants in the mint family (not just Mentha species, but also stuff like balm, sage, catnip, and rosemary), decoction and infusion both work reasonably well, and all three need very hot water to be practical because most of the compounds that you actually want for flavoring or medicinal properties are not very soluble in water. Most preparations you will find for mint are likely to be infusions, though they may not be water based (infusing mint into ethanol for example is very easy, because menthol and the other flavorants found in mint are all very soluble in ethanol, and is part of how mint-flavored liqueurs were traditionally made). Note that dried versus fresh mint will give you different flavor profiles for otherwise identical preparations.
You can, of course, also just grind up the mint and create a suspension (just like with matcha or hot cocoa), though you will generally want dried mint for that. Fresh mint will give you a paste instead, and while that can be used to create a suspension, it will usually be a lot stronger in terms of flavor.
How about muddling fresh mint?
@ScottSeidman Muddling largely is just a means of speeding up an infusion or improving the efficacy of percolation. A mint julep, for example, is just an infusion of mint which happens to use bourbon as the solvent instead of water (with ice and sugar mixed in).
You can grind dried mint in any blender or food processor.
You don't need a particularily good blender, as long as the mint is dry enough you should end up with something similar to Matcha Tea, maybe a bit more coarse.
If you're not happy with the result you can use a mortar and pestle to make the powder finer, but be aware that it is a time-consuming process.
As the other answers already explained the powdered mint would not dissolve; however if mixed vigorously (as you'd do for matcha) it will take much less time to steep.
The beverage will also have a different (most likely stronger) flavour and texture due to the mint leaf particles in suspension.
Whether the faster steep time is worth drinking a "chunky" tea (or the hassle of filtering the tea through a coffe filter) is up to you.
Leave the mint tea in a ultrasonic bath overnight and most of the mint will be pulverized into the liquid. Add some soy lecithin as a emulsifier depending on how oily/waxy the mint plant is.
Though I never tried this with mint, it works well with green tea and comes out like a matcha tea hybrid.
Yes, you can, the water wil taste kind of minty then because the flavor of the mint is strained into the water.
Do you really mean “dissolve” (like sugar) or rather something like “extract the flavor” (like for tea or coffee)? You mention straining? The question explicitly says “dissolve”?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.524844
| 2021-04-26T21:06:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115420",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"Brian",
"Eric Duminil",
"JBentley",
"Jack",
"Johannes_B",
"Kevin",
"LightBender",
"Mark Morgan Lloyd",
"RonJohn",
"Scott Seidman",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Steven Stadnicki",
"Tetsujin",
"WhatHiFi",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93607",
"iBug",
"ian",
"mcalex",
"phipsgabler",
"ptyx",
"rumtscho",
"wjandrea",
"zzzzBov"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115508
|
Brisket been cooking for 4 hours and rock hard -- what am I doing wrong?
I cut it up into 1.5 inch cubes and cooked it at 200 degrees F. I'm trying to make brisket curry and It's just been simmering at that temp for the last 3-4 hours. It's still super hard. Did I ruin it already?
Brisket takes a long time as it's so tough to begin with, just keep cooking it. It may take another 2 or more hours to get tender. Just be patient, with brisket you have to cook for a result not a time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.525851
| 2021-05-03T01:11:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115508",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115514
|
Using osmotolerant yeast in regular bread
After the demise of my sourdough starter, I've decided to switch to instant yeast, and am trying to decide which to buy. Specifically, I'm comparing Saf-Instant Red and Saf-Instant Gold. The former is officially recommended for dough with up to 12% sugar, while the latter is recommended for dough with between 10% and 30% sugar. However, I've read several anecdotal reports that Saf-Instant Gold is perfectly fine for plain, low-sugar bread.
I don't bake often enough to justify stocking two different yeasts, so is Saf-Instant Gold (or any similar osmotolerant yeast) suitable for regular bread, and do I need to adjust any recipes if I'm using it in place of Saf-Instant Red?
Ideally, I'd like an answer drawing from a statement from a yeast manufacturer, substantial personal experimentation, or a published study.
It should be fine. There is no reason it won't grow at lower sugar content, though there is a possibility that it has slightly slower growth under lower sugar levels, due to optimization of the metabolism for the more bio-available sugars.
All the information that has been is saying is that if you have a relatively high sugar content in your bread, then use the "osmotolerant" variety, not that the variety won't grow under conditions outside of those specified.
I seriously doubt that recipe adjustment would be necessary. As I mentioned above, it may have slightly slower growth under low sugar conditions, but this is likely to be minimal and at worst require longer proofing/rising stages.
That's the impression I'd gotten, but I was hoping for something more definitive to back it up (such as a statement from a yeast manufacturer, substantial personal experimentation, or a published study). There's also the question about whether recipes need to be adjusted.
@AbeKarplus - see edit.
Thanks. I'm going to leave this question open for a while, in the hopes that someone can come up with the more definitive information I'd asked about, but if not, I'll accept yours.
@AbeKarplus - please do leave it open. I'm not a yeast expert by any means, though I do work in a microbiology department.
I suspect that the concern is that if it doesn’t grow well under certain conditions, other microbes have a chance to establish themselves instead of the yeast and out compete it, which could lead to failed bread and/or food poisoning.
@Joe good point, however, the amount of yeast used and the rapidity of most bread recipes (<3-4h) would make this unlikely and fairly obvious to most people as it would fail to rise.
I found this site from the UK with many reviews of SAF gold (osmotolernat) yeast, quite a few of which commented to the effect that use of the gold yeast worked well for normal or non-sweet breads and many that indicated they used the SAF gold yeast for all purposes. There was not a great amount of detail as to how results may or may not vary from use of standard instant yeast, or analysis as to why osmotolerant yeast can function successfully without the presence of a larger amount of sugar, but these comments do appear to be from experience and trial, for what that's worth.
https://www.bakerybits.co.uk/saf-gold-instant-osmotolerant-yeast
I found some more specific information here:
https://bakerpedia.com/ingredients/osmotolerant-yeast/
Osmotolerant yeast can perform well at:
Sugar content above 5% and as high as 25%.
Salt content between 2 – 2.5%.
Low water activity systems.
The web site cited this work as their source:
Reed, G . Yeast technology. 2nd edition. Springer Science & Business Media, 1991.
This is interesting, but we actually have the opposite question here. Can you write up how it performs at sugar contents below 5%?
@rumtscho, my assumption was that the book's conclusion was that it did not perform well below 5%, but maybe I read too much into that. Anecdotal evidence is contradictory, with some people saying it works well, and others not. Confounding that is the fact that osmotolerant yeast seems to do well in sour doughs in addition to sweet, so there are multiple factors to consider.
If I come across more info, I'll post it!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.525941
| 2021-05-03T11:54:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115514",
"authors": [
"Abe Karplus",
"Chris Bergin",
"Joe",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93716",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115570
|
Is buttermilk another term for sour milk or some part of sour milk?
Is buttermilk another term for sour milk or some part of sour milk?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttermilk says:
Originally, buttermilk referred to the liquid left over from churning butter from cultured or fermented cream. Traditionally, before the advent of homogenization, the milk was left to sit for a period of time to allow the cream and milk to separate. During this time, naturally occurring lactic acid-producing bacteria in the milk fermented it. This facilitates the butter churning process, since fat from cream with a lower pH coalesces more readily than that of fresh cream. The acidic environment also helps prevent potentially harmful microorganisms from growing, increasing shelf-life.[3]
Buttermilk is the byproduct of butter making.
Butter is made by agitating cream (-> the fatty part of milk) resulting in clumps of fat and a milky white liquid that contains nearly no fat and some protein. If the cream was soured before (either by aging or by inoculating the cream with lactobacillae), the buttermilk will also be sour. If the butter was made from unfermented cream, the buttermilk will be mild.
Uncultured buttermilk is rarely sold, even if butter is made commercially with regular cream, the resulting buttermilk is soured afterwards.
As buttermilk is made from a fraction of whole milk (the cream), you could say it’s a part of soured milk. I outlined the process of butter making in this answer, that should also help understanding buttermilk.
Is soured milk the same as sour milk as in, 'I kept this milk in the fridge too long after opening, and now it is sour, although it was okay yesterday, and so I need to chuck it out and buy some more'.
@MatthewChristopherBartsh Not exactly. “Kept in the fridge and something grew” is the problem - you don’t know what grew. Way back before commercial milk production, there was a good(-ish) change that something desirable grew - souring meant “let stand, it’ll be thick by tomorrow” or it meant “add some of the existing product and let the microorganisms from that multiply and do their thing”. It’s too complicated for a comment to explain why exactly the former is less likely to work today than back in our (great...)grandparents’ time.
I posted this question a couple of hours ago: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115613/is-sour-milk-the-exact-same-thing-as-soured-milk
No, it is not.
Let us consider three dairy products:
Fermented Skimmed Milk: when butter is made from raw milk in a hand-churn, a very milky whey is left behind. This leftover skimmed milk can be allowed to ferment slightly. This is "old-fashioned" buttermilk.
Cultured Lowfat Milk: Modern dairies centerfuge their milk to produce a variety of grades of milk. They can take out the 1% or 2% fat content milk, and add a bacterial culture (Lactococcus lactis or Lactobacillus bulgaricus) to it. This is the kind of buttermilk sold most frequently in the USA, and the one expected in most English-language baking recipes.
Soured Milk: Take 1%, 2%, or whole milk. Add an acid to it, such as lemon juice or white vinegar. Wait an hour, or even overnight. The milk will thicken and change flavor. While often used as a substitute but bakers who cannot find either of the other kinds of buttermilk, soured milk is not buttermilk.
So, while soured milk is similar to buttermilk, and is used as a substitute for it, it is not the same thing. Particularly, if you are making baked goods that call for buttermilk, they will turn out slightly different if you use soured milk.
Just want to add that the bacteria in question must be mesophilic ie room temperature strains such as
Lactic Bacteria (LL) Lactoccocus lactis subsp. Lactis, (LC) Lactoccocus lactis subsp. Cremoris, (LB) Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp bulgaricus, (LH) Lactobacillus helveticus)
and not thermophilic yogurt bacteria such as acidophilus
to achieve characteristic buttermilk flavor
"the bacteria in question must be mesophilic ie room temperature strain" - would that include the bacteria the bacteria that causes milk to go off (go sour) when kept to long at ten degrees Celsius in the fridge? Is the 'characteristic buttermilk flavor the same as that of sour milk?
To go off/sour can mean inedible or can mean unsuitable. If my mik turned to yogurt and I poured it into my coffee, the latter. Tart not slimey nor foul smelling nor lumpy probably safe. So many regional terms for dairy products, hard to know what your sour milk is to me. My Oklahoma grandmother asked if I wanted sweet milk or regular. My glass of 'regular' was cultured buttermilk! Glad I didn't pour it on cereal.
Would milk ever spontaneously turn to yogurt in the fridge? In my experience it only goes sour, and there is no mistaking sour milk for good yogurt. Even relatively bitter yogurt never has that (to me) unique and nauseating taste that adding sugar to does nothing to fix. I get that many people seem to think that yogurt and sour milk taste fairly similar. On the other hand, I have never seen anyone drink sour milk, and could not imagine being able to do it without vomiting. Also, to me the 'sourness' of a lemon has little in common with that of sour milk and would not make me feel nauseated.
All depends on microbes present in environment. If yogurt is made daily, increases likelihood acidophilus or bulgaris contaminate milk. But, true, more likely unpalatables grow first.
"Would milk ever spontaneously turn to yogurt in the fridge?" Extremely unlikely: yoghurt is a fermentation product by thermophilic bacteria, i.e. strains that grow in warm conditions. Even if you get them to grow in the fridge (and I wouldn't be too sure that the same yoghurt taste would be the result), that would be very slow, so any contamination that is better adapted to fridge temp would take over because it grows just so much faster in these conditions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.526516
| 2021-05-08T06:11:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115570",
"authors": [
"Matthew Christopher Bartsh",
"Pat Sommer",
"Stephie",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93811"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115767
|
I want my potatoes to be baked within an hour, but I forgot to preheat the oven. Should I put them in while preheating or not?
I forgot to preheat the oven while prepping my potatoes to be baked. Dinnertime is one hour away. I put them in anyway and turned on the oven. My spouse says I should not put them in yet because the oven will preheat more slowly with the potatoes inside. I think my spouse is right, but I still think the potatoes will be ready just as early (if not a bit earlier) the way I did it since they will start heating up with the oven.
Can anyone tell me for sure one way or another?
What menu are you making? Just baked plain potato?
While the real oven is preheating, pre-heat the potatoes in the Microwave.
In the UK, we call these 'jacket potatoes'1.
As already mentioned, putting them in a cold oven as it heats might win you five minutes, but not much more. It's very slightly more efficient overall than waiting for the oven to be hot then opening the door.
Two additional methods of speeding up jacket potatoes.
Put a metal skewer through the longest centre, then bake in the oven.
Alternatively: Split the task, half microwave, half oven. Prick the skins with a fork first, or they may explode in the microwave. 15 mins* at full power, then 15 mins in the oven is a 'fair guess' at how long it will take. This, of course will vary depending on size/weight of potatoes, power of microwave & temperature of oven.
*I think the last time I ever actually did this, I had an 850W microwave. Reduce time accordingly if you have a more powerful one.
Though the mic should manage to have heated the centres in around 15 mins, you can still use the skewer trick once they're ready to go in the oven. The skewers would still be useful to test the centres are cooked in the mic before you transfer.
The essence of the microwave method is to get the centres cooked before you transfer to the oven, to add back some flavour.
I'd weigh up which method to try based on how much time you have. Skewers will bring the time down by maybe a third, so that might be borderline for your hour from cold. Mic + oven & you're down to half an hour or so, but the result isn't quite as good.
I suppose you could still use the microwave as a starter, even if your result is to be 'roast potatoes' ie, peeled, chopped, done in hot fat. It will be a lot messier, but should still be feasible. I've never tested this, so timings & quality of result you'd have to find out for yourself;)
[1]Addendum
This may be cultural/linguistic, but to clarify from a UK perspective, these are baked (or jacket) potatoes…
Comments suggest the same descriptions are true for the US.
…and these are roast potatoes
In the US, "baked potato" means a potato that's been baked. You take a potato, put it in the oven, and bake it. That's it.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
You can put the potatoes in the oven while it's heating, and that's not going to make any overall difference in how long it takes the oven to get hot. Opening the door to put the potatoes inside causes more heat loss than the mass of the potatoes possibly could. And then you still have to heat up those potatoes.
However, based on some personal experiments, it's also not going to save you much time.
If I put large russet potatoes into a 400F oven, it takes them 55-65 minutes to be fully baked. It also takes my oven around 20 minutes to heat up to 400F. If I put the potatoes in a cold oven, it takes them 70-80 minutes to cook ... meaning it only saves me around 5 minutes to skip preheating.
Obviously it still makes energy sense to skip preheating with baked potatoes. But it won't get dinner on the table in an hour.
Here's a hack: You can microwave your potato before baking it (like suggested in this great answer).
From The Spruce Eats:
The only problem is they take an hour to cook, which requires planning ahead. If you're trying to get dinner on the table in a hurry, there is actually a method you can employ: Use the microwave to speed up the cooking process, cutting the baking time in half. While microwaving to completely cook the potato will result in a soft and mealy Russet, cooking in the microwave for just 5 to 6 minutes before placing in the oven keeps the potato's original texture. Drizzling with olive oil and sprinkling with salt before baking at 400 F will allow the skin to get nice and crisp.
From Good Life Eats:
I'm not a big fan of only microwaving baked potatoes, because you don't get a nice crisp skin on them (instead they're a bit soggy). So, I microwave the potatoes before I bake them, and then finish up my baked potato in oven. This method is also great when you need to free up the oven for something else.
I use a similar method, though with a slight variation - in the microwave, I will microwave the potatoes for 3 minutes, then flip them upside-down, rotate them 90 degrees, and them microwave for a further 3 minutes. I find this helps to more evenly heat the potatoes before they go into the oven, and avoids "hard spots" towards the ends of the potatoes that can be dried out by the microwaving process. This is also the time I'm pre-heating the oven, so when one part of the processes finishes, the other is ready to begin.
@RickSarvas I see.
Two reasons for preheating an oven are:
Makes cooking times more predictable because different ovens heat up at different rates; all other things being equal, a given dish will take the same amount of time to cook regardless of what oven it's placed in, assuming the oven is already holding at the specified temperature (bearing in mind that ovens do vary in temperature calibration).
You want get the surface of the food browned/seared (if the oven is already hot, and hot enough).
An oven will heat more slowly with cold food already in it than if it is empty, but it's a small difference. On the other hand, the food will start cooking as soon as the oven is hot enough, so overall cooking time should be shorter (from the time the oven is turned on until the food is cooked); the difference can be hard to predict and would only be determined by trial and error.
My understanding was that radiant heat from the element being on (electric oven) can burn or over-cook the outsides (at least for some foods, also depending on the material of the baking dish being transparent to infrared, or heat-conductive metal). So perhaps the opposite effect from your point (2). But yes, agreed on point (1) that predictable cooking time is a major point for most things. And yes, air is not a great heat conductor so heat can't transfer into the food fast enough to matter. Not like food cooling your frying pan via conduction through oil and direct metal contact.
I would caution that it very much depends on your oven and how it pre-heats. My oven heats up by turning the bottom heating elements on at full blast, so if I put something in the oven while it's doing that it essentially broils it from the bottom. I typically bake potatoes directly on the oven rack, so that would definitely burn the bottom of the potatoes unless you put some sort of barrier between them and the bottom of the oven such as a baking pan.
I had the same problem and cut the potatoes in half making them as thin as possible. The heat has less distance to travel so the potatoes will cook faster. I spread a cookie sheet with olive oil, added salt and coarse ground pepper, and put the potatoes on the sheet cut side down. The large potatoes I buy as loose potatoes are done in 45 minutes at 425F with the cut side nicely browned. It is the only way I bake potatoes these days. It also makes it easy for people to take half a potato when a whole one is too much. My oven takes about 15 minutes to heat to 425F. I put the potatoes in for the last 5 minutes. The broiler element is used for the preheat, but it doesn't brown the skin too much in that time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.526997
| 2021-05-22T21:54:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115767",
"authors": [
"Acccumulation",
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"Peter Cordes",
"Rick Sarvas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857",
"rumtscho",
"vasin1987"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77120
|
Does ripening banans in a bag with other fruit harm the other fruit?
Our office just got its first fruit shipment, which included an apology for the under-ripe bananas and the suggestion to put them in a brown paper bag along with an apple to speed up the ripening. Does doing this harm the apple?
I'm aware of Why does a brown paper bag speed ripening?, which talks about why this works, but the focus there is on what's happening to the ripening fruit, not what happens to the catalyst. We want to know if using one of the high-quality apples they sent us would lead to regrets.
By browsing this site I've learned that there are other ways to ripen them, including apparently just putting them in the bag without the apple. The instructions from the vendor made me curious about the apple, though, so that's the focus of this question.
(If you make alternate suggestions, please bear in mind that we're in an office with limited kitchen facilities.)
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/4993/67
It doesn't harm the apple, but it does speed up its ripening as well. And that risks over-ripening. So your perfectly crispy apples may begin to become mealy. Eventually they become targets for yeasts, molds, etc and start to rot. But it's not making them toxic or causing untoward chemical changes. They're all just speeding each other up.
Yes, you can just put them in a bag without the apple. They will produce their own ethylene (the gas that causes ripening, and which they make while ripening). It may take longer, since under-ripe bananas will put out less ethylene than a ripe apple, but just by a day or two. It's just a question of how hungry you are.
The only negative I have ever seen is that the other fruit also ripens (particularly as bananas are themselves one of the most effective producers of ethylene). I don't think I'd put an apple in with a banana, myself, only because the banana will make plenty of ethylene gas; it seems like the apple wouldn't add all that much.
A spoiled apple will produce lots of ethelyene (hence the expression 'one bad apple spoils the bunch') But unless you have an old apple laying around, the bananas are likely doing more to the apple than visa versa, like you said. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/12016/67
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.527744
| 2017-01-04T18:57:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77120",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55703
|
What is this black stuff coming off my George Forman grill?
I bought this George Forman Grill with detachable trays that are supposed to be dishwasher safe. I noticed that after the dishwasher there's this black soot on them. What causes this? Is there anyway of preventing it? The drip tray that came with the grill has written on it "wash in top rack only", should the same be done with actual grills? What difference does it make if something is washed in the top or bottom rack?
Re: Using the top rack - most dishwashers have the heating element near the bottom rack. Items that are claimed to be safe in the top rack only might melt or warp if you wash them in the bottom rack.
I sometimes get soap residue sticking to pots and pans when washing them in the dishwasher. Nothing like that though. What's the tray made out of?
@RossRidge metal (aluminum I think), it's supposed to be stick free but that's the other side.
I have the exact same problem with my George Forman grill. It's awful. I have tried handwashing just to get the black stuff off but there seems to be no end to it. They are in the dishwasher right now but I guess going forward I'll just hand wash and see if it ever stops producing this black soot.
Most likely your problem is caused by your dishwasher detergent. Many of them will cause aluminum to oxidize creating the issue you are experiencing.
I would suggest that you hand-wash and remove the oxidation as it looks quite extreme. (You don't want any of it to come off in the dishwasher and be deposited on other dishes.)
While it technically may be 'dishwasher safe', to prevent the oxidation from reoccurring I would recommend going forward that you hand-wash. The other option may be to try different dishwasher detergents to see if you can find one that does not cause this reaction.
I hope that's not the cooking surface....Uuuughhh!!!!
It's definitely oxidation. I bought a new dishwasher recently and that same thing is now happening to all the outside bottoms of my nonstick pots & pans. At the same time I switched from powder dishwasher detergent to those muti-colored liquid pouches, so I'm not sure if it's the new dishwasher which gets hotter than the old one or if it's the new detergent or a combination of both. Super annoying. The reason most people own a dishwasher is so they don't have to wash things by hand... duh.
I also have the exact same model and the same issue. I'm sure that it's an oxidation layer that is likely caused by the dishwasher detergents. It's however not preventable as its an unwanted side effect of this particular kind of aluminum alloy. I had some pots that exhibited the exact same problem. I got rid of them all because they drove me crazy. I paid some extra bucks for a quality set of pots that have a better aluminum alloy that won't corrode.
Unfortunately, the ceramic coating got damaged at the small dotted line in the middle lower plate due to repeated mechanical contact with the top. It is a design flaw that happened twice for me in the last 2 years. As this oxidized aluminum is not healthy, I have to throw it away. I'm done with this grill and the brand until they prove that they can create a lasting product that is also safe to use.
One last tip: I did a custom modification to the plates. I removed the two handles and put some masking tape around the edges of the plates. I then spray painted the plates with a black coloured extreme high heat resistant paint. The paint is usually available in most hardware stores. Pick the highest heat rated one and put several layers on the backside. This locked the oxidized layer inside and my hand/dishwasher never got soiled after that. ....until the ceramic coating chipped away duh.
You take it or leave it, I'm done with this for good.
My grill plates oxidized and I could not get the soot off. I replaced the grill with a GF with bronze plates and I will not put in a dishwasher
I agree that it is the heating element on the grill producing the black soot. Neither dish washing or handwashing makes it better or worse.
I believe it is the heating elements in the grill that are oxidizing... grill gets way hotter than dishwasher. Also the heating elements are covered in the same soot. I don't think there is a solution but wonder how safe it is to continue cooking with the unit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.527970
| 2015-03-15T02:34:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55703",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Celeritas",
"Escoce",
"Jim H",
"Matteo Michienzi",
"Olga Zharkova",
"Penny Sweazy",
"Ross Ridge",
"Scott Card",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64920"
],
"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
}
|
34401
|
What do you use to get the vegetables out after steaming?
When you put a steamer in a pot of boiling water and put vegetables inside the steamer, how do you get them out after they are done? What tool do you use?
Tongs or large fork should work.
I imagine you are asking about steamer baskets like this:
I think most people just reach in with an oven mitt or pot holder, and lift it out with our hand. This particular image has a ring, but some have a knob to make gripping easier.
You can also lift out the food items themselves with tongs, and then wait until the steamer assembly cools and simply take it out with your hands.
If you are talking about oriental style steamers, traditionally used with a wok:
Again, just a tea towel or oven mitt is needed. The bamboo ones don't tend to hold as much heat, but I would certainly not pick up the metal variant with a bare hand right after steaming.
A draining spoon like one of these.
If you have a big colander, you can just put it over the top of the pot and turn it over, dumping the vegetables and the steamer in. The steamer is a lot easier to grab when it's not inside a pot full of steam, and you get it all done at once, no fishing around for the last couple pieces.
Chopstick through the ring in the middle. Or chopsticks to fish out all the vegetables.
A so-called "spider", like this:
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.528371
| 2013-05-30T02:32:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34401",
"authors": [
"Abdullah Khan Niazi",
"Andy Testrino",
"Anna77",
"Christine",
"David",
"Fakhar",
"Genzou",
"Maria Dia",
"Soham Konar",
"Valginoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80435",
"martineau",
"maxbeaudoin",
"monsune",
"ross borrello",
"user80197"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28228
|
How to properly vacuum seal and freeze food that may stick together
I had a mishap involving steak freezing together and am wondering what the best way to prevent it from happening again. I just got a vacuum sealer and have being buying large quantities of meat and putting them in one big bag and sucking the air out. This hasn't worked so well as
the meet got mushed together (especially sausages) and froze
together
after opening the bag I wasn't really able to
re-vacuum seal the same bag.
It was recommend to plastic wrap the meat individually. Does that defeat the point of using a vacuum sealer at all? Might I as well plastic wrap everything and then put them in the freezer just like that? It was also recommended to use "freezer paper", I've never heard of that. I guess I could try using it to not cover the individual pieces of meet but only where they would touch the others in the bag that I would vacuum seal.
Also can I reseal vacuum sealer bags? If no maybe the best option is to use small bags and put the individual pieces of meat into them right away.
I would say the easiest thing to do is to purchase smaller sealer bags and seal in individual portions. That way you'll have the maximum flexibility in cooking just for yourself or for more.
You can use waxed baking paper between the steaks, It will make them easily separable but without retaining air bubbles.
The other solution for something like meatballs, sausage, etc. is to freeze them first and then vacuum seal them once they are nice and solid. At that point they will maintain their shape during the sealing process and can be easily separated when you need to open the package and defrost some. Once you open the bag and take some out you should be able to re-seal it if you stack them perpendicular to the long axis of the bag (or if you leave enough extra room initially for re-sealing when they are initially packaged).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.528534
| 2012-11-05T07:38:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28228",
"authors": [
"Babytoys",
"CGCampbell",
"Hassan Ali",
"Kelly Wright",
"Timothy Jones",
"grumpasaurus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65229"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56431
|
Jam "separates" in processing
I've been making jams and jellies for a while now. While I don't have this problem as much with marmalade, for some reason my jam usually separates when being jarred and canned. By separate, I mean the fruit all migrates to the top, leaving the bottom half just liquid (jelly-ish). Is there a reason this happens or something I can do to prevent it in the future. The taste is still good, but I was thinking it'd be nice if the fruit stayed consistent through-out the jam. :)
Edited for recipe and directions.
Basic jam recipe:
5-6 cups chopped fruit
4 cups sugar
1 pkg low sugar pectin
1/2 tsp butter
I reserve sugar and pectin per instructions on package (1/4 or 1/2 cup sugar - I can't remember) and set aside. Then I put the fruit, butter and remaining sugar in a pot to bring to a boil. I add the sugar/pectin mixture and boil (I think) for a minute. Then I put the jam into prepared jars and add a lid and a ring and process in a water bath for 10 minutes. Then I put the jars on a table to cool and set up.
This recipe is on the low sugar pectin instruction sheet. I just vary the types of fruit and sometimes the types of sugar (brown sugar, honey, etc. but always use 1/2 cane sugar).
Could you please edit your question to describe how you're preparing the jams? E.g., the recipe/steps you're performing.
Most likely your jam isn't as "set" as it needs to be. If you like a runnier jam, the only likely solution would be to chill the jars a bit before canning.
I have to disagree jbarker2160. The jam is the right consistency once it's finished processing and then cooling. It just doesn't have the even fruit distribution that mass-produced store bought jam does. Also, if I chill the jars before canning, that will only guarantee that they will break during the water bath. I'd be putting boiling jam into much colder jars and then putting those (already stressed jars) into very hot water and boiling the jars in the water.
I make freezer jam with strawberries every year. This happens to every batch, even though it's not separated like that going in. Once the jelly/jam sets, the consistency is obviously different than going into the containers. When you open a jar or container, give it a good stir at that time, to even out the consistency. It tends to keep when mixed at that stage of the game.
I made apricot/jalapeno jam in August, and I had directions from an experienced jam maker. She said, after it starts to jell, remove the pan from heat, let it set a minute, then thoroughly stir before putting the jam into your jars for processing. Then the fruit doesn't float to the top. It worked quite well. I used liquid pectin for that batch, too, don't know if that was a factor as well.
I would try rotating the jars, place them top up for 3-6 hours the turn them up-side-down for an additional 3-6 hours and repeat this process until the product settles. This I believe would work because once it is turned over, the products goes back to the top which is actually now the bottom.
Another option would be to vacuum seal the jars, which the pressure of the vacuum would counter act the buoyancy of the fruit or suspension of the liquid.
How will vacuum sealing affect buoyancy? I do not believe this is true. It might have a small effect on thickness of jam, by allowing some water to evaporate?
The key features I see from the extension links are
Cooking to a temperature (8 degrees F above boiling water) rather than for a set time.
5 minutes extra stirring post-cooking, pre-packing.
Pack the jam in pre-sterilized jars and only process for 5 minutes
rather than processing for 10 minutes (which allows using jars that
are not pre-sterilized, but also increases the odds of fruit-float.)
The UW publication also mentiones precooking (without sugar) most fruits, and pretreating apricots, peaches and pears with sugar for quite a long time before cooking the jam.
http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/B2909.pdf
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/question-of-the-week/floating-fruit-jam
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.528762
| 2015-04-06T14:48:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56431",
"authors": [
"Bob Rubens",
"Brooke",
"Daniel Cowens",
"Jenn Sweeney",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Sandra Morgan",
"TeerNu",
"Toni Tabbert",
"Zahir islam zisan",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122605
|
Using leftover Cuban bread
At the holidays, my office does a holiday party. Last year we had Cuban food catered. We are doing the same this year too. Last year we had A LOT of Cuban bread left over. I expect the same this year.
Since Cuban bread has a tendency to be a softer (less hearty) bread, if I used the leftovers to make bread pudding, would the bread simply dissolve into the dessert?
Questions like this don't do well on our site, as they are opinion based and lead to numerous, equally valid responses.
@moscafj, I edited the question so hopefully it's asking for a more science-based answer and not opinion. That wasn't my intention.
Yes, you can.
You can take advantage of the bread dissolving, or you can bake the pudding without a soaking period to get distinct cubes of bread.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.529145
| 2022-12-09T16:24:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122605",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129850
|
Sous vide pouches puffed up - Is this product contaminated?
For years now, I have cooked a beef joint Sous Vide for 18-24 hours at 133F (57C) with a final sear in the oven. The meat is not blanched or pre-seared prior to Sous Vide cooking, just seasoned with salt. The results have always been excellent. Upon removing from the Sous Vide bath, there is some juice in the bag but no major amount of expansion.
3 hours into this cook, I’ve noticed that the bags have swollen considerably, despite being packaged in same bags that I normally use with the same vacuum sealer. I always ensure the bags are a tight fit around the produce by squeezing air out as I vacuum seal them. The "Swelling" is not easy to see from the photos,but the bags have increased in volume by about 1cm.
I have checked the water with 2 different thermometers, and the temperature is OK.
The Internet is divided on this, some say it is OK at this temperature, others say it is contaminated. I notice that this meat was on offer, so I am thinking it was very close to “End of use by date” despite the packaging.
I’ll report back later upon opening the pack, but is this normal?
Update (After 24 hours):
The pouches have shrunk considerably and they are quite flexible with a little bit of meat juice as to be expected. There was no puffiness – the pouch was more saggy than bloated. No resistance was fetct when pushed,
On opening the pack, I immediately sniffed the contents and no “Off” odours were detected. The beef when tasted, was melt in the mouth tender, juicy and delicious. I also carried out the undocumented “Cat test”, and our feline demolished the test sample in record time. (It is alleged that cats will not eat food that is “Off”, although I don’t think food safety bodies recognise this).
Naturally, I’ll leave it up to our guests if they wish to eat this joint, but from what I can tell it is perfectly fine. The mystery is why? It also begs the question as to what temperature the meat was really at during the initial cooking stages, as the air would insulate the meat from the water in the bath.
In future I think I’ll either increase the temperature to 60C, blanch the joint in boiling water for 1 minute to eradicate any surface bacteria or sear it just to be on the safe side.
Three hours at 59°C give me best results. More than that and meat turns mushy.
Why did you blank out the supermarket name? This isn't the BBC. I'm guessing ASDA.
Don't want to give the supermarket a bad name if there is nothing wrong.
If there’s gas from fermentation in the bag, there will be absolutely no doubt once you open it up and smell it. But I think it’s more likely just retained air. It can be difficult to get it all out with a suction-style sealer, and a small amount of residual air expands a surprising amount once heated to cooking temperature.
Plan of action - take the pouches out and see how resistant the bloating is to pressing. If they go down after a few minutes, it is probably just water vapour. The test will be opening the pouches as you say, if they smell bad something was fermenting.
Just open them. You do not have the equipment to determine the temperature of the gas (not water vapor) inside the pouch. “Pressing” them won’t tell you anything.
If there was fermentation though, surely there would be nowhere for the gaseous products to go other than to expand the pack? Steam will just recondense to water.
There’s no steam. Water boils at 100 Celsius. And a few minutes is not going to bring the temperature down significantly: yes, the thermal mass of the gas is negligible, but there’s a large hot piece of meat in the bag with it (giggity), keeping it warm even as the outside atmosphere tries to cool it down through the plastic.
If you reeeally want to do that experiment, submerge the bag in cool water; much more effective at cooling. It won’t tell you much, though. You already know there’s gas in there.
This is often from lactic acid bacterial growth, which can happen at temps below 60C and in long, low-temp cooks, if there is not good circulation, or if the bath is crowded. You will know for sure if there is a funky smell when you open the bag. This is why pre-searing your meat is a good idea (not to mention that a pre-sear also helps with better crust formation when you post-sear). Lactic acid bacterial growth is not harmful, but it is not pleasant either.
If it is lactic acid is it safe to eat though?
How would LAB grow on meat? Lactic acid fermentation consumes carbohydrates, of which there are very little in meat.
@Sneftel: first Google hit:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174015001114
Yep, fair point. My intuition is that a non-inoculated piece of meat just isn’t going to get much proteolytic activity from LAB in 24 hours but I don’t have anything to back that up.
@Sneftel not uncommon in low temp, long sous vide cooks. Thus the recommendation for a pre-sear or a dip in boiling water before bagging.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.529262
| 2024-12-25T19:19:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129850",
"authors": [
"Candid Moe",
"Greybeard",
"Michael Harvey",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84638",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113736
|
What are the limitations of aquafaba as an egg white substitute?
I learned recently that aquafaba is claimed to be usable as an egg white substitute, able to be whipped to form stiff peaks, etc.
Now an egg-white-and-cottage-cheese omelette is a frequent breakfast of mine. So it was with great experimental enthusiasm that I mixed up some aquafaba with cottage cheese, and set about cooking it as usual...only to end up with aquafaba and cottage cheese soup. :(
What is a more realistic assessment of where aquafaba can be substituted for egg whites? Or is there possibly some modification that would make an aquafaba-and-cottage-cheese omelette possible?
Related question: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/107640/69341
I don't think it is useful to think of aquafaba as a egg-white substitute. Rather, you should think of whipped aquafaba as a replacement for French meringue, in cases you are not relying on it setting under heat.
So, when you need a vegan foam, you can try aquafaba (after whipping) to get the right texture. To regard it as a general replacement for egg whites is an exaggeration.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.529839
| 2021-01-13T21:35:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113736",
"authors": [
"Mark Wildon",
"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
}
|
103219
|
What kind of teaspoon is this?
I have a cutlery set that came with 7 teaspoons. Six of them are the same, but one is different. In the following image I have three of the six on the left side of the picture and the different one on the right.
Unfortunately I don't have the box the set came in, but on the back of all the cutlery it says "justinus edelstahl 18-10". I was unable to find information online about what teaspoon that is.
What is the one on the right used for? Why does it have a flat tip? And why was there only one in the set?
The set was for 6 people, so I have 6 spoons, 6 knifes, 6 forks, 6 little forks, 6 (normal) teaspoons, a few other things, and this strange teaspoon. It had its own special place in the set, so it is not a defect. And it doesn't look cut or chopped or smoothed. It was created like that. It definitely had its purpose.
It's been chopped! https://i.sstatic.net/ouPwq.jpg Or maybe just smoothed up after having been dropped in the garbage disposal.
Could it be a defect? Was it from an expensive set?
@Luciano: see my edit to the question. It's not a defect. As for how expensive it was, I don't know, it was a gift many years ago. But from what searches I did, I found similar sets bellow $100.
it looks like a roux spoon, but if it's teaspoon sized it's too small...
I would suspect a sugar spoon or maybe even a jam spoon though those are often even smaller than tea spoons. I have seen both with blunt ends, I have always guessed for getting to the bottom of jars and bowls. Mostly very old ones when I have seen them and often without the rounded spoon, more of a flared shape. But in old sets I have seen many different shapes for them. Scalloped seems very popular for sugar with the blunt end being more rare.
If there were 6 of these, I'd say it's a ice cream spoon. But why would there be only one?
Like dlb suggested it is a spoon for sugar. At least in Germany this type of spoon is not uncommon with sets of cuttlery.
Update:
For an impression of various forms of spoons check a picture search. I searched for "Zuckerlöffel" (German for sugar spoon) and found a wide range of different forms.
As for the specific form I don't think there is a special reason other for having a different looking spoon that fits the design of the cutlery set.
Historically sugar spoons where of a complete different design than your everyday cutlery as sugar was quite expensive and not used everyday. There are even examples of sugar pots that have small locks on them so that the servants weren't able to nick some sugar if laying the table.
This explains why there was only one in the set. But why does it have a flat shape?
@Pips the spoon has the same form as all the other teaspoons. By having the sugar spoon chopped, you can't accidently exchange it with the regular ones which are used for stirring your coffee.
Additionally, the flat edge allows for a smoother flow of the sugar, and fits better on the sugar container.
it used for eating ice cream.. as in India in most of the ice cream parlor you will get this spoon.. it is easy to eat
But it doesn’t come in a set of ice cream spoons (yes, there are ice cream spoons with that spade-like design), it’s one odd-looking spoon with a set of six regular teaspoons.
than it is defected piece in a set.. you should contact the dealer
As six are a regular set size, it’s probably six spoons and one extra spoon - for a special purpose, that goes with the individual spoons. And sugar is served with tea/coffee, which would need spoons to stir. I really think jmk got it.
It's a jelly/jam spoon, according to a site that explains antique flatware.
Could you please add a source? “A site” is quite vague?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.529980
| 2019-11-01T14:05:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103219",
"authors": [
"CrossRoads",
"FuzzyChef",
"Luciano",
"Morts",
"Ms Designer",
"Pips",
"Stephie",
"dlb",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79858"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94664
|
Bitter Turnip fries
I tried making turnip fries the other day and they were horribly bitter. If am planning to fry them like french fries how long should I boil them in the salt, vinegar and lemon juice so that they don't get too mushy? I have never prepared turnips as a potato before.Thanks
Welcome to [cooking.se]! ;-) It's quite clear what the problem is, but for the future could you please describe more clearly what you're doing exactly: I can deduce you're trying to parboil the turnips, but I wouldn't: I'd just cut them up in smaller (McDonald's size) fries and soak them overnight in as little water as possible as per the answer... 0:-)
Sure, I just saw this solution of parboiling them from someone else. I will certainly try and be clearer next time. So nothing in the water or follow Fabby's suggestion with as little water as possible? I thinly sliced them when I tried to prepare them Friday just slice and fry and that did not work out well at all.
So? How did the Gin&Turnip turn out? (or keeping it for next time?) ;-)
I haven't tried it yet, I need to by some gin, I only have Crown Royal at home, I think that is brandy? Not sure, it's my husbands thing. :-) I had a bout with declining health for one day... not enough electrolytes I assume because as soon as I got some in me I was A-OK. Needless to say, I slept all day and all night Tuesday.
Angela, did you ever get a chance to try??? (Just got another upvote on this today and still wondering...) ;-)
First of all: you made me laugh because I misread the title as "Bitter Trump Fries"... :D
Secondly: if they're too bitter, there are a few things you can do by soaking them overnight in the fridge with water with one of the following:
a dash of honey (take warm tap water and let it cool down after you've added the honey)
a dash of lemon (or better: lime) juice
a dash of gin
How much is "a dash"?
Well, for 500g / a pound of turnip: a coffee spoon or maximum 2 depending how bitter they taste raw.
Thank you Fabby I will try this. I am really missing french fries since I have been low-no carb. I really wanted to curb this desire.
@AngelaJohnsonAppy I'm just a midget here: please wait a while because maybe some of the giants here on the site will come up with an even better idea! And if you're trying no-carb: skip the honey. For low-carb: use half a dash! ;-)
I was going to try the gin, actually. :-) Thanks I will give it some time.
Well... I put that one last, but ... ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.530340
| 2018-12-10T21:18:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94664",
"authors": [
"Angela Johnson Appy",
"Fabby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71209"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18396
|
Can anyone identify this Chinese candy?
We just grabbed our customary mint on our way out of the Asian Bistro by our house but when we opened it, it wasn't a mint and the wrapper was almost all in Chinese (I think). It was an Asian bistro, but most of the food was Chinese, so I'm guessing that it's Chinese.
So the candy was green and definitely fruit flavored, but didn't taste like anything discernable. The fruit on the picture kind of looks like a pear, but not really any of our western pears. (Sorry for the fuzzy image, my phone would not focus and the wrapper was so small, so small)
Hold the camera back from the wrapper farther and it will probably focus just fine.
I think if you'd gotten a clear picture, Google's search by image would probably have found it for you.
That is Classic Series Guava Candy made by HongYuan. You can buy a 14oz bag on Amazon, here.
Awesome! Thx! I wouldn't have thought of guava...
http://www.21food.com/products/guava-fruit-flavor-hard-candy-162402.html
Guava candy that was given free at a Chinese Restaurant
It is called Guava flavored Chinese candy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.530571
| 2011-10-16T19:11:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18396",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Charlie Reitzel",
"Chris Gregg",
"Flimzy",
"Glenn Taylor",
"Kiruba Shini",
"M'Sadie",
"Patrick Forget",
"Rikon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89102"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49552
|
How can I produce a more soggy Neapolitan pizza crust?
I've been following the Serious Eats recipe for Neapolitan pizza dough(exception I use bread flour), and cooking it on a baking steel. I cook it at 550 degrees(preheated for 1hr) for 2mins exactly, very near the heating element at the top of my oven, with the broiler set to high.
I do not use 00 Flour "Tipo". Instead I have been using bread flour. This is for a few reasons. I have learned that 00 Flour works well above 700 degrees, which I do not have. And it also has a much higher cost for me.
The crust comes out with nice char both on the top and bottom. The toppings are cooked well too. What I don't end up with is a nice soggy crust that I prefer in Neapolitan style pizza. Instead the crust is quite crunchy near the center and could easily stand up to tons of additional toppings(not my preference). The cornicione(edge) of the pizza is puffy, full of bubbles, and somewhat chewy. I'm quite happy with the cornicione but the center should be floppy/soggy/wet and I'm not sure how to achieve that, or if I can at all without a 900 deg wood fired oven.
Some wonder why I would want a soft, soupy, soggy center of my pizza. Having that is one of the main characteristics of Neapolitan pizza. I thoroughly enjoy using a fork and knife to cut and then scoop up the gooey amalgamation of favors in the middle of a fresh pie. As stated on Serious Eats:
Unlike a crisp-crusted New York-style or hefty Deep Dish Chicago-style
pies, a Neapolitan pizza will have a soft, tender, nearly soupy
center. Some folks find this off-putting. I personally like the sauce,
oil, and whey-soaked bits of tender crust that form down in there, and
I'll fight my wife for my share of it.
This is what my pizzas look like currently:
Sorry, no such tag.
neopolitan-pizza tag added.
OMG That looks awesome.
It sounds like you're doing several things differently than the recipe (different flour, different temperature, different baking surface...) though I don't actually see shaping/baking instructions on the recipe you linked. If you want to stick closer to that recipe (than the other answers...), here's a few other thoughts of potential problems and a few things to try to alleviate these potential problems.
Baking too quickly or overcooking. the baking steel will transfer heat more quickly than a baking stone, a perforated pizza pan, or a sheet pan. Try one of those other baking surface options if you have them, or preheating your steel for a shorter period of time, or cooking for a shorter period of time.
Different flour. doppio zero flour is (likely) much more finely ground and more highly refined than your bread flour; these differences will impact how your bread behaves, such as water absorption and retention (in addition to the temperature comment you made). You might want to try increasing the water, to see if that does something you like (this recipe is about 65% hydration, so you've got some room before the dough gets really sloppy). Bread flour and 00 flour will (likely) have similar protein content, but you could check that from the respective producers, also. Despite your cost and temperature concerns, have you tried 00 in this recipe just once to see if there's a difference?
Shaping. Looks like you have a system, but perhaps you've got the dough just a bit too thin in the middle? Might be worth making the center slightly thicker as a test. Also might want to try making one a bit bigger.
If you're cooking one at a time, try cooking two at a time. They'll each be absorbing some heat, so baking will happen slightly more slowly.
Other questions:
are you indeed letting the dough ferment and rest for this long? 8-12 hours of initial ferment seems uncommon for conventional yeast. I've seen this long initial mix-and-rest for a (no-yeast) autolyse step, or for (very) sour sourdough. I wonder what the intended effect is...
I'm also surprised there's nearly zero kneading; gluten development will be... different. It seems like the dough will be lumpy, and the gluten development wouldn't be as uniform. Or, perhaps after 2.5 days fermentation this is enough time to have the dough work itself out on its own. The "bread in 5 minutes per day" franchise also suggests multi-day fridge storage, so I think this is probably a good thing in this case.
Looks good; I think I'll have to try this. Good luck! Post back if you discover some improvements...
Great answer thank you. Yes I have let it both cold ferment in the refrigerator for 3 days and also a different time on the counter for 1 day. This is why the recipe can get away with no kneading apparently. I like the ideas of a thicker crust in the center and also experimenting with 00 flour, both things I haven't yet tried with this recipe. I'll update after some attempts. Thanks!
Sorry to dig this up months later, but it's a great question, one that I've struggled with also. I have baked pizzas in a 700-800F wood oven, and had the same complaint: beautiful coloration, decent spring, but not moist enough. I'm using dough that's much closer to the Tartine method hydration level than typical pizza dough, so I don't think that the answer lies in just upping hydration, although it might help.
Instead, I have looked at two ways to improve: topping moisture and shaping.
It's hard, and expensive, to get really nice mozz here (in the states). Think about the fancy imported mozzarella di bufala: wet, hardly chewy at all, very milky. It's not what most Americans even think of as mozz. I don't know what kind of cheese you're using, but in my experience, it's hard to go too wet on the cheese in imitating pizza napoletana. I've had better luck just subbing a soft triple cream cheese if I can only get dry chewy mozz. Also, the traditional sauce is crushed raw tomatoes. Not cooked at all - again, much moister than what Americans typically put on pizza. This is a cheaper way of changing the toppings to include more moisture.
Also, I got a clue from Una Pizza Napoletana, where I've had the best version of pizza in this style that I've ever eaten. There's a video on their homepage with some brief glimpses (starting at 40 sec) of Mangieri (chef owner) shaping pies. I was surprised mainly by how big his dough balls are. Those have got to be 8-10oz beasts, and he's making pizzas 12" across from them. There's clearly a lot of dough getting left in the cornicione. Also, his dough doesn't look particularly proofed. I've incorporated some of these things with results moving in the right direction.
All in all, I think there's a reason that this style of pizza is so highly regarded. It's damn hard to make! The pie you pictured is gorgeous, and 99% of people would say it's near-perfect. What makes pizza napoletana different is that at its best it's like a pizza and fresh-out-the-oven loaf of bread rolled into one. Getting the chewy steamy bread part is hard; I hope a bit of this helps.
PS I'm not making perfect neapolitan pies by any means, just aspiring as well! Good luck!
Have to agree with this analysis much more than the other answers, particularly regarding topping choice. A 2-minute bake at 550F shouldn't be enough to dry out the center of a pizza unless there's not enough moisture there to begin with. I actually make (pseudo) pizza napolitana in a very similar way, except the only thing I don't like about classic Naples pizza (even in Naples itself) is pizza that's too "soupy" in the center. I avoid that at home for my personal preference, but it's very easy to achieve accidentally if I use wetter ingredients.
I'm also a lover of so called "Vera Pizza Napoletana".
By coincidence, I made yesterday this Neapolitan Pizza style using this Serious Eats method. Also see this step-by-step instructions.
It's all about heat capacity, conduction and radiation. You don't need a 1000°F oven to bake your pizza because doing it on a skillet will have almost the same effect since it will deliver more heat at lower overall temperature. The stainless steel and aluminum core of a good skillet can both hold significantly more energy and better at conduct that energy into the bottom of a pizza.
Preheat a skillet until 500°F, if you don't have a thermometer follow this tip:
a drop of water dropped on its surface forms a bead that skids around
Transfer the stretched dough to the skillet and cook it around 1 minute, flip, cook a little more and burn the "cornicione" on direct flame of the gas burner.
Transfer it back to a clean surface put the topping, in this case tomato sauce, mozzarella and basil leaves.
Transfer it back to the skillet at low-medium heat and cook it until mozzarella is melted, but still soggy.
It's incredibly easy to do and the outcome is very good.
I think that baking at lower temperature will do the opposite effect. Lower heat will dry out your pizza. If you want it soggy, you want high heat to cook the dough before the fillings dry.
So you are suggesting the skillet method over the baking steel to gain a soft/soggy center to my crust? And the reasoning is because of the higher heat? My understanding is that the baking steel is even better than the cast iron at retaining heat and should perform even better(and it does in my tests). So I'm not sure what exactly you are proposing here that I'm not already doing.
@dpollitt : the baking steel will have higher thermal mass, but at a lower temperature. It may affect how quickly the outside browns relative to the center of the dough fully cooking. Don't discount it until you've actually tried it. (I can't do the comparison myself, as I don't have a baking steel).
Joe - I've been using the skillet/broiler method for about a year and just recently switched to the baking steel. So I am not discounting it without trying. Overall the baking steel is far superior to produce this style of pizza so far for me. The only overall characteristic I'm missing is the soggy center. The skillet had numerous other issues for me.
@dpollitt the skillet worked fine for me. For sure the baking steel can retain more heat, but it's important to understand what is the amount of heat energy. The stainless steel and aluminum core of a good skillet can both hold significantly more energy and better at conduct that energy into the bottom of a pizza. I think that cooking the dough first and topping it after will let the pizza soggier.
Perhaps this is an obvious answer - but if your center is too dry, add moisture. If you're happy with the edges and the rest of the pizza, then meddling with other variables (like time, temp, or flour) might disturb the things that work - a possibility to keep in mind for if smaller adjustments don't work, but not my first adjustment.
For myself, when I want to adjust moisture in a recipe, my first go-to is to sprinkle water in it. Low tech, but it works for me - it promotes a beautiful melting in slightly drier cheeses, and keeps crusts from drying out (my typical problem). Maybe sprinkle a tablespoon of water over the pizza, or maybe splash it right down over the center, or maybe precisely eyedropper the water just where your want it (depending on your textural preferences). You can add the water while the pizza is being assembled (for hydrating ingredients), or just before you bake (for a slightly less cooked center), or after it is taken out of the oven (for general sogginess after it has been cooked properly).
After that, evaluate the difference and tweak accordingly. Maybe you need more water, or to soak individual ingredients pre-assembly, or sprinkle over the top more evenly, or place a puddle of water on your serving plate, for it to sog up the bottom crust center after the pizza is placed on it. Maybe you want a little more flavor, and would like to try sprinkling milk instead of water - or you want to add a little more oil to the center. Maybe the introduction of wetter ingredients (like Gabriel Saunder's suggestion of cream cheese instead of, or as well as, the mozzerella) will help, or you want a moister sauce.
After that, you might discover other tweaks that improve your recipe, or that you want to try a bigger change (like the aforementioned time baking, temperature, and flour type). You might find all your problems are solved with an eyedropper of water (or other liquid) at your workstation.
I'm not sure why anyone would want a soggy crust, however if that's what you want lose the baking steel. The reason for using a steel or stone is to give you a crunchy crust, try using a baking tray instead.
Also, you can try baking at a lower temperature, not a higher one. Lose 100F on the oven and you're more likely to get sogginess.
To me it sounds like you are doing it right, not wrong. Soggy - why?!
I've updated my am question to address the "why?". Thank you for the answer, although I'm not convinced that your answer is accurate as all of the best Neapolitan pizza I've ever had has this characteristic but is also cooked at 900 deg F too.
@dpollitt Maybe they had wetter dough or toppings then? Yours looks pretty dry on top too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.530735
| 2014-11-06T03:02:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49552",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Betty Rakowski",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Claire Portillo",
"Eloise ",
"Gail Burke",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Johnny",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mike S",
"P A M Culloty",
"Rajasyahrin Najmi",
"Sophia",
"Spammer",
"Tomcrews",
"brandon mckay",
"dpollitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"oli steel",
"stephen kingston",
"weight loss surgery"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95118
|
How can I roast/heat all these foods for one meal?
I'm a microwave cook wanting to get fancy for a Christmas dinner tomorrow. I'm having trouble putting together a schedule for what to put in a regular gas oven at what temp, when, for a 4pm dinner. The menu I put together:
Ham that bakes at 300 degrees for 1-1/2 to 2 hours (an 8-10 pound ham)
Baked ham that glazes at 400 degrees, for 15 minutes.
The baked & pineapple-glazed ham does then sit, but for only 15 minutes.
Sweet potato wedges, roasted at 425 degrees for 25 minutes.
"Soft" veggies, also roasted at 425, but for 10-15 minutes.
Salad that doesn't need the oven at all.
I've taken gloomy note of the advice here that I should NOT try to glaze the ham alongside steamy veggies, no matter how tempting it looks on paper. So do I bake the ham & glaze it, and then deal with the sweet potatoes & veggies while letting the ham sit for half an hour?
To make things worse, I only have two cookie sheets, and I suspect that potatoes & veggies for six are going to take up three. Can I do the potatoes very early, and then repurpose their cookie sheet at the end? (But I'd have to heat them back up...) Can I put one of the dishes in a cake pan or Pyrex casserole dish? Will there be enough real estate in my normal-sized oven if I do so?
Should I just break down and cook the sweet potatoes in the microwave? Then I can do so and oven-roast the veggies while the ham sits.
UPDATE: I tried parboiling the sweet potatoes before roasting them, and it went blooie: I just plain boiled them instead. So we'll have mashed sweet potatoes and plenty of room for the veggies... Fingers crossed on those.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice SE!
I would attack it in the following manner:
put the ham in the preheated oven, center rack
gather the ingredients for your pineapple glaze
set the table/buffet/beverage areas
prep your salad, cover it with wrap, refrigerate (note: dressing on
the side, so the salad won't wilt)
prep the wedges and veggies
remove ham, and set oven to 400F
glaze and decorate (you can use whole cloves to "pin" the pineapple
in place)
return ham to oven
arrange wedges and veggies on the cookie sheets, oiled and seasoned
remove ham, set temp to 425F, tent with foil so it retains some of
the heat
place wedges in oven, set timer for 12 min
transfer ham to serving platter
place veggies in oven when timer goes off, set timer for 15 min
ask guests if they need a beverage refill
remove cookie sheets and place wedges and veggies in serving dishes, don't forget to turn off the oven
place all food items in the serving area (table/buffet/etc)
announce dinner inviting guests to table or buffet, say grace if
customary, make a toast if you are serving alcohol, etc.
You can eliminate a lot of stress if you set up your dishes (empty) on the table or buffet tonight (or early in the day). I will even go as far as putting little sticky notes to remind myself which dish goes where. This allows me to make sure that everything is going to fit. But it also allows me to set out the serving cutlery, make sure that the pieces do not need a last minute scrub or polish, and to note whether I have managed to forget something. Don't worry, a Ham is one of the all time easiest things to make!
note: I added a couple of minutes to allow for heat loss while opening and closing the oven door.
Yep, that sounds reasonable. Can you add a hint about the cookie sheets?
Wow, that's detailed; thank you so much! Uh, yes, though -- what do I do about the cookie sheets? And I couldn't help but notice that you have the ham sitting on the platter without tent for 15 minutes -- why not keep it in the tent until the veggies are ready?
...cookie sheets because you are worried about not having enough space? You will just have to see how much fits where and make a judgement call. If you are prepping the veggies and they won't fit on 1 cookie, start roasting the first cookie sheet when the oven hits 400 (25F difference to start won't be a huge issue).
Tenting the ham can be done the entire time, but it would probably work best not to tent after you have glazed it. You want the glaze to harden, tenting it could affect the moisture and keep it "slushy".
My question was whether I could use a cake pan or a Pyrex casserole dish, with sides, to substitute for a third cookie sheet if I need it. As to whether I'd have enough real estate, I can check that I suppose with a cold oven this morning. But I don't know why everyone calls for a side-less cookie sheet, so I'm nervous about substituting.
Second paragraph (how do you make one in cts?): As for tenting the ham, the recipe I have calls for tenting it during the 15 minutes while it "rests." You say not, presumably from experience. I can try the half-and-half.
a) I'm checking in and out while cooking... brain fog: what does cts mean? b) follow the recommendation on instructions (for tenting).
How do I commend you for your help, @elbrant? Thank you so much! We had a delicious meal of juicy glazed ham, roasted veggies (even if the half that didn't have a tin foil lining to the cookie sheet got heavily "carmelized"), and mashed sweet potato. All of the veggies and most of the sweet potato and half of the ham got devoured, so I consider this a resounding success! Thank you again, especially for checking in on a holiday.
And sorry, "cts" is comments.
I'm so glad everything "came together" for you! The mashed sweet potatoes sound like an excellent alternative for the cookie sheet dilema. Smart! (a green check under my vote number would be a most appreciated thank you - it means I gave the best answer) Enjoy the rest of the holidays @bitterlily! and thank you!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.531783
| 2018-12-25T00:05:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95118",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"bitter lily",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71596"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95295
|
What would you call this cut of pork?
I got a cut from an asian grocery store yesterday that was labeled as Pork Belly, but what I got is this:
That's the top-down view; the cut is under an inch thick. There's a portion in the upper right that looks similar to the fat on pork belly.
What would this cut be called, and when I'm cooking it should I look for inspiration in pork chop recipes, or pork belly recipes?
Can you post a picture of what it is instead of what it is not? Pork belly meat just doesn't go very deep. I wonder if the cut was mislabeled or badly translated.
That looks like Pork neck or shoulder without a bone. The best way to prepare it is to grill it or bake.
This looks just like what we buy labeled "pork butt steak". It is a shoulder cut and is very flavorful. It is available both bone-in and boneless. And being the thickness you describe is less than an inch, it certainly sounds like it.
We prepare it many different ways, very similar to how we would prepare pork chops. They are great pan fried, grilled, and breaded and fried.
We actually prefer these to regular pork chop cuts as they are more flavorful and moist.
More like belly than chop
It's difficult to be sure where that cut came from, although it looks like shoulder. In any case it's clearly fatty and more like belly than like loin, so you would be better served by recipes for belly than chop.
Braising a cut like this is probably your best bet.
Not posting any just because most of the stock photos are copy written, but a quick image search of "raw pork steak" will give you very similar pictures. That one might be cut a bit more of an angle that many to make for easier bone removal. It tends to be fatty as you see, and can have connective tissue and is indeed usually from the shoulder, sometimes closer to the loin. Similar in flavor to chop but can be tougher. Can be grilled, pan seared, braised or is commonly used in many stir fry type dishes cut up. I would tend to recommend is fast cook on high heat or braising. Flavor can be very good, but the connective tissue can be an issue. This is why the shoulder it often the target of sausage.
Many people (I am one) often prefer the flavor to many chops, but fighting the fat and potential connective tissue puts others off. So if cooked more like a chop I would definitely recommend not over cooking with will tend to highlight the potential toughness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.532347
| 2019-01-02T20:01:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95295",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115816
|
Need help cleaning an old aluminum coffee pot
I use an old Wear Ever heavy aluminum coffee pot for boiling water. I don't allow unused water to sit in it. It has stains inside and needs a good cleaning. It has white residue at the water line that I cannot remove. For now I have been washing it out with soapy water but not using anything abrasive. Any ideas on how to clean it? I just want to be sure it is safe to use, if the stains cannot be removed so then they are meant to be.
IIRC corroded aluminum is white.
Can you recognize whether this is scale?
This site should be renamed "metals and alloys" or "microbiology" ;)
Up Next: How to clean your silverware with just some aluminium foil & baking soda ;)
You can buy kitchen-safe aluminium cleaner & descaler - the white could easily be limescale.
If you look at 'home-style' cleaning guides, then everybody seems to have a different opinion - some choose baking soda, some choose vinegar.
Now, I'm no chemist, but I fail to see how both of those would work, one acid, the other alkaline. I also don't know which would clean the aluminium or which may damage it. I did once manage to completely ruin 2 stove-top espresso makers by getting this wrong.
On the other hand, you can get a litre of commercial cleaner/descaler for a couple of quid/bucks/euros, so why not let the experts take over?
They're going to have figured out what removes scale & tarnish, yet doesn't harm the aluminium. A look at a data sheet says it's Orthophosphoric acid.
I checked data sheets for 'regular' cleaner/descaler & aluminium-specific cleaner/descaler. Both contain the same acid, though other ingredients may differ.
Google found this one in the UK, but I'm sure you can find something similar close to where you live.
I'm no chemist either but know enough that to react off limescale you need acid: vinegar or lemon juice are the easiest edible acids (also phosphoric acid in cola), but it will need a very good rinse afterwards anyway. On aluminium I'd go dilute and patient rather than rushing; heat helps. The use of baking soda in cleaning (apart from grease, which reacts with alkaline compounds) is either to produce CO2 bubbles by reacting with acid; the bubbles give good mixing and agitation of the reaction, or to acts as an abrasive in a slurry. Neither is much use here
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.532553
| 2021-05-26T04:46:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115816",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Chris H",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"nick012000",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116107
|
Is there any way to increase the shelf life of mixed egg
I poured the leftover mixed egg white and yolk into a container and I didn't refrigerate it. When I opened after a day there is a bad smell come from the container. Is there any method to preserve the mixed egg without refrigeration?
Since, I'm not in my home and don't have any refrigerator nearby, should I add any add food preservatives to prevent it from getting rotten?
The answer is a general "no", not just for eggs, but basically for any food. When you store it under the usual conditions, you already get the maximum shelf life possible.
Methods of food preservation do not magically make the food last longer, they actually produce a different food that is shelf stable (e.g. turning vegetables into pickles). Preservatives can have a role in that process, but only as one component in a specially engineered recipe.
For your broken eggs, the shelf life is 2 hours at room temperature and 3-5 days in the fridge, less if you see signs of spoilage. There is nothing that can be done to prolong that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.532763
| 2021-06-17T04:38:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116107",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126099
|
Converting 3-2-1 cake to be baked in the oven
I made two containers of 3-2-1 cake and forgot about them. I'd like to make cakes out of them (or at least attempt to). Is it as simple as following the angel food cake recipe and baking in a 9X13 pan? That way the worst that will happen is I waste some water (since that's all the angel food cake calls for).
Edit: 3-2-1 cake is where you take 1/2 a boxed cake (any flavor) and 1/2 a boxed angel food cake and mix the two together. Then you use 3 tbsp of the cake mix, 2 tbsp water, and microwave for 1 minute.
What is "3-2-1 cake"?
What ingredients does the boxed cake mix call for?
The angel food cake just calls for water. The cake mix calls for eggs, oil, and water. The 3-2-1 recipe works well because the angel food cake mix has eggs already in the mix.
If you can microwave a cake mix you can bake it in an oven. These mixes are made to be baked, so just follow the directions on the box for baking times as a guide and adjust as necessary.
I've made several "microsponges" using a conventional spongecake recipe cooked in little disposable cups in the microwave as a dessert for my kids. There's no chemical leavener in the recipe, just meringue and pate de bombe and a bit of flour folded together. The microwave hyperaerates this mix almost as fluffy as angel food cake. I personally can't eat boxed angel food cake - the chemical leavener/emulsifier is unpalatable.
I question your understanding that a 3-2-1 mix works because the contribution of angel cake. Angel food cake is purely egg white, whereas egg yolk gives flavor and richness. I would think reincorporating egg yolks expected in the original boxed cake would improve taste and texture. Otherwise, I imagine the taste would resemble fluffy sweet baked flour. But as others mentioned, try it, experiment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.532881
| 2023-12-14T19:42:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126099",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Marti",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58967
|
What is the history of souvlaki and is there any benefit in cooking meat on a skewer?
I'm wondering about the origin of souvlaki. Was it only something of a convenience (easy to cook lots of pieces together)? Or does this way of grilling lead to better results, as opposed to just placing the pieces on the grill? If the latter (at least for some type of meat), how is it justified that it leads to better results (e.g., small pieces, rotating)?
Also, you would expect that puncturing the meats makes it easier to lose its juices, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
Placing small pieces of meat on a grill seems like a good way for them to end up in the fire. Does grill mean something different to you than to me?
@Jefromi probably different meaning. I meant this https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSrbwcMUsHK5kjj5JUUYvhcsmVX-DT7mjk_qrQ81mvgNQA1kK1imQ
Nope, that's what I'm talking about. It's not solid, so small things can fall through. Even the asparagus there looks like a kind of bad idea. Nudge it to the side, it'll catch on the grate, end up lined up, and easily fall through. I don't know if that's the kind of grill people were using when souvlaki was invented, so it's not really a full answer to your question. I was just surprised to see you asking why you wouldn't just throw little pieces on the grill.
@Jefromi there are other ways to ensure they don't fall off, like this: http://www.firestuff.gr/Portals/0/productimages/242_03444.jpg. This for example is typically used for ribs, pork steaks, kebabs, in Greece and other countries. But I'm mostly interested on why grill the meat pieces on a stick (just convienence, better cooking, more even,...).
Historically, the practice of skewering meat had several advantages over building a rotisserie and cooking a single large piece of meat. Think about the advantages of cooking over a primitive camp fire, rather than a modern grill:
Cooks quicker, saving time but more importantly fuel for the fire (think desert or other difficult terrain)
Did not require plates or forks and knives to carry around if you were nomadic
Still cooks over a spit so can avoid falling into the coals
These days there are some other more modern advantages like:
Can use cheaper, tougher cuts effectively
Marinates/brines faster
Makes it easier to turn or flip on a grill
Skewers are fun
Puncturing the meat prior to cooking does not cause a large loss of meat juice during the grilling process. Maybe if you removed the meat from the skewer immediately after taking it off the grill you would lose more juice than had you never skewered the meat at all, but it's not like the original puncture will expose the center of the meat and allow everything to spill out. Leaving meat on the skewer to rest will be as effective as grilling a single unpunctured piece of meat.
Agreed - just the fact that it holds the meat out of the fire seems like more than enough reason to me. You might want to also address the losing juices part, though it's not really a big deal. (It just... isn't an issue. Meat isn't a bag of water that all leaks out when it gets punctured.)
When you say "place the pieces on the grill", you seem to be missing the concept that a lot of kebabs aren't actually grilled on what we call a "grill" in America (and a lot of the world)... meaning a open surface like the one you posted an image of:
When I've seen "grills" they are simply open coal spaces with a rack for holding the skewers, so the meat is suspended directly over the coals and the skewers are required for holding them up. Here are some images of this sort of grill.
This one's a really old style:
The ancient Mycenaeans have a reputation as palace-builders and warriors, but they were also quite sophisticated cooks. More than 3,000 years ago, they used portable grill pits to make souvlaki and non-stick pans to make bread, new cooking experiments suggest. [...]
The Mycenaeans left behind amazing palaces and gold-littered tombs at sites like Pylos and Mycenae, but in these places, archaeologists also have found less glamorous artifacts, such as souvlaki trays and griddles made from gritty clays.
The souvlaki trays were rectangular ceramic pans that sat underneath skewers of meat. Scientists weren't sure whether these trays would have been placed directly over a fire, catching fat drippings from the meat, or if the pans would have held hot coals like a portable barbeque pit. The round griddles, meanwhile, had one smooth side and one side covered with tiny holes, and archaeologists have debated which side would have been facing up during cooking.
This one is mechanical and will actually turn the spits for you while it cooks:
So, as you can see, without the sticks, you'd be putting the meat directly in the coals, and no one wants that!
You certainly also see grills with a metal grate over them too in countries from the Balkan and Black Sea regions, after all you need a way to grill pirzolas and keftes too. So I don't know if this type of grateless grill was the cause or the consequence of souvlaki popularity. Still, good point.
All that said, skewers are very helpful even on a modern grill!
As @rumtscho says, we do use metal grate for other stuff (sheftalia, kebab). And we do use a rotating mechanism (electrical) and that's why I tend to think its a matter of convenience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.533302
| 2015-07-10T17:30:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58967",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"International Funeral",
"Kathy Tanner",
"Marek Dziedzic",
"Neal Thornton",
"Nigel Greer",
"Panagiotis Panagi",
"Shahril Zulkifli",
"Stephen Horrocks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jashwin Singh",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64247
|
Use chia seeds to help thicken a pot pie
Can I put chia seeds in a pot pie filling to help thicken it? If so, how would I do it? (i.e., how much chia seeds, how much cornstarch, do I need to pre-soak, etc.)
Edit: It was this recipe, and it was IMO quite runny with 2tbsp of corn starch.
Ok, I need to ask: why chia seeds?
@GdD They're (supposed to be) really healthy, and they don't taste like cornstarch.
I have no experience w/ chia seeds ... however for flax seeds, you grind them up first, then let them soak in the liquid for a bit before baking with them.
I'm not sure the question is answerable with this little information. We have no idea what is in your pot pie already, what consistency it is, etc. It would be best if you could post the recipe. Also, what do you expect? The viscosity will certainly go up, but the mouthfeel will be nothing like the one created by starch.
I know they're healthy and all, but wouldn't chia seeds add a strange texture to a pot pie?
I've read this question a couple of time while scanning through... And I am still yet to see a comment on how/if a chia seed compound would change the taste of the resulting gravy.
If your problem is that a pie with 3 cups of liquid (750 ml) was runny with 2 tbsp of corn starch and some water sucking ingredients such as potatoes, and you say it tasted like corn starch, then you probably just didn't thicken the starch. You should try cooking the original recipe correctly before deciding whether to change it to something exotic.
Starch needs to be cooked to almost 100 Celsius to thicken. It is certainly above 90 for all types of starch. After thickening, it practically has no taste. Use a thermometer to ensure that it happened, 96 should be a good temperature to aim for.
You can probably thicken it with chia seeds instead of the starch, although I can't tell you the exact procedure and would like to see somebody posting an answer which explains how to do it. You might or might not like the result, which will be very different from a starch thickened pot pie.
Chia seeds will thicken. Soak over night , or if really in a hurry, pour very hot water over them and let them soak for 45 minutes. They will jell somewhat and that's OK
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.533758
| 2015-12-09T12:29:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64247",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Alicia Dey",
"Benjamin Chen",
"Bonginkosi Banda",
"Dan",
"ElmerCat",
"Emmanouil Chiotis",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Lee Cabibi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"leeroyz carter",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41201
|
Properly melting butter and sugar together for butterscotch bar recipe
I've been trying to make butterscotch bars. I'm not a new baker, but I don't have much experience in melting brown sugar and butter together.
The recipe (included at bottom of post) I'm using says that I need to melt butter and add brown sugar, and stir until sugar is melted.
When I first tried it, everything went well. Butter and brown sugar were mixed as one and it kinda looked like toffee. On my next attempts, I couldn't get the same result anymore. When the brown sugar melts, it doesn't incorporate with the butter anymore and it turns really hard like candy. So, what I get is hardened (but still grainy) brown sugar in a pool of melted butter.
Please give me some tips and techniques to properly melt butter and brown sugar together so that the result is like gooey toffee. I hope it can be done without candy thermometer. The author of the recipe didn't use one, and I think the quantity of the sugar-butter mixture is too little for me to dip a thermometer in it.
Thank you!
The recipe:
1/4 cup unsalted butter,
1/4 cup butter compound (I think it's half butter half margarine),
1 cups dark brown sugar,
1 large egg,
1/2 tsp vanilla extract,
1/2 tsp baking powder ,
1 cup flour,
1/8 tsp salt
In a small pot, melt the butter and butter compound over low heat. Add the sugar
and stir until melted. Turn off the heat. Preheat the oven to 325°F and
grease an 8" baking pan.
In a large bowl, sift the flour with the baking powder. Add the salt.
When the sugar mixture has cooled, add the egg. Mix well after addition.
Add the flour mixture and mix until just incorporated. Add the vanilla and mix one last time.
Pour the batter into the pan and bake for 25-30 minutes or until the cake
is set.
P.S.: I haven't tried to actually let the mixture come to a boil because, as I said, the brown sugar becomes so hard and candy-like when it melts, and I'm afraid it gets even harder if I let the mixture boil. Please give me tips regarding boiling it. Thanks a lot for helping this newbie out. :)
You said it worked once and then started failing. Do you know if anything was different?
I don't know what I may have done differently. I followed the same procedures yet couldn't reproduce the same result, so now I just ask for techniques in melting butter and brown sugar together.
If the sugar is becoming hard, it sounds like it may be cooking too much. You could try melting the butter & compound, then stirring the sugar in off the heat and returning it once the sugar is already thoroughly dispersed in the butter.
In the past I have had a similar issue with making a butterscotch drink recipe. What I have found is that adding a bit of water to the melted butter (1-2 tsp/1/2 c, 5-10mL/120mL) helps dissolve the brown sugar and prevents graininess and seizing. Sugar is not readily soluble in fat, so it needs water in order to dissolve.
I suspect one of three things happened:
Different batches of butter may have different water contents.
The brown sugar may have lost some of its moisture as it sat around in the
pantry.
Some of the water may have evaporated off while melting the butter.
If you heat brown sugar in butter without enough water some will dissolve in the water present from the butter and the brown sugar, but it will become grainy and seize as the water is evaporated and the undissolved sugar granules act as nucleation sites. Meanwhile the undissolved sugars are being lightly fried in the fat from the butter.
I'm going to try this the next time I try to make the butterscotch bars. Thanks!
I recently had a similar problem, and I would guess that your solution will be similar as well. As in my case your recipe fails to be specific regarding too what temperature to elevate your mixture. To solve this you will need a candy thermometer. (In the US these are available at most stores that carry kitchen implements (Wal-xxx, Tarxx, etc.)
The peek temperature to which the sugar is heated determines what form that sugar based emulsion will take once cooled. If for instance, you used a different size of pan or higher heat (for approx. the same time) after your 'first attempt' you could easily achieve the effect you describe.
Source: http://candy.about.com/od/candybasics/a/candytemp.htm
For your Butterscotch Bars I'm guessing you want to reach, but not exceed, thread stage, as you are asked to mix an egg into the mixture and then add the remaining dry ingredients. This will become difficult after the thread stage.
Whatever your desired outcome, if you are getting "toffee" like results you are probably reaching either the soft-crack or hard-crack stage. (overheating).
Thank you for this. I will refer to this chart when I get a candy thermometer.
I have had similar issue with a brown sugar / butter candy that I've been making since I was a kid. I'm coming to the conclusion that there is a difference in brands of brown sugar and the one I've used for years works and the one that is most commonly available where I now live makes up grainy. Maybe I'll try adding some water to see if that eliminates the problem. I really, really prefer the brand of sugar I've used for years. Is it possible that you've not used the same brand of sugar both times?
My go-to brownie recipe is very similar to your butterscotch bars, just melt butter + sugar in the microwave until just melted. The texture will be a little grainy (or if you want to use the stovetop, use a double boiler or baine Marie). Wait till warm and when you add the egg, the mixture will become smooth. By the time when the flour is added everything will be alright!
Is it possible that after a successful first attempt your confidence may have resulted in less stirring and a slightly higher temperature? Combining brown sugar and butter seems like the easiest thing in the world but unless they melt at the same pace you end up with hot sugar in a pool of greasy, melted butter. It happens to me all the time.
The internet tells me to melt at a low heat, and stir constantly. Sometimes I fluke it, sometimes it goes in the bin.
It’s such a crapshoot that I usually don’t make recipes that call for it, and I’m not buying a candy thermometer
is this an answer or seeking information to potentially support an answer? it seems that by starting with a question that you are speculating as to what the problem may be without committing to an answer.
As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
So I just came across this as I googled the same question. Because at the moment I'm cooking brown sugar and butter together to make Christmas crack. I was wondering why my butter and brown sugar weren't mixing together after melting. As I read this I had turned down the temperature to a low medium, when I had it higher in the beginning,kept stirring and it eventually did end up mixing together. So maybe it's the temperature? Maybe you're cooking it too high? And not enough stirring? I constantly stir it too...
I am not sure though. This is just an observation from what I noticed while doing this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.534003
| 2014-01-16T02:29:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41201",
"authors": [
"Angelique",
"Cascabel",
"Catzie Carpio",
"Community",
"Gelphledor",
"Jean Meslier",
"Jyothish Kumar",
"Mr Shane",
"Preethi Srikantha",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"bata spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96932",
"wedward"
],
"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
}
|
116352
|
Why is my soft serve too stiff?
Is there an intelligent commercial machine soft serve calculator? I'm a noob at this, bag powder mixes taste like crap, can't find any fresh dairy mixes here in central Florida.
So far, the best I can find is 6% fat, 12% sugar, 14% MSNF, and 0.1% xanthan gum and .3% lecithin. And some vanilla. I made a spreadsheet to calculate it all based on a gallon of milk as a starting point, but what do I know? (very little...) I'm using milk, evaporated milk, heavy cream, dry skim milk, sugar, and the rest.
I mix it well, put it in the machine. Texture comes out smooth & creamy, but stiff. It won't lay down and curl like soft serve should. It just wants to stick straight out and stack up.
Too much MSNF?
There seems to be a dearth of decent information on the internet for soft serve.
Any help out there?
I've got my calculator sheet on Google, I can share it so maybe someone who knows what they're doing can help point me in the right direction.
Welcome to SA! To get a useful answer to your question, it helps to narrow it down to one specific question, rather than asking 2 or 3 different questions even if they're related. I'd suggest asking for the general ratio formula first, and if that doesn't exist create a 2nd question asking for help troubleshooting the recipe you are improvising.
Regular ice cream is about 10 degrees Fahrenheit, while soft serve is about 21 degrees Fahrenheit. I'd check that first. The old Taylor machine at Denny's sometimes needed resetting after super-firm-serve churned out laboriously.
I'd suggest taking a look at the excellent book "Ice Cream" by Goff and Hartel (ISBN: 978-1-4614-6095-4). It covers all aspects of making ice cream commercially, and is very thorough. Chapter 8 is titled "Soft-Frozen Dairy Desserts" and page 252 has a table of example formulas for soft-serve ice creams.
For example, one column of the table shows the percentages to use for 6% milk fat:
Milk fat: 6.0%
MSNF: 12.5%
Sugar: 12.0%
CSS: 4.0%
S/E: 0.4%
TS: 34.9%
(MSNF: milk solids-not-fat, CSS: corn syrup solids, S/E: stabilizer plus emulsifier, TS: total solids.)
To take a guess at your actual problem, I'd say if it's not soft enough, you might try lowering the MSNF and xanthan gum first.
Thanks Russell !! ordered the book and upvoted your answer.
@TwistyExpress - Great! Please consider selecting my answer if you think it covers what you asked about. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.534604
| 2021-07-09T00:42:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116352",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Pat Sommer",
"Russell Gilbert",
"Twisty Express",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68174
|
Smoking Boston Butt and Smoker Went out
I borrowed a buddies pellet smoker to test it out. I got it going bright this morning. Got it up to about 225 and loaded it up a 6.5 pound Boston Butt. It never really stayed at 225, but hovered between 200 and 225 for the first 3-4 hours of cooking.
Then the fire went out, it started to drop. The meat was around 130. I wrapped it in tin foil and set it on my outdoor table while I looked at the smoker. After an hour of not getting it going again, I put it in the oven at 225. After another hour I got the smoker working. Turns out the fan got jammed up and I had to get it moving.
So the question is, is my food still safe? A summary of the facts:
6.5 Boston Butt smoked for about 3-4 hours at 200-225, temp got to
around 130.
Fire went out, It spent one hour in foli and an other
hour in the oven at 225.
Temp when going back onto the smoker was
about 125.
Now everything is working, it is running at 250 and the
meat is 163.
I plan on cooking it to 195 or 203 (if time permits).
Thoughts?
Does this answer your question? How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
The standard metric for safety is the cumulative time in the 'danger zone' temperature of 40 to 140°F. Which we really don't know, as that would also include things like bringing it home from the store and stuff like that.
From the sounds of things, you left it out for less than an hour. As such, you should serve it ... but serve it immediately or hold it in a low oven or crock pot.
If you tend to leave out food for people to go back for seconds, and then pack up the leftovers after dinner, I'd also recommend a crock pot or low oven ... and make sure that it's chilled down promptly after dinner.
If you have a really, really long trip from the store, and you didn't transport the uncooked meat in a cooler, it's possible that you might want to avoid serving the food to immune-compromised people, as it'll be a slightly higher risk.**
** Although all food is technically risky ... you have no idea if that pre-wrapped package went for a 30 min walk with a customer through the grocery store before they changed their mind and returned it to the cooler.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.534917
| 2016-04-10T21:40:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68174",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"moscafj"
],
"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
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.