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
115681
Options for adding sauce to naked ribs? I live in a condo complex where having a smoker or any sort of BBQ is difficult. I'm also on the Keto diet and I don't use most standard, store-bought sauces. But I love some good St. Louis ribs and I want to order some naked ones from a local store. What is the best way to go about adding my own sauce to naked ribs? I was thinking about maybe saucing them, wrapping in foil and then baking them? Or just add sauce on top and re-heat? What are my options here? Are you talking about adding a sauce to cooked or uncooked ribs? @GdD I'm referring to cooked ribs that have a rub but no sauce. Its the way most restaurants all them "naked" @SteveChambers Really? Every BBQ restaurant in the world calls them that and so do a lot of chicken places (as in "naked wings"). This is not a new term or something exclusive to me. I live in Texas, Austin to be exact, and while I am not a connoisseur, I have been to a few BBQ places and seen even more menus. "Naked" in reference to cooked but not sauced meat may be a regionalism that you only think is universal, just sayin' The trick here is to not cook the ribs any more as you run the risk of making the meat tough. And tough meat on ribs is suitable only for the trash can. Personally, I would put a nice layer of sauce on the ribs and broil them just enough to caramelize the sauce and warm (but not cook) the ribs. Don't want to over cook them after all... "Nice layer" being an amount that appeals to you but enough to coat the meat and give you a nice caramelized crust while still allowing the meat beneath to warm without cooking. Blow torching is a really popular way to caramelize the outside of numerous pastries, such as frosted cakes: Image source You get all that caramelization on the frosting, without damaging the delicate cake under it. I suppose you could do the same for your ribs in order to not dry them out; cover the ribs in sauce and use a blow torch to give them some caramelization. I partially disagree with @Steve-Chambers: You can cook them more, but it depends on how cooked they are already (if any) and what has been done to them before you got them. There is a point with most meats where cooking the for the wrong time leads to tough meat, but if you cook them longer, then the meat becomes tender - like pulled pork. If they haven't been cooked already, I would brine, spice-rub, then slow roast or crock-pot/slow cooker for ~6-8h until very tender and meat falling off the bone. I would then sauce them using a sauce prepared for the occasion, which may be prepared from the juices from the cooking. Although having learned BBQ in Memphis TN, I also like a dry slow-smoked rib on occasion. If the ribs have been cooked/smoked already, then cooking more won't toughen the meat too much so long as you can retain the moisture in the meat. I would reheat wrapped in foil in a slow oven (say 120 C/250 F) for ~30 min (size dependent) and then sauce with a heated sauce as desired.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.535130
2021-05-16T16:06:01
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115681", "authors": [ "GdD", "Steve Chambers", "Unknown Coder", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40372", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
115163
How can a tandoor oven cook skewered meat evenly I am going to build or buy a tandoor. Before I invest, I have done some research into how to cook in one. The part that confuses me is, all the video's I have seen, show the skewers in the tandoor that are nearly vertical as per this picture. In my mind, this would make it impossible to cook evenly enough given the meat at the bottom of the skewer is closer to the heat source and as such, will cook much faster compared to the meat closer to the lid (that is further away from the heat source). I'm not aiming for perfection with my question, meaning, I don't expect every piece of food to cook 100% perfectly / evenly etc. One video (at 7:50) I've seen even shows that the meat at the top was a higher temperature compared to the meat near the heat source. My question is, how can this cook so evenly? It is called a tandoor oven, not a tandoor grill or a tandoor hotplate. It is enclosed, and with thick walls, which means heat is coming from the sides too, not only the bottom. Also, there is convection, and with a lid on, the hot air doesn't escape. In short, it is the same principle as any other oven.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.535406
2021-04-08T07:06:30
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115163", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
115675
Shoulder Steak vs London Broil I bought a piece of shoulder steak. Can I cook it like a london broil - marinating it and then broiling for around fifteen minutes? Can I cook it like a london broil - marinating it and then broiling for around fifteen minutes? London broil is traditionally prepared using flank steak, but the technique works well for other lean/tough cuts. Your shoulder steak may have more connective tissue than one would typically find in a flank or skirt steak, but not so much that most would find it a problem. Marinating and grilling or broiling along the lines of London broil will work fine, as long as you're prepared to accept the extra gristle. Otherwise, consider a longer braising approach to break down the connective tissue. For more information, see e.g.: Shoulder Steak What is Shoulder Steak? What is it Good For? How do You Cook it? Which cuts of beef are suitable for slow cooking methods? Shoulder steak & London broil are often used interchangeably. I won't bother with technical/pedantic differences, as practically speaking, the exact same cut of meat may be labeled "shoulder steak" at one grocer and "London broil" at another. So yes, your shoulder steak is what you are used to seeing as London broil. So you can cook it exactly the same. London broil is traditionally flank steak, not shoulder. Of course, other cuts are sometimes substituted, but it would be definitely wrong to claim that London broil is in fact synonymous with shoulder steak. I wouldn't even go so far as to say the terms are often used interchangeably, though I'm sure it does happen. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_broil
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.535543
2021-05-16T03:12:44
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115675", "authors": [ "Peter Duniho", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78544" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
115510
What is the proper ratio of tapioca , sugar and water for boba? I want to make my own boba. My first attempt turned out to misshapen flat disk. It looks more like a bread roll. I really would like to them to be round. I used 120g tapioca starch 78ml water 65g brown sugar Might be too dry. I cooked it 6 min on high, 20 min on medium and let it stand for 20min. What is the proper ratio of all three ingredients? Can you expand on your process for making boba? Recipes I've seen generally involve making a dough, forming the dough into tiny boba balls, then completing cooking. Are you just stirring everything into the pot and cooking it? Tapioca comes in many different forms. I always assumed boba was made with "tapioca pearls" rather than the finer ground stuff. related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/78974/67
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.535675
2021-05-03T08:24:09
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115510", "authors": [ "AMtwo", "Joe", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339", "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 }
122683
Are whole dried Shiitake sufficient for complete flavour extraction in my stock, or should I cut them to increase surface area? I usually bring my soon to be vegetable stock to a boil and then let it simmer for about an hour. One of my favourite ingredients is dried Shiitake, which I tend to buy whole and in bulk. Should I go with the common wisdom of increasing the surface area by cutting the dried mushrooms into smaller pieces to extract the most flavour, or does it not really matter under the conditions of making the vegetable stock? Perhaps dried Shiitake, at that temperature, already gives me complete extraction from the interior, and I get to indulge in keeping them whole and pretty. Are whole dried Shiitake sufficient for complete flavour extraction in my stock Of course! Don't bother cutting them up, as that would make them prone to releasing too much of their flavor long before the stock is ready. Also, it's pretty challenging to cut them while they're still dried. This comes down to one simple question: Is the flavor you are getting while leaving them whole sufficiently strong for your tastes? If the answer is yes, then just keep doing what you’re doing. If the answer is no, then you might consider increasing the surface area, or you might consider adding more of them, or you might consider cooking longer, or possibly even cooking hotter. In this particular case, I would probably go for adding more of them over the other options. You’re probably already cooking long enough to extract as much flavor as possible (you will not get all of it, as it becomes harder to extract more the more you extract), so increasing cook time, temperature, or surface area is not likely to have a very big impact.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.535776
2022-12-17T20:19:34
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122683", "authors": [ "FuzzyChef", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
113014
Different ways of making the gravy in butter chicken.. which is better? Can someone tell me the science behind the following scenarios: a. Boil tomatoes, onions along with other dry masalas and then make a puree b. Stir fry tomatoes, onions along with dry masalas and then puree c. Make the onion, tomato puree and add then put it in the curry pot with masalas. How will taste be different in each case? Your question is not totally clearly phrased, but basically you seem to be talking about three things: frying onions frying tomatoes toasting spices Separately spices can either be dry roasted or oil roasted. The interesting thing about oil is that a lot of compounds from spices are considered fat soluble. There is a longer discussion here: https://www.seriouseats.com/2014/07/indian-spices-101-benefits-frying-spices.html but essentially frying spices in oil dissolves those compounds in the oil, and this oil will then form part of the dish. If you dry roasted then obviously this would not happen There is a 455 page treatise on the Chemistry of spices here https://catbull.com/alamut/Bibliothek/Chemistry_of_Spices.pdf from the Indian Institute of Spices Research in Kerala. For example nearly all of the volatiles in coriander are monoterpenes which are very poorly soluble in water. This is why perfume is generally made from an alcohol base. Here fat (oil) is the base. If you dry toasted it's likely that the release of moisture from the spices would affect the flavour profile differently. For ginger, specifically: "Ginger owes its characteristic organoleptic properties to two classes of constituents: the odour and the flavour of ginger are determined by the constituents of its steam- volatile oil, while the pungency is determined by non-steam-volatile components, known as the gingerols. The steam-volatile oil comprises mainly of sesquiterpene hydrocarbons, monoterpene hydrocarbons and oxygenated monoterpenes" Gingerols are flavour compounds themselves, and are converted into zingerone, shogaols and some remain as gingerols. Gingerols are the spiciest, then shogaols, and zingerone is considered sweet. This study found: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316827626_Changes_in_6-Gingerol_Concentration_in_Ginger_under_Various_Types_of_Cooking_Conditions "The ratio of 6-gingerol to 6-shogaol concentration in raw ginger was 98:2. After boiling and steaming for 60 minutes, the concentration of 6-shogaol increased by more than 3 times; this difference was statistically significant (p<0.01). However, it was also confirmed that a sufficiently high amount of the 6-gingerol in ginger was retained after boiling (93:7), steaming (92:8) and stir-frying (97:3)" It would seem that frying ginger first would result in a different flavour profile to if it was cooked in a curry base which would not exceed 100C (boiling temperature of water). As far as tomatoes go, they contain a lot of water. This means that if you add them first, then you are no longer getting the high heat oil based reactions with the spices. So probably if you want to fry spices it's best to do them separately. Frying tomatoes and onions is mostly about the Maillard reaction: Frying tomatoes releases more of these flavours than boiling would. For onions, there is a study here: https://flavourjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13411-015-0034-0 comparing three techniques - sué ('sweating'), sautéeing, and pan frying. *Sué onion preparation: 30 g of sunflower oil were added to a saucepan heated to 100 °C and 1 kg of onions was then added. The onions were regularly stirred for 25 min. Cooking was stopped when the onions were translucent. Sautéed onion preparation: 30 g of sunflower oil was heated to 155 °C in a pan. Then, 1 kg of onions was added and was evenly sautéed for 10 min. Cooking was stopped when onions had a homogeneous caramelized appearance. Pan-fried onion preparation: 30 g of sunflower oil was heated to 130 °C in a pan. Then, 500 g of onions were added and were evenly sautéed for 18 min. Cooking was stopped when onions had a shiny appearance and some of them were burnt.* There were very significant differences with the pan-fried onions: https://flavourjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13411-015-0034-0/tables/3 Much higher levels of: 2-Methylpropanal (spicy) was found compared to the saute (present), and the sweated (absent) Various sulphurous compounds - much higher in the saute 3-Methylbutanal (malty/animal feet) - absent from the sweated, present in the other 2,3-Pentanedione (buttery) - only in the saute Caramel flavours - higher in the saute and the pan fried This is only for different methods of frying. It seems likely that the further process of cooking the curry would tend to break down the spicy and sulphur flavours that are left behind after a saute, so the difference would be less than this presents, but it should still be present - a long slow cook of the onions will make them taste seeetest. On the other hand flavours introduced by first browning the onion would be more durable So I would fry spices first in oil, keep the oil as a minimum. Whether you want toasted onion flavours in your butter chicken seems like it would be a matter of taste, but cooking them long and slow will give them sweetest taste. For tomatoes frying will add flavour compared to boiling, though baking adds even more flavour.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.535921
2020-12-06T07:41:47
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113014", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
113376
Which is better to use baking soda or baking powder for making cakes? I'm confused. I would like to know which is better to use: baking powder or baking soda for making cake. Or which is best for what recipes. They are different ingredients and one does not replace the other. Baking soda is an alkali which can react with acidic ingredients in a recipe to produce carbon dioxide which helps baked goods rise. Baking powder includes baking soda (or similar) and an acidic ingredient, so it is more 'self-contained' rather than relying on something else in the recipe. (Self-raising flour is basically flour with baking powder mixed in, to be even more self-contained.) But you should just follow whatever is in the recipe you are making or adapting. If you have found a recipe you are trying to follow which does not make it clear you could post it in your question and we could try to work it out from the other ingredients. I want to make cakes and and bake some breads. In those recipes it was mentioned baking soda and somewhere it is mentioned baking powder. That's why I got confused. Thanks for your answer.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.536311
2020-12-25T20:55:30
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113376", "authors": [ "Deepak Mathur", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90406" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
113450
Sushi rolls keep getting thin I'm learning how to make sushi and the last problem I always get now is that my rolls end up getting too thin. I follow the guides I found on the internet to split the seaweed in half and put the amount of rice similar to a lemon sized ball. If I put an amount of rice and a normal sized filling, it is impossible to close. So, I really would like to know a couple of things, what is the regular size for the seaweed, what is the proper amount of rice to put on it and if this problem I'm getting there's nothing to deal with measurements, but technique. Note: as I see some tutorials, it seems the seaweed is the same, so they are getting the same size seaweed, and I'm inclined to believe that I'm executing the technique to roll improperly. There's a fairly large variety of sushi rolls. Half-nori sheet would be for "hosomaki" (thin rolls) or uramaki (inside out rolls): https://www.allaboutsushiguide.com/maki-sushi.html As it’s difficult to judge what size a given amount of rice will end up being once you roll it up, I follow a technique that I noticed a sushi chef doing on a video: put down a line of rice, then spread it out You then have a much better clue how the rice will roll up (based on the width and height of the line of rice) and if you have it even across the length of the roll You might need to experiment a little bit, based on how tightly you pack the rice when rolling, and how much else you’re adding as filling Unless you pack a lot of fillings into your roll, on your first attempt aim for a line (ridge?) of rice roughly the size of the finished roll that you're aiming for, as you'll compress the rice as part of the rolling process. You can then adjust your amounts (of rice and/or filling) for the subsequent rolls. I have a couple of suggestions, which have helped me. First, cut your nori a bit larger. Rather than using a half sheet, go for two-thirds a sheet. Of course this will produce a smaller portion, for which you will need to devise a creative use (I've used them for hand rolls), but beginning with a larger sheet leaves you more room for error as you are learning to create consistent rolls. Second, I like to try to create a layer of rice that is one grain of rice thick. Of course, it doesn't always happen this way, but it allows me to work at keeping the rice layer uniform. Forget the "lemon-sized ball." Just make a layer of rice, always leaving some exposed nori along the long edges so you can create a seal when you roll. Use a bowl of water to keep your hands moist, and avoid sticking rice. It does take some practice, so keep at it. Once you are producing consistent results, you can go back to a half sheet.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.536419
2020-12-29T13:01:33
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113450", "authors": [ "Joe", "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 }
53442
Will my results differ when using a sourdough starter vs poolish for pizza dough? I've read about differing techniques for getting the best flavor, texture, and chewiness in my pizza crust. One of the commonly suggested routes is to include a sourdough starter as part of the process, but I also find suggestions to use a poolish pre-ferment. From what I understand the main difference in technique is that a sourdough starter typically uses simply flour and water(introducting natural lactobacillus), where as poolish you would also include off the shelf bakers yeast. The sourdough starter also seems to be an ingredient that you build up over days, or even longer, where as the poolish you make in less than a day. What I haven't been able to determine, is what if any differences will I find in my pizza dough using one product over the other? Would the pizza crust taste different, look different, rise different, or exhibit other differing characteristics between the two processes? My ultimate goal is Neapolitan margherita pizza in a home oven). Since I live in SF, I frequently make sourdough pizza. Here's the other cautions about it: the dough is stickier than conventional, making it hard to roll out. Also, it's difficult to make a sourdough with short gluten strands, something you want for pizza baked in a home oven. So sourdough pizza will be rather chewy, especially after it cools. Tastes good, though. Just not classic Neopolitan. Also, building up a proper sourdough culture takes a minimum of 3 weeks. Three things: Most traditional Neapolitan pizza dough does not use a pre-ferment - poolish, biga, or sourdough starter. Not to say it may not be good, but it wouldn't the way most are made. Sourdough starters change their flavor profiles by age and by geographical region. In general, I would expect a bit more of a 'tang' from the sourdough starter than from the poolish. Sourdough starters usually don't rise as much - commercial yeast is just in general stronger than its wild counterparts. So a dough made with a sourdough starter may not rise as well. Between the two, I would prefer poolish over sourdough for a more traditional taste. However, I'd be more likely to try something like a cold starter and super slow rise like a Pain à l'Ancienne in order to promote more natural sugars in the bread which would result in better browning. The primary challenge with Neapolitan pizza dough is the lack of heat in a home oven. Part of the thing that heat does is the browning - hence the recipe that promotes better browning but with traditional ingredients. 79% hydration? I wish my skills would allow! Also, everything always leads to Peter Reinhart! And finally, I've been using the cold ferment basis of that method, except also including a 1 day rise on the counter at first. Thanks I will read into this recipe more! I don't know why I keep reading about people using pre-ferments for Neapolitan... I want to start with the "traditional" and vary once I understand it. He's the man ;) @dpollitt - Amylase is in flour, which breaks down some of the starch into maltose. Yeast has the enzyme maltase which breaks that maltose down into glucose. More glucose = better browning. Give more time for that reaction to happen and you get better browning because more sugar is produced. One of the reason that long, slow rises give more flavor. @dpollitt - what problem are you having with your Neapolitan dough that you're trying to resolve? Nothing in particular at the moment. I'm more interested in study of the craft(and eating). I picked up Tony Gemignani's "The Pizza Bible" and am experimenting and learning from that text. This question came out of reading that. Thought I'd chime in here. I was in a similar spot a few months ago. I came across Jeff Varasanos website, http://www.varasanos.com/PizzaRecipe.htm. I read his entire page (it's long) then bought and read the recommended book, "Classic Sourdoughs" by Ed Wood. I then bought and activated these cultures: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006TMLF98/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1. It ended up being a lot more effort than I originally thought. See my review on that same Amazon page for details. So now I've made pizza dough with both pre-ferments as well as sourdough cultures. In both cases I lacked super-high heat (eg. my oven only goes up to about 525F), which Jeff Varasano sites as one of the 3 most important elements. With that said, the pizza's made with the sourdough culture were crispier, lighter and chewier. I also think they tasted better. I would call it my most successful attempt at Pizza Napoletana and worth the effort. It has also been an interesting learning experience. I hope this helps you. Bobby Bobby - I appreciate the comments. Crisper, lighted, and chewier all sound wonderful. I'll have to give the sourdough starter a try. If you are struggling with high heat, I highly recommend the baking steel. It is a game changer for home oven Neapolitan pizza. Sourdough sounds nice. I use the cold rise and a blend of white, semolina, wheat flours and at least 8 hr cold rise. The sour dough flavor increases over time in the fridge. I do not mix oils or salt directly into the dough while it is in a cold rise. Instead it is kneaded into the dough afterward and the salt is allowed to diffuse from the outside in while in the fridge. I use 500 degree F at top shelf in oven to get the reflection from the top of the oven while my cast iron pizza pan cooks on the bottom. I get a thin 1mm crust, light inside, and gently brown/orange spotted whole milk mozzarella. The Iron pan Lodge Mfg P14P3 Cast Iron Pizza Pan, 14 In
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.536663
2015-01-09T14:44:59
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53442", "authors": [ "Amber Ible", "Andys Garage Door Repair", "FuzzyChef", "John Ellis", "Malvin Butler", "Neville Gillibrand", "Paul Klever", "Ryan Mifsud", "dpollitt", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125541", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125542", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125543", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125620", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125621", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127042", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134375", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243", "rfusca" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
16310
Getting better in the kitchen Possible Duplicate: Resources for a beginner learning to cook So, I really want to improve my talent in the kitchen. I think I should start with the basics though. I've always concentrated on following recipes, or trying to emulate what I see on television, but I feel like without a good foundation on the basic skills in the kitchen, I will never truly improve. One example I can give is to the television show "Worst Cooks in America" on the Food Network. They basically bring those guys in, tell them how to cut correctly, which knives they should be using - then they move on and go over the proper way to sear meats, what heat to keep your pans at, how to season different things correctly, how much oil to use, the proper way to fry/saute - everything like that. I kind of just do everything my "own" way, and when I'm following a recipe I get off line or something, I just pretend I know what I'm doing, and that if I follow the steps, it will come out exactly as theirs did, which has been pretty false for the most part. How can I start to improve my basic cooking skills? Is there any books or anything I should pick up? Maybe any links online that go through how to get better and where to start? I eventually want to be able to just see what food is on sale in the grocery store, and be able to picture how I can create a meal with it, how I would season it, what would go great together, etc - as opposed to only buying things that match up with whatever recipe sounds good to me that night :) Thanks guys. This is essentially duplicating several other questions into a vague poll. How can I safely improve my cutting technique?; Ways to learn to season food correctly?; Resources for a beginner learning to cook; What's a good resource for knowing what spices are, and what to use them on? etc. Check the [basics] and [learning] tags. The clear writing is appreciated but please search for existing topics first. Makes sense. I should have done more searching. Sorry :( I'm sure there are a million ways to do this, so my answer isn't "right", it's just how I've learned. Get a good cookbook and follow recipes from it. Ideally, you want a cookbook that discusses the "why" as well as the "how". I highly recommend The Best Recipe for this. They have detailed explanations of how they created the recipe and why certain things work. Having a good understanding of why will allow you to really understand the steps of a recipe, making it easier to improvise. Look for some courses. If you live near a major metro area, there is almost certainly somewhere to take some cooking courses for the home chef. Look for some 101 level courses. Our local cooking school / gadget shop / place I spend too much money is Cooks Warehouse. They have classes like Knife Skills, Pasta 101, Summer Veggies, Intro to Cheese Making, BBQ, etc. Take a class or two. Ask and research questions here. If you want to know "how to..." there's a good chance that there's already a good question on this site. Reading about steak for instance, you'll learn a TON, or look for Beginner Cooks. Do your research. If you don't find your question, ask away. There's no question at all that I've become a better cook because of this site. Find someone to cook with. My wife could cook pretty well, and I learned a lot from her. Later we made some friends and gained a neighbor who were professional chefs. Cooking in a kitchen with them, even if it's just helping, can be very helpful. You'll learn a ton. Don't be afraid to ask questions. Cook the same dish over and over. Find a dish you like and make it a couple of times from the same recipe. Then look it up online and look for some recipes that are different. Try those. Figure out what you like / didn't like about the recipes and identify what was different. Then start to try and make some changes off the top of your head (this is particularly common if you don't have something in the recipe, leave it out? substitute?). Cook lots of different dishes. Branch out a little and try some different things. Stew, pastry, cake, stir fry, etc. Trying a bunch of different things will give you an idea of what happens when you cook something low and slow vs hot and fast, dry heat / wet heat, etc. What you are really looking for is a trusted source followed by experience, both in depth and in breadth. The trusted source is important to make sure you are getting experience doing the right thing. Ideally, maybe you should start with just depth and nail one dish / technique after another, but that's boring, and if you're doing it at home, you have to eat the results. So breadth helps the home cook, even if that isn't what you'd do in culinary school. Practice and learn and you'll get there eventually. Fortunately, you need to eat every day, so there's plenty of opportunity. That's a very general question and difficult to answer in short. Knife skills. Jaimie on Youtube. Some others as well. The left hand is most important as you cannot easily cut your right hand (you can always try). Sauté technique. Put a pan on medium heat and leave it there. If you put it on high it might burn. After some minutes, splash a drop of water in the pan (one drop). You should hear it evaporate. Put the heat on high. Put a dash of fat in the pan (oil, butter, grease, you name it). Swirl the pan around a bit. When you see 'waves' on the oil, it's hot. Go and sauté. If your product is too big or thick for sautéing, go ahead and sauté anyway. Once it's nice on the outside, put some cold liquid in (water, wine, brandy, whatever). Put the heat on low. Put a lid on. Wait. With these three lessons learned, you can do most basic cooking. Edit Boil, Simmer & Poach. Rolling Boil. Used for cooking spaghetti and other pasta, and almost nothing else. Simmer. Just under a boil (94ºC) used for cooking. Rice, meat, whatnot. It's what you do in step 3 of the above list. Poach. Very delicate items like eggs can be poached. Already watched one of his videos, they are awesome! I learned a great deal from rouxbe.com, which is an online cooking school. It starts from the beginning and teaches you why as well as what. It's not free, but the quality is very high. I'll check that out :)
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.537196
2011-07-21T17:16:17
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16310", "authors": [ "Aaronut", "Karen", "SinaKhan", "Stacie", "Stephen", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34724", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34725", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34744", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34745", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34762", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6792", "slandau", "stevem" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
45313
Is it better to use oranges that are under-ripe or over-ripe to make marmalade? I have some slightly under-ripe oranges, and will be leaving the house shortly. Would I be wasting time to try to make them into marmalade? Under ripe oranges are actually desirable for marmalade, as they tend to have more pectin, which helps to give the marmalade its jammy, gelatinous consistency. So have at it!
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.537687
2014-07-04T00:08:04
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45313", "authors": [ "Cheryl", "Dominique", "Elation", "Level 10 Overhead Door spam", "Petti Home Shop", "Sonya Thompson", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107906", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107907", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107908", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107936", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107944", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108107", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108108", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108109", "man", "user107906" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
41759
How to minimize salt taste from biryani? I've tried Veg Biryani dish yesterday but I was failed to know the amount of salt to be added. Its tasting little bit salty. I've to cook it again today night. Can somebody tell me how to reduce the salty taste in case Veg Biryani or any dish? For person who don't know Veg Biryani: http://www.vegrecipesofindia.com/hyderabad-veg-biryani-hyderabadi-vegetable-dum-biryani-recipe/ I hesitate to say this lest I sound facetious but... use less salt? Dear ElendilTheTall, If some dish is perfectly done but ruined just because of bit extra salt then should someone throw it in dustbin?? Are you saying you are cooking a new biryani tonight or you are reheating the same, over-salted one? It is not clear from your question. Naturally if you are reheating the salty one there is little you can do. I want to reheat the yesterday's biryani also and want to cook new one again and also in case this situation will occur may in future then want some solution that will solve this case. Well, in future when you cook the biryani, use less salt. As for reheating yesterday's biryani, did you cool it quickly or did you let it cool at room temperature? @TheDK there isn't anything you can do to remove salt from an already cooked dish. You can dilute the dish with something you think fits the taste, or cook a second batch without salt and all and mix the two batches. But salt, once added, won't go away. Thanks rumtscho. Your suggestion sounds prolific rather the taunts passing on this question. And thanks to Mien to informing that this kind of question already asked here. I'll refer it for future purpose. Oh boy ...well if a briyani has gotten too salty then you are forced to either make Iit again or make a side dish like "rhita" without salt. Then again rhita is yoghurt based - to say sour. Latter had worked for me anyway. Also if you are making plain briyani not "dum" then you are better of with rumtscho's "mix a second batch of saltless cooked rice to your salty rice" idea.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.537771
2014-02-04T10:48:22
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41759", "authors": [ "Benjamin", "ElendilTheTall", "Spammer", "Spammer McSpamface", "The DK", "bonCodigo", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22988", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97388", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97389", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97390", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97391", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98415", "rumtscho", "tony spam stark" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
95659
Safe to consume pork basting liquid directly? I've been watching Sam the Cooking Guy a lot lately, and I was excited to see that his newest video featured my favorite sandwich, the Cuban. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj5kgvnzxDo (skip to 2:30 in the video) I trust Sam's skills, however I was a bit taken aback when he brushed some of the basting liquid directly onto the bread, using (apparently) the same container and brush that had been used on the pork during grilling. Granted, he only brushed it on the meat after that side had been grilled. Is this safe? If so, why? Btw at 2:30 there's no brushing bread happening, he just brushes the meat. Seeing him brush the bread would be useless without knowing how the liquid was used prior to that, and 2:30 is where the meat brushing starts. I'm not sure I was able to tell exactly what he did when watching the video. What I know is that you should not use a marinade that came into contact with raw meat as a brushed on finishing sauce. Once it has come into contact with raw meat, it is not safe to consume uncooked. It is possible that he marinated the meat in a portion of the marinade, and reserved a smaller portion (no contact with raw meat) to use as a finishing sauce. He did wait to brush each side of the meat until after that side had been grilled, so I suppose you could say that the liquid didn't touch raw meat. But seeing it still surprised me. @JohnGordon it depends on whether or not the raw meat was in the marinade before he used it as a finishing sauce. The meat wasn't in the sauce prior to cooking. I suppose I shouldn't have called it a marinade. I edited the question.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.537982
2019-01-15T01:52:47
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95659", "authors": [ "John Gordon", "Luciano", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72130", "moscafj" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
97371
Pork didn't get done in time I recently made this recipe: https://foodwishes.blogspot.com/2016/08/paper-pork-shoulder-its-wrap.html 7 lb pork shoulder, apply rub, wrap tightly in parchment and foil, roast at 225 F for 12 hours. I cooked it in a freestanding turkey roaster and after 12 hours, plus an hour of rest, it wasn't really done -- the meat wasn't fork-tender, and the bone was still firmly attached. I then put it in a 350 F oven for about two more hours, with another hour of rest, and was much happier. The meat was fall-apart tender, and the bone slid right out. But why did I have to do that? How did I screw up? It shouldn't matter that I used a freestanding roaster instead of a standard oven, should it? 225 degrees is 225 degrees, right? I only had a few other thoughts: I didn't let the meat come up to room temperature before roasting, but I don't think the recipe said to do that. (Is that just assumed?) The meat was sitting on a rack in the roaster, with a little bit of air space underneath, instead of sitting directly in a baking dish as in the recipe video. Can that matter? It's also possible that your roaster has a bad thermostat. Have you tried putting a thermometer in there to make sure it's accurate? @Joe I hadn't thought of that! Did you measure the internal temperature of your pork shoulder after 12 hours with a calibrated thermometer? What was the reading? @moscafj I didn't. When I saw that the bone wouldn't budge, I didn't bother investigating any further. I'll definitely keep that in mind for next time. When you say the meat was on the rack, do you mean that the wrapped parcel was sitting on the rack, or that you wrapped the top of the roaster? I'm asking in case the problem was evaporation causing a temperature stall. Properly sealed that effect would be minimal, but if water vapour was able to evaporate (if I've understood this link correctly) will make the temp stop climbing until the moisture is used up. The link is about BBQ but principle should stand. @Spagirl the wrapped parcel was sitting on the rack. Based on your original question and the comments, it sounds like you simply did not make an accurate assessment of the temperature of your product and your cooker. Low and slow is an excellent technique to make pork shoulder tender. Your goal should be an internal temperature of about 195 F ((90C). Estimates are that you should allow 1 to 1.5 hours per pound, but this can vary depending on the heat source and the fat and bone content of your pork. It is best to measure the internal temperature. As pointed out above, two things potentially "went wrong". Either your cooker did not maintain the temperature you thought it did, and/or you pulled the pork out before it reached the desired temperature. For best results in the future, use accurate thermometers and measure both.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.538159
2019-04-08T15:58:45
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97371", "authors": [ "Joe", "John Gordon", "Spagirl", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72130", "moscafj" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
119812
How do I know if a Hello Fresh shipment is ... fresh? We recently received a Hello Fresh box as a gift. However, due to snowstorms in the area, it arrived four days late, and I'm sure that extra time was spent on a truck or on a shelf in a shipping center. The ice pack in the box was still frozen. I'm sure the potatoes and other dry ingredients are ok, but I wonder about the packages of ground meat and chicken breasts. How do I know if the (meat/dairy) contents are safe to eat? I don’t know how they package the food they’re shipping, but I would beware if any packages that are puffed up like balloon. Were there dates stamped on the meat packages? If so, what did they indicate about the age of the box? Also, if the box had been stored at ambient temperature for 4 days, the ice pack would obviously have melted, so presumably you can you infer that, even if 4 days old, the box had been refrigerated/frozen? Long ago, I owned a fast food restaurant. A customer brought back a sandwich complaining that it smelled. I checked the box the meat came in and the date was good. The date on the packages inside were good. But opening a package brought out a stench. Obviously something was mishandled and, perhaps, this box was not stored properly by the shipping company or the plant. The short answer is you don't know, there's no certainty. Even with food bought from a supermarket there are no guarantees, there could be handling errors which reduce the shelf life or you could get it home and find it's spoiled. With your package if the food was still very cold to the touch and the ice pack was still frozen then there's a good chance the food is still fine, however a cold pack can feel chilly but not be cold enough so unless you measured the temperature you can't be sure. I would treat the meat with suspicion, and play it safe. If you think it was kept refrigerator temperature the whole time and the meat looks and smells fresh then it may be safe, if not I'd chuck the meats as it's not worth the risk. Cheeses may be fine, many get aged above refrigerator temperature, so if they didn't stay that cold they're a better bet. Pretty much the same as you would do with the regular supermarket-bought food: check for the package bloating, odd smells, discoloration, sliminess to the touch, all the usuals. It would also make sense to slow cook the meats. Given the snowstorms and unmelted ice, it is likely the foods have spent their time on a truck in favorable conditions. Personally, I would cook it unless given an indication something's off (like odor), but that depends on how sure you are in that it is safe to eat. When in doubt, throw it out. HelloFresh boxes can only be refrigerated, not frozen after they are packed, because freezing would ruin the lettuce, spinach, etc. Therefore if the ice in the meat pack is still frozen, then your box was almost certainly packed today or yesterday. They probably packed your box 4 days late knowing that they wouldn't be able to send the driver into the storm. Your food is fresh. On rare occasions HelloFresh sends me stuff that is less-than-fresh; if it looks or smells gross, I don't eat it. And I eat the fish and chicken first because I have noticed that when they come from HelloFresh they do sometimes expire a couple days before the expiry date printed on the packet. Excellent point, showing that the ice pack would not have re-frozen without damaging the other freeze-sensitive items in the box. OP wrote I'm sure that extra time was spent on a truck or on a shelf in a shipping center. We don't know how he can be sure - maybe he got a confirmation mail about when the package was sent on its way (I don't know how Hello Fresh works in that regard). For the sake of taking the question at face value, I'd suggest to reformulate the "they probably packed..." and especially the very confident "Your food is fresh." sentence. The package was cold, ice pack frozen, etc. when you received it. But the big question is whether it stayed cold the whole time. There are temperature monitoring labels such as this one: (I have never used this particular one, just found it in a search, there are many manufacturers of similar items.) But residential shipments don't necessarily have such things. The other useful clue is the "ice pack". If it contains dry ice (solid CO2), it will sublimate over time and the packs will be partly or fully empty if the temperature has risen too high for too long. But again, residential deliveries are probably less likely to use dry ice due to handling concerns. If it contains water ice but is well sealed, it will melt if the temperature has risen too high for too long, but it will refreeze if the temperature is cold enough for long enough. If the pack normally has "cubes", a refreeze will be obvious because the pack will feel differently (single blob instead of "cubes"). If it contains some other liquid/solid, all bets are off. Many "ice packs" contain a liquid that can be frozen/melted/refrozen numerous times with no obvious effects. So if I buy these temperature monitoring labels, how long do I have to put it on the package and wait before I can open the package? Or do they work instantly? @GregoryCurrie You as buyer can't use them. The use case is that the seller puts the proper one in / on the package, and the recipient can verify during handover if the package has been above the threshold temperature and if so, for how long. Ahh ok. So not that useful for the OP. @Gregory Not directly useful. But explaining how it is possible if the vendor puts some $ and effort into it.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.538414
2022-02-11T18:41:25
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119812", "authors": [ "AnoE", "Criggie", "Gregory Currie", "Joe", "Rob", "gidds", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25580", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51949", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85536", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97897", "manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact", "zovits" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
100466
Can you identify this black sauce from this Kuala lumpur claypot chicken vendor? There's this world famous claypot chicken vendor at Kuala lumpur who cooked chicken and rice in a claypot over charcoal. In this video you can see him using a black sauce. www.TinyURL.com/KLclaypot Assuming that it's a generic sauce of asian cuisine, can you help me identify it? I want to know what particularly attributes to it's lustre! Looking at the video, I would say he's using a variety of soy sauces, with one or more being a dark or black variety. From Wikipedia: Traditionally, the cooking is done over a charcoal stove, giving the dish a distinctive flavour. Some places serve it with dark soya sauce and also dried salted fish. Also from Wikipedia, a picture of the dish with dark soya added: Update as per the edit to the question: Dark and black soy sauces tend to have a thicker consistency than 'regular, everyday' soy sauces. (And some are sweetened.) The viscosity allows the sauce to adhere to foods more easily and creates what I refer to as a lovely sheen. From Serious Eats: Dark and Double Dark: Like Japanese dark soys, Chinese "dark" soys are darker in color and thicker in texture, but tend to be lighter in saltiness. They are generally fermented for a longer period of time than their thin counterparts and often have added sugar or molasses, giving them a sweet-salty flavor and viscous texture. They are used solely for cooking, often added at the last stages to season and add color to sauces. What, in your opinion, attributes to it's lustre?
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.538888
2019-07-30T10:14:27
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100466", "authors": [ "Love Bites", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72177" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
95970
Recreating a bread I want to recreate a bread that we used to eat when I was a kid. The bakery is out of business (as of about 2 years ago), so I can't ask them for a recipe. It was called "Honey Wheat" bread, or perhaps (in later years) "Honey Health" bread. I've found recipes for those, and they sound similar, but the pictures say they're not. Here are the main differences between, say, this recipe: https://www.tastesoflizzyt.com/honey-wheat-bread/ and what I'm looking for are Darker color. Ohlin's bread was sweet and had a color close to caramel. Not dark brown like pumpernickel, but not light brown either. Somewhere between the color of light-brown and dark-brown sugar, probably on the dark-brown end of things. More open texture: the holes in Ohlin's bread were more of a shape and distribution like those in an English muffin. Chewier. This bread had a chewiness that was about halfway between commercial whole-wheat bread and a good bagel. Shinier. When you cut the bread, the surface of the "bubbles" in it appeared a little bit shiny. (OK, I could be mis-remembering here...I last ate this bread over 50 years ago!) I'm not expecting that anyone can say "Oh, HERE's how you make that," but if someone could provide guidance on how one alters a bread recipe to get a more open texture, to get more chewiness, etc., I can make 8 or 10 or 20 loaves to home in on the qualities I remember. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. (Alternatively, if there's a good general reference on how to do this kind of thing, I'd be happy to read up on it without someone re-typing it all!) Welcome to Seasoned Advice SE. :) Recipe swapping is "off-topic", but I feel like you are more focused on the technique(s) necessary to get a darker, chewier loaf ... It will be interesting to see what might help produce the texture you are looking for. Yes, you've got it exactly. For almost any bread I like, I can find a recipe and follow it... but understanding what alterations make a recipe do something different --- that's a whole different question. Something like the wonderful https://sweets.seriouseats.com/2013/12/the-food-lab-the-best-chocolate-chip-cookies.html, but for bread...that's what I'm looking for. Consider asking the property owner for the name/address of the baker. As contacting the baker may give you more information than just a formula. Adding molasses or brown sugar will add a brown color to the dough, how much to add is a bit of a trick to get right, but it should be proportional to the amount of sugar in the dough. Most 1 lb recipes I have from American sources use about 1/3 cup of molasses. The shine might well be additional gluten added to increase the chew (two with one stone perhaps!), but it could also be extra oil. Bigger bubbles might indicate a damper dough with a higher yeast content or even possibly the addition of a second raising agent (e.g. baking powder). It could also indicate a higher baking temperature. You might want to check out focaccia recipes - these usually have a light airy crumb. With commercial baked products it is difficult to know exactly what is going on as they have it all worked out for rapid and consistent mass production, rather than single batches. Thanks -- those are exactly the kinds of pointers I was looking for. I think molasses might be wrong -- it's got a pretty distinctive flavor, which I like and would recognize if it had been in there. Perhaps some dark karo syrup in place of some sugar might help, though. The focaccia is a nice idea -- you're exactly on the right track for the kind of airy-ness that I'm after. Why do I have the feeling that in a week my wife's gonna be saying "Honey, PLEASE stop baking bread!"? I would be looking for ingredients that are cheap, the cheaper the better from a commercial perspective. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find that they have added a coloring agent or two for "appeal" if it is a commercial loaf (like say "wonder bread", if you can call it bread) - though if it was your local baker (e.g. more cafe style), then this is less likely. My wife and children rarely complain when I bake bread, unfortunately a rarity these days. @John--I'm pretty sure I know the exact bread you're talking about... Though I'm more familiar with the donuts from Ohlin's. I think Bob's answer is pretty spot on. You need to increase gluten and have a pretty wet dough, and you'll be headed in the right direction. "Ohlin" is a Swedish name and you may be looking for something akin to Swedish 'sirapslimpa' - literally syrup-loaf. Does this look familiar? It's a fairly large category of bread, but it may point you in the right direction. (Common traits include using some rye, and a lot of 'sirap', something in between molasses and golden syrup.) Thanks --- that's a great pointer. I looked at about 200 pictures of siraslimpa, and this one -- https://www.flickr.com/photos/paindemartin/4462194460 -- actually bore some resemblance to what I'm thinking of ... and better still, its title seems to encode the ingredient list! Further updates if this (or something like it) pans out. That is an odd recipe, with all rye and no wheat. (And some coffee for colour and flavour.) By all means, give it a try, though! But I think that a commercially sold bread is more likely to have some wheat in it. I tried it (to be honest, I tried a half-recipe, which led to problems with my mixer being barely able to reach the ingredients, etc...live and learn!) and with 20 min baking at 400 got an 8" disk about 3/4" tall; when I cut biscotti-shaped slices from it, it turned out to have a quite crunchy top and bottom, and a soft and nicely-baked middle. I was slightly disappointed; my wife raved, and said "THIS is what we have to make to serve with gravlax!" Either way, it didn't look like the picture...but the bread in the pic was clearly cooked in a loaf pan, while I just cooked mine on a sheet. Doh!
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.539060
2019-01-27T01:40:39
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95970", "authors": [ "AMtwo", "John", "Optionparty", "Popup", "bob1", "elbrant", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25423", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72464" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
129389
Preventing eggy sous vide water with Crème Brûlée Crème Brûlée is a staple sous vide recipe in our household, but cooking them in Mason jars (even using expensive high quality ones) inevatibly leads to some leakage from the pots into the water. Apart from the horrible eggy smelling water, this requires a descale cycle of my water circulator. The ziploc bag method is OK, but it is a faff equally measuring out the desert into the pots afterwards. To prevent this, could I vacumn seal the pots to prevent leakage and if so, would I need to adjust the cooking time or temperature at all? [Added as per request of @Questor] This is identical to the type of jar I am using. I don't understand how you are leaking. If the lids are tight you really shouldn't have that problem. All the guides I have followed have said to only tighten the lids until finger tight. My understanding of that is to screw the lid on until it just stops an no more. I might get another 10-20 degrees or so of a turn, if that. I certainly wouldn't consider the lids loose, and there has been a strong seal between the rubber coated lid and the glass. Strangely though, there is little trace of water inside the jars but the sous-vide water itself is cloudy. I have just had a thought, I wonder if just one of the jars has a bad seal/leak, that would account for the lack of moisture in the other jars. Not having checked the consistency of all the pots might be the reason I've missed that one. Why not just fill the water to the level just below the neck? Not easy, my circulator is very tall and the bath is deep. I could try putting something in the container to lift them up though. Can you include a picture of your jar? I am picturing a meson jar with a canning lid... Which is designed to let things out when you heat the jar so that as the jar cools the jar will seal using negative pressure.. TLDR: I don't think its possible to stop the leak with that kind of jar. Have done, @Questor. I second what @Questor was saying, those jars are designed to work exactly as they are (venting slightly when heated). Tightening more or using lids that don't have two parts might prevent that, but it also might cause excess pressure to build up inside the jars. As others said in comments, the problem is the lid: it's a canning lid. By design, once you heat the jar and pressure builds up the lid will allow air (and the jar's contents if it's full enough) to escape, to create a seal using negative pressure. You can either use a different lid, or you could put the jars on top of a rack (or anything else) to make sure the lid is above water and you reach the minimum water level for the sous vide circulator. I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying that the leakage occurs specifically because the jars are over-filled and the custard expands during cooking, overflowing the rim? So in this case, we would expect there to be custard residue on the inside of the lids? Ah, you have hit the nail on the head there, @Sneftel and completed the puzzle. Indeed, each pot had just a smidgen of custard residue on the lids. The pots themselves are not overfilled (probably about 2/3rds and nowhere near the lid) but the expansion of the custard during cooking appears to be the culprit. Thank you everyone for your contributions. I've decided to invest in a large Mason jar that is taller than the water level when the bath is full. Due to the long throat on my circulator, and depth of the bath, raising the pots up would be tricky.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.539956
2024-10-17T19:14:37
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129389", "authors": [ "Esther", "GdD", "Greybeard", "Questor", "Sneftel", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101479", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067", "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 }
128296
What would be the best way of preparing lasagne in advance? Due to time constraints, I need to prepare a large lasagne in advance of a dinner party at a friends house the next day. The ingredients will be meat sauce, bechamel sauce, a variety of grated hard cheeses and the dehydrated, hard pasta lasagne sheets commonly found in Europe and the UK. I have considered assembling the lasagne while it is still warm, as both the sauces will be less stiff, more easily spread and levelled. However, I am concerned the heat may affect the quality of the cheese and the pasta sheets. I won't really have much time to wait for it to cool down before assembling the dish the night before, and the next day both sauces will be very thick and almost impossible to spread evenly straight out of the refrigerator. As I intend to bake the dish at the friends house, what would be the best way to approach this to bake the best lasagne? Just prepare the lasagna in advance as you normally would the day before the event. Refrigerate. Bring the dish to the friends house and bake as you normally would. Lasagna is fairly sturdy. It will hold up just fine. Lasagne is one of the dishes that taste even better when it is a day old, you can make/ bake it the day before and reheat it at your friend's place. After baking, just let it cool down, put to the fridge and slowly reheat it at your friends place. If you are worried about how the reheated lasagne tastes, you could make a small one as a test run. That would be my pick as well. Rather than a partial gain from pre-prep, go for the whole gain from pre-finish, which also makes timing at the dinner a lot easier ("it's almost ready!"). That's not something I'd do on all recipes, far from, but lasagna works well with it. I might also experiment with microwave vs oven reheating. @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Lasange and gulash are great examples of better next day dishes as well as certain cakes. Microwave vs oven is for me if it has to stay warmer longer or is served right away and the amount of reheating. A single portion is better done in the microwave, a full serving of lasange better in the oven. The selected answer isn't wrong, but this is the best answer. My wife's Italian-ish dishes always taste better as leftovers; the only reason we don't wait is we can't. My family makes lasagna every year for Christmas Eve, and my mom makes it multiple days in advance and keeps it in the fridge, then reheats it on the day of. It’s slightly different than the one that you describe, as it’s made with fresh noodles (cooked before assembling, then spread out to cool), but with a meat sauce and béchamel. I want to say the assembly happened when everything was warm but not particularly hot, then put in the fridge. She reheats the lasagna at a lower temperature until warmed through, and then turns up the temperature to let it brown the top just a bit. She serves it with freshly made béchamel and some extra tomato sauce on the side for anyone who wants extra. (We typically have two types of lasagna; there is also a white lasagna with no tomato or meat) She often makes an extra of each one, and wraps it in heavy foil and freezes it for a later meal. I think she would let it defrost for a couple of days in the fridge, then reheat in a low oven (maybe 300°F / 150°C), etc. I can confirm it freezes and defrosts very well, I often assemble then freeze and leave the baking until needed. Depending on what it is frozen in (i.e. no metal trays), a microwave defrost on medium power (70%) works quite well, followed by a bake in the oven to finish it off. Thanks @Joe, I think the key here is the warm temperature. We have a Delia Smith recipe that says to prepare it 6 hours in advance to let the dried pasta get softer. I can't imagine longer would be a problem. We always assemble it warm or as you say it doesn't spread. If DS suggest that, it must be OK !!! @Greybeard it is really good. Friend stated "That was the best lasaga I have ever tasted". So the tip for letting the pasta rehydrate clearly works. I've been using the no-boil recipes for some years now. Can't see any reason those couldn't be prepared in advance...
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.540305
2024-05-07T14:45:00
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128296", "authors": [ "Dave", "Greybeard", "Italian Philosopher", "WendyG", "Zibelas", "bob1", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2042", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64096", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70038", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70727" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
121492
How can I safely store garlic and ginger in oil without preservatives? Storing garlic, ginger and certain other vegetables etc. in oil is a well documented botulism risk if preservatives are not added. As a consequence, I always make my pastes fresh immediately before use. I have considered freezing them, but due to the amount of oil used I am concerned they will not freeze well. I have had reasonable success freezing ginger and garlic pastes made with water, but the taste is obviously very different. I am due to have guests for a curry evening and it would be helpful if I could do a lot of the preparation beforehand. One of these steps would be the prep of ginger and garlic pastes with rapeseed oil. Taking into account that the pastes will comprise of pure garlic with oil and ginger with oil (I don't make a combined garlic/ginger paste), what factors other than acidity etc. will eliminate this risk? I don't intend to store the paste more than 24 hours in the refrigerator and the quantities of oil used will be just enough to make a smooth paste. I can potentially add salt, sugar or freshly squeezed lemon juice, but ideally I would prefer to omit the latter which is the only ingredient I assume would change the pH to safe levels. (For clarification the water and oil are not essential ingredients here, I use them purely so the solid garlic/ginger will process into a smooth paste in my blender). I thought that storage in the fridge for 2-3 days is safe, just like for other foods? You might find this helpful: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1040.9963&rep=rep1&type=pdf I suspect they would actually freeze fine, based on the basil - sunflower seed - lemon - olive oil "pesto without cheese" pastes I've been freezing for decades (previously with more expensive nuts.) Oil stiffens up pretty well at freezer temperatures, usually. According to these CDC guidelines regarding botulism, storing fresh garlic in oil in the refrigerator is safe for up to 4 days. Very little information is available about fresh ginger in oil, but there seems to be little reason to assume it would develop botulism faster than garlic in oil, or that there is some relationship between the two that would cause faster development of botulism, since garlic in oil is already a close-to-ideal environment for botulism to develop (low acid and low oxygen). Thanks Esther, this tallies with this similar query: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15113/how-to-make-garlic-oil-in-a-safe-way-tomorrow
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.540670
2022-08-29T15:13:33
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121492", "authors": [ "Ecnerwal", "Esther", "Greybeard", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388", "moscafj" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
120770
Pre-soaking pulses - Is there a way to slow down fermentation? The Scotch broth mix I use consists of pearl barley, yellow split peas, green split peas, blue peas and red split lentils. Prior to use, it requires soaking for 8-12 hours and then draining and rinsing before cooking. Due to other commitments, I often cannot return to changing the water for 18-24 hours. This results in the mix starting to give off a distinct undesired aroma, I assume down to fermentation. Is there a way to slow down this reaction? Does the answer for this question work for you? https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27641/soaking-pulses-overnight-safety-vs-refrigeration?rq=1 I saw that answer, but they don't state if refrigeration actually works. The OP was also unclear as to how long they were leaving the beans out for, I'm not sure if they meant 24h. Does this answer your question? Soaking pulses overnight: safety vs refrigeration Put it in the fridge. Refrigeration is a very standard way to slow down fermentation. Use it. I've soaked beans in the fridge for more than a week without off-flavors (but I do generally change the water every day or two, as I'm not a fan of preserving extracted oligosaccharides.) In my personal experience presoaking would only make much difference to the lentils, in your mixture. I came to split peas from other beans, and maintained my prior practice of pre-soaking them, but found there was very little difference if I did not do that. Well, other than making felafel with them, where they obviously need to be pre-soaked.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.540900
2022-06-06T18:12:27
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120770", "authors": [ "Billy Kerr", "FuzzyChef", "GdD", "Greybeard", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
113642
Comparison between cast iron and forged pans I am on the search for a good general purpose frying pan. However, I can't seem to find a comparison between cast iron and forged pans. I know that cast iron pans perhaps have longer life span but need seasoning while forged pans are lighter with less maintenance needs. Is there a more thorough comparison between these two types or any advice why a person should go for the one vs the other? A lot of pans are “forged”, from carbon steel to Teflon-coated aluminum. What type of pan did you have in mind? Are you talking about "carbon steel" pans ? Apologies for not clarifying this earlier. I am talking about forged iron frying pans e.g like this Cast iron and carbon steel (aka “forged iron”) are fairly similar. Both require seasoning for best results, and can produce a decent non-stick effect when properly seasoned; both have high heat capacity but mediocre heat conduction; both are quite durable. Carbon steel is somewhat more lightweight than cast iron, making it more versatile (you wouldn’t want to flip the contents of a large cast iron skillet one-handed). Additionally, modern cast iron pans are rough-textured, which can make them more difficult to effectively scrape with a spatula. I own and use both. These days I use carbon steel much more than cast iron. Cast iron is hard to warp - forged iron/steel pans can easily become warped/humped/non-flat if they are overheated, while a cast iron pan can withstand being "deliberately overheated" in the standard method of preparing it for re-seasoning by burning off the old seasoning. Cast iron is slightly easier to break, but that's quite rare in practice and the forged steel/iron pan would end up dented for most impacts that would break cast iron. Because it is normally thicker, cast iron heats more evenly (heat conduction is similar, but more thickness leads to more even temperature.) Either should work fine for induction, if that's a factor in your choice.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.541052
2021-01-07T20:17:59
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113642", "authors": [ "Max", "Sneftel", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90706", "pkaramol" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
113943
Reasons my sourdough attempts failed? Last March I started adventuring into the world of Sourdoughs by following the advise of The Fresh Loaf Bakers's handbook but using wholegrain rye flour all the way and it went pretty well; after a week or so I started having nice sour rye breads. For context, this was a typical spring in Mallorca, known for its usual high humidity, with temperatures at home between 18-20ºC to about 30ºC by the time I left. Then, I moved to Vigo (northwestern Spain) in the middle of July and sure shortly after I decided to make a new sourdough from scratch following the same recipe, but this time no orange juice. For context, I set up a humidity/temperature sensor and got some values ranging 70% and 99% (crazy weather here) and intense 29-32ºC at home. The result was a rather smelly (and not in a good sense, nowhere similar to what I had before) sourdough after a few days, which after four or five days developed a thin white layer of something I thought would be mold. I had searched for this at the time and found it might be mold, so I discarded it. Then I said to myself, it must be the orange juice, so I went and tried again with orange juice only to obtain the same results. This experimentation process went for about 4 cycles. I tried feeding it twice a day, I changed the jar in which I was keeping it, I covered the jar, I uncovered the jar, I sealed the jar, all to no avail. By then I decided not to waste more time and wait for colder climate maybe (haven't done so yet, though). Now I'm thinking I want to start again, but I'd like to get some feedback from more experienced users into what might had gone wrong. I even started to suspect it was related to the quality of water (which I purify with one of this Britta filters, any thoughts?) or of the air. For reference: my sourdough would get a layer, not as bad, but close enough, to this: The Fresh Loaf post The temperature is indeed the most likely reason behind it. In sourdough, you are creating a small new ecosystem niche, and depending on the environmental conditions, different strains of yeast and bacteria will "win" and outgrow the others. And for microorganisms, there is a huge difference between the 18-22 C when your successful colony established itself and the 32 C when you made the second try. The air humidity is less important, since it is the humidity within the sourdough itself that drives the growth of the microorganisms. There may be a small effect in the initial seeding, with different microorganisms drifting in the air in the different climates. However, I am not sure how much that matters - there are all kinds of conflicting information out there on where your microflora comes from (air or not) and how much influence it has on the final outcome. I don't think there is much you can do about the whole thing, if you cannot control the temperature. I am not aware of sourdough recipes developed for fermenting at 30 C. If you want to use this recipe, you will have to find a temperature-controlled environment at the right range. Assuming that you don't have that, but have a fridge, you might alternatively try a recipe intended for starting in the fridge. These will give you a different style of sourdough, you will have to decide if you like baking with it. thank you for your detailed response. I think it's then best to start now in order to have it ready and keep it in the fridge during those warm days :). One last thing that comes to mind: what do you think is the best way of keeping sourdough? Air tight container (although this one seems to raise alarms in some people because of pressure building up), normal jar with a normal tin cap or just covered with a cloth strapped on the mouth of the jar? You can do that, yes. I can't predict how this specific recipe will change when you transfer it from living-on-the-counter to living-in-the-fridge, although it is something that is being done reasonably often, so it probably won't fail. For the container, see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20611/what-makes-a-good-vessel-for-storing-sourdough-starter. On our site, you can also click on a tag at any question (including your own) to see all questions with that tag sorted by popularity, you might be interested in clicking on the sourdough tag.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.541225
2021-01-25T09:10:14
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113943", "authors": [ "EDG956", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90906", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
113838
If I cook chicken breasts in instant pot for a "longer time" would they come out super tender? I'm thinking 12 minutes or so I would think pressure cooking chicken breasts in the instant pot for longer, and by that I mean 12 minutes or a little more, they would come out super tender. Am I wrong? Would the opposite happen? I may try it as an experiment. @rumtscho : the question that you claim is a duplicate might indirectly answer what happens when it's cooked too long, but it doesn't answer the main question, nor does it mention what the result is at 12 minutes of pressure cooking. And personally, I haven't tried chicken breasts in an instant pot -- thighs handle over-cooking much better. They basically fall apart on you when cooked right. (I usually brown boneless skinless thighs, then stack them with sauce and mirin or some other liquid, then set for 8 minutes then quick release. If you do a natural release, there difficult to extract as they just fall apart.) Time in the pressure cooker will depend on the thickness of the chicken breasts. I'd say 12-15 min on high pressure should give you meat that can be shredded easily (I've cooked a few times following some variation of this recipe, which yields similar results). Cooking any meat on high heat (or high pressure) for an extended period will both: denature more the proteins / collagen making the meat more tender; "squeeze" more water out of the meat, making it drier / chalkier in texture. At 12-15 min range the chicken meat will dry out some, but let it rest in the cooking liquid for a few minutes before cutting and it should be able to re-absorb some of it (or not release more).
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.541582
2021-01-19T21:11:51
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113838", "authors": [ "Joe", "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 }
69327
What should I do with my leftover bench flour? I make bread/pizza quite often, up to a few times per week. I work on a wooden surface for forming the dough and use a flour dredge to spread about 1 cup of flour per session on my surface. I would like to use more flour but don't like wasting the fairly expensive 00 flour I work with. When I'm done making the pizza, I usually just scrape all of the leftover bench flour into the trash. I would like to know if I can consider reusing the bench flour after it has come into contact with my dough, hands, and work surface. Would I be introducing bacteria or other unpleasant things into my flour bag if I put the flour back into it? Is there a different method I should use to keep the bench flour around for the next session? Start a sour dough and start throwing your extras in there. @Doug Can you throw that into an answer so I can vote up? The main problem I see is humidity - the bench flour can be lumpy, have bits of dough in it and will be partly moist. I would therefore not put it back in the main bag of flour. If you use it like flour, it might leave dry lumps, so it depends on your technique whether it will work or not. But there are techniques in bread baking that use leftover dough or even dry ground and soaked bread in new loaves - that's where I'd put it. It can go into pre-ferments (even without yeast or starter), improving gluten development and dough texture. Unless it's absolutely dry, I recommend storing it in the freezer until your next baking day. Apart from that: unless you are actively working the bench flour into your dough (vs. using just a bit to prevent sticking), have you considered using a "cheaper" flour? Yeah I could use a cheaper dough but I would prefer to use 4-5 cups per session and that would still add up to $1/per in decent King Arthur flour. Thanks for the answer! @dpollitt, completely off-topic but out of curiosity: How much is a kg (or whatever unit it's sold in) of King Arthur flour? You could also sift it and reuse it as bench flour. @Stephie - I buy a 5pound bag for $6USD. That is why I mentioned about $1/per session if I just throw it away each time. Its not a ton of money when working with the cheaper dough but it can add up. The 00 flour I use is twice the cost so adds up even faster. The cost is only one factor. I'm a newbie breadmaker so I'm trying to learn best practices and wasn't sure if I just was missing out on common knowledge here or not. @dpollitt, wow. I pay 2.50€ for 2.5 kg at my lokal mill and they have excellent quality. (Our best bakery in the area uses their flour, too.) 6USD would have me thinking twice as well. Your flour is already contaminated with bacteria, even before touching it with your hands. If flour was a perishable food, you would have had to keep it in the fridge and use up within 3-5 days. As it is not perishable, you can use the bench-contaminated flour just as the flour which was contaminated before the bench, no food safety concerns there. While this doesn't seem to be the main point of your question, you can very simply get rid of the lumps Stephie mentions by sifting the flour before putting it back into the container. That way you have no real dough pieces stuck in it, and the additional moisture isn't sufficient to make it clump, etc. The flour is already contaminated, but should have too little moisture for anything to grow. Once it's been on the bench, it can pick up a lot more water which could lead to problems.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.541744
2016-05-28T15:05:13
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69327", "authors": [ "Doug", "SourDoh", "Stephie", "dpollitt", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
63280
How do I remove aluminum foil from the bottom of my oven? I had this brilliant idea to put aluminum foil at the bottom of my oven while I cooked pizza at very high temperatures. I was hoping it would catch any toppings that fell off so I could quickly remove them and prevent smoke. The result is that the foil bonded to the oven and now I'm not sure how to get it off. Any chemicals or tools I should use in this situation? Removing answers-in-comments. It is not an answer to your question, but since I can't post comments, a suggestion for the future: I always place a piece of baking paper (not quite sure about the english word for it) at the bottom of my oven to catch the drippings, works better than aluminium. Recently I also bought a special rubber mat for the same purpose, and that works even better. That looks a lot like melted aluminum. I'd use a solution of sodium hydroxide to dissolve it; probably won't even hurt the oven paint. Easy Off Heavy Duty Oven Cleaner is NaOH based, so that'll probably work for you, and is easier to find than straight lye nowadays. Just follow the directions. If the aluminum is thick, you may have to do things twice. Other brands of oven cleaner will likely work as well as long as they contain sodium hydroxide (lye). It will help A LOT for you people who need aluminum foil off your oven! Looks melted to me too. Would not try to remove it with even more heat (self cleaning etc), you might remelt it but will not be able to remove it that way, and will bond it to the enamel even more - and you might create metal vapors that are not very healthy to have around. There was an article about How to Remove Melted Aluminum Foil from the Oven, but following several disappointing results by the participants, a user suggested a solution that was met with resounding success by those who tried it. The author suggested an application of naval jelly (from the paint department at your local hardware store) as the solution that actually worked. Naval jelly is pink goop containing phosphoric acid that is used to remove rust from iron or steel, leaving a clean surface. Essentially, you spread aluminum jelly over the aluminum, smear it around every few hours, leave it overnight, wipe clean and repeat process until the residue is gone. It might take a few days, but it is a gentle process with no fumes. The solution was was verified enthusiastically by several users in that conversation. You can read more about the process and reviews starting here: BK says: Back in November, I searched for a way to fix our new oven … Bonus solution: The original article also claims that the entire bottom plate of your oven can be replaced usually for less than US$30.00. Contact your manufacturer for a replacement part and guidance on installing it. Thanks Robert, this sounds promising. And who wouldn't want a can of Naval Jelly!? I used to do the same thing with Dr Pepper or similar fluids when cleaning small valves. Trying to burn it off with self clean heat does not work. I tried. Maybe made is worse. Easy Off Heavy Duty works but takes many tries. I'm on sixth application and o 75% gone. Putty knife helps. Careful of the fumes. I read that when sodium hydroxide reacts with aluminum it can be dangerous. Unfortunately I can't post my pictures. But I recently did exactly what he did here and with worse consequences of foil. After reading everyone's post on several web sites, I tried the Heavy Duty Easy Off Oven Cleaner. After 4 applications and scraping with a "decal razor" scraper, I got nearly 97% of the foil off. I let the solution sit for an hour on each application. I was able to take the oven plate out of my oven and do this outside of the house. Lining the bottom of an oven with aluminum foil or a foil liner is quite common and acceptable provided that the electric heating element is ABOVE the oven bottom, not below and that the liner is between the element and the bottom. This of course is not possible with a gas oven. With that said, you could try scraping the foil off with a putty knife, if it is not interfering with the operation of the oven, leave it. Unsightly, but better than scratching up the porcelain finish of the oven. The oven bottom should be removable and you could order another and be back to pristine in a matter of a few days. Probably not what you wanted to hear. If you are thinking of ordering a new bottom pan, you might get a friend to try heating the stuck on aluminum with a portable propane torch to soften the aluminum and maybe it can be scraped off with little to no damage to the underlying oven bottom thus saving you some money. My oven has no heating element on the bottom at all. Only at the top. I probably ran into this issue because I had the oven at 550°(max) and broiler on hi to cook pizzas. Yes that's understandable but it sill doesn't make sense to melt like that because aluminum's melting point is around 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, but its possible if it was left there over time it would soften and melt. It was in place for about 2 hours while cooking and that's it. If there was anything oily or sticky on the bottom of the oven before you put the foil down, it might have adhered to that. If so, you may be able to remove the foil by soaking the bottom with oven cleaner or soapy water. @DebbieM. - The bottom was free of any oils and or debris prior to adding the foil. 385 degrees is enough to soften the aluminum foil enough to creat some mechanical bond to the bottom of the oven. I know this for certain from experiencing it first hand. Foil is so very thin it doesn't need much softening for it to flow around something and make a mechanical bond. The Works toilet bowl cleaner from Wal Mart will dissolve it. Put it on and let it sit for 4 or 5 hours. What ever is in it dissolves the whole mess.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.542068
2015-11-08T18:48:56
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63280", "authors": [ "Acorn Farm", "Ashtin Wiseman", "Cascabel", "Chad Smith", "Cyber Security Consultants Ltd", "Daniel Sheridan", "Debbie M.", "Escoce", "Fredie Tettey", "Ghowrma Sabzi", "Lori A", "M Bonini", "MotherAce", "Noralie", "William", "William Tyson", "can-ned_food", "dpollitt", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150599", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150600", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150601", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150607", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150620", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150630", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155304", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155627", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155628", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155632", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158966", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160247", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162058", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33323", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40590", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51264", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243", "metalathrenalinee", "rackandboneman", "trippt02" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
74892
How do I properly cut a chicken breast into strips or chunks? I often cut fresh chicken breasts into strips for stir-fry or similar uses. What type of knife should I use and how should I cut it? I'm not trying to debone as I buy boneless cuts already. I'm most interested in the techniques associated with efficiency and safety. Some related questions that don't address my question specifically: How do I cut out the vein/tendon from a chicken breast tendorloin? Is it generally better to cut chicken breast with or against the grain? Use a non serrated sharp knife. I prefer using a chef knife, about 10in long. Cut the breast length wise to make slices, and after that, cut each slice into strips. If wanting to make "chunks", then cut each strip into cubes. Depending on the recipe, you can vary the thickness of each slice/strip/cube. +1 for non-serrated sharp knife. Any reasonable long knife will do. But the key to slicing raw meat cleanly and efficiently is a very sharp knife. Try doing it with a knife that's dull or one of those cheap knifes with the small serrations, and you'll just be tearing and squishing the meat all over the place. Sharp knives are also much safer here, because you'll be less tempted to use more force and frantic sawing motions out of frustration with a dull blade.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.542699
2016-10-21T01:03:50
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74892", "authors": [ "Athanasius", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
74900
What is a julienne cut? I'm not familiar with the term "julienne" in cutting and knife skills. What is the purpose of it? How do I safely execute the cut? Related question on applications of the cut: Julienne applications The French have names for a lot of cuts, not just 'dice' and 'mince'. (and I don't mean 'large dice'). And that list is incomplete -- it's missing chiffonade ... I have no idea how many others. Julienne is a cut where you have items looking like small sticks -- a few inches long (about 10 cm) , and about 1/8" (3mm) square. It's also called 'matchstick cut' in English, if you don't want to use the loanword. It's generally done with vegetables: Peel the item if needed Cut it down to length Slice one side to flatten it Place the flat side down, and slice into planks about 1/8" across. Stack up some of the planks, and slice them every 1/8" to make sticks. ... and there are mandolines (food slicers) that can do this style of cut by just pushing the food through the blades. As for purpose -- it's just one of many cuts that you can use to try to make sure that things are cut evenly. (especially when you might have more than one person doing food prep). It's useful for trying to make sure that items cook (or pickle) quickly. It can also help make sure that harder vegetables (eg. carrots) are easier to eat (both to chew and to pick up with a fork). It can be used to otherwise change texture in a dish. It can also be decorative if you cut up things of a contracting color (or colors) and sprinkle them on top -- bell peppers, carrots, apple, etc.) I got the following definition and explanation from Wikipedia It is pretty clear and straight forward that I don't think I should add on my own explanations here. Julienne Julienne, or allumette, is a culinary knife cut in which the food item is cut into long thin strips, similar to matchsticks. Common items to be julienned are carrots for carrots julienne, celery for céléris remoulade orpotatoes for Julienne Fries. Trim the ends of the vegetable and the edges to make four straight sides. This makes it easier to produce a uniform cut. Trimmings can be used for stocks, soups, purees, etc. The measurement for julienne is ⅛ x ⅛ x 1 to 2 in (3 mm x 3 mm x 3 to 5 cm). Julienne usually applies to vegetables prepared in this way but it can also be applied to the preparation of meat or fish, especially in stir fry techniques. Once julienned, turning the subject 90 degrees and dicing finely (⅛ in or 3 mm) will produce brunoise (3 x 3 x 3 mm) .
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.542831
2016-10-21T01:49:57
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74900", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
77275
Why throw pizza dough besides for show? What are the reasons to throw pizza dough beyond putting on a good show? Related: How to throw a pizza dough? Speed? Does this guy toss it once to make a perfect circle, or to satisfy a requirement of the competition? As opposed to hand shaping, or as opposed to rolling it (which is likely to affect texture due to compaction)? A lot of it depends on the type of pizza you make. Where I worked we did thin crust pizza, and these were the reasons we tossed: Speed. Trying to roll or pat out a 17 inch pizza would be very time consuming. Consistency. Was easier to make the crust a consistent size and shape. Space. Rolling or patting a person needs the table space 100% of the time. When tossing you can step back from the table and let another person get in to prep (or finish) their toss. Job marketing. People wanted to work there just to learn how to toss, and it helped maintain that "authentic" vibe. And as you pointed out, the show aspect of it. Kids loved to watch our staff toss. "When asked why he was quitting the company, former pizza chef Antonio simply said: I just don't give a toss anymore." "Kids loved to watch our staff toss." Blimey. I've also heard that it "airs" the dough - especially the circumference (due to the spinning), thus giving a slightly thicker crust there. @LightnessRacesinOrbit Is there any word in British that isn't sexualized or a curse? @jpmc26: Nope!! Those who favor throwing pizza argue that it is the best way to stretch and shape the dough without risking a puncture or tear. Some claim this extra exposure to the air helps the dough retain moisture, while drying the surface. This improves the crust. ...and of course, there is the show. On the other hand, simply shaping dough on a floured surface appears to be fairly common and also results in a correctly shaped Neapolitan-style pizza. My personal anecdote is I find it easier (less time to achieve a given radius, even distribution of dough, etc) to toss a pizza dough the roll it out when working with very high gluten dough. A properly prepared Neapolitan dough should require no rolling...only hand stretching.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.543053
2017-01-08T21:22:35
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77275", "authors": [ "Baard Kopperud", "Lightness Races in Orbit", "Mazura", "casey", "flith", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17673", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26757", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34105", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39247", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51652", "jpmc26", "moscafj", "rackandboneman" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
25572
can Tilapia replace salmon in recipes and taste good? I have a few recipes for salmon, and a freezer full of tilapia. Can I just use the tilapia instead of salmon? It's for things like "salmon and rosemary", and "poached salmon with cucumber dill sauce" for example. I know fish is not all the same, but I would like to try these out without having to get more fish when I have so much. So can I just change it right over, or will it not taste right? It depends on the recipe. As Jefromi said, salmon does have a different flavor. Specifically it has flavor. Tilapia doesn't really have much flavor at all. More importantly, salmon has about three times as much fat as tilapia. Salmon holds together better than more fragile white fish. This makes grilling salmon much easier than other fish which fall apart. If your recipe highlights the flavor of the fish, or relies on the fat or cohesion of salmon then you should not make the substitution. On the other hand if your recipe calls for baking in a pan and uses other flavorings, such as lemon, that can overpower the flavor of the fish, it would be a good candidate for substitution. Salmon has a bit of a distinctive flavor; recipes meant for it probably won't match a mild white fish like tilapia quite as well. You probably want to look for recipes for more similar fish, like catfish, red snapper, bass, or sole. I would use wolf herring to replace salmon. They have nearly the same texture, in that as a kid I could peel the flesh of poached steak off into layers for either of them. Wolf herring flesh is similarly as stable as salmon flesh. When you cut up wolf herring and salmon into steaks, and take a b & w picture of them, they are nearly indistinguishable in shape and texture. Both of them can be made into fish gefilte that hold together reasonably well (after doping them with tapioca flour starch). I have made fish balls out of both of them with similar results. They have the same firmness. Their similar firmness allow both of them to be similarly poached or grilled without their flesh falling apart. You could similarly drop both their grilled steak from a height of 8 inches onto the table/plate and they would not disintegrate. Wolf herring also has a rich and amenable flavour as does salmon. Wolf herring is about the same body size and length of salmon. This is very useful information about a very similar fish to salmon, but does not mention tilapia at all (and the poster has an excess of tilapia!)
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.543288
2012-08-09T17:38:18
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25572", "authors": [ "Diane", "Erica", "Marlena Fuller", "Moe-Joe", "NGrech", "Samantha Vang", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58576", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58577", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58578", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58579", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58581", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58854", "parvin" ], "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 }
113200
Rye bread in bread machine - crust very rough on top This is what I'm using for my rye bread in the bread machine. Overall it's tasty and rises okay, but the top sinks a little bit, and is really rough. 1 ⅓ warmish water 1.5 cups regular flour 1.5 cups rye flour 1 tablespoon fennel 1 teaspoon salt 1 teaspoon yeast I'm not using a heatlamp, the bread machine model is the Breadman 2 lb Professional Bread Maker, Stainless Steel, BK1050S (about a month old). The temperature in the house now probably ranges from 67 to 69. I have it on the regular white bread setting in the bread machine. Any thoughts? Here's a photo - https://i.sstatic.net/U802v.jpg It looks like it rose too much. Which is really surprising, given the small amount of yeast. Are you doing anything else special? Putting it under a heat lamp? What temp is it where you have the bread machine? And what model is it? Thanks for your reply, FuzzyChef. I put clarifications in the original. OK, that's really wierd then. Because the photo totally looks like overproofing, but I can't imagine why it would be overproofing; if anything, with the dark flours and low yeast I'd expect underproofing. So ... NFI. Some bread machines are great at overproofing @FuzzyChef. Less sophisticated ones work to time rather than using sensors to track proofing. The only bread machine I ever had overproofed everything so badly I had to reduce the yeast in all their own recipes by half! that raises a good question: Sylvia, does this machine work fine making other kinds of bread? Yes it does, I use this recipe all the time, same cycle. 1 cup warm water, 2 cups regular flour , 1 cup whole wheat flour, 1 teaspoon salt, 1 teaspoon yeast, 2 tablespoon oil. Turns out great, nice rounded smooth top.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.543506
2020-12-17T18:44:50
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113200", "authors": [ "FuzzyChef", "GdD", "Sylvia", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73115" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
121261
Why does my rye bread sink in the middle like this? My rye bread (made with a bread machine) usually sinks in the middle, like this one. It still tastes great, but I'd love to fix this problem. https://i.sstatic.net/szW34.jpg Here's my recipe: 1 ⅓ plus ⅛ cup warmish water 1 ½ cups white flour 1 ½ cups rye flour 1 tablespoon fennel 1 teaspoon salt ½ teaspoon yeast I've switched between the regular setting and whole grain setting on the bread machine, it doesn't seem to make much difference. EDIT: I'm using all purpose flour. And yes, I'm measuring the flour by cups. I feel like I'm pretty consistent with the measuring, though (I fluff it up and then measure) - do you think it might be too little or too much flour? EDIT: The bread machine cycle I use takes 3 hours 40 minutes, so I don't think it's that. Other breads turn out fine in my bread machine (regular white bread, etc. Also, the only time I think the rye bread really turned out perfectly and rose properly, I had just ground the rye berries into flour myself. I don't have any more rye berries and am just using regular rye flour now. EDIT: The linked question (Why does my bread collapse in my bread machine?) deals with regular wheat flour bread being undercooked and doughy in the bread machine. This question, while involving a bread machine, deals with properly cooked and sagging dough using rye flour which has a different composition and solution to the problem. EDIT: I fixed the problem. Switched the yeast from 1/2 teaspoon to 1/4 teaspoon. That did the trick! It no longer rose a lot and sank, it just rose a reasonable amount. It comes out flat on the top, which is ok for me, and better than sunken. Are you using bread flour or plain all-purpose white flour? Are you really measuring the flour by volume? This is a notoriously inaccurate. Scales are much better.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.543671
2022-08-06T00:57:03
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121261", "authors": [ "GdD", "Mark Wildon", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "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 }
128422
Dehydrating higher fat ground beef to make beef jerky I've made beef jerky a couple times now with regular ground beef. Overall it works well. I use the oven, at 170, and I like how it turns out. However, from what I've read, you should stick to less than 10% fat when making beef jerky this way. Ideally maybe 5% fat. I've done this, and it works. HOWEVER this extremely low fat ground beef is very expensive - think about $10/pound, compared to $3.50 for 73/27 meat/fat ratio. I'm trying to think of a way of making beef jerky out of higher-fat ground beef. The problem is getting the fat out, because the beef jerky is supposed to have very little fat, which helps it keep longer. It would be so much cheaper if I could use higher fat beef, especially because I preserve the tallow (beef fat, which I use for other purposes). I know if I cooked and drained it, I could get most of the fat out. But then, obviously, it would be in cooked, crumbled bits, and I don't think you could make beef jerky out of it. Anyone have ideas? you can dehydrate cooked ground beef as well as cubes of roast beef, but they won't be jerky. If you like the taste and texture of jerky, you have to buy very low fat meat in order to make it. There isn't a way to get the raw fat out of raw ground beef. Sounds like you are making a pemmican rather than a jerky. How long do you intend to keep in and under what storage conditions? Shorter storage time and under refrigeration could help you answer the question. The problem with fat in dried products is rancidity. Thanks for all the comments. I would like to keep it for as long as normal beef jerky. I think I'll just go ahead and try it a test batch out with the higher fat ground beef, on a tray, and hopefully a lot of the fat would come out onto the baking sheet below. I will report on what happens! Ground beef -> beef jerky sounds odd to me. In my understanding of the word beef jerky it should be made from strips of meat, not ground meat. Ground beef -> beef jerky - it actually works absolutely great and tastes great too, and is much easier. Just want to find a way to make it cheaper, by being able to use higher fat ground beef (and then remove the fat) Unfortunately "works absolutely great and tastes great too" is not a definition of "jerky". While tasty a practical to make, you product is not "lean trimmed meat cut into strips and dehydrated". Hence, not jerky. I would buy a little bit of the cheapest lean beef (trim a brisket flat) and mince it as fine as you can or better yet use a food processor and then combine it to the 80/20. You'll save a lot of money that way. You need to trim as much fat off the brisket flat as possible to get that 93/7 remaining cut. 1 lb 80/20 ground beef = 0.2lbs fat ($4/lb?) 4 lbs 93/7 brisket flat (trim fat yourself to get 93%) = .28lbs fat ($6/lb?) 5 lbs total with 0.48 lbs fat = slightly less than 10% fat ($5.60/lb?) On second thought. Just invest a $100 in a meat grinder and trim and grind brisket flats. Or better yet, buy a cheap cut of lean beef, trim it very well, and then don't mince/grind it, but rather slice it thin so you can make actual beef jerky rather than a poor version of pemmican. @Marti lol yes I hate to agree. I much prefer "solid" strips of jerky. Sylvia - Try london broil its generally pretty cheap and great for jerky.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.543831
2024-05-28T17:29:50
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128422", "authors": [ "Dan Mašek", "Kate Gregory", "Marti", "Mike Steele", "Sylvia", "bob1", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115136", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50816", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73115", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322", "moscafj", "quarague" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
77217
Ways to separate kefir grains from thickened kefir, how big are the kefir grains? I'm super-new to the kefir business ^_^ been making it at home for a week from a batch of grains my neighbor left me when his batch overgrew. So, I'm fond of the idea to make kefir more thick, more alcoholic, more sparkly (cheese beer yay!), and better to make cheese & whey out of it, and I don't like the milky taste kefir often has, at least that's my ambition. Also, I believe my jar is a bit too small for the amount of Kefir I have, the apartment is around 20-23 degrees celzius and it ripens after 24h really well, the neighbor suggested keeping it 24h outside, 24h in the fridge. My dilemma is in the filtration process of the kefir grains from the rest of the mix: if I use a fine strainer I basically separate cheese & kefir grains from whey and getting the kefir grains out of the cheese is then a delicate matter that I'm not sure I can do with reliable consistency (knowing myself), if I use a broad grained strainer then I believe some of the (young?) kefir grains go out because the resulting kefir is a bit grainy, and I don't know if it's due to tiny new kefir grains, or due to the nature of the cheese I guess my question is, "how big are the kefir grains" and filtration would I guess be an obvious thing after that. Thank you all :) EDIT 1: How can I make my kefir milk smooth and creamy instead of watery and grainy? this gives some clues on what I may do better and suggests that the grains I'm seeing are from the milk, not from the kefir grains, still the general question of separation remains... First off, not all kefir grains are alike. Maybe they're all descended from the same family tree long ago, but kefir grain activity will change significantly even in the same house from season to season (due to temperature and other environmental fluctuations), and depending on what you feed them (type of milk), and on the feeding schedule. So, in order to maximize your particular desires ("thick," "sparkly," more alcohol, etc.), you'll likely have to do trial and error a bit with your batch. Anyhow, your main question is about straining. And there it really depends again on what you're looking for. You are correct that kefir does spawn tiny grains that break off and gradually become stable encapsulated "baby grains" over time. If you use a strainer with big enough holes, it will let a lot of those go through. Whether or not this is a problem depends on what your intention is with those grains. When I first experimented with kefir, I strained through a relatively fine mesh strainer too, because I didn't want to lose all of those grains. I eventually found that all too much work, because rinsing the fine strainer and being sure to get it clean can sometimes be annoying. Also the rough handling during straining can break up your larger grains a bit more (particularly if you have to stir it a lot to strain, as is true with very thick kefir). Later on, I decided to simply use a tablespoon to pull out the big grains (and just plop them into the new milk), and I don't worry about the "baby grains" any more. Usually in healthy kefir the big grains will often float near the surface, so they're often easy to locate. But if you know how many you have, you can also just dig around for them, assuming you're not making large quantities at a time. The benefit from my perspective is that the remaining kefir stays relatively "intact," so it actually has a consistency close to thick yogurt until you start stirring it. But it's not the ideal method for maximizing alcohol and "fizziness," which often requires intermediate stirring. On the other hand, the few actual grains can grow much larger over time due to the more delicate handling. So you might just have 2 or 3 large grains you use to ferment actively, rather than a bunch of smaller ones. Anyhow, in terms of straining, it really just depends on your goals. Personally, I don't worry too much about losing the "baby" grains, because I'm not trying to maximize grain production. But if you're trying to grow the amount of kefir grains you have, probably using a fine strainer for a while is the best course, since large individual grains only tend to grow larger over longer time spans. EDIT: One last thing I thought of -- if you use my method of just pulling out the largest grains with a spoon or something, realize that sometimes you'll have tiny grains or even occasional larger bits that broke off of the big grain left in the kefir. Some people find it unpleasant when eating or drinking kefir to encounter a grain, which is generally rubbery and somewhat slimy, sometimes extra sour, and sometimes has an odd flavor. If you want to avoid that experience completely, you'll have to use a relatively fine strainer.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.544082
2017-01-07T10:16:09
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77217", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
43202
"Squeaky" homemade mozzarella Last week I made mozzarella cheese (not fermented) for the first time. After heating the milk and removing the curds, I microwaved the curds repeatedly until getting them to 135 degrees F, then formed the cheese. Last week's cheese was delicious. I tried again today and the cheese turned out very "squeaky" in that its texture is kind of plasticky and it actually makes squeaking sounds when I chew it. This batch seems drier than the first batch as well. My guess is that I either overworked or overheated the cheese. I ended up heating it to 135 degrees twice: it cooled down too much when I was working it, so I heated it again. I also heated it in longer bursts than I did the first time as I realized that it took quite a few 30 second bursts on my microwave to get the cheese to 135 degrees. Finally, I heated the cheese a bit too much on the last burst: it got to 138 degrees. I can't tell which of the aspects I mentioned in the last paragraph are relevant to my issue. I'd rather not make poor cheese from another $5 gallon of milk... Edit: I may have found the answer, posted below. Other insight into this is still appreciated. (as well as suggestions for how to fix the botched cheese) See related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20221/why-are-cheese-curds-squeaky I may have found the answer I was looking for from http://www.cheesemaking.com/store/pg/242-FAQ-Mozzarella.html Many folks try to knead their cheese like bread during the stretching phase. That will result in too much moisture loss which can cause your cheese may become tough and chewy. Instead, you want to use a process more like pulling taffy. Let it fall on itself a few times until it all seems smooth and shiny. I was making dough at the same time and I think I might have gotten carried away with the shaping process and did it too much like dough.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.544533
2014-04-01T10:18:36
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43202", "authors": [ "Ghost", "SAJ14SAJ", "Spammer", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101083", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101084", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101085", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101086", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101087", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401", "spammer" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
116081
Australian Meat (Chunky steak) Pie: loss of Gravy/Sauce after cooling/freezing Main Question: When cooking the beef stew portion of the Australian Meat (Chunky steak) Pie recipe, the created sauce/gravy 'disappears' after cooling or freezing. How can one prevent this from happening? When the pie is baked directly after the stew has been completed, the pie has (almost) the desired amount of sauce/gravy. after stew has been cooked image from recipe (how it is supposed to look like) 5" pie after baking directly, after cooking the stew The crust (both the base and top) a is Puff pastry and the base has been pre-baked and allowed to cool before filling. But when reheated later, there is no sauce/gravy 180°C (355°F) [160°C Fan] / Gas 3 for 15-25 minutes When the cooked filling is allowed to set for a day (in a second attempt) in the refrigerator, the gravy is no longer fluid but more of a mass between the meat chunks. So this seems also to happen before the pie is filled. I have been told by a Canadian friend than when a store bought pie, that is not in a tin, is warmed up does contain gravy/sauce. Secondary Question: What are the proper dimensions for a 4 or 5 inch Pie Pan? Sources: Individual Meat Pies | Australia's Best Recipes Meat Pie recipe! | RecipeTin Eats How are you reheating it? @TheLittlePeace 160°C Fan (added to question) @csk if you have ideas what causes it, or what can be done, please post an answer, not a comment. See https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6533/should-users-refrain-from-answers-or-partial-answers-in-comments for a guideline which has been adopted network-wide. Seems to be a duplicate: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64143/my-gravy-turned-to-jello-overnight-how-can-i-make-it-last-for-leftovers
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.544705
2021-06-15T06:35:12
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116081", "authors": [ "Mark Johnson", "TheLittlePeace", "bob1", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85867", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91174", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
114233
Should I start timer immediately after adding pasta to boiling water? When I add cold pasta or ravioli to boiling water, water stops boiling. It needs a couple of minutes to boil again. So, the question is Should I start timer immediately after adding pasta to boiling water? or Wait for water to boil again and then start timer? This may sound silly but I always wonder when to start timer. I don't think this is necessarily a silly question, but don't forget you can taste the pasta as you go, as well as observe the texture as you stir it. You should start it as soon as you dump the pasta in the pot. I personally also turn off the heat at the same time, as you don't need your water to be boiling to cook pasta. Anything over 180 degrees Fahrenheit will do the trick. You could stick a thermometer in the water to make sure it's still hot enough, but I doubt it's possible to drop the temp by over 30 degrees unless your pasta is very cold. If you wait to start your timer and the water is still over 180 degrees, your pasta will be overcooked. This is not true for ravioli. The pasta will get done at 180 degrees, but the filling will not. Using more water will cause the temp to drop less when you dump in the ravioli, and you should definitely keep the heat up so it starts simmering again as quickly as possible. Hopefully that's not long enough to make a difference one way or the other for your timer, as the pasta will become overcooked if it sits in hot water for a few extra minutes. I'd still start the timer when you dump the ravioli in and then check it when the timer goes off, but expect that it might take another minute to finish cooking. interesting. I always waited for water to boil after adding pasta. I will give this a try. The problem arises from you not using enough water. Traditionally, pasta is cooked in a very large pot with lots of water, I believe I have seen directions for a minimum ratio of 1:10 (a liter of water per 100g pasta). If you do that, the water won't stop boiling and the timing will be clear. Despite what some purists say, this is not the only way to successfully cook pasta. You can easily use other methods, including such with less water or a temperature different than a full boil. But if you do so, you can no longer rely on the time printed on the box, and should cook the pasta by doneness, not by a timer. now I understand why they recommend to use lots of water to cook Pasta. I always thought it is waste of water and energy. I usually cook with 1:3 water. I would make a distinction between dried and fresh ravioli since they need to be cooked in a different way. Dried ravioli: I would bring the water (ideally quite a large amount) to a rolling boil and salt it. Then add the ravioli and turn the burner down to half power such that the water remains hot (ca 90°C 190°F) but not boiling. In my experience using boiling water can cause the ravioli to rupture. Let the ravioli cook for the duration mentioned on the packet - start tasting one around 30s before package time is over to check if it's done. Fresh Ravioli: Bring the water to a boil, salt it and turn off the burner before adding the ravioli. The problem with boiling water bursting the ravioli is more pronounced on fresh ravioli as they are more delicate. Add the ravioli to the water and wait for them to float - should take about 40s to 2min depending on how thick the dough is. The filling mostly just needs to be warmed up rather than cooked as it's made from eg. ricotta cheese or already stewed meat. In general if you are worried about the timer I would recommend to rely on tasting and the look/feel of the pasta to discern if it's ready. I use the time on the box as more of a guideline since I find the time given on packets is often inaccurate anyway. I was making the mistake you mentioned. I continued to boil the water after adding fresh (cold from fridge). Some of them will break.. I will try what you said. Turn off the stove and add ravioli. Basically, key is to have more water. Thank you I don't think it's a silly question, I have wondered it myself. I find I have results closer to the time indicated on the box if I wait until the water is boiling again before starting the timer.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.544881
2021-02-11T20:47:20
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114233", "authors": [ "RedFox", "dbmag9", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91338" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
124649
Why does my IKEA pasta pan take so long to cook pasta? I have a dedicated stainless steel pasta pan (well I assume that is what IKEA intended it for). It comprises of a pan, unventilated lid and a perforated liner which is designed to be lifted up by the handles at the end of cooking time to allow the water to drain from the food. This is why I am not 100% convinced it is designed just for pasta, as it could also be used to cook and drain vegetables, meat etc. While I love the convenience, pasta always takes longer to cook even when the water is boiling vigorously. Tonight was a case in point, the linguine stated 11 minutes to "Al dente" on the packet but in reality it took 17 minutes to reach the correct texture. This trait is identical irrespective of pasta brand, some take a couple of minutes extra, some much longer. Watching the pot boil with the lid off is also very different from a regular pot, while a normal pot would just boil and boil, this one boils, cools down off the boil then returns to the boil again, almost in a cyclical fashion. This pattern is not noticeable with the lid on, but this doesn't speed up the cooking time by much. Can anyone explain this erratic behaviour? (Edited to add removing the insert has no effect and we are in the UK). What kind of stove are you using? Electric, gas, induction? Gas, on the second biggest ring (the wok ring is too big). What's your elevation? Also "al dente" is sometimes a matter of preference. 162m above sea level Not much help in solving your problem, but I have a 5 litre Ikea 365 pot with matching pasta insert; I've been using it since 1999 with no issues. Previously on electric stovetops, and now on induction. Made in Finland! Edited to add: based on comments. This addition is based on tests that @Greybeard (the question asker) performed.: It appears that the issue is something to do with the pan itself. The pan appears to only boil on the edges of the pan and may be lacking at least part of an internal layer of the sandwich on the base. Based on this, heat transfer between the element/hob and the pan is faulty, similar to my initial answer (below). My initial answer was: It sounds to me like you are having problems transferring heat into the "inner" space of the pot/strainer system. The most likely situation I can think of is that the inner strainer is impeding the formation of the convection cells in the water within the inner layer. In a conventional pot you would get large convection cells forming between the heated surface (bottom) of the pot and the surface of the liquid above. These allow circulation of the water and rapid heating. With the strainer in place the small holes/solid walls of the strainer are limiting the heat transfer to the rest of the water. It is likely you are getting small convection cells between the pot and strainer, and these are enough that you can heat the water to near boiling, but the lack of heat transfer and with an exposed surface are not enough to get the water to a continuous boil. Incidentally, I don't think this pot system is intended for pasta, but rather for blanching of vegetables etc, so that you can lift them out quickly and plunge into the cold water. Having said that I don't see a pot/strainer system on my local Ikea site, so I can't say with certainty. Tried it without the insert, no difference. @Greybeard interesting - must be some problem with this pan in particular. I wonder if it is a sandwich format base that is missing the middle part of the sandwich or has an air-gap/no contact between the bottom and the rest of the pan. I genuinely think it is a design fault. I tapped the base of the pot with a knife (it has an ~ 10mm thick bottom) and discovered there seems to be a 8-10cm disc or slug in the centre, with nothing on outer 2/3rds or so. This probably accounts for what is happening as the diameter of the gas flame is larger than the slug. The heat will hit the thinner part of the base first and then the slug rather than the other way round which the designers probably intended. I'm going to try turning the heat down (or using a smaller diameter gas ring to focus the heat on the slug) and report back. @Greybeard sounds about right. You might be able to observe where the boiling is happening in the pan - only above the disc or not? Strangely, it boils just at the edges of the pan. @Greybeard Very odd, might be unsolvable without cutting the pan open. I'd say take it back and get a refund or a new one. Sadly it is long out of warranty. It wasn't until I started using it again I realised why I had stopped using it in the first place !!! To me, this sounds like you are using an induction hob which isn't putting in enough power to reach and maintain temperature. My guess would be it is only reaching a simmer then briefly cooling in this cyclical fashion. simmering starts around 85C so would take longer to cook food (pasta in this case). On the assumption that it is an induction hob; often one ring is a lower power rating so simply altering which ring you use may be a solution to the issue. Otherwise increase the power/temperature on the hob if possible. The third option would be to use a smaller pan or only half fill it so the hob can put in enough power to bring water fully to the boil. A last suggestion would be that this pan may not actually be stainless steel but another alloy which doesn't heat as well. In this case you can buy induction plate converters which allow less conductive pans to heat more efficiently not all types of stainless steel are magnetic (eg austenitic surgical steel). I suspect that some formulations might be weakly magnetic (and need the converter plate, like you mentioned) OP has stated that he's using a gas stove, not induction hob. Ok thanks to gnicko, who has corrected me and said that the OP didn’t use an induction hob days ago, but gas. I will change my answer and ask a question. Does your ikea pot have the sandwiched metal plate on the bottom? If it does perhaps the bottom of it is not correctly welded on. I have had one of those Ikea pans and the bottom of it had come off and it seemed to have a thinner piece of aluminum inside. Not quite thick enough to be “sandwiched” between the bottom of the pot and the stainless steel outside. I believe in most cases, you will have an outside of stainless steel and the inside would be aluminum. The outside is made to be more ferrous if it is intended for induction and the inside aluminum is responsible for heating evenly and quickly. In my case perhaps the aluminum plate was not thick enough or welded properly that it broke off. In your case perhaps a similar thing where the aluminum plate is not anchored and has some play. When it gets hot and expands it touches the bottom of the pan making the water boil, then cools down and settle back onto the stainless steel, slowing the boil. I might also ask where do you live? If you live in a higher elevation, you will have issues with water boiling point and time. The more elevation the longer it takes to get water to boil. Just asking. OP has stated days ago that he's using a gas stove, not induction hob. Sorry just got on and was on my phone. I see it now. Thanks! I can't tell for certain, the bottom is certainly thick enough to hold an insert. I'm in the UK, so 162m above sea level. Removing the insert has no effect on the cooking times, so I'm coming to the conclusion it is down to the construction. Even with the pot on the highest burner minus the insert (without letting the flames going up the sides), it will not provide a consistent rolling boil. It will boil violently, stop for a second or so then carry on boiling again. Did you also end up with some pasta overcooked and some undercooked? I am wondering whether the gap within the two pieces disrupts the convective flow. Thus the hot water would rise and boil away without mixing with the cooler water. This is easy to verify, just try to cook without the liner and see the result. Excellent idea, I'll try that. Now why didn't I think of that ? Tested it out, made no difference. In this case the only possible reason is the way the pan in manufactured. Probably heat does not spread in an even manner. Looks like that is the cause. I agree with others that this sounds like an induction hob, but this on/off cycle normally only happens at lower power levels. If you set it to full power this effect should not happen and so then your pasta should take the usual time to cook. You'll want to leave the lid off though or your pot will almost certainly boil over. Of course using full power isn't ideal but you could experiment with lower settings (that are still higher than what you're currently using). This cyclical effect is worse in smaller pots or pots with thinner walls and bottoms, as they don't retain heat as well. A larger and/or heavier pot retains more heat and thus will smooth out the heating cycles so that the internal temperature doesn't fluctuate as much. Same goes if you fill the same pot with more water. A heat spreader plate could also help with this as it has the same effect. OP has stated that he's using a gas stove, not induction hob. Stated a few days after the majority of these answers were submitted. This doesn't invalidate the follow ups as others searching for this question may find them useful. I had a similar experience with a pan from IKEA which I used for cooking pasta or veggies. With the lid on it could make the water boil in a decent time when put on the medium burner of my kitchen, but then when I added pasta/veggie it would take forever to reach boiling again, making time keeping very difficult. I solved the problem by moving to the large burner and adding an excess of water into the pan. I suspect that adding the cold food to the boiling water would take away heat from both the water and the thick bottom, which would then need to be heated up again before boiling can restart. Therefore adding more water increases the thermal inertia of the system and using a larger burner supplies more energy to it, shortening the transient. pasta will take the same amount of heat out of any size of pot, since it will reach equilibrium with the rest of the pot. It will therefore take the same amount of time to re-boil the pot once pasta is added (the amount of time needed for the burner to bring the volume of pasta up to boiling temperature). The "takes longer to heat a thicker pot" is balanced by "average temp when you add the pasta is higher, because there is extra heat to divide"
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.545253
2023-07-05T21:26:28
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124649", "authors": [ "AdamO", "Esther", "FluidCode", "Greybeard", "JG sd", "Joe", "MJ713", "Tragamor", "bob1", "gnicko", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19841", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43997", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65187", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98106", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98550", "miken32" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
121856
What do American chefs mean by "Red pepper flakes"? I see the term "Red pepper flakes" used often by American chefs, but to the European mind this term is very confusing. It could mean flaked and dried: Red chilli (e.g. Kashmiri, Birds Eye etc.) Red pepper (Capsicum) Red pepper (Jalapeno) Other pepper variety (e.g. Aleppo, Spanish, Turkish etc.) What exactly is meant by this term? Does it have a unique taste profile? Also, if the ingredient is difficult to source over here, what would be a good substitute? (There is a generic US/UK/EU comparison for red pepper at Translating cooking terms between US / UK / AU / CA / NZ but this doesn't adequately cover some usage/recipe contexts. Revisiting one specific recipe, I realise now the chef probably meant Turkish/Aleppo pepper as the dish was Turkish/Moroccan in origin.) I'm with you on the overall confusion, but it seems odd to consider kashmiri [one of the mildest] with bird's eye [one of the hottest… then separate out Jalapeño [kind of in the middle] as being a 'pepper' rather than a chilli. To me, it would be Aleppo… but I'm in the UK in an area with a lot of Turkish influence. Are you sure that it is an American term? See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117236/red-pepper-flakes-for-german-style-doener-kebab, it is common in Turkish cuisine. Maybe you are simply seeing turkish (or middle-eastern) recipes published on American sites? @rumtscho Yes, the recipe came from am American sous vide book by Lisa Q Fetterman: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lisa-Q-Fetterman/e/B01GF2TOQ2/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1 @rumtscho Turkish and Korean pepper flakes are VERY different from American "red pepper flakes". They are not substitutable. @unlisted, I was just spouting all the varieties of chilli/pepper I could think of. What is a chilli and what is a pepper I think falls into the similar language confusion between America and the UK. @Fuzzychef you may have partly answered my question here, the recipe was for Turkish Meatballs, but I have seen the same term used by American chefs in other recipes as well. Looking at Steve's answer below, it looks like there are at least 3 different varieties (Turkish, Korean and "Off the shelf" American. @rumtscho to clarify American author, Turkish recipe. Do you have a link? Does it have pictures? if we're down to it being between something 'crushed-cayenne-like' & aleppo, you should be able to see the difference. Aleppo [pul biber] never has seeds & is oily. @unlisted no pictures unfortunately, only the finished meatballs. @Greybeard oh, there's more than three. I guess I need to post an answer. The term of art is just "red flake". Red pepper (USA usage) is in this list: Translating cooking terms between US / UK / AU / CA / NZ -as for substitution, cayenne should be readily available in most stores, Korean pepper flakes much hotter, dried bell pepper/capsicum mild to the point of no heat. Does red pepper flakes EVER mean jalepeno? Those wouldn't even be red. There are red jalapenos: https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/278770480 Pepper in American English could refer to anything in the Capsicum genus (so, it literally could be any of those options you mentioned, among others), unless there's a culture among chef's to mean a certain thing by that. The "duplicate" question does not cover or discuss red pepper flakes. It is not a duplicate. @borkymcfood red pepper flakes are not covered in the referenced list, and particularly not covered in a way that would answer this question. @FuzzyChef totally agree. The reference list is for one to one comparison/conversion, as we already have ascertained RPF has a multitude of meanings so does not easily fit on that list. @FuzzyChef The question as originally asked, with context in the above comments that it was an American chef with an American cookbook, made the reference terms list relevant. Red peppers in US terminology with US adapted recipes = usually cayenne. Per commentary by the OP, apparently what's needed in the answers here is a catalog. American Red Pepper Flakes: Dried and crumbled flakes of cayenne peppers per other answers. Used extensively in general American cuisine as well as Italian-American cuisine. In the US, often substituted for harder to find pepper flakes that would be more culturally appropriate to the dish (such as those below). On the occasions that Italians in Italy use "red pepper flakes", they are more likely to be Calabrian Peperoncino. Turkish/Syrian/Lebanese Red Pepper Flakes Most of the time the crumbled flakes of dried "Aleppo Pepper" (pul biber). However, the civil war in Syria has restricted supplies of this pepper, so often what is labeled "Aleppo Pepper" is actually Marash Pepper or Antebi pepper instead -- which are both tasty but hotter than Aleppo, so adjust accordingly. The Turkish also use Urfa Pepper flakes, so if your recipe is Turkish and doesn't specify, it could be any of these. Korean Red Pepper Flakes: gochugaru, the flakes of the Korean red pepper, a medium hot pepper. Used liberally throughout Korean cooking, in flake, powder, and fermented paste form. Possible the best substitute for Aleppo pepper if you're completely unable to find any Turkish/Syrian pepper varieties. Mexican Red Pepper Flakes: varies, and you really want to read the label. Frequently crumbled chile de arbol, which are screamingly spicy. But ... could also be flaked chipotles (dark and smoked) or ancho chile (medium-hot), or other peppers. Take nothing for granted. Ancho Chile is also the main chile used for American "chile powder". Chinese Red Pepper Flakes: usually flakes of the Sichuan "jin tao" pepper, used in Sichuan and Hunan cuisine, but could be a different pepper if the recipe is from a different region. Spicy and fruity. Indian or Thai Red Pepper Flakes: these two cuisines very rarely use peppers in flake form; they generally use whole peppers instead. As such, any mention of "pepper flakes" in an English-language Indian or Thai dish is likely to be a substitution for whole peppers, and as such probably means the American cayenne flakes. However, various Indian peppers are available in flake form in the US, so could also mean those. Undoubtedly there are other cuisines that use something described as "red pepper flakes", but this should give you an idea of the breadth of ingredients that label could apply to. You need to depend on context -- or, ideally, a glossary in the cookbook -- to figure out what's actually meant. Your case is an example of the problem with American-Ethnic recipes. A recipe for Turkish Meatballs written by an American could mean Aleppo pepper, but could also have been adjusted to use the common cayenne pepper flakes. Without specific information in the recipe, there's no way to know -- but it's also hard to fail by using Aleppo pepper. Vote this up ;) Covers all the bases. I get through a lot of 'aleppo' & whilst there may be substitutions happening for various econo-political reasons, if it says 'pul biber' on the pack, it's 'close enough for jazz'. Personally, I'd never substitute urfa - if a chef knew they needed urfa, they'd be keen to point it out to their prospective audience, I feel. It's very 'raisiny' by comparison. As aleppo never has seeds & is never 'hot', I agree, you have to be prepared to adjust accordingly for anything not 'pul biber'. That list was exactly what I was getting at. I doubt if chefs will be more concise in future recipes, but this guide at least allows you to work backwards as to the type of chilli/pepper. I should have considered the nationality of the recipe rather than fixating on the chef/terminology. One other thing with aleppo & Turkish food in general - if you make something mild enough for everyone, then those who like it hotter can feel free to just sprinkle more on the top of their food after serving. It's definitely the "done thing" & there will always be a little dish of pepper flakes on the dinner table. I'm not sure how far East this practise spreads, but it spreads West at least as far as Hungary, where my partner originates. Just to add, Korean fermented pepper paste is called "gochujang" The Crushed Red Pepper (flakes) that I usually get at US grocery stores is often made by McCormick (there are other brands, some possibly more common in other areas). Currently it does not specifically list what pepper it is made from, rather this is the sum total of its contents: Our crushed red pepper is blended from optimal levels of seeds and pods delivering bold flavor and balanced heat. I had to go to their website and click around to find that their Crushed Red Pepper is made from cayenne peppers. I've lived in the midwest, southwest and currently eastern US and this product seems to have similar flavor and heat everywhere I have been, even those packets of red pepper flakes you get at pizza restaurants, seem to be the same thing and likely all at least start with or mimic cayenne. Yes, cayenne: https://www.bonappetit.com/story/what-are-red-pepper-flakes Yes, you can get other varieties of crushed peppers, usually labeled by origin (Aleppo, Turkish, Sicilian, Korean, etc), or occasionally by variety, but assume cayenne or something else in the 30k-50k scoville range It's also available from various suppliers in ground form, and though sometimes labelled "Cayenne" in that form, the (U.S.) industry seems to be settling (have settled?) on "Red Pepper" there, too. One thing i discovered about Cayenne is that, a little like basmati rice, it's really hard to be certain what you got is 'technically 100% cayenne' rather than something very, very similar. So, it becomes a bit of a legal 'CYA' to not specify. Presumably their buyers & blenders are good enough that the product tastes the same every time, but might not be 100% cayenne. I wouldn't let that worry me, the same way as supermarkets sell 'green finger chillies' with no indication of what actual cultivar they may be. "Close enough for jazz" again springs to mind. As a general rule, whether flakes or ground, when an American recipe calls for ‘red pepper’ as a spice, it means the Cayenne cultivar of Capsicum annuum. This is a moderately hot pepper, typically in the 30000 to 50000 range on the Scoville scale when fresh, similar to tabasco, hotter than aleppo or jalepeño, but less than bird's eye. The flavor profile is pretty typical of most chilies, so substitution with a ‘normal’ chili from your area is generally good enough unless you’re really picky. If I had to substitute, I would probably go with either fresh serrano peppers (not quite as hot, but otherwise very similar flavor), fresh Calabrian chilies (somewhat hotter, but again with a very similar flavor), or possibly dried aleppo peppers (much milder, and not as close in terms of flavor, but much easier to obtain in some parts of the world). In my experience, if going with fresh peppers as a substitution for flakes or ground (not just in this case but in general), you typically want about twice as much by weight to get a similar flavor. As a side note, you may run into similar issues with the term ‘chili powder’ in some American recopies. While this may mean ground dried chili peppers, in the US it may also refer to a seasoning blend used when making chili con carne (typically consisting of ground chili peppers, garlic powder, onion powder, and ground cumin). Agree on the 'chilli peppers/chilli con carne blend' confusion, which is also prevalent in the UK. The red pepper flakes here in Canada and referred to by American Chefs would be your Cayenne red pepper flakes sold in the Spice Aisle at the local chain supermarkets. They are hot pepper, dried and crushed…more heat than flavour. Depending on what your tastebuds like… If you like lots of heat with little flavour, then use the cayenne red pepper flakes. If you want more flavour and a bit less heat, then use the Aleppo (Turkish) variety. The only time I use regular grocery store red pepper flakes now is to put a pinch into green tea with a bit of honey, so that the tea bites back. After sampling Turkish red pepper flakes (Pul Biber), while in Turkey in 2013, I use that variety in all my cooking where red pepper flakes are called for. (Only one place in Vancouver carries the product - Jasmine Foods on Main. Just an FYI for any locals that read this.) Pul Biber is not so dry, feels a bit oily rubbed between one’s fingers and has a hint of saltiness. Armenian pepper flakes are a little drier and a touch hotter than the Turkish Pul Biber, but run a close second. Honestly, what do you need out of a red pepper flake? Ultimately you are the chef in your kitchen and you need to buy what you will use and what you like. Refer to the Scoville Scale to choose your “heat”. All true but unless you know what the author of a recipe expects you to use, you can not substitute and expect a similar result to the recipe as written, which is what OP seems to be looking for. Pul biber is oily & salty because those are added as part of the manufacturing process - it's not just your imagination, you are absolutely correct.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.546141
2022-10-01T17:11:57
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121856", "authors": [ "Brōtsyorfuzthrāx", "FuzzyChef", "Greybeard", "Joe", "John Bollinger", "ShapeOfMatter", "Tetsujin", "Willeke", "borkymcfood", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33227", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60896", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74018", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84056", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99917", "rumtscho", "spacetyper", "wjandrea" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
126249
Is it safe to cook meat in a Sous Vide bath with the absorbent pad attached? I froze a small beef joint with the intention of cooking this from frozen in a sous-vide bath. On removing the outer plastic wrap, it appears that there is a black pad used to absorb moisture from the meat frozen to the top of joint. Either due to another layer of plastic or the inherent moisture in the pack, this pad is frozen solid into the meat and I cannot easily remove it. Is it safe to sous vide this for 24 hours or should I remove it from the meat once it has defrosted sufficiently in the bath and then repackage in a fresh pouch? Note: this is not the same as cooking meat in an oven with the absorbent pad attached as the temperature will not melt the material. I have no idea if it's safe to cook with that on there, but I'd expect it to take less than 5 minutes to remove if you simply pour hot water on it before you bag the meat the first time, so there wouldn't need to be a second time. Didn't see it as it was hidden under the produce label. In future, I'll vacuum pack meat before freezing it rather than vice-versa. Two days later after eating it and I'm still here and not suffering any ill effects. I've learned a lesson though - remove the meat from the commercial packaging if you intend to freeze and sous-vide it. That way, additions like that pad that was hiding under the produce label can be removed. I'm not sure you'd immediately feel any effects from eating plastics or other non-edible materials; that doesn't prove it's safe.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.547491
2023-12-31T19:03:39
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126249", "authors": [ "Ecnerwal", "Greybeard", "Luciano", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
119618
What would be the best way to freeze and reheat home-made pizza I have been baking home-made pizza (home-made dough, toppings etc.). with great results, using a pizza steel and a ripping hot regular domestic oven. The base is crispy with leopard spots, and the crust puffy and chewey. The end result is far better than any of the pre-packaged supermarket varieties. I'd now like to freeze individual pizzas so they could be reheated from frozen in a regular oven without a pizza steel for friends and family etc. What would be the best way to do this to get a pizza close to the original? I'm guessing the best approach would be to part-bake the base, leave it to cool, then add the cold toppings and freeze. My pizzas only need 4 minutes to fully bake, maybe 5 if I am baking a lot as the oven temperature falls. I'm thinking of part-baking the base for 2 minutes. Would I need to do anything else for best results, including pricking the base or using pie weights to stop the dough rising? Is it worth adding a thin layer of olive oil to stop the dough drying out in the middle of the pie? Are there any toppings that would not freeze/reheat well? As to reheat times, I'm assuming 20 minutes in a 220C fan oven will be adequate, but advice much appreciated. The dough recipe I use is a regular twice-proved one (4 hours max), with bread flour, water, salt, sugar, yeast and olive oil. I don't use a poolish or long fermentation times, and knead this for 10 minutes in a stand mixer. Based on personal experience with both my own pizzas, made in a pizza oven and reheated in a regular one, and professionally made high-quality frozen pizzas from a wood-fired oven (Vicolo in San Francisco and Renata in Portland): Cook the pizza 80-90%; that, is, a "light bake", but almost all the way done, with toppings. Freeze, vacuum-packed. Instruct your recipients to heat a baking stone, broiling pan, or heavy, inverted sheet pan near the bottom of their oven to 225C/450F without convection for at least 20 minutes, long enough for the oven and the stone/pan to be hot. Slide the still-frozen pizza onto this stone/pan, and heat for 4 to 25 minutes, depending on thickness (4 = Italian thin-crust, 25 = deep-dish). This gives the reheated pizza a nice toastiness of the crust without overcooking the toppings or drying it out. As for toppings that work poorly: anything with high water content. Thick slices of zucchini, fresh peppers, chunks of tomato, whole shrimp, etc. Any of these will give off water each time they are handled and make the top of the pizza slimy and damp.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.547665
2022-01-24T17:49:40
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119618", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
28609
Preventing Crystalised Dairy Ice Cream Possible Duplicate: Is there a magic ingredient that keeps ice-cream soft? I'm making real dairy ice cream at home, without any sort of machine (which I have no intention of buying). The problem is that it becomes crystalised. I have tried stirring it more and less regularly when freezing, freezing it colder and quicker, adding some glycerine, and whisking the mixture more vigorously to introduce more air. The ingredients I'm using are egg whites and sugar, egg yolks and cream. That combination, from Mary Berry herself, produces a marvelous flavour, whilst maintaining a simple recipe, which I don't want to spoil with things like guam gum. Does anyone know how else to prevent large amounts of crystalisation? see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1214/how-to-make-ice-cream-without-a-machine?rq=1, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12777/is-there-a-magic-ingredient-that-keeps-ice-cream-soft?rq=1, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4394/what-is-the-secret-behind-always-soft-ice-cream and lots of other questions. You don't want to 'spoil' it by adding guar gum but you'll use glycerine? I don't see the problem with using a plant extract like guar gum but if you're adamant there was a great feature on Serious Eats (too long to quote in entirety but worth reading in full) about making ice cream without an ice cream machine which goes into great detail on preventing excess ice formation: http://sweets.seriouseats.com/2010/07/how-to-make-ice-cream-without-an-ice-cream-maker-the-food-lab.html So how could I reduce both crystal formation and overrun even further? A thought struck me: I knew that when freezing meat or fish, the more rapidly the food is frozen, the less cell damage there is due to ice crystal formation. Would speeding up the rate at which the ice cream base froze help me minimize crystal formation as well? The rate at which a given volume changes temperature is dependent on the temperature of its surrounding environment, as well as the amount of surface area exposed to it. There's no way for me to get my freezer to get any colder, but as it turns out, there's a simple device that is custom designed to freeze liquids in your freezer as fast as possible: an ice cube tray. The only problem that remained was: who the hell wants to eat ice-cube shaped ice cream? The solution was as simple as throwing the cubes into a food processor: In fact, whirling it in the Cuisinart gave me another distinct advantage. I could save the unwhipped portion, freezing just a base of eggs, sugar, evaporated milk, and whipped cream. This cut back on the water content of the mix, further reducing crystal formation. I could then add the cream and the cubes of ice cream directly to the food processor. By doing this, ice crystal formation went down to virtually zero... The actual recipe is here: http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2010/07/vanilla-ice-cream-without-the-machine-recipe.html I just realised you said without any sort of machine and this method requires a food processor. I'll delete the answer if you want.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.547885
2012-11-23T13:04:12
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28609", "authors": [ "Jennifer", "Laura Caballero McFarling", "MHM", "MWBJournal", "Nittaya Saisor", "Sam the Man", "Stefano", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66095", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66096", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66097", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66099", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66102", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66160", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66161", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66222", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66223", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552", "mkanugan", "mycholatez", "rumtscho", "user66096" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
102321
Switching out butter for vegetable oil (like canola) when making caramels Before I ruin a batch, I'd like to check for ideas - are there any potential problems with using vegetable oil instead of butter for caramels? I already switched out from heavy cream to butter (making some adjustments for quantity) and that turned out well. As a matter of fact, it cooks much faster now. Just a note - I regularly switch replace butter with vegetable oil for cookie recipes, and they taste fine to me. Also, the caramels I make are flavored (chocolate or licorice) and not plain caramels. There are some vegan caramel recipes that use coconut oil and/or various nut butters to achieve something similar to normal caramel. I haven't tried making them myself, but a vegan friend has used them for various desserts. I personally find that they can be slightly grainy compared to normal caramel, but the flavour is fine. So, it's certainly possible to make a caramel with vegetable oils. I would look up a few recipes for vegan caramel to get an idea of the correct amounts. Side note: taste would not be my main concern if I replaced butter with oil for cookies. I would expect the cookies to just not set properly when they cooled down.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.548152
2019-09-15T15:50:46
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102321", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
96582
Why would previously frozen steel cut oats separate, where just-cooked version doesn't? I make steel cut oats regularly, and eat them daily. I'm still figuring out the best way to cook them. I previously made a regular size batch, stored it in the fridge, and ate from that about a week. Now I'm doubling the batch, and freezing half. The half that's frozen, once I thaw it out and store it in the fridge -it will separate out, the liquid separating from the solid. I can stir it together again, but it will separate out every day. Why is this? Oats (like other starches) swell and absorb water when heated. Cooling them causes the molecules to change their shape and realign to form a different sort of gel, undergoing a process known as retrogradation. When starches are frozen, this network of molecules undergoes a lot of damage, due to the combination of ice crystals forming (and disrupting the networks) along with general thermal expansions and contractions. As the network of starches contracts with temperature, it also tends toward syneresis, the technical term for what happens when liquid is expelled from a gel. (Essentially the starches contract and "squeeze" the water they absorb out, kind of like a sponge that took in liquid and then is squeezed.) Anyhow, starches are somewhat fragile when they're heated and absorb their maximum amount of water. When they undergo wide temperature shifts combined with expanding and then melting ice crystals, the starch networks can be permanently damaged so they can't hold as much liquid as before. Sometimes reheating can help reorient the starch molecules and allow them to absorb a bit more water again, but after freezing you will likely have some permanently damaged starches (leading to the well-known "grainy" texture that happens to many starchy sauces when they are frozen and then thawed). Syneresis is a lovely word. It refers to the watery stuff on top of your yogurt too.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.548270
2019-02-26T21:52:13
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96582", "authors": [ "Wayfaring Stranger", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
96982
baked seitan left out So I left my baked seitan out for 3 to 4 hours today. I was going to toss it but then I was like wait.. it's a dry product much like bread.. is my thinking ok and it's fine still? I bake it in a non stick pan with aluminum foil over the top to keep the steam in. it's at 350 for about 35 minutes. I use water, wheat gluten, about 30 grams of yeast flakes, 50 grams of almond flour and graham flour each and some spices. it's basically like bread right? should be fine since it's dry not wet? this is not covered or related to the thing that I got flagged for. that does not answer this question If your seitan is supposed to be refrigerated after making it, then the linked duplicate applies. Even if it's not (e.g. it's considered a "bread" like product for food safety purposes, that's still discussed in the canonical question :) is it though? it's a home made recipe. I do refrigerate it but does it need to be? I don't know. most seitan is made via boiling not baking. IS it like a bread? does hte high protein content change things? it's a valid question that is not covered in the other thread. they're different products. wow this community is rude. @user73568 fair questions, but accusations of rudeness? I don't see it. We post comments and answers, the community votes. The best responses rise to the surface. It's all in the spirit of documenting the knowledge. I won't say I've never seen rudeness here, but there is nothing in this back and forth that even comes close. Give it some time. I am sure you question will be answered. You might want to rephrase what you've asked so it's more clear. Specifics about whether the protein content changes shelf life, for example, aren't covered in the other question. We cannot say one way or another "this batch of seitan is safe" any more definitively than the two hour limit in the linked question, but if you refocus maybe it will stay open. (I also suggest the [tour] to get a better idea of how StackExchange is different from a typical forum community.) @user73568 the default assumption for a cooked food is that it has to be refrigerated. Unless the person who created the recipe can prove that it is safe at room temperature, then it counts in the "needs refrigeration" category, and we cannot tell you anything different from looking at the recipe itself.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.548454
2019-03-18T23:12:57
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96982", "authors": [ "Erica", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73568", "moscafj", "rumtscho", "user73568" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
97104
What grains and/or technique will result in a thin pancake with a artisan bread type structure? I have tried whole wheat flour, using more fat, using more liquid, but not getting good texture - usually just a weaker pancake. I'm trying to get a thin pancake with texture that is hearty,somewhat porous and tender. What's a "artisan bread type structure" ? Have you considered making injera? It's tender, spongy and hearty. Not the easiest thing to make, though. Sourdough pancakes might be an alternative, or even a yeast-based pancake I think you cannot have both thin and bread-like structure. AFAIK, To have a bread-like structure the batter/dough needs to develop some gluten in it. Usually pancakes do not have a bread texture, they are, erm, a pan cake. The batter is just mixed, and most recipes say to not over mix the batter. You can try buckwheat, it has a rustic quality to it that can be seen as "bread-like".
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.548663
2019-03-25T19:43:20
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97104", "authors": [ "Joe", "Max", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118", "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 }
97143
Where can I find recipes with photos of the exact meal created from the list of ingredients? I'm creating a service for changing people nutrition habits and convincing them to eat more healthy. As a first step I would like to develop an app to recognize what's on the plate. I'm aware about apps which can recognize if a hot-dog on my plate is a hot-dog or a salad - however it's not exactly what I want to or need to achieve. For starters I need a website or a digital book where I can find: Recipes with listed ingredients names and weights Pictures of food which was created out of those ingredients - it can be a photo of just one serving or entire meal, however I need to know for 100% it's a picture of outcome of that recipe with info if I have entire meal or just a serving on that picture. For example: allrecipes.com Spicy lime avocado soup. I'm cooking it in a pot where I can fit 4 servings, then I divide it to 4 plates, so the photo which would work in this case would be: Pot with 4 servings Plate with serving 4 plates with one serving each allrecipes.com has list of ingredients together with their weights, however photos not always reflect the size/weight of the created meal. To make my app working I need a reliable resource where I could get many of such recipes without checking if each of them has a good photo or not. I'm asking here, as I cook only basic stuff and I use only 1-2 websites where unfortunately there is no such information. Maybe by any chance you use/saw/create a website where I can find the information which I need. Hi @JanDoggen I'm not sure what you mean and what I need to change in my question to make it more understandable. Each recipe consists of ingredients and instructions to create a meal. Usually a recipe contains information how many servings we can obtain from given set of ingredients. What I am looking for is such a recipe + exact picture of that one serving. Please check my link of recipe for 4 servings of Spicy Lime Avocado Soup, there is bunch of pictures, I just can't be certain they are all photos of just ONE serving. Oskar, welcome! Maybe your question would be better received if you would add a bit of background - for example why do you need such a picture? What’s the actual goal you are trying to achieve? Most cooks will likely just prepare the recipe and split it in n equal portions - or maybe not equally, depending on who’s sharing the meal. Oskar, you still haven't explained what the purpose of those pictures would be. If the recipe tells you the number of servings, why do you need pictures of what it looks like? What do the pictures tell you that you don't get from the instructions? Hi @Johanna I just rephrased my question - I need those pictures to create an AI to recognize/extract information, I cannot do it without a reliable resource You want to re-create the recipe from a money-shot picture of the end product ? Hi @Max - sort of, I want the app to recognize how much food there is on the plate, what ingredients were used and estimate calories @Stephie - I changed the description, not sure how to phrase the question to summarize what I need, I also added a background why I need it. Anything else I could improve? So you're after training data to teach an AI to judge how healthy food is? @Johanna There is a way to evaluate how healthy the food is, yes. However what I want to achieve is the estimation which I wrote above (ingredients, weights, serving, calories) - to do that I need data to train my AI, like you said. Thank you all the people who are down-voting the question without even providing the feedback and staying anonymous - you are true heroes. IMO, there is no advantage from a recipe creator to take pictures of all the servings of his recipe. Suppose I produced soup, one batch with full-fat dairy and lots of salt, and the other batch with dairy substitute and no salt. These would look visually the same and so there is nothing your AI could use to tell what it was looking at. This problem more generally (that properties like ingredients, weight, servings and calories do not map bijectively to visual appearance) means your project is doomed to fail. @Max you might be right, but I imagine there are some people who like to be accurate and to have a general view on how much food comes out from a single recipe. Couple weeks back I was doing some pastry, the recipe said that I will have 60 pieces out of it. I thought it's going to be not much, I doubled the amount and ended up with pastry for 2 weeks... - that wouldn't happen if I would have actual photo of how it looks like. Hi @dbmag9 thanks for your opinion. Another example would be a cup of coffee vs cup of regular coca-cola vs sugar-free pepsi. My goal is not to be 100% right all the time and guess all the ingredients correctly, but to use the data and see what I can get out of it. I understand that there is no direct projection of an image to list of ingredients, however I'm not developing life-saving app to give warning that there is allergen, like peanuts, on your photo of your meal. @Oskar 120 pieces over 2 weeks is about 10/day. Reasonable if they're bite size. Do you also want the recipe authors to photograph on calibrated plates? I may have to post some pictures in an answer tonight to illustrate the point some of use are trying to make. This question is off-topic here, would be off-topic on an image recognition site. It is asking for impossible magic. You might be able to get it to recognize approximate size/volume (e.g. looks like 1 cup) and relate that to serving size, but having a database of images for so many possible food combinations is unlikely. On the other hand, if you started a database like that, you'd probably have a number of interested users, as you've identified many theoretical use cases! Hi @ChrisH - nope, I can't ask people to snap a pic of a meal on calibrated plate, that wouldn't be applicable for 90% of cases :) I have couple ideas, but first I need a reasonable source, and that's the question here where I could go and find such recipes with pics. @Johannes_B Yes this is madness! People ask for context why I need to find such a source and then they're commenting the context and not trying to help me with my problem, which is finding the source. @Erica there are plenty of use cases for such a database for sure, just need to find reliable resources :) I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not about cooking. Our scope is narrower than "anything food related" and the recommendation of sites or databases (by whatever criteria) is not on our whitelist as defined in the help center. I also vote to close. I'm curious why measurements combined with ingredients is insufficient to estimate nutritional info. For example if you have a 1900ml pitcher of koolaid made with 100g of sugar with the given that it's enough for 5 servings, it's simple math to calculate nutrition. If you have a database of food nutritional values, it shouldn't be hard at all to get that information based on weight or volume. You know you can't just use someone else's data to do this? you would have to make your own database, recipes & pictures. Just because something is on the internet doesn't mean it's free for you to steal. @Oskar, I understand you're disappointed, but you don't need to be rude. If what you need doesn't exist yet, we can't help you. Good luck with your project. This should illustrate some of the issues we point out in the comments. Here's a pizza on a plate. It fills the plate, a reasonable portion by the look of things. Actually no. That's a mini pizza on a side plate. Here's the same pizza on a dinner plate. Not quite so generous now. How would you take that into account? The cheese was mozarella and cheddar, but the cheddar was reduced fat. I did that because they'd sold out of ready-grated full-fat, but someone on a diet (presumably your target market) could be expected to make that substitution and expect your app to deal with it -- after all what proportion of the calories comes from the dough, and what proportion from the cheese? Of course I didn't weigh the cheese, or measure it by volume (or the sauce for that matter, but that's home made with hardly any calories in). I happen to be sitting next to a pile of cookery books. Some do have pictures of the entire dish, to serve n people -- for a few recipes, but with nothing to give an idea of scale. Some have pictures of individual servings, usually with an unspecified side dish which would account for most of the calories. Photos are often artfully shot so you couldn't extract a size from them; a few are shot from directly above so you don;t know the depth. My pizza above was shot to try and show its size - but it's not a very appealing photo (to be fair those bases are nowhere near as good as home made and I won't be buying them again). Veering off topic: I've played around with myfitnesspal in the past. That's the sort of thing you're up against. For packaged foods (and restaurants that list nutrition information) it works quite well - but you or your users would need to recreate their database. For recipes it works quite well - by entering the ingredients as numbers and dividing them up, or entering the nutrition information from a recipe book. Actually you can get a good feel for what your home-cooking is going to come out like in terms of calories, so after a little while you don't need to keep entering dishes but can use something similar. Properly off-topic: These are issues that have plagued machine-vision systems designers for years. AI isn't a magic bullet to deal with that. It's easily fooled. Even if we could provide a training dataset that wouldn't help with your end-users' dishes. I won't +1 because this isn't an answer, but I want to say I like this explanation as to why this question is difficult to answer/why this project will be difficult to pull off. Amount/volume of ingredients should be more than sufficient to estimate serving size and nutrition. Maybe a more generic graphical representation of the estimated size based on a standard dinnerware measurement, such as a plate 10" in diameter and a medium soup bowl, compared to a universally recognized measurement, such as Amazon does with some products. Hi Chris, thank you for taking your time and answering my question. I really appreciate it. People in comments asked about the context so I provided it - now I regret that. Believe me I considered all the pros and cons, I won't explain exactly what I want to achieve as it would take too much time. I'm aware of ML/DL, or any other optimization algorithms' capabilities. Calories counting isn't perfect, all the labeled information can vary by 20%! (by FDA: http://alturl.com/ehexo)
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.548784
2019-03-28T12:13:37
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97143", "authors": [ "Chris H", "Erica", "Johannes_B", "Jorgomli", "Max", "Oskar", "Stephie", "Tetsujin", "dbmag9", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73083", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73751", "rumtscho", "user141592" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
76201
What is this flat metal sieve that came with my pressure cooker for? What is this tool used for and how to use it? It came with a pressure cooker I've bought... The sieve-like item is a steamer insert, used to cook things that do not cook well if submerged in the comparatively large amount of water a pressure cooker needs to operate. The wire is a stand for this insert, to raise it above the waterline. Unless you bought it used: Pressure cooker makers tend to give free books away with their pots, often a classic about a spanish guy called Manual. Good reading while watching a pressure cooker. And how to use this stand? I didn't understand how this parts attach to each other It doesn't attach - it is simply laid into the water, and the sieve ist stood on top, it cannot topple because the pot itself is too narrow. You put the piece of wire in first, with the points downward, and it acts as a support for the sieve. I use mine for steaming potatoes. The bottom of the sieve should be just above the water level. It's actually a stolen Scott Adams classic, but it fit :) Unless given proof to the contrary, I would expect sarcasm to be more effective in making people think than dry "read your vegetables and eat your manuals" statements.... @DavidRicherby "Being sarcastic about it is less likely to encourage people to do that." https://xkcd.com/285/ If you just put the metal dish into the pressure cooker it has three dimples pointing down... so anything standing on top of it is not in contact with the physical bottom of the pan. The idea being that if you put some flat-bottom or concave bottom jars in they don't end up directly sitting on the pan's bottom. that could lead to hot spots under the jars... if you are bottling (canning in glass) stuff in the pressure cooker that could lead to burned contents or a cracked jar. It's often called a trivet. My mother's one didn't come with a wire stand... it just relied on the dimples to keep it off the bottom. That said, before pressure canning anything in a pressure cooker of some description, talk to the spanish guy again. Use the trivet and sieve method to cook eggs. Separation from the cooker bottom keeps them from bouncing in the boiling water and sometimes breaking open.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.549671
2016-12-07T09:41:06
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76201", "authors": [ "Augusto", "RedSonja", "Sam", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52598", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52645", "rackandboneman" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
55979
Can you separate out the Gliadin from Gluten? When I looked this up, this is the information that is first presented to me- Gliadin is a class of proteins present in wheat and several other cereals within the grass genus Triticum. Gliadins, which are a component of gluten, are essential for giving bread the ability to rise properly during baking. Is there away to separate the two, so I can utilize the properties of gliadin without having to succumb to all of the components of gluten? Your title doesn't seem to ask the same thing as the body of your question. What are you actually trying to do? Gluten is gliadin + glutenin. My question is why do you want gliadin? On the basis people who are gluten free or coeliac will still be UN able to eat gliadin. One purpose could be to deactivate the gluten-forming properties (making your pastry tough) while keeping the nutrition of the glutenin (it's protein, protein is good for you)... The difference between gluten and gliadin is the one already explained in your question: Gliadin is a precursor to gluten. You could say that gliadin is to gluten what grains are to porridge. Gluten is the result of glutenin reacting with gliadin in the presence of water, just like porridge is the result of grains "reacting" with milk in the presence of heat. I don't understand why you are asking for separating them. It would be hard to do, and will achieve no good purpose. First, I don't know if there is a way to extract the gliadin from wheat. There are industrial processes for extracting "gluten" out of wheat, but I don't know if they produce a mixture of glutenin and gliadin (which could be further purified) or if they already cause the glutenin and gliadin to bind a gluten. But note that the remaining flour will not be gluten-free, as these methods cannot extract every last molecule of glutenin and gliadin. So you cannot remove the glutenin from flour and stay with gliadin-containing flour. Second, assuming that you can extract the gliadin, you can add it to some gluten free flour like cornflour. But there is absolutely no reason doing so. The definition you cited only says that gliadin is "essential" for rising, but not that it alone produces rising. It is the gluten itself that produces rising, and the gliadin is essential only because without it, there would be no gluten. Gliadin alone does not have any benefits. Third, if you add gliadin to a gluten free flour, you will not have removed any of the problems inherent in using gluten. People who are allergic to gluten will still be allergic to the gliadin. To sum it up, gliadin is a structural part of gluten, and if you can find a method to extract it without the glutenin, you will experience no benefits of baking with it, or prevent any undesired side effects like triggering allergies or celiac. Gliadens CAN be separated from Glutenins. One method is by ethanol. Also, Gliadens are not a precursor to Glutenins. They are different types. Gliadens are momomers and are soluble in 50 % ethanol. Glutenins are polymers, are insoluble in ethanol and are of a high molecular weight. In water, Gliadens present as a honey-like viscous fuid whereas glutenins are of a low extensibility, very strong and mainly elastic. The mixture of the two is what about for visocelastic properties and extensibility of "gluten" with gliadens functioning mainly as a plasticizer for glutens depending on homogeneous mixing. (paraphrased from source- The Role of Gluten Elasticity in the Baking Quality of Wheat, R. Kieffer, Mühlenchemie - retrieved February 26, 2018)
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.549881
2015-03-23T06:09:46
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55979", "authors": [ "Cascabel", "Doug", "Laser Photo Facial IPL", "Marian Furzer", "RMD Emergency Dentist", "angela foster", "doreen larsen", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133054", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133055", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133056", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133074", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133096", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133098", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312", "josh colbeck", "rackandboneman" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
56567
During flambé, what is the powder that is shaken into the fire to create sparks? My apologies for a lack of link, although hopefully my description will suffice. I saw some transient video of chefs making Bananas Foster in, I believe, New Orleans. They were shaking a powder into the flames to produce a dramatic sparks effect. What is this powder? I can't find any YouTube videos of it, so I believe it might be a lesser-known, regional flourish. At any rate, it looked spectacular and I would recommend it to anyone flambé-ing in front of an audience. just a cinnamon or cinnamon blend with nutmeg and other spices will make sparks when tossed into the fire. You do need a big flame for this; I typically use a camp chef stove with a modified propane regulator to get the big flame needed.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.550187
2015-04-10T19:09:31
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56567", "authors": [ "Bret Benzmiller", "Dennis Dickson", "John LeTard", "Mitali Halder", "ginu thomas", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134477", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134478", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134479", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134480", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134546", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134547", "janet chippendale" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
119305
Turkey crown cooked to temperature but pink juices after resting I cooked a boneless 1.8kg Turkey crown at 170C (340F) fan for 90 minutes with foil on top to protect the skin from burning. I removed the foil and cooked uncovered for another 30 minutes, this brought the internal temperature to just under 70C (160F). As a precaution, I cooked the crown for a further 30 minutes, bringing the internal temperature up to 72-75C where I probed. The meat has been left to rest wrapped in foil before being refrigerated for consumption the next day. This should bring the meat up to > 75C (165F). When I went to place it in the refrigerator, the juices on the plate were slightly pink. Will this be safe to eat cold or if I reheat the slices in a stock to 75C? The color of the “juices” is not an exact indicator of whether food was cooked to/held at a safe temperature. If the thermometer is accurate and was properly placed, then that’s what you should trust. Anecdotally, I can say that I regularly see poultry and pork have clear juices after resting after the oven, but the left-overs have slightly pink juices the next day. I don't know if there's a scientific explanation for why it happens though.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.550301
2021-12-25T05:10:21
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119305", "authors": [ "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313", "user141592" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
121703
What is the correct way to use plastic wrap? There seems to be two different ways of storing food in bowls with plastic wrap between countries (Saran wrap, Cling film etc). Method 1 is to stretch the film tightly over the opening of the container, leaving an air gap between the food and the film inside the container. Method 2 is to place the film directly over the food and press it onto the side of the bowl, thereby creating a seal and eliminating any air gap. All things being equal and the risk of modern films leaching plasticiser being minimal, what are the pros and cons of each method? The only benefit I can see from Method 2 is that it would prevent any skin forming on custards etc. That is the only downside I can see for Method 1, although it does entirely remove any risk of plasticiser contamination. Method 1 also provides a slightly better seal, especially if the container has a lip. (Confession: I'm a diehard "Method 1" man. Part of my childhood amusement was to "Ping" the taught film on various dishes, as pitched by the advertisers of this new technology at the time ('It stretches as tight as a drum')). I suspect the ingredients might be a factor. Technique 2 is going to be better for foods that might oxidize as you don’t trap as much air in there Also of note: I have lids for most of my bowls, so don’t need to do the first one, only the second occasionally. My larger use is wrapping stuff tightly before freezing Method 1 will usually allow for a water-tight seal along the container-film interface, good for when you expect sloshing of liquid contents. It'll also slow down cooling of contents in a refrigerator as the headspace forms an insulating layer - instead of a food<>cold air heat transfer interface, you'll have: food<>warm air<>film<>cold air for multiple heat transfer interfaces, with the film surface area a likely limiting variable - before even considering vapour enthalpy. Method 2 allows for the film to conform to the food surface, and when done correctly eliminates insulating headspace. As you noted, it will prevent skin formation from dehydration, and as @Joe noted it will inhibit oxidation - it's the ideal method for guacamole. Another effect for method 2, as a non-polar surface, is that the film can adsorb certain non-polar compounds. For example, it can pick up unwanted green or yellow lipid-soluble pigments on the surface of a cream soup, or the 2,4,6-trichloroanisole responsible for cork taint in a glass of wine. A downside effect is that it can wick oils from the surface of the food over the rim and onto the exterior of the container. My preference is method 1 with two opposing sides lifted for convection then sealed when fully cooled, and method 2 for for specific use cases. Thank you, borkmcfood, you have hit the nail on the head. For those interested in the concept of vapour enthalpy, see: : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.550429
2022-09-18T22:48:19
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121703", "authors": [ "Greybeard", "Joe", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
114297
How to draw peanut flavor into rest of dish? I've tried on many occasions to cook with peanuts into curries just by roasting them slightly and allowing them to simmer with the rest of the dish, and no matter how long I wait, the peanuts themselves always taste flat and the rest of the flavor just disappears. Is there a conventional way to pull this off? The peanuts I'm using are stale which is part of it I'm sure, but when I eat them raw they still taste like peanuts. What are your expectations? Is there a dish you are trying to re-create? For God's sake, first roast them peanuts more, until they smell heavenly! I tried roasting them, then someone else said to not do that and only add them at the very end. If you want the full peanut flavour, use peanut butter; crunchy or smooth. If you still want the texture effect of whole nuts, add them at the end. It's a bit like using coconut oil to lift up the taste of coconut that you just can't get in any other way. First, obviously, don't use stale peanuts. (unless there's a typo in your question) Second, add the peanuts at the end of the cooking; just before serving your dish. They will keep their texture and "freshness".
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.550687
2021-02-14T20:41:02
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114297", "authors": [ "GdD", "PhiEarl", "Yosef Baskin", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83237", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91391" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
114298
Candy making in Dutch Oven when there is only one of you I’m trying to make fudge and other hard candies such as peanut brittle in my Lodge Dutch Oven. The problem that I’m having is that I cannot hold the pot and scrape out the inside by myself. Definitely a two-person job. I can’t always depend on my roommate to be around for those three minutes that I need her there. Is there any tool that can hold the pot by the handles so I can turn it out into my cooling pan with one hand while scraping with the other? Fudge and especially brittles set up so fast that I end up wasting it in my fumbling. Not to mention how hot it is. Why do you want to use a Dutch oven for this? Do you not have other pans? @Sneftel even with non-cast iron pans, the weight of the pan+candy can be quite heavy for one person to both hold and scrape while being hot. @senschen It doesn't sound like the OP is making industrial-sized batches. A pan sized for and containing a pound of sugar will only weigh about 3 pounds total. @Sneftel my fudge recipe makes 4 pounds at a time, and therefore requires a pot larger than a saucepan. I don't consider that "industrial". If OP is making their candy in a dutch oven, I imagine their recipe is on a similar scale. Hello - I use the dutch oven because I can control the heat in a heavy pot like that more easily than a thinner pot. I'm not making industrial-sized batches but similar to senschen's suggestion. Perhaps I should say that I'm an old weak lady :-) I would suggest, as you did to use extra help from your roomate (and pay with extra candies) Seems like a product opportunity: a tiny container tilter that can clamp onto pot handles. There are commercial tilt skillets like this, but they’re as expensive as a new car. One option is to put the dutch oven on top of something next to your cooling pan then tip it on it's side, still on top, and scrape it from there. You could probably use an upside down pot or tray, depending on the size of what you have. This way you won't be holding the weight of the dutch oven so much as just keeping it from rolling side to side. Cork mats are very useful here - they can take the heat but unlike metal trivets are grippy and stop the heavy pan kicking as you tip
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.550826
2021-02-14T21:00:50
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114298", "authors": [ "Chris H", "Jacob Krall", "Max", "Sneftel", "Valerie Charboneau", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1072", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91392", "senschen" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
114313
Adding fresh fruit to a non fruited banana bread I have a banana bread recipe that I love. I want to add other fresh fruit and nuts or chocolate to it. Do I need to adjust the other ingredients to take into account these additions? If you add chocolate and nuts, no. They can be added without any adjustments, as they don't tend to affect the rest of the cake at all. Fresh fruit is a bit trickier, since it tends to release a great deal of liquid when cooked which can make the result soggy. In general, if you add fresh fruit to a cake you want to toss it in some starch (eg corn starch or potato starch) to absorb the liquid it will release. Each piece of fruit should be completely coated and then just folded into the batter. Will the starch help the fruit to stay suspended in the bread as well as absorb the juices? @Suzanne that's a myth. RonJohn,I know it won't "absorb" the juices, it will thicken them. Will it prevent the fruit from sinking?
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.551038
2021-02-15T13:11:31
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114313", "authors": [ "RonJohn", "Suzanne", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91406" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
114666
What do you get from boiling dough I was wondering about what happens to bread dough under various cooking conditions. More explicitly: what do you get when you boil dough? I know baking gives you bread and frying gives you donuts. And since I really don’t know so much about cooking, the one thing missing was boiling. I think microwaving is going too far. Alright. I just thought of grilling dough. Is that also going to far? Grilling dough gives you pizza, at least on one side ;) @Doragon Campfire bread on a stick - in my childhood, no decent outdoor party was complete without a bowl of dough and a bundle of long sticks. @Stephie Cool! Does it taste better than regular bread? @AnastasiaZendaya Doesn’t everything prepared over an open fire taste better by default? @Doragon "I just thought of grilling dough." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damper_(food) Don't forget steaming dough! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baozi @AnastasiaZendaya same principle, different fillings (or none at all): Dampfnudeln or Germknödel When you boil bread dough, you get a type of boiled bagel, I don't think it has a name in English. Dumplings are more likely to be made from other types of dough, like pasta dough. And while you don't have to boil your dough in a torus shape, it is the most convenient one since you cannot shape it thick and expect to cook through. By the way, when you fry bread dough, you don't get doughnuts, that would be a different dough (although some bread doughs like challah might produce a doughnut like result). With standard bread dough, you get mekica/Lángos. Beignet dough is basically bread dough, though, and those are definitely doughnuts. @FuzzyChef there is of course a flowing transition between bread and nonbread doughs, and between doughnuts and non-doughnuts. I wouldn't necessarily call a beignet a doughnut, and all recipes I found for beignets use an enriched dough. I can see how you can make the case for it being "close enough" though, and I wouldn't be surprised if somebody declared a small sweetened mekica to be "a doughnut" - even though to me, these are two very different things. Rumtscho and @Juhasz now I am both hungry and itching to travel. Or at least visit a fair or street market. Mmmmh, Lángos. With all the fixings and extra garlic! Something really popular in certain Asian places are water fried buns (or "shui jian bao"). Of course, water-frying is not exactly the same as boiling, but still, they are pretty similar... You start with your typical bread dough and some minced meat and/or vegetable filling. Divide the dough into portions so that each portion can be slightly flattened, filled with 2 to 3 scoops of filling, and sealed like a soup dumpling. After filling the dough portions (making buns), heat a little oil in a pan, and place the filled buns into the pan. Wait a few seconds for the bottom of the buns to sear, and pour water into the pan around the buns. Cover the pan (to keep the steam), and cook for 12 to 15 minutes (or until all water evaporates). For an extra treat, sprinkle black sesame seeds onto the buns once they come out of the pan, hot & crispy :) Boiling dough gives you dumplings. Except dumpling dough typically doesn't have any leavening agents inside. Yeasted dumplings do exist, though. Also, the OP didn't specify yeasted bread.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.551161
2021-03-08T05:50:29
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114666", "authors": [ "Anastasia Zendaya", "Doragon", "FuzzyChef", "Stephie", "Tetsujin", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91806", "nick012000", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
114671
Salt cured egg yolk storage life Does anyone know long would salt cured salted egg yolks keep in the refrigerator? I've seen a few articles including this one https://practicalselfreliance.com/salt-cured-egg-yolks which notes that its good for about "3-4 weeks if not longer", though some claim that it's only good for about 2 weeks. Is there anyone here who could clarify which one is correct? It depends on how you will store them ( individually wrapped, in a plastic box, vacuum sealed ?) It can also depend on how dry is your fridge. It also depends on how dry they are. I'd say 2 weeks max; some say 1 month or more. The Egg farmers of Canada advocacy group doesn't even say. Don't make couple of dozen of them if you don't intend to use them relatively quickly or have access to vacuum seal equipment. IMO, it's easy to cure 3, 4 yolks at a time and use them in that time span. Anecdotal, I've kept vacuum sealed yolks (each one in its own little vacuum bag) for a couple of months with not issues. (speaking of which I should do some today) I usually keep them in an airtight container and my fridge is pretty dry though I'm kinda liking the idea each yolk having its own tiny bag. Also how'd you know if the yolk is still good, I don't see mold nor smell any funkiness so I'm usually more worried if there are other things I should look out for. I have a pretty strong stomach but I'd have to consider these things when serving to guests
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.551441
2021-03-08T12:34:09
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114671", "authors": [ "JLawrence", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91809" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
114765
My microwave sparked I put my mug which has a golden handle by mistake in the microwave. Then the microwave sparked so I disconnected the microwave. Is the microwave still safe to use? The microwave is only 3 months old. It's probably okay. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/45826/67 People melt metals in those, so as other things, they are robust enough https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ybcdRQmQcHQ In the past I made such a mistake multiple times with the same microwave... the one I still use to this day. So if the sparks from the golden part of your mug was the only incident, I believe your microwave is just fine.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.551580
2021-03-13T02:29:40
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114765", "authors": [ "Joe", "MolbOrg", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92026" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
89363
Dry and Tough Rumproast Me and my friends have been cooking a 2kg=4.5 pounds piece of rumproast in a bbq smoker. We cooked it at about 250°F for about 3 hours. After that we, wrapped it in tin foil, raised the temperature to about 300°F and cooked it for an additional 3 hours. Our thinking here was that we can raise the temperature a bit, since the moisture can't escape anyway because it's wrapped in tin foil. We were hoping for a juicy and tender roast, that "tears apart" easily with a fork. At the end it wasn't tender and it was so dry that we were afraid it would suck the moisture out of the air... When we unwrapped the tin foil there was a lot of liquid (juice), that should've probably stayed in the meat? Was the temperature too high or wasn't the cooking time right? Is this even an appropriate piece of beef for "low and slow" smoking? Possible duplicate of Why is my chuck roast dry? Possibly of interest to try to 'fix' it : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/42714/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/55464/67 The length of time has a major impact on this. At first cooking the meat will cause it to become tougher. But as it cooks longer, it will start to soften. 3 hours isn't really long enough. The last time I did pulled butt (i.e. pork shoulder) I left it in a crockpot on low for about 10 hours. Did you brine it overnight? Lower temp (225) would help with this problem. Perhaps also just a dry cut of meat. That cut of beef is OK for 'low and slow' however, you did not provide 'low and slow.' At 300, even wrapped, the internal temperature gets high enough that it will expel moisture. This is happening at the tissue/cellular level, so the wrapping won't stop that. The thing that could have helped is to keep it wrapped and let it cool to almost room temperature. As the meat cools, the structure relaxes and some of the moisture could have been drawn back in to the roast. Your theory of part wrapped, part unwrapped is fine, just keep the temperature down to 200 - 250 max. Use a rub and slow smoke. There are many BBQ charts and books and guidelines, but 4-5 hours at 225 sounds about right for that hunk. You could also section it down to two smaller pieces and you would have more control. Ok, thanks! I'll try your suggestion for 4-5 hours. The Maillard reaction occurs about 280 to 330 °F depending on the food. For meats this denaturing of the proteins also results in the release of water, so the meat gets hard and dry. By cooking at a "low" temperature, you cook at temperatures below which the Maillard reaction occurs. Well done beef has a resting temperature of 155 to 160 °F. So cooking at 300 °F isn't low temperature cooking. You can search for other sites but the site Barbecue Bible defines low and slow cooking and smoking to ideally be between 225 and 250 °F. Not sure what the Maillard Reaction has to do with this question. The roast, cooked at the stated temperature, never reached 280 F internal. That is well past the boiling point of water, and would not happen unless high heat for much longer. Certainly some occurred on the surface, but not all the way through. Looking at the picture, the very outer surface has undergone Maillard browning. The rest is the lower temperature denaturing of proteins and oxidizing of the blood/hemoglobin.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.551672
2018-04-23T09:42:56
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89363", "authors": [ "JimmyJames", "Joe", "Luciano", "MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64764", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66759", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "soup4life", "user3633438" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
93134
Chilli powder in the UK Today, chilli powder in the UK, as sold by the major supermarkets and the largest independent brand, is a US/Mexican style blend of powdered red chillis with herbs, spices and seasonings such as oregano, garlic, cumin and salt, as used for seasoning chilli con carne. (Asda mild,hot; Sainsbury's mild, hot, Tesco mild, hot; Schwartz mild, hot.) Until I found this out, I'd always assumed that chilli powder was exactly what it says: powdered chilli. It appears that at least some UK brands are just that – Morrison's don't list ingredients for their hot chilli powder and the web page for their mild chilli powder just says "Ingredients: chilli powder". The bag of chilli powder I got from an Indian grocer also lists no ingredients, so I assume all of these are just powdered chilli. What is the history of this? Has chilli powder in the UK "always" been the US/Mexican style blend or is this a more recent phenomenon? Please include evidence beyond personal recollection in any answers. Personal recollection is unreliable in this case, because everyone thinks they know what chilli powder is and most people mistakenly believe that it's just powdered chilli. This question is an attempt to clear up the confusion in the comments to an answer on "Confused about cayenne pepper, chili powder and paprika?". Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. There's a few questions you've asked in your answer, some explicitly, and some implicitly, so I've summarised the questions as I see them. 1) Is Chilli powder just powdered chillies, or a blend of other spices to create the dish "chilli"? Both. As you've seen in your experience, this is a case of overloaded etymology, where confusion arises from the common name of the Capsicum genus of berries: chilli (or chili) peppers, and the mexican dish "chili". As for which came first seems to be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, as some sources say the dish is called chili because it was made with chili peppers, and some say they're called chilli peppers as they're the main component of the dish. Couldn't find a verifiable source for a definitive answer on this one. 2) When was the spice blend variant Chilli Powder invented (globally) A cursory internet search leads to the article "The man who invented chili powder"[1], which covers the invention of the spice blend. The family further claims that DeWitt invented chili powder, the now ubiquitous blend of ground chile pods and spices used to season chili, which may very well be true. It was certainly invented in Texas. Chili historian Joe Cooper credits William Gebhardt, a German immigrant, with first pulverizing dried chiles in a meat grinder in New Braunfels in 1896. But Fort Worth was electrified more than a decade earlier, and so, probably thanks to a mechanized chile chopper, DeWitt was already marketing a chili blend called Chiltomaline in local newspapers by 1890. Cultures have been drying and grinding herbs and spices for millenia, so "powdered chillies" is nothing new, and indeed, would be my preferred distinction for referring to it rather than the blend. 3) When did the spice blend come to the UK? As the blend was invented around 1890, at some point after that when someone thought it was a good idea to import it. Regarding it's stocking as such in UK supermarkets, there's not likely to have been a shift in one vs the other at any given point as the confusion will probably have existed since 1890. 4) How do I know which one is which? The only way is to look at the ingredient list, which as you say will either just list chilli (although usually not the particular variant of chilli - or chillies, which is probably quite common to get a more complex flavour profile), or the other spices which have been blended. The Morrisons link you've given actually says in the description "pure chilli powder", corroborating the suggestion that it's not a spice blend. [1] https://penderys.com/news/d-magazine-july-2018 Gosh, I'd given up hope on this question. :) I have to say, "Chiltomaline" sounds much more like a remedy for a fungal disease than a cooking ingredient, so I'm glad that name didn't stick.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.552076
2018-10-22T12:10:18
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93134", "authors": [ "David Richerby", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
97363
Mixed-Up cake recipe instructions Please help!! I am making a dessert, I make this all the time and this is the only time I have ever done this. The recipe is supposed to be stirred but I pulled out my electric mixer. I need the texture to be clumpy and kind of dry because I am making a crust. The recipe reads: “In a mixing bowl, stir together the cake mix, melted and cooled butter, and 2 eggs. Line a 9x12 baking dish with parchment paper and press the dough into the bottom in an even layer’. How can I fix this? I didn’t realize what I’d done until I was removing the mixer from the bowl and thought, “this doesn’t look right, what happened?” The dough was almost in liquid form and I need it to be solid. I would appreciate any help. It's not clear from your question what you did [or didn't] do that you should[n't] have. Also, I would have far more serious concerns for driving an hour & a half on no sleep than I would over getting a cake right. My husband will be driving, and I hope to catch a nap while the main course is baking, my husband said he will keep an eye on the food for me. I used an electric mixer instead of stirring the ingredients. My dough is usually clumpy and able to mold into the pan but since I used the mixer my dough is soft and just kind of runny instead of solid Take a deep breath, preferably a nap and remember it's just a cake. For your question we need more information, it's not clear what the directions were and what you actually did instead. Then could you edit to clarify your actual question & to remove the other aspects, which are not directly relevant to the cooking issue itself. Glad you weren't driving! :) Any chance you could update us on how it came out, what did/didn't work? Hope all went well and you have caught up on sleep. I'm not 100% sure that it can be saved ... but that doesn't mean that it won't end up being something good as-is. Unless that's your only dish the size you need, I'd just throw it in the oven as-is, and see what happens. As it's a crust, you might look to see if you have anything that you can use for crumbs (cookies, graham crackers, ground nuts, I've even had ones made with boxed cereal and brown sugar) and make a quick crumb crust. You could also flip things upside down -- take whatever was intended as the filling, and add a streusel / crumble topping ... or some other buckle, betty, etc. type thing where the crust-like layer is on the top. As you might not have time to start again, it's possible the crust might come out like a giant cookie ... if so, pop it out of the pan to let it cool while you bake the filling, then crumble it up on top of the dessert once it's out of the oven.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.552401
2019-04-08T13:37:27
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97363", "authors": [ "Ellashue", "GdD", "Spagirl", "Tetsujin", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73951" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
99184
"Rose Flavoured Water" vs "Rosewater" I would like to try a few recipes which call for rosewater. I have made these in the past but it seems difficult to get rosewater here. Many places seem to sell "rose flavoured water". To me this sounds like one of those fudge words to suggest that it's never been near a rose and is actually concocted from a mixture of isolated synthetic substances. On the other hand, rosewater is really just the water-bit of distilling rose petals in steam, I think, so really could be described as "rose flavoured water". Whether or not the taste and safety is is equivalent, I'd prefer something made from roses. Nowhere online seems to give the ingredients for these things and actual shops are some miles away. Could someone who knows the market in the UK or the big international online sites help me out? Is there a difference? Erm... “knows the market” where? Remember, we have users from literally around the world. Good point, I'll edit it. I thought it could be an international thing. Sainsbury's (though the ingredients only show the water for some reason) and Tesco both list products on their websites which contain "essence of rose" and no artificial flavouring Where are you looking? (The KTC is also sold in Asda and on Amazon BTW). Looks like I was looking in the wrong places! Our Tesco didn't have either (but it's not very big) and the Hobbycraft website only had "Rose Flavoured Water" as did our local asian-food corner shop. In the end, I rearranged stuff to go to a Lakeland in the car and got proper Rosewater (and other goodies like a sugar thermometer). I'd still be interested if there's a difference as I could just walk to two shops to sell "Rose Flavoured Water" next time round. The "acid test" is to buy some of the suspect product (first examining its listed ingredients and rejecting if they are obviously wrong) while you also have the "real thing" on hand and make two batches of something, identical except for the rosewater or rose flavored water. Tasting should tell you whether you need to make the long trip, or not. For a very simple test product, I will reveal that rosewater is the "secret ingredient" in my lemonade (unless it's overdone to the point of not being at all secret, but I prefer it at the "keep them guessing" level.) No precise measurement/recipe for that, I do it by tasting as I mix. Rose lemonade is lovely. Some may end up in such if I end up with a lot left over!
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.552689
2019-05-26T12:28:24
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99184", "authors": [ "Chris H", "Dannie", "Stephie", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74083" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
56927
Will Simmering Help/Harm Pumpkin soup? I am making cream of pumpkin soup. I need to go do the weeks shopping and also get the cream I forgot. (Cream is added in the last step of my recipie) The recipie I am using calls for it to be cooked for about 20 minutes, but shopping will take about an hour. For many soups simmering them for 1 hours vs 20 minutes, is an enhancement that lets the flavor come out. Is pumpkin soup one of them? Are you making it from a can? If you are making it from scratch, simmering the ingredients (as long as you have an appropriate amount of moisture) should heighten or increase the aromatic qualities of the soup. You've heard the phrase "time is money"... well in soup development "time is flavor." IMO @Chef_Code: I've never heard of making it from a can. I though you just put canned pumpkin soup in a microwave an ate it. I'm doing it the normal way of boiling pumpkins (etc) then blending them. (This particular recipie doesn't call for roasting them first). overcooked pumpkin tastes tinny or is it just me? I believe Chef_Code means tinned pumpkin puree, not soup. From what I understand, pumpkin is much more popular in the US than in other countries and pumpkin pies generally call for canned, cooked pumpkin.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.553241
2015-04-25T00:26:49
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56927", "authors": [ "Catija", "Chef_Code", "Denise Hunold", "Frames Catherine White", "Lisa Kerr", "Nikhmanlawny0", "Pat Sommer", "Susan Lucas", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135405", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135406", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135407", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135408", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21622", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
56906
Is it safe to drink the water that basil seeds are soaked in? Is it safe to drink the water that basil seeds are soaked in? Also would it be okay to drink that water with and/or without removing the soaked seeds? Thanks and regards :-) Assuming food-safe seeds (are there basil seeds that aren't?), yes it is safe, both to drink the water and to eat the seeds. That's the point. Just now I have been experimenting with different ways to drink soaked Sacred Basil seeds. Other types of basil seeds seem to work just the same way, as evidenced by the results of an Amazon search for "basil seeds for drinking". The first recipe I tried was a Thai recipe for Sweet Basil Seed Drink, but I used Sacred Basil (tukmaria). I can't tell the difference between the different varieties of soaked basil seeds, but they do produce basil plants that are quite distinguishable from each other. I love Italian sweet and Thai basil and I have a little summer garden to plant. Hmmm... The mucilaginous outer surface after soaking the seeds is a fun thing. I have found that hot water (even near boiling) works faster than cold for getting the seeds properly soaked, and that the soaked seeds seem just the same immediately after soaking and after three or four days in the fridge. Sugar seems to make no difference one way or another, but something about certain fruit juices (acidity?) will dramatically inhibit the desired swelling of the seeds. In some cultures, drinks from these seeds are commonly sold in cans and bottles, and are reputed to have health benefits. Look like frogs eggs ;-) Is this the new chia seed? Never heard of drinking basil seed before! At least in India, tukmaria/sabja is sweet basil. It's different from tulsi, which is sacred/holy basil. I don't know why Amazon claims tukmaria is sacred basil. If you used tukmaria, you used sweet basil. The photograph of the soaked seeds show that you did indeed use tukmaria. Tulsi seeds are not eaten and do not swell up in the same way. If the basil seeds are safe, the water should be also safe. If you have food-grade basil seeds (i.e. non-teated seeds) and didn't soak them for too long (so pathogens had enough time to grow), this should be safe. I think soaked basil seed last as long as soaked chia seeds, 2 weeks. There are even desserts / drinks with basil seeds and the water in which they were soaked in. Source Do you shake the can before drinking, or do the seeds stay in suspension, or are they filtered out before canning? I'll have to look for this stuff. If I recall correctly the seeds don't stay in suspension for a long time. So you should shake or stir the "soup" before consuming. About filtering before canning: I don't know because I always have eaten only self-made basil seed soup. I always have eaten this soup with some liquid. I have just discovered basil seeds in Asian drinks and am currently enamored with them. I bought seeds and have soaked them and made my own drinks. I make a simple syrup that I flavor and tint slightly with food coloring. What I noticed is when I mix them with water and simple syrup after a while the gelatinous part of the seeds holds the sweetness. Thought I would share. You can make great drinks for hot weather by soaking the basil seeds for some time and then adding other ingredients like lemon juice and (self-made) yoghurt. Such a drink cools your body.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.553430
2015-04-24T08:13:12
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56906", "authors": [ "Caleb", "Ching Chong", "Claire Bell", "Couvreur Mayer", "Ellen Davies", "Hanna Ritter", "Jenny Burrough", "John Reyes", "Mary Riopel", "Neil Kerr", "Wayfaring Stranger", "Yvonne Carter", "Zac Broxson", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135367", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135368", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135369", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135372", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135373", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135374", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135419", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135420", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136833", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138398", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455", "verbose" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
56853
My cocoa powder is not dark. Is it still dutch processed? I bought whole foods "baking cocoa". On the back in the ingredients section it says "processes with alkali." Then, just above the bar code it says "dutch-processed cocoa". Also, it actually smells like chocolate, unlike my Hershey's unsweetened cocoa. However, it is still very light in color compared to all the pictures I have seen online of dutch processed cocoa. Anyways, my question is, if it is not dark in color, is it still considered dutch processed? Dutch processed cocoa is "washed" with a potassium carbonate solution to neutralize the acidity to a pH of 7. While it does give cocoa a richer hue, the color can range quite a bit from a light reddish brown to a dark brown. Color is less an indicator than the label on the product. The process is used to provide a more mellow flavor. PH could be tested at home; seriouseats suggests testing it by observing how baking soda reacts to it.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.553775
2015-04-22T04:11:24
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56853", "authors": [ "Darlene Rositano", "Jim Kirrin", "Keri Cremeans", "Liane Stole", "Matthew Herreran", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135235", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135236", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135237", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135243", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135318", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312", "rackandboneman" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
58327
Black tea develops cloudy dregs; how to avoid? I'm not much of a tea connoisseur*. But I do know what I like — strong, sweet black tea, and lots of it — and at present, the method I'm using is to boil a cup or so of cold water and about nine cheap tea bags, then turn off the heat and let the whole thing slowly cool on the burner (usually enough that I don't need ice to bring the result to a slightly warm drinking temperature). Then I pour it in a pitcher with some sugar and enough water to bring it to half a gallon; I generally squeeze the bags a bit to avoid waste, although I've tried avoiding that a few times to see if it makes a difference. This tastes nice and stout, and gets me through the average day. I've read some things that suggest steeping tea this long and aggressively will make it horribly bitter, but either those are exaggerations or I have a barbaric tongue, because I haven't noticed any such problems. The problem I do have is that, especially after a bit of refrigeration, the last half-cup or so of tea has a lot of nasty-looking and nasty-tasting particulates in it. They're fine enough it's difficult to settle them out, even trying various slow pouring methods without disturbing the pitcher much, so presumably the bags don't filter them out either. What can I do about them other than throwing out the dregs? Is there some flawed part of my process that's producing them? *To say the least. This is just a guess, but is there any chance that what you're seeing are small amounts of tea that came out of the bags when you squeezed them, and have settled to the bottom of your pitcher throughout the course of the day? That has happened to me, and, although I also like my tea strong, I find those loose dregs quite ugly and unpalatable! @Sue: It's possible. I forgot to mention that I've tried not squeezing several times, and it didn't seem to make a noticeable difference. I'm glad you edited that into your question. I wish I could help you but I can't think of anything else. I'm looking forward to the answers you get! It's unavoidable getting that, you have to leave the last cup as an offering to the tea gods. A small note on the bitterness, most of the cheap commercial teas (at least those I have tried) are quite vented (so less strong taste) and often based on ceylon-type (typically used for the common Earl-Grey). Ceylon is a pretty safe tea: it doesn't get too bitter. Once, give a try with Assam leaves of tea, or even Darjeeling. you will probably notice a difference in bitterness. Whether you like it or not... Those particles are bits of tea leaves (etc.) that came out of the tea bags. They're fine enough particles to get through the bags. Basically, tea dust. You don't notice them at first because they're suspended in the tea. So you could just stir it up before pouring off each cup. Alternatively, disturb the pitcher as minimally as possible, and pour off the tea. Leave the settled tea dust at the bottom. Rinsing the tea bags in cold water before steeping might help. (Make sure to use cold water so you don't remove much flavor.) Other than that, a fine enough filter will remove them. You could try coffee filters, they're cheap enough. Or a nut milk bag. Or a superbag. (Coffee filter is probably the finest filter of those, though by far not the sturdiest). PS: You might be covering up the oversteeped tea flavor with enough sugar... I'll give the rinsing idea a try tomorrow, and if that doesn't work try to dig up some coffee filters. Thanks. This is probably correct, though there is an enzyme that I learned about from an additive company that is used to remove cloudiness for industrially-brewed bottled tea. I didn't know much about the details, other than it doesn't typically show up as an ingredient because it's generally considered a production technique rather than an additive. Also, there are tea bags marketed that do not produce cloudy tea, e.g. Luzianne brand. I'm not sure how they do it but I suspect that it is something done or added during production as @JasonTrue references in his comment. I'm pretty sure that is what they are. You can actually try tea leaves (or bags with leaves inside and not milled tea) instead. @bilbo_pingouin You still get a tiny bit of tea dust from loose, full-leaf teas, at least if you don't rinse them. (That's mostly what I steep, and I get a little tea dust at the bottom of a gallon pitcher.) I usually have less, and they are larger: easier to filter if you want to and they fall at the bottom. Well, it seems rinsing is helping; the first time didn't seem to do much, but yesterday's batch ended up with just a little bit in the bottom. Perhaps with a bit more practice I can basically eliminate it entirely. In a tea ceremony style brewing, the tea is first poured into a 'fairness pitcher'. Usually a filter is put on top of the pitcher to make sure no particles end up in the pitcher. Then the tea is served from the pitcher into smaller cups. Filters can be purchased in online tea stores, and they don't have to cost much. In your case, you can brew the tea in a teapot, and put the filter on top of your glass, before you pour. I know exactly what you mean, I hate anything floating around in my drink. I have a perfect size colander that I can put at the top of my pitcher. Now this colander has too big of holes in it, so I added a paper towel to pour the tea through. If you think this stuff are particles from the tea bags you could try to stick them into a second filter as it is used to brew loose tea. But the way you describe your process of brewing a quite strong tea, letting it cool some time and then observing these particles makes me suspect they are tea scum (Yes, it´s really called like this.) which are some chemical compounds that flock up with the carbon contained in the water over time. (A chemist probably could explain this in a more precise way.) As counter measures you can add a bit of lemon juice to increase the acidity of the liquid which will dissolve the carbon, try an Earl Gray, which contains acidic bergamotte oil, use a water filter to reduce the carbon content and other minerals in the water, de-carbonize your kettle (or if nothing else helps move to an area with softer water).
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.553943
2015-06-17T19:27:29
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58327", "authors": [ "Angelo Sickle", "Anne Mcgraw", "Cindy", "Emo Villa", "GdD", "JasonTrue", "Juan_R Pretorius", "Nathan Tuggy", "Roger Bowne", "Sally Hughes", "Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL", "Tracy Harding", "clem steredenn", "derobert", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138988", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138989", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138990", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138992", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138994", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138996", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138997", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35052", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36264" ], "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 }
97474
Eggy cake with less egg is dry: what next? I'm working to a pretty standard recipe for cake (s.r. flour, butter, sugar, egg, flavours, etc), and it comes out too eggy. I can usually make a sponge without faff but to do that I use a different recipe. But for this cake, for non-baking reasons I need to use this recipe with minimal tweaks. I initially thought it was a cooking time/temperature thing but after a few trials it seems like it just has way too much egg in it. Assuming that it was originally written for smaller eggs, I just reduced the amount of egg and it's now too dry. Not remarkably dry, par for the course for, say, a cherry loaf cake, but this one is supposed to be moister than that. Is there a way I can add the moisture in a less eggy way? I was thinking of just adding milk or water (say 150ml per replaced egg). Is that too naive? I've heard about tricks involving cornstarch but I can't get my head around them. Would such a trick work? Current base recipe is (I've tried lots of variants around this and various additional flavour ingredients): 1/2lb each: c. sugar, s.r. flour, butter, 4 eggs. Seived and mixed at each step. Flour in last (which is new to me). 160C (fan) until skewer comes out clean. 4 eggs is v eggy; 3 eggs is dry. Running short of half-chickens to try in between! Welcome! Could you please add a few details about the current / tweaked recipe? Like what ratios of ingredients and which method you are using? Sure, I'll do that now Instead of half chickens: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1610/how-do-you-halve-a-recipe-that-calls-for-1-egg ;-) Thank you all for your excellent answers. I won't accept one until I've had a chance to try these out in the oven and (surprising to me!) my family seem to have a finite capacity for cake. But I'll accept as soon as! Substitute oil for some of the butter. Here is a trick to reduce dryness that I just learned from The Perfect Cookie. Omit a tablespoon or 2 of butter and swap in vegetable oil. I used safflower last but any mild liquid vegetable oil would do. It is awesome for chocolate chip cookies and oatmeal cookies. I have gone 50/50 butter and oil in the banana bread that I made lately and the texture was good. This is the one which came out lovely in the end. I've not tried it with the lemon cake yet (finite lemon appetite) but did with a similar recipe for raspberry and coconut cake which I'd made before in the old way, and came out amazingly lovely and moist by substituting oil (grapeseed I had to hand). Adding "moistness" to cake is easily done by just dumping in extra vegetable oil. For your recipe start with an extra 1/2 cup vegetable oil. You can make the batter more soft/"airy" while also reducing egg content by adding Xanthan gum, which acts as an emulsifier and thickener. It will thicken your batter when it gets runny from all that extra oil you added to make the cake even "moister". The "too eggy" taste shouldn't be from the amount of eggs, since a standard pound cake is 1:1:1:1, and that means that you would need 4.5 eggs for 1/2 lb of the other ingredients. So the first thing to consider would be whether your cake is overcooked, or somehow not well enough beaten. I would try it with a creaming step, and really make a very smooth beginning before adding the dry ingredients - cream sugar and butter really well until very fluffy, then add eggs one at a time while keeping everything creamy, like making buttercream. When the egg is incorporated that way, it shouldn't produce off tastes. As for the potentially overcooked cake, just test it more frequently before taking out. If you are sure you are mixing and baking it well and still want to reduce the egg taste, it is a bit difficult, because it is indeed the egg yolk which makes it moist. If you can say that the eggy taste comes from the egg whites, then you can replace one of the three eggs with two yolks, or use three whole eggs and one yolk. But if you find it too yolky tasting, do not replace with more egg white, since egg whites dry out the cake. If you have to have less yolks and still moist cake, do not add liquid. If anything, it makes for a drier cake. The cornstarch also won't help, this is for making softer cakes. You can try instead pure lecithine (make sure it doesn't taste slightly eggy with that too), a spoonful of commercial mayonnaise (homemade won't give you anything different from what the yolk already gives you), more sugar, or something with pectin content. A couple of tablespoons of applesauce or quince jelly can help here. I'm sure I'm beating well, but I could be overcooking, and will also look into the yolk trick and the sugar. This oven is a bit of a nightmare compared to the others I've had. I'd not realised that overcooking could make it eggier and have been altering it in the other direction.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.554489
2019-04-14T20:17:28
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97474", "authors": [ "Dannie", "Stephie", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74083" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
98848
Alternative to swiss cheese I am planning a fondue party. I personally despise swiss cheese. I am defining swiss cheese here as any cheese that has that similar flavor, like swiss, ementhalar, jarlsberg etc. as they all have a similar flavor profile. To edit my original question, which I had not asked as directly as possible; I need a cheese that performs the way swiss would in fondue. The main quality is its ability to melt smoothly. Again avoiding that similar flavor profile of what americans call swiss cheese. The two cheeses I already am familiar with which will perform similarly are Fontina and cheddar. Any other suggestions? Sorry, this is not a question which our site is equipped to answer. Personal dislike is a valid reason to not choose a food, but people with a different taste can never predict when a different cheese is close enough to trigger that dislike. The thread will just devolve in a random list of cheeses, which does not help anybody. You would have to find another way to solve your problem, probably by taste testing yourself. Thank you for clarifying. I am reopening the question. Also worth noting is that the cheese product sold as 'swiss cheese' in the US has a very indirect relationship with Swiss cheese, i.e. cheese from Switzerland. It's supposed to be reminiscent of Emmentaler, but the differences are greater than the similarities. (At least in my rather limited experience.) There are different cheese mixtures used when making fondue, and while some people use Emmentaler, it's by no means universal. (I'd go so far as to say that it's a minority ingredient in most fondues.) Personally I'm rather partial to 'moitié-moitié', which is a mixture of equal parts Gruyère and Vacherin¹. But that's a question of personal taste, rather than cooking, and as such is border-line off-topic here. Of more interest is what happens in cheese fondue, and what kinds of cheese can be used. Hervé This looks at this in his excellent book Molecular Gastronomy: A fondue is no more than cheese heated with wine. The combination of water (from the wine) and water-insoluble fat (from the cheese) means that the successful fondue is necessarily an emulsion, a dispersion of microscopic droplets of fat in water solution and Connoisseurs of fondue know that the success of the dish has to do particularly with proper cheese selection. Questions of flavor come into play as well, but well-ripened cheeses are best suited to the preparation of fondues because, in the course of aging, enzymes called peptidases have broken up the casein and the other proteins into small fragments that are more readily dispersed in the water solution. These casein fragments then emulsify the fatty droplets and increase the viscosity of the aqueous phase and ... select very dry wines—indeed, wines that are excessively acidic and, if possible, very fruity. Why are these properties useful? Athony Blake has shown that such wines have high concentrations of tartaric, malic, and citric acids. Malate, tartrate, and especially citrate ions are very good at chelating (or sequestering) calcium ions. The acidic and fruity wines experts prefer help separate the casein micelles and release their constituent proteins, which stabilize the emulsion by coating the fatty droplets. (Another option is to cheat. Add some cornstarch, and it's highly unlikely to seize.) ¹ That should be Fribourg Vacherin, rather than the Mont d'Or variety. Are you opposed to "fake cheese", AKA "cheese food products"? The best known at least in the US is Velveeta, but there are alternates including recipes you can find to make your own. They would have a different flavor profile than Swiss and others that I call white cheeses. Home made versions are usually a combination of America, Cheddar, and milk or dried milk. Con side: It is what many refer to as cheese flavored plastic and cheese purist scoff at even considering it. The flavor profile tends toward bland, not the more complex flavor of name cheeses. Pro side: It was specifically developed to melt smoothly, consistently and without lumps and far less tendency to separate into a layer of oil than many real cheeses. It is largely credited with the rise of popularity of grilled cheese sandwiches in the US years ago due to its ease of melting and that it will stay melted. It is commonly used in many quick cheese sauces for the same reasons. If you mess with one of the home made recipes to duplicate it, it will typically take a few hours to prepare it (some use gelatin and are faster), but also gives you the opportunity to customize the flavor profile. Commonly spices and tomato are added. You could then experiment with adding your own favorite cheeses to see if you could duplicate the ease of remelting while retaining closer to your taste in flavor. Overall, your approach matches mine, so I would like to suggest some links for elaborating on homemade "fake cheese" instead of writing my own answer: rumtscho's answer with a link to a recipe using gelatin, a recipe that uses evaporated milk only, and a recipe that uses water and sodium citrate only. I had good results using a recipe similar to the sodium citrate recipe. A very young baby Gouda will melt nicely. Also, a couple of Mexican cheeses, queso quesadilla and queso chihuahua, will melt well. The queso chihuahua is usually a slight bit sharper than the others. While these cheeses do melt very well, you may need a tiny bit of milk or cream to have them at a proper fondue consistency. An upside to cheeses like these is that they shouldn't separate like a sharp cheddar or other more aged cheeses might. In the Jura region of North-East France, the cheese of choice for fondue tends to be Comté, with a splash of white wine and some garlic added. It will be smooth and stringy when melted, but more fatty and will have a stronger flavour than American Swiss cheese. The downside will be the price - especially in the US, Comté is a high quality, premium cheese more often found on cheeseboards than used in recipes. Oh yea, thank you. I’ve heard of that but forgot until now. There’s a store near me that is actually sponsored by the French department of agriculture (or the French consortium of cheese). They have a store that has tons of cheese, butter, and other things and surprisingly decent prices. I do appreciate everyone’s feedback!
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.554961
2019-05-06T22:00:47
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98848", "authors": [ "Stephen", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72906", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74153", "rumtscho", "user95442" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
98820
What to do with wet sourdough mix which was left to proof 10h? I followed this recipe and did the stretch and fold three times according to the timings, just that my dough wasn't round enough at the end of the third time. I then left the dough at room temperature for 10h because I left home and when I returned, I got this wet dough with a few bubbles... Not sure how to troubleshoot this, and I'm leaving it in the fridge for now. Any advice would be much appreciated! https://www.bakewithjack.co.uk/blog-1/2018/7/5/sourdough-loaf-for-beginners Thanks for your advice Aris! Hmm do I just add flour by 'feel'? This question has gone unanswered for a couple of years, but I'll have a go in case it helps anyone else. It almost looks like you didn't have any starter or other yeast in there -- the linked recipe describes making a starter in some detail so I doubt that got missed, but I have to mention it as a possibility. If you have any way of measuring the pH, then that's a good indicator -- if the mix isn't below a pH of 5 or so after 10 hours on the counter, then it may not be safe to eat and should be pitched. The low pH is an indicator of yeast activity and helps keep pathogens under control. Likewise, if you happen to have a refractometer you can check the alcohol level -- if there aren't a few percentage points of alcohol after 10 hours at room temperature, then there's no yeast activity and again it may not be safe to continue. Like the low pH, the alcohol is a disinfectant. It does look overhydrated, but too much hydration is likely not a reason for a lack of yeast activity -- I've run starters as high as 500%; basically a water/alcohol mix with some solids on the bottom. Looks like a really thick Guinness. As an aside, the "three stretch and folds" along with the high hydration is likely not nearly enough kneading to develop gluten; that alone can result in shaggy glop instead of resilient dough. Finally, if it does turn out that there is yeast in there, then I'd use the entire batch as one large wet preferment; keep it in the fridge, use all of it to hydrate a new dough batch, bake 2 lb and put the rest back in the fridge again as a solid preferment for the next batch, repeating on a weekly cycle or so. Mixing with flour and refrigerating the remainder like this will take care of feeding, lower the hydration, and gradually pare down the total volume held back. This can be thought of as an old dough (pâte fermentée) method as opposed to a starter, but will get things under some sort of management. If you do want to go back to a starter, then once you've got the preferment portion down to size after a few cycles of the above procedure, go ahead and hydrate it back to 100% or whatever ratio you want to use, and resume a starter routine.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.555453
2019-05-05T13:46:46
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98820", "authors": [ "Colin Hong", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75423" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
121751
Why do metal utensils scrape teflon pans more than wooden? It is said metal utensils scrape teflon coated non-stick pans and should not be used on them. All sources I found say just that. But when my metal utensil doesn't have sharp edges and I am not pressing on it with more strength than a wooden one, why should I use a wooden one over a metal one? Is there any chemical or other reason beside scraping the coating with the sharp metal edges? Not all metal tools are sharp. Metal is a lot harder than wood, which means when it hits another surface, it won't deform on a microscopic level the way wood does. This means that, while a wood utensil rubbing against a nonstick pan will get compressed a bit, the metal utensil will rather cause the nonstick surface to get compressed, which results in scratches and other damage to the nonstick surface. You can use a fairly large amount of pressure with a wooden utensil and still not damage the nonstick coating, since the wood is not nearly as hard as the coating. However, metal utensils don't need to do much more than brush the surface of some coatings to scratch them, since they are much harder. For this reason, metal utensils don't have to be very sharp in order to scratch a softer surface. Think metal balls rolling on a glass/plastic surface: they will scratch and scuff the surface, even though they are not "sharp" at all. Yes. I've got some 30-year-old non-stick pans courtesy of never letting metal near them. These days there are non-stick metal-tolerant alternatives. One is shiny "plasma-coated" ceramic on aluminium. (Get black. All the other colours stain). A second is hard-anodized aluminium. Some hard-anodized aluminium is also Teflon coated, which makes it easier to wash, but if you scratch the Teflon it stays fairly non-stick anyway and the Teflon doesn't start flaking off. None are dishwasher-tolerant though! And hard non-metal things (ceramic knife for instance) are just as bad as metal for teflon. @MarcGlisse Worse potentially. The higher up the Mohs scale you go, the worse it gets. Not that anyone sensible has diamond-encrusted kitchen utensils, but if those existed, they'd destroy almost any pan they touched... Metal balls rolling on a glass surface won't scratch it unless they're ball bearings: glass has a higher scratch hardness than most steels. (Ball bearings are made from an exceptionally hard steel.) (+1) Nailed it. Always nice to see an engineering-correct explanation on a non-engineering site (full disclosure: yes, I'm an engineer :-) What is so damaging about the environment in a dishwasher, that it can harm pans that withstand both handwashing (detergents and hot water) and frying (high heat)? @KarlKnechtel ① I ruined a non-stick pan boling an alkali solution in it - I was trying to remove very thick burnt residuals without scraping, I removed also the non-stick coating... this is similar to a dishwasher, while handwashing implies lower temperatures, less aggressive detergent and lower water pressure ② the water in a washing machine possibly contains burn hardened residuals that are trown at relatively high velocity on the non-stick surfaces Why are you vandalizing other people's work?
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.555690
2022-09-22T18:49:26
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121751", "authors": [ "Darrel Hoffman", "Karl Knechtel", "LorenzoDonati4Ukraine-OnStrike", "Marc Glisse", "Mark", "Rodrigo de Azevedo", "gboffi", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100975", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26632", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35424", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44854", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48351", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95702", "nigel222" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
63262
Why is bacon crispy? What makes bacon crispy, when compared to other cuts of meat? For example, if I were to cut a slice of chuck steak and make it identical in shape to bacon, and then cook it the same way I cook bacon, I think it will not be crispy. Why is that? Give it a try. It'll crisp up fine. A few things occur to me: Fat content is significantly different between chuck and bacon. Chuck is generally about 15-25% fat (depending on the cut); bacon is often more than 50% fat. The cuts are not equivalent. Chuck is from the shoulder of beef; bacon is usually made from the belly or side. The muscles thus receive very different amounts of work and thus have different textures. (Also, the fat in chuck tends to have sections which are harder and take longer to render.) The equivalent beef cut would be from the plate -- the short plate in particular (between the flank and the brisket) is often used to make "beef bacon." It also has a much higher fat content than chuck. Curing the meat makes chemical alterations that often cause fat to soften and render faster, as well as tenderizing the protein and muscle portions. In sum, bacon has a lot of fat, is located in a region of the animal with less work (less toughness), and the curing allows the fat to flow out quickly where it can be useful in frying. What makes bacon crispy is what makes all fried foods crispy -- you dry out the cells by cooking the water out, and the remaining structure firms up. Given the high fat content, a lot of the remaining structure is remnants of the fat sections, rather than muscle tissue (which generally doesn't crisp the same way, even in bacon). Since fat allows cooking at a higher temperature than water, more desirable flavor reactions can also happen (those flavor compounds are also released more in curing). Whereas a more "meaty" piece of meat would go from wet and "boiling in its own juices" to cooked to dry to burnt, the high fat content raises the temperature more quickly but then stabilizes it, which completely alters the reactions that happen in cooking.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.555968
2015-11-07T19:59:26
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63262", "authors": [ "Jennifer Fitzgibbon", "Lee Ann Gotter", "Mike Burnham", "Mona Gambill", "Sneftel", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150546", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150547", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150548", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150549", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150550", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067", "natalia de rivas" ], "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 }
14811
What causes yogurt in sauces to split? How to prevent it? A lot of my favorite curry recipes have a yogurt based sauce in them, but on a pretty regular basis when I make them, the yogurt ends up splitting into basically curds and whey. What causes that, and how can I prevent it? As an illustrative example, last night I made a simple tofu curry as follows: warm evoo (Extra Virgin Olive oil) in a pan add chopped onion, saute briefly add curry seasonings, allow to warm/season the oil add cubed tofu, toss to coat cook for a while, tossing periodically to lightly brown the cubes turn heat off add plain greek yogurt stir to combine In the few minutes it took to finish the rest of the meal and start plating, the yogurt had separated so I had a clumpy, lumpy, yogurt soup instead of a smooth creamy sauce. It was a coin toss between James's answer and @sobachatina's... both seem to be right on the spot. Letting the curry cool not just removing from the heat, seems to do it best, so I'm accepting James' answer. indeed, both James' and Sobachatina's answers pretty much encompass what I do... serve the dish with a bowl of yogurt as a stir in on the table or use a higher fat yogurt preferably 10% and up and stir into the pan at the very last, just before plating. You are trying to add the yoghurt at too high a temperature. Let the dish cool to around 75 deg C before adding the yoghurt, and make adding the yoghurt the last thing you do before serving. Yogurt is a mesh of denatured milk protein that traps the whey. When yogurt is over-heated those proteins tighten and squeeze out the extra whey. When the protein matrix is cut it will also leak whey. To combat this add a little starch. A little cornstarch mixed into the yogurt will prevent the yogurt proteins from over-coagulating. All heated yogurt sauces that I have seen include starch for this reason. I should also add that this problem occurs mostly with lowfat yogurt. Extra milk fat in yogurt will interfere with the protein's ability to coagulate the same way the starch does. +1 for suggesting the cornstarch ... knew that method and it is far less known than it should be (whisk it in thoroughly, and mind that the mixture might still thicken the sauce more than expected). It also works brilliantly with (real) soy yoghurt. In addition to reducing the temperature of the curry, you can also: Temper the yoghurt - combine a small amount of the warm sauce to the yoghurt before adding it to the curry. This helps when adding cream, milk, or eggs to a sauce. Whisk the yoghurt - use a fork or whisk and vigorously mix the yoghurt. As the fats and proteins are emulsified in the liquid, this ensures an even starting distribution. Add an emulsifier - add a teaspoon of mustard powder or lethicin to the curry before combining the yoghurt. Tempering is the answer for sure, I've tried loads of different ways and tempering never fails. Off the heat, temper, add then only back on a simmer (bring to a hot boil will make it split again) One option is to substitute cream for yoghurt. That's what's done in a lot of Indian cooking. When yoghurt is used, it's usually added at the end, and not at high heat, just as James points out. Y know, that is more than true - a lot of Moghlai dishes are made with cream, and a lot of recipes substitute yoghurt for the cream because it is a healthier option. A side effect is that yoghurt makes the dish less rich, so you can face eating more of it! I could never get more than halfway through a dish of truly creamy Pasanda, but I finish the plate if yoghurt is used. Stir a little starch into the yogurt before adding it to the hot dish & it will not split. The usual ratio is- 2 tsp white flour to 1 cup yogurt 1 tsp corn starch to 1 cup yogurt 1 tsp gram flour to 1 cup yogurt 1 tsp rice flour to 1 cup yogurt Also, remove the dish from the heat source & stir yogurt mixture in, then return dish to heat source to warm dish through and you won't get lumps. This also works with other dairy products to prevent splitting like heavy cream & buttermilk. I've also seen another suggestion: strain out the vegetables/meat from the sauce, add yoghurt to the sauce one tablespoon at a time, whisk it in very quickly, and bring the dish back up to a boil, stirring the whole time, before adding a second tablespoon. I've found that approach to work quite well. I think the reason this works is that the yoghurt is quickly dissolved in the sauce to the point that there are no macroscopic clumps, and then each microscopic clump of yogurt is deliberately curdled by bringing the sauce to a boil, which prevents macroscopic curdles from forming later, and results in a smooth texture despite thoroughly cooking the yoghurt. Surely adding sauce to yogurt a little at a time (essentially tempering, as Bruce Alderson mentioned) is much easier than adding yogurt to sauce a bit at a time; it's hard to catch every clump of yogurt in a lot of liquid with your whisk. @Jefromi In the korma recipe I was following, there isn't that much liquid, at most three cups, and it's quite easy to mix the yoghurt in thoroughly in a 12-inch frying pan. I don't really think "tempering" by adding sauce to the yoghurt would quite achieve the same thing, since you certainly don't bring the yoghurt up to boiling and curdle it while adding the sauce...though that technique would make it easier to mix the yoghurt with the sauce quickly, so it might help in achieving this result without having to add the yoghurt a bit at a time. @Jefromi I think the main difference between this technique and Bruce's notes is that Bruce doesn't advocate cooking the yoghurt at high temperature after it's added. Put the yoghurt in a bowl and carefully stir the sauce, not too hot, into the yoghurt! i.e. Do it the other way round. I concur with adding starch to prevent separation of a yogurt-based sauce with the caveat that one should NOT use arrowroot or lecithin. Arrowroot is a great thickener, but when used with dairy, arrowroot turns the mixture to a very unappealing slimy, mucous glop. The same holds true for using lecithin powder, another fine emulsifier to have in your "kit." Again, with dairy products, lecithin tends to turn the sauce slimy. There are many alternatives to arrowroot and lecithin which do work well, including powdered tapioca starch, potato starch (really good), rice flour and corn starch as already mentioned. I find it best to mix the starch with a bit of cold water first to form a slurry or paste and then add this to the yogurt sauce, little by little, and one can get the desired thickness and prevent separation, and avoid lumps entirely.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.556199
2011-05-15T20:53:26
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14811", "authors": [ "Cascabel", "James Barrie", "Kevin", "LCFoodExperts", "Linda Shields", "Luke Briggs", "March Ho", "MrsDeasy", "ProgrammingLlama", "Ryan", "Sara", "Theodore Murdock", "Tim M", "arch-imp", "bilal ahmed saifi", "cabbey", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31203", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31205", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31207", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31208", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31211", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31213", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31215", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31224", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3158", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5660", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57428", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66480", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81256", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99706", "rackandboneman" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
121650
Is this process of canning jars safe? Recently my MIL came over to show my husband and I how to do some canning. We made diced tomatoes, salsa and pasta sauce. We cooked the diced tomatoes, placed in jars and put in water bath. We did the same with the salsa. We realized though, that the water in the water bath was only going to 190 degrees Fahrenheit and not boiling, so we left the jars in for 45 minutes. We did have to press down on some lids, but they all stayed down. Is this safe? My MIL had us wet the jars, place in oven at 250 degrees Fahrenheit and place boiling pasta sauce in jars. Same thing, we had to push down the lids eventually but all stayed down. Is this safe? Lastly, we weren’t aware that you should take the rings off the jar for storage, and we didn’t for a couple weeks. Is this a problem? I’m new to canning, and also very weird about food not being stored correctly. Thanks so much. Did you bake the sauce in the jars at 250? If so for how long? No, we just boiled the pasta sauce on the stove before placing it in the hot jars The answer to each depends on the recipe you used, as the amount of salt and acidity will determine whether it's safe or not, however my initial answer is that you didn't do this safely as boiling isn't hot enough, tomatoes, salsa and pasta sauces need to be pressure canned. It really doesn't matter what temperature the oven is: water will not go above normal boiling temperature (roughly 218F) at atmospheric pressure. The only way you can get water hot enough to kill botulin spores is to use a pressurized vessel which raises the boiling point of the water inside of it. No, it is not. Diced tomatoes and tomato sauce can be low-acidity foods, Nearly all recipes call for adding an acid. Without adding an acid and proper processing of jars, you risk botulism and a few other toxins. They can be canned in a water bath (if acidified below pH 4.6) or pressure canner (if not). Follow the recipe! The odds of getting botulism for any particular jar are very low -- folks are able to can unsafely for years. But the consequences of doing so are severe. Most of the botulism deaths in the USA have been related to home-canned tomatoes. Removing the rings prevents rust. So I should just toss the jars to be safe? I'm okay with this as I don't really want to risk getting family sick. Thank you for your quick reply. Removing the rings is needed to clean anything that came out when exhausting the jars, helps prevent rusting the rings into immobility in storage, and makes it very clear when a seal has failed in storage. And even your link correctly identifies all vegetables (except for most tomatoes). when specifying what are low-acid foods. Way off track here. Added link specifically addressing tomatoes. If anything other than air exhausted out of the jar, then that jar is no good. Ring or no ring. @Linny: To avoid wasting the food (and time/effort), it might be safe to eat the lower-acidity food now, hopefully before any concentrations of toxins have time to build up. But I don't know for sure if a jar you prepared in the last week is much less likely to be dangerous than after it sits for months or years. I'd guess so since your procedures were pretty good; you'd have eliminated most of the dangers, but that's just a guess. Perhaps some better-informed people could shed some light on it, or do some research on botulism growth rates yourself. The main "salvaging" opportunity would be to open one each of the jars and ph-test the contents. If it's below 4.6, then the rest of the jars are OK. Boiling the food before consumption destroys bacteria and toxins. Heating up your tomato sauce to >85°C for >5 min makes it safe. Botulism concerns mostly food consumed cold. (IIRC, most botulism cases concern traditional indigenous seafood preserves.) From https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/botulism. I should perhaps add that while boiling before consumption should make the food safe the CDC plainly recommends to throw it out. The situation is probably comparable to using condoms for contraception: When everything goes right it is quite safe, but since a number of things can go wrong the "epidemiological result" is much worse than the theory, and the "risk" is substantial.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.556764
2022-09-14T10:52:32
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121650", "authors": [ "Ecnerwal", "FuzzyChef", "GdD", "JimmyJames", "Linny", "Peter - Reinstate Monica", "Peter Cordes", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100835", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
57814
What are food combinations that trick your taste buds into tasting sweet? I recently tried unflavored yoghurt with a teaspoon of cinnamon, and for some reason, the combination tasted sweet. Are there any food combinations that accomplish this? The yoghurt was non-fat; I'm assuming that because both ingredients contained carbs consequently any other combinations that also work would perhaps need to be 'carby' ingredients. The nutrition facts of the yoghurt per 100 ml: energy: 21 kcal protein: 1.8 g carbohydrates: 2.8 g fat: 0.3 g sodium: 0.25 g Just because it's unflavored doesn't mean it's not full of sugar or a sugar substitute. Part of the major problem with "non-fat" yogurt is that it's so high in calories because of sugar content. Without knowing what's actually in your particular yogurt, we can't really answer the question, though. When I say "what's in" I mean the ingredients list :D related to http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36560/is-cinnamon-sweet , I think Though your yogurt was unflavored, it almost certainly still contained lactose (milk sugar), so it should still taste a bit sweet regardless of whatever was added to it. And as Catija points out, "unflavored" doesn't apply to added sugar, of which there can be quite a lot in yogurt (and almost every other prepared food). yep... compare some brands of soy milk yoghurt, they taste far more sour than dairy yoghurt (which can be advantageous)... I very much doubt that this was the answer in this case. First, acid and sweeteners "counter" each other, so with enough acid you can't taste a sugar (and the other way round). Standard yogurt, with 4-5 g of lactose, does not taste sweet at all, probably because it has enough lactic acid - and the yogurt the OP had only has 2.8 g or less of lactose, and certainly no added sugar (it would have showed up on the nutrition label as more carbs). I'm not sure why, but Salt and flour taste sweet. Mix a small amount of each and give it a taste. Alton Brown did a great "Good Eats" about that (sort of). The Ballad of Salty and Sweet. I'll have to give that a watch. It's something I found out when baking.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.557216
2015-05-27T18:32:54
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57814", "authors": [ "Alicia Hudson", "Angel Portman", "Catija", "Jolenealaska", "Louise Gomez", "Marc Steyn", "Michalene Boyle", "Roosevelt Davis", "Sharon Lizotte", "Terry", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137618", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137619", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137620", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137621", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137622", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137650", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137891", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35815", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "rackandboneman", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
90637
If I make my own jerky, will I expect the same amount of protein in the finished product as what I started with? If I look up top round steak, it has about 65 g of protein in an 8 oz serving. If it takes roughly 3 lbs of top round to create 1 lb of jerky, I would expect the jerky to contain about 24 g of protein per oz, but it looks like the average is closer to 10 g per oz in commercial jerky. Is this because they aren't using top round steak or because some protein is lost in the process? If I make my own jerky, will I expect the same amount of protein in the finished product as what I started with? Doesn't meat protein degrade/denaturate when in contact with heat ? @Max The proteins do indeed denature, meaning that they change form, but they're still digestible protein unless you expose them to temperatures that are far higher than you'd normally use for dehydration. For example, an egg doesn't lose any protein when you boil it, but it loses all its protein when you completely incinerate it. Yes, it's mainly because they use different muscles. For example here's jerky that contains 21 gram of protein Fatman beef Jerky. During dehydration you don't remove any calories so you cannot have lower amount of protein, fats or carbs. You just remove water. What is more important when looking at jerky is that little extra text in nutrition box. As you can see in Fatman there is info about Calcium and Iron. In other jerky where proteins are around 28% You can see they added a lot of "extras" "Healthy jerky" So they used what's called "lean beef". A beef that contains 14 grams of protein peer 100g. It's a beef that is usually very hard on it's own and that need a lot of beating (or marinate) to make it chewable. If you want to make jerky at home I suggest entrecote. It's a little bit more work (due to fat) but it's around 26g of protein and 15 grams of fat per 100g. I like this answer, but it sort round-about answers the questions. Some direct quotes of questions with direct answers would improve it. The unsolicited advice is probably golden, but not really appropriate given the format. I know this is old but I thought I'd add my experience. I would question that dehydration mass change. I just made some jerky and the weight was only halved, not reduced to a third. That would partly explain the discrepancy in your expected protein content of commercial jerky. My jerky was quite dry like old leather but if you reduced it by two-thirds it would be more like crispy crackling. The jerky that I've bought in stores I would estimate is the same dehydration level as the batch I just made, so only reduced by half in mass. The other variable would be the cut of meat used. I used Silverside and it had 20.5g of protein per 100g, compared to your top round example which works out as a quite high 28.76g per 100g. I would guess that commercial jerky probably uses a lower protein content cut than that. And that would explain most of the difference. So for my jerky, made with Silverside, you would get a protein amount of 11.6g per oz. Very close to the 10g per oz for commercial jerky you quoted. TLDR: no the total protein amount should not change with dehydration.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.557435
2018-06-28T11:44:46
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90637", "authors": [ "Max", "Wyrmwood", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35920", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834", "mrog" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
58148
How long will blackberries keep in the refrigerator if they have been cooked with sugar and water added? How long will blackberries keep in the refrigerator if they have been cooked with sugar and water? It depends. If you used at least 1/3 sugar to 2/3 berries ratio by weight AND let all the water cook off until it jellied a bit, you cooked a jam. It will last for weeks to months to years, and the first spoilage will be mold, which is visible. If you either used less sugar or did not cook out the water completely, it was not preserved and the shelf life is like that of any other cooked food, 3 to 5 days in the fridge.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.557680
2015-06-11T04:41:18
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58148", "authors": [ "De Goshkey", "Harold Jackson", "Luis Enricque Torres", "Tyrone Cox", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138548", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138549", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138550", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138555" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
115439
What's the 'opposite' of mise en place? Mise en place definition for those unaware. Mise en place (French pronunciation: ​[mi zɑ̃ ˈplas]) is a French culinary phrase which means "putting in place" or "everything in its place". It refers to the setup required before cooking, and is often used in professional kitchens to refer to organizing and arranging the ingredients… The practice can be applied in home kitchens. My google-fu fails me on this. Dictionaries tell me what it is, but it has no antonym. The idea cropped up as I was …ermm 'mentioning' that my partner's anticipated meal-time would be easier to hit precisely if everything was ready-prepped leaving only the actual cooking (I'd secretly estimated her dinner time would be half an hour later than she thought… shhh, she's now prepping it all in advance after some small discussion;) I then wondered what you would call my more common method of 'just in time' prep. Depending on the dish I'm making I will either do a full mise en place, everything prepped & ready to go, or I will run a 'just in time' process where each ingredient is prepped just in time for it to be needed, eg prepping onions after rice goes on, then chopping the tomatoes whilst the onions are sautéing. Salad prep after everything hot is on the boil etc. Everything comes together only at the very end, at plating. Is there a specific term for this 'just in time' prep? Chaos? Disorganized? Flying-By-The-Seat-Of-Your-Pants:-) Since it literally translates to "put in place", those are kinda of the actual "opposite". I've never heard of a functional term for it though. mise-en-pantry? Prep-as-you-go gets some traction in online searches. That would be normal cooking for most people. Mise-en-place is actually the exception, experienced home cooks know how long it takes to make something end to end, you don't have to prepare everything up front to have something ready at a set time. Definite second the disorganized, chaotic point of view. Basically, there's the right way of doing something. Anything else is wrong and could have any number of names. I think the nearest opposite would be a la minute (at the minute). This is usually used in restaurant kitchens to refer to items that are cooked/prepared "at the minute" they are ordered. However, it's not fully the opposite. For example, at a brunch buffet the omelettes would be cooked a la minute when they are ordered, rather than being pre-cooked with the rest of the buffet. However, even though the omelette is cooked a la minute, the ingredients will be prepped with proper mise en place to ensure that efficiency in cooking to order. Therefore, the way I would describe "the opposite of mise en place" using fancy chef lingo is perhaps "doing all prep a la minute."
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.557777
2021-04-27T17:34:52
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115439", "authors": [ "GdD", "Jason P Sallinger", "Sneftel", "Spagirl", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479", "talon8" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
51763
How can I prevent pastry becoming soggy when it has a filling and is stored overnight? I want to make sausage rolls the night before and store them in the fridge before cooking. I am worried that the sausage meat will make the pastry go soggy. How can I prevent this? You want to prepare them until the last step before baking, then store them and bake the next day, right? I want to add the sausage to the pastry and refrigerate overnight before cooking @Stephie At work the butcher makes 100's of sausage rolls in batches. We then cook 1/4, fridge 1/4 and freeze 1/2. We never have any issue with them being soggy, regardless of storage method. To be honest in a taste test you'd have no idea which was which. Also once cooked (as long as cooked properly) they don't go soggy for at least 2 days in the fridge. I'm assuming you will be using puff pastry as per tradition. If so don't forget to allow the rolls to stand at room temp for 15-30min before cooking as it will help with the "puffing". I understand that you want to store unbaked saussage rolls and bake them the next day. IMHO you should be fine as long as the filling isn't too wet. Chill the pastry and the filling well before assembling, this will firm up the fats and reduce seeping from filling to pastry dough. Same goes for puff pastry. If you want to be extra sure, you need to introduce either a "protective layer", e.g. a slice of bacon or cheese or a sprinkling of something "absorbent" like breadcrumbs (but add a few herbs to the crumbs). This will change the saussage rolls a bit, but if done right, people will think it's supposed to be that way, kind of a fancy twist. I 100% agree on chilling the filling ... the dough might be an issue, as if it's too cold, you can't shape it well. You don't want it warm, but it needs to be flexible enough to fill. Honestly they will be best freshly cooked but there are few things you can do. Make sure they are cooled when you put them in the fridge to reduce condensation. You will want to use the oven not a microwave to re heat for serving. You could also try par cooking them and finishing them in the oven before serving that would help make sure crust is nice and crispy and still cut down the time needed to cook them when you want to serve them. My personal though is par cook them, I am not sure how long would be best though. If you're going the par-cooking route, also see this question : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/9301/67
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.558033
2014-12-19T15:39:36
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51763", "authors": [ "Bashira Ross", "Cathy Rogers", "J C", "Joe", "Mark Grizzard", "Michael Rawls", "Peter Cordom", "Priscilla Kumah", "Robert Grant", "Shahad Alasmari", "Stephie", "connersz", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122686", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122687", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122688", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122690", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122695", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122701", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122706", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122716", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122722", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27570", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
96074
What are "B/E-inch slices"? What does the phrase "B/E- inch slices" refer to in a recipe? I'm working on a recipe that calls for chicken breasts and that statement is used when telling how to slice the meat. I think it is some sort of formatting conversion problem of 1/4 inch slices. It seems that B/E is a corruption of ¼ (as MaxW has suggested in a comment). A Google search for "B/E- inch slices" finds https://www.drperlmutter.com/recipe/zucchini-yogurt-gazpacho-saffron-marinated-chicken-breast/ (which I guess is what you are trying to follow), but it also finds the PDF file http://www.fasttracktohealth.net/members-only/grainfreerecipes.pdf (which contains exactly the same recipe). If you download that PDF file, you’ll find that the text actually says "¼-inch slices" - but copying and pasting that piece of text gives "B/ E" instead of "¼" (due to some peculiarity of the font encoding). So it is basically a reason to use UTF-8 and decimal notation instead of fractions? :) But Unicode has a ¼ (U+00BC Vulgar Fraction One Quarter) They should really be 6.35mm slices, but it's hard to measure chickens to the nearest 0.01mm. @alephzero Er, why? Looks like it's a recipe written by an American, and Americans typically use inches for this sort of thing. @only_pro Americans do all sorts of weird things, including using crazy measurement units that nobody else in the world understands. And assuming you are one of them, they often don't understand the British sense of humo(u)r, either. @only_pro If "why" in your comment meant "why is it hard to measure chickens to 0.01mm" the answer is simply that they keep crossing the road. It’s not really a peculiarity of the font encoding as much as it is a matter of the PDF file having been set using a very old font. Back in the day, when the number of glyphs in a font was limited, you’d have to use alternate fonts for things like small caps, math symbols – and fractions. The main text here is set in Gotham, but the fractions are set in a font called Neutra Text Book Fractions, in which ¹ is located at the code point that actually belongs to B and ₄ at the one belonging to E. So the text literally does say “B/E”, just in a font where B looks like ¹ and E like ₄. @alephzero: Canadians understand inches, too, unfortunately, because of cross-border influence from the US. At least we also usually understand metric for most things, but we use Fahrenheit for oven temperatures vs. Celsius for indoor/outdoor temps... And feet + inches for people's heights. It's really annoying.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.558288
2019-02-01T04:36:44
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96074", "authors": [ "Janus Bahs Jacquet", "MaxW", "Nick T", "Peter Cordes", "alephzero", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25580", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57271", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69371", "user91988", "zovits" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
74961
Baking at a lower temperature than the recipe calls for The recipe calls for 350 degrees for 10 minutes, yet my oven only goes up to 260 degrees. How long should the cake stay in the oven? What are you trying to bake, and are you sure it's not calling for fahrenheit temperatures rather then centigrade? I'm assuming you're mixing temperature scales. No household oven would go anywhere near 350C - certainly no cake I've ever baked has needed to be baked that high. If your oven really could do 350C, you would probably get an almost catastrophic result as mixing psi and bar for inflating tires, or using pounds instead of litres when fueling your aircraft @VirtualAnomaly The self cleaning cycle is significantly hotter on many ovens, so it's not a matter of capability. Reminds me of a joke shared with a potter: “fire on cone nine”. @Random832 Maybe, but you shouldn't use the cleaning cycle for cooking... Convert 350°F to 175°C - I don't think there's any lower temperature issue here. If your oven goes up to 260 degrees, I'm guessing that's 260°C, not 260°F. (260°C is 500°F, so that's not a surprising maximum temperature to see, whereas a max of 260°F would be a pretty useless oven.) A cake recipe that calls for 350 degrees is most likely 350°F, especially if you happen to know it's an American recipe. 350°F is an extremely common temperature in American recipes, possibly the most common. (A baking temperature of 350°C is really high and pretty unlikely - pretty much just for things like pizza, and certainly not cake.) It may be helpful to note that 350F is an extremely common temperature for baking cakes if you are using an American (et.al) recipe. @Keeta There isn't really any "et al." to the use of Fahrenheit. It's hard to imagine a British book giving Fahrenheit without also giving a gas mark (if it was rather old), Celsius if more modern) or both. And of course, 175 - 225 C is a very common temperature range for almost anything oven-related... @DavidRicherby Although a stretch, I felt if I didn't include "et al", some SE user in Belize, Bahamas or Cayman Islands would be saying "what about my country?"
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.558520
2016-10-24T02:18:48
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74961", "authors": [ "David Richerby", "GdD", "JDługosz", "Keeta - reinstate Monica", "Lenne", "Random832", "Ted", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14478", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51429", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51432", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51433", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7495", "user" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
90428
Convert vitamin powder to something edible I would like to add a vitamin powder to some food I have but unfortunately the vitamin powder(I have read) degrades when I attempt to put in water for more then a couple days it looses its benefits according to this question. What options do I have to add the powder to some food I have such that it doesn't involve heat/water? I can't simple sprinkle it on top because well it the food I am trying to add it to is round and isn't an ideal solution. Think trying to add it to check mix. I am trying to prepare the food in advance if that isn't clear. Curious? Why can't you just pop a multi-vitamin pill instead of trying to over-complicate things ? @Max I am actually mixing multiple vitamins/supplements under the advice of a nutritionist. So the powder is exactly one type of powder and even comes out multicolored. Your nutritionist should be the one telling you how to ingest the vitamins, no ? and I'm still confused that you cannot just have a multi-vitamin pill, those are stable and you can ingenst when/where ever you need to. @Max I'll ask the nutritionist. ahh so putting the powder in a empty capsule could work but I'm not the biggest fan of pills we not necessary. Vitamins how? You mean the powder of vitamin pills? That's not how food industry add Vitamins. Vitamin pills are for the intended use: swallow them, not added to food. @William So you are anti-pills, but not anti the contents of pills? Could you explain what the problem with a pill capsule is? Also 'the food you are trying to add the powder to is round', if a confusing statement. What is the food you are trying to add it to. Do you only want to add it to this one sound food? @GdD so vitamins in addition to powder milk(not sure if this is technically a vitamin). The literature seems pretty clear that powder milk should not be left in milk for more then a couple days(the minutes estimate isn't accurate after checking the time). Either way it seems clear it isn't made to be prepared in advancae. @Spagirl I'm trying to add it to check mix type snacks. My point is that I can't simple sprinkle the powder on top. I don't understand your last question. @William I really think you need to step back and review your question. Include in the question, clearly, all this stuff about the origins of these powders, why you won’t take them as polls, what milk has to do with it, what the source of your current information is. But there is a strong chance that once you have explained clearly that we still may not be able to help. The way I am interpreting this question is that you want a list of possible foods into which a water soluble powder can be mixed without dissolving. The problem is that we, as almsot all sites on the network, don't allow list questions. Yours is also complicated by having a criterion of "the vitamins shouldn't lose their power", which is a nutrition request and as such off topic, so we have to ignore it by definition. Basically, any questions which is roughly equivalent of "which food should I eat/make" are not accepted here. @rumtscho This question is a combination of these 2 questions https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/60261 https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/60261/how-long-do-vitamins-last-in-multivitamin-juice You may choose to do what you want but I do believe consistency across the site is most important and is it stands my question simply lacks the specific powder and food I am trying to mix together hoping it would make it easier to answer(apparently it sounds like you deem it to broad). I am not trying to ask which food to eat/make but do the exact same thing in the questions above. Sorry, then I maybe don't understand your question? If you are expecting the answer to be of the form "mix it into X", where X is a food name, then it is not answerable because it would be too broad. If you are asking for the shelf life of your vitamins after having been mixed into water, then it is a duplicate of the question you posted (I only see one link) unless you mean some vitamin other than A, B or C. In that case, you should say which vitamins you mean, and edit the question so it can't be understood as asking which food to mix into. @rumtscho added links to the question. I'm not saying you made the wrong decision but to me it seems this is just a combination of 2 existing questions. A discussion of why a question was closed should not be had within the question itself. The proper place for it is [meta]. I will roll back your edit, and you are welcome to open a meta question about whether it should be left closed or reopened, with links to the other questions there. This is the encouraged procedure when there is dispute about a specific question. here are the links It is unclear why my specific question is unacceptable but these are. Seems like mine just combines the following 2 questions. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/60261 https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27514/how-do-you-add-ingredients-to-fudge-without-stiring-it You could could mix it into softened butter (or a butter spread) and then top foods like toast or crackers with it. I'm hopeful the powder isn't damaged by butter like it is by constant exposure to liquid. Not a bad idea
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.558728
2018-06-18T17:33:37
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90428", "authors": [ "Max", "Spagirl", "William", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67683", "roetnig", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
51926
Why does my pizza dough stick to my peel? I've been experimenting with Neapolitan pizza dough(recipe) and what I would call a normal wooden peel(here). I have run into trouble transferring the pizza from the peel to my baking steel in the oven on about 10% of my pizzas. Usually what happens is I'm fine transferring the first 1-2 pizzas, but by the 3rd or 4th in a row(within 20mins or so) the pizza sticks to the peel and causes a huge mess in the oven and me to throw out the dough. The way I am making dough is about as wet as I can make it, I add about 20-30g to the existing recipe noted above to make it extra wet. I flour the peel, dough, my hands, and working surface quite liberally with a dredge. I stretch the dough about as far as possible for 200g pizza, until it almost tears. I did find a tip on YouTube where they recommended lifting up the edge of the dough after it is prepared on the peel, and blowing under the pizza dough to "lift" it up before trying to launch it off of the peel. I do this each time and still run into my issue. Note - I do own an aluminum peel as well, but the first and only time I tried that to transfer the dough into the oven I failed so I'm too afraid to try it again without further advice on the matter(this peel) Here is what my dough usually looks like with the peel I normally use floured and ready to be launched into the oven: Here was a successful peel to steel transfer to give you an idea of my oven and setup: See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9049/transfer-pizza-onto-stone-without-sticking Two reasons this isn't quite a dupe - 1) a wooden peel and a metal sheet pan are different beasts 2) specifying an extremely wet dough presents an extra special challenge. You might have better luck with cornmeal or semolina flour on the peel, those have a "ball bearing" quality to them, even in addition to some regular flour on the dough. Be sure your pizza is sliding easily before you move to the oven. Practice the motion a bit with just some plain dough someday. There is a bit of a trick to it, a left to right motion to get it nice and loose, and a quick front to back motion to get it into the oven. Here's a YouTube video, he gets into the peel at 4:30. If you want to spend the money, this is a foolproof option: EXO Peel, they demonstrated it on America's Test Kitchen. It was really nifty. After a year I can say that using semolina had made all of the difference, along with going as fast as possible between placing the dough on the peel, topping, and launching in the oven. Three years later, I'm back to say that after hundreds more pizzas, your tips were spot on. Semolina flour has worked great. I dust ~1tsp of it all over my wooden peel before I place the stretched dough on it. While topping the dough, I shake the peel back and forth a few times to continuously check that the dough isn't yet sticking. If it's sticking, I pickup the edge that is sticking and toss a bit more semolina under that area. I do one final check before launching in the oven. With those tips in mind, I've had no issues in hundreds of pizza launches! Thx The semolina flour has a higher temp rating and is more compatible to the pizza dough that results in a gentle sweet taste. Clean the pan in the oven after each pizza with the hand mitt to take away the cooked flour otherwise this browning flavor gets transferred to the bottom of the crust. White or wheat flours will burn easily and leave a chalky taste. Cornmeal can be used but it is very crunchy and nothing like what is used in the restaurants. Shorten the time between placing the ingredients on the dough disk and entry into the oven. Slide often with the flour below. If it sticks anywhere, add the flour at the edges and lift slightly up to get it around the disk. Then perform the slide technique to get it all together. If it rests for more than 2 min. slide it back an forth to keep it loose. Here's what works for me. 50% wheat flour 50% either cornmeal, semolina, or rice flour This mix causes the bottom of the dough to absorb some of the wheat flour to prevent the bottom from being 'wet' and as @jolenealaska says, the other component acts like 'ball bearings' to keep the dough moving. I usually keep this mix in a shaker for general purpose bread non-stick flour stuff. Use that mixture to A) dust the peel, and B)rub some on the dough and then flip it over onto the peel. If you just dust the peel, it will often absorb the flour too quickly and stick. After dusting the peel and rubbing some onto the dough, timing is the most critical factor. You have to be fast. If the dough is sitting on the peel more than just 30-60 seconds, I usually have stick-age. ! It's been awhile mate. Thanks for the tips! Mmm pizza. If you mix gluten free and low gluten flours you are going to get a dense dough that raises less.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.559143
2014-12-24T16:45:48
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51926", "authors": [ "Demetris Bell", "Gary Barnes", "Neil Meyer", "Nerissa Prasad", "PMG Paving", "Sherry Myers", "Shilo Moore", "Stephen Eure", "Vikas Bhise", "dpollitt", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123152", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123153", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123154", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123173", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124270", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134376", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155639", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243", "rfusca" ], "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 }
105224
I'm Making Shio Koji - I Have Questions About The Process So I'm fascinated by what I have read about the myriad culinary possibilities at my fingertips using shio koji. Bought some good rice koji (IseSo Miyako Koji) and have started two similar mixtures of approximately 5:4:1 (water:koji:salt) - for both mixtures I used bottled water and one was warmed slightly prior to mixing. I'm stirring them vigorously each day. House temperature varies between 67°F and 70°F. Both samples are porridge-ing nicely as described but I'm not quite sure (1) how to evaluate the smell of the transforming product, or (2) how to know when to terminate the transformation by refrigeration. Most descriptions of the smell have been broad and unhelpful (to me) - everywhere from "sweet and citrus-y and mildly funky" to something like "fruity gym socks". Most references assure me that I will know if something is wrong - but I don't feel confident in that since I have no idea how to wholly identify what is right. My samples are EXTREMELY funky smelling but not offensive (the overwhelming funk is what worries me) - not what I would think of as gym socks (which I associate with some cheeses) - surely there is a clear underlying sweet smell and a distinctive smell of grapefruit rind (at least to me). If any of you have had rewarding experiences developing shio koji from rice koji, I would appreciate your observations and personal impressions/descriptions of the transformational odors. I embarked on this anticipating a product where the sweet/citrus smell was predominant over the funk but I am experiencing the opposite (and I have no way of knowing if what I have read as a description of funk is the same as what I am smelling in my developing mixtures). Also, most of the references I have read indicate that I need to develop my shio koji for seven to ten days at room temperature before refrigerating. For any of you who might have significant experience with shio koji, do you have a better way of judging when the process has reached a peak?
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.559917
2020-02-10T02:35:20
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105224", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
57757
What has happened to today's chicken compared to the chicken in the 1950's - 80's? In the 1960's, 70's and up until now, my dear parents prepared their chicken the same way as have I. We bought it, washed it, cut it up, cooked it and served to family and friends who never got sick eating it. True we washed our hands and the areas we used because we were clean but not like I see how many are scared especially about getting deathly ill. My own younger family members use gloves and pans that they throw out after the chicken touches...but they don't wash the chicken first from the packaging, afraid of chicken contamination on their sink. They tell me when they cook, bar-b-que, or bake, then the chicken germs die. What has happened to the chicken today that these younger people are afraid of the chicken? Funny thing is they love eating fried chicken or chicken kebab when I cook it or when I prep it at my house or theirs. Also, we never used special cleaners to clean up, especially my parents (who were alive and cooking 2 years ago and 4 months ago both gone now) and they even used the same wooden board to cut everything with. I have always used big plates to cut my bread, raw meats and veges up but not my parents. I do hear about people getting sick, so what has happened or changed with today's chicken? Honestly, that sounds a bit like overkill... What's changed isn't the chicken, it's the fact that the news goes insane over one event in millions, so people end up being overcautious... and some people just don't like touching raw meat because they're squeamish... Why did you wash it? I wash most my food products that I am able to wash. It may sound stupid but it gives me peace of mind that my meats, fruits, veges, grains are a bit cleaner. I used to rinse my hamburger meat in a colander until I ground up my own, then I cheated and bought it from the store and I stopped rinsing. Some of the younger generation have no idea how to cook or bake and rather just go out to eat. The cleanliness in many food eateries is horrible and in fast food places, notice how they take your money, then put french fries in the containers with their dirty hands. Expensive places are guilty also I see - seems like you're a bit scared of the chicken too, and this is more of a difference of opinion about how to deal with it. Fortunately it's not something that needs to be a matter of opinion: government food safety agencies make science-based recommendations about things like this. @user33210 That is gross, but also consider the fries are in at least 350 degree oil for more than 2 minutes. You could probably dump the fries on a toilet seat and cook them without illness. Your over concern is likely the most dangerous habit. Though I agree after touching money, wash your hands. But its not really an issue until they start packaging the food. I don't think there's a single foodborne illness that can survive 350F for more than a few seconds. To my younger friends, it's true, the golden arches, the king and junior do take your money and then scoop up your fries. I,ve brought it to their attention in Southern California and so have my friends. Some of us don't eat there, crazy, oh well. Why do I wash my chick chick as my little ones say? I get off excess fat, membrane, bone and yuck that I see on it. I also watch people working at markets, go into kitchens because I was in the food industry for over 40 years. Scared, not really, cautious yes, I am 60 and have seen a lot of scary things and still help out with catering. @user33210 Perhaps the psychological disgust in our society today bothers me to a point where it would be safe to say its a pet peeve of mine. I think there's an over concern in a lot of ways, especially when it comes to food. I think people who handle food improperly should absolutely be reprimanded. However, I feel that what you listed above is overly precautious and somewhat obsessive. You're risk reduction doesn't really provide you any additional safety, as your precautions don't even address the real dangers after the chicken is cooked. @tsturzl I guess I have to ask different questions from now on. My intentions are not to irritate anyone and remember, I do not throw out the chickens and whatever vessels I use. I use my own precautions and asked the question of why I am noticing younger people that I know do the things that they do with the chicken they buy. I will do what I do before I cook, clean up, cook and eat. Sorry people, I seem to cause too many issues and am irritating u. I will try to stick to questions and answers..but..I still will most likely slip. All of you will keep me in check or eventually ban me. Sorry @Catija - Yes, there is a certain amount of ease of news and hype to travel that exists now, but the sourcing of meat products of all kinds has changed pretty radically. The amount of filth and disease that all kinds of animals wallow in for CAFO operations, and the percentage of the meat out there that comes from such operations has changed, a lot, as well as the ability for FDA to inspect the product, which gets sourced from much greater distances, as well. Much less processing is done at small local facilities, as well. Though, the near-haz-mat gear for food prep is, agreed, overkill. I don't think much has happened to washing a chicken in itself, rather much more has happened to our knowledge about bacteria, hygiene, and cross contamination. Most likely, with or without washing, nothing bad is going to happen. But then again: It might. Properly cooking the poultry is going to get rid of the bacteria on the chicken, no washing needed. With washing, bacteria present on the chicken might spread to other parts of the kitchen and ingredients, and some of that might be consumed raw, or not cooked through & through, increasing the risk of contamination. Personally, I'm not overly worried about getting infected, and I never have been, but I might, you might, and you wouldn't want guests to be. It's risk reduction, rather than anything else. To be more explicit: washing it doesn't improve safety. There are things that can't reliably be washed off. So if you're worried, the only way to be safe is to cook it properly, and that'll make it safe no matter what. All washing does is introduce a risk of contamination via splatter - maybe it's small, but why take an unnecessary risk? The USDA confirms all this: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/washing-food-does-it-promote-food-safety/washing-food I don't see how anything intrinsic about chickens has changed with respect to safety. We know that chickens can carry the salmonella bacteria and that means there's always a risk of a very serious illness when handling/eating raw chicken. Having said that, being too obsessed with these risks is what seems to be happening to the younger generations. The correct way of looking at it is this: avoid cross-contamination. That's it. Unless you have a restaurant, then you should really avoid cross-contamination. Don't let the raw chicken come into contact with food that isn't going to be cooked. Don't let food that's going to be cooked after coming into contact with raw chicken remain uncooked for long. Disinfect the cutting board thoroughly. Oh, and don't keep raw chicken over 5ºC for more than 4 hours, tops. I wouldn't say this specific case is an example of over obsessing. It's just a matter of not taking an unnecessary risk, with no upside. @Jefromi " use gloves and pans that they throw out after the chicken touches..." IMO, that's too much. Fair, I read that as laziness or just being grossed out by touching raw meat, but if it's for safety it's indeed overkill. @BaffledCook - I kind of wonder if that's convenience packaging that can be used directly to cook, kind of like "take and bake" pizza pans. That's ridiculous. Throwing out everything the chicken touches is just plain wasteful. Just don't cross contaminate. You can wash away bacteria, and its dies without a host. Also consider the fact that foodborne illness cannot go through your skin. Exposure to bacteria actually increases your immunity. Poultry might be prone to bacteria, but proper cooking and avoiding cross contamination will prevent illness almost indefinitely. They may as well throw out their plates and silverware, and rub themselves in hand sanitizer, because cooked chicken is no more or less prone to infection than raw chicken, the only difference is the cooking process kills bacteria, which can easily find its way back to the chicken given enough time. You don't really need to clean chicken before cooking it(and can be more harmful, see comments). The concern that you sink will become contaminated is silly. You should just be sure to wash your sink and the countertops surrounding. Any organic matter will be a breeding ground for bacteria. If I put an infected bird in your sink, you'd likely be able to wash the bacteria out of your sink if you rinse with soapy hot water. They should consider cleaning what ever their chicken touches rather than throwing it away. I guarantee you that they achieve no benefit by taking these precautions. Wash your hands, wash your pans, and wash your counter tops. You'll be fine, and less wasteful. There is no difference in the bacteria in chicken today vs chicken 30, 40, 50 years ago. Its probably not that they are young but simply squeamish or germaphobic. I've had food poisoning before from chicken, and its usually because it sat out too long after being cooked. In fact all foodborne illness I've had has been after the food was properly cooked and sat out in the "danger zone" too long. Given that people who ate this food an hour or so before I did had not become ill, though others who ate it after sitting out had become ill. Likely a stomach virus. Addition(May 31, 2015): A few people mentioned the decreased standards of the chickens living quarters. This makes the assumption that someone is buying a certain brand of chicken. Typically factory farms supply large food distribution companies nationwide(assuming the US), and therefore have a larger demand. I'm not saying it's morally just, but rather that typically your store bought whole chicken isn't from a factory farm. If you're worried about this, you should go to a butcher as they usually source from farms near by to avoid the large and unnecessary cost of sourcing produce from long distances. I cannot speak for every grocer, but from my own experience I typically see local/state brands. I grew up in and around farming communities most of my life and know that many of the companies that source produce in this state buy the produce from farmers who are sole proprietors, rather than what basically is a franchise owner for a factory farm. There's a big difference. As far as genetically modified chickens, this is both irrelevant and some what naive in my opinion. We've selectively breed these chickens to carry more meat on their breasts. My aunt has a hobby farm and has raised these chickens. They are dumb, clumsy and mature quickly; therefore leading very short lives. It might seem cruel, but it's not a new practice either. In South Asia they've breed a domestic duck called the runner duck, which is flightless, therefore easier to raise. They're unable to walk, and unable to swim. Making it easy to keep them couped. These ducks were first bred in the late 1800's. So to claim that this is a new practice is simply not true. To say "genetically modified" is somewhat misleading, because it's not as if we have genetically engineered these chickens in a lab. They've simply been breed to our desirable traits. Again, this isn't to say I'm trying to justify it, but simply that it's irrelevant in both the sense that it has nothing to do with the cleanliness of the animal, and there's nothing to prove that selectively breed animals produce any harmful effects but on the contrary there's hundreds of years of history where humans have eaten animals who were selectively breed. Selective breeding is, in fact, part of what makes a domestic animal domesticated. If you own a dog, it was selectively breed to show traits desirable to humans. Again, none of this is to imply any sort of moral justification, but that's completely irrelevant to this matter any how as we're supposed to be answering a question with facts and actualities, not skepticisms and one-off studies which cover a broad topic which likely doesn't even apply to this circumstance. What you provided may be educational and relevant in a loose context, but this isn't the place. It's simply irrelevant. Washing provides no benefit and some amount of risk. It's the splatter, not what runs down into the sink. And it's not just a bunch of paranoid people making it up: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/washing-food-does-it-promote-food-safety/washing-food I don't get it. I've mentioned nothing about this. I simply stated that a sink can be washed out, nothing directly regarding whether or not to wash the chicken. "worrying about your sink becoming contaminated is absolutely stupid." In regards to the ability to clean your sink. I think you're misinterpreting. It implies nothing about actually washing the bird, but simply stating the fact that it can be washed. You'll also find that I infact stated "Wash your hands, wash your pans, and wash your counter tops" Though I assume you down voted because of the blunt nature of my answer, and that I'm fine with. However I think you're ultimately out of context in this regards. I did read the whole answer. Most of it is indeed great information, but I think that particular paragraph is not, and I've explained why - it's not because it's blunt, it's because it's at least partially wrong, and I provided a USDA article to back it up. Feel free to edit, or not. I understand. I was simply stating that I wasn't trying to imply that washing the bird in your sink would be totally safe, but more so that worrying about your sink becoming contaminated is silly and that you should just wash is. Like I state later that you should also wash the counter tops. I've modified my answer, let me know if it is suitable. I'd argue that if you have to wash the sink and surrounding countertops with hot soapy water or diluted bleach (not just hot water! see the USDA page) then that contamination is not a silly concern, and setting yourself up to have to do that by washing the chicken is wasteful too. It was an overstatement, and likely one that could remain true in the occasion that you placed an uncooked chicken in your sink. The fat is not rendered out, and the only thing soap really does is cuts oils/fats/grease. Glycerin, the main component of soap, acts basically as an emulsifier. Though many soaps are anti-microbial, I wouldn't assume that's the case, because there are still quite a few that are not. In most cases, hot water will likely do the trick. Though I wouldn't depend on this, so your are right. Again, I've changed my answer. There is no difference in the bacteria This seems a little strong -- antibiotics seem to be used far more in poultry production than they were in the past and production methods have changed, so it seems likely that there are, in fact, differences in bacteria. Also, your assertions about chicken producers require some evidence. Typical grocery store name brands (Purdue, Tysons, etc.) and less expensive store brands, whether whole or cut up, are not free range birds. I'm surprised so many people think we're eating the same poultry today that we ate 50+ years ago. Not only have the birds been genetically altered for maximum profit (large breasts, for instance) but they're dosed with antibiotics daily from the time they hatch. Additionally, meat processing is dramatically different. Today the poultry industry processes birds at such a rapid rate that inspectors for the USDA reportedly cannot begin to do their jobs properly. Workers report instances where bowel material comes in contact with parts intended for consumption. And no amount of cooking can compensate for tainted meat. I think kitchen sanitation is paramount, cooking to 185 degrees mandatory and still we take our chances eating today's chicken. I do eat it - and I not suggesting otherwise. But I am suggesting best practices and careful consideration when preparing meals for the very young, elderly or infirmed. Today's fryers spend their entire short lives on antibiotics, increasing the likelihood that whatever germs their little corpses carry may be antibiotic resistant. Today's fryers are raised in environments harsh and dirty enough that feeding them antibiotics all their lives is a good business investment. Food paranoia is becoming the norm. Many adults have never produced any of their own food, and find the topic somewhat mysterious. Lots of people have never been around chickens, let alone raised and butchered them. That wooden cutting boards are full of germs is now something that "everybody knows," probably because it was good filler for the press after some study or another came out. From what I understand, the reason people are advised to be even more careful with chicken than with other meats, is that chicken tend to be very heavily treated with antibiotics for its entire life, which has lead to a lot of antibiotic resistant bacteria in it. This report claims that half of the samples they tested contained such strains of bacteria. Additionally they found harmful bacteria on most of the samples they tested. Of course, the bacteria still have to get from the chicken to you, so if you are careful with your hygiene (for instance, don't put your fingers in your mouth right after handling raw chicken), I believe you shouldn't be at much risk, as several of the other answers here point out. Throwing away all utensils which have touched the chicken definitely seems like overkill.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.560129
2015-05-25T08:43:17
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57757", "authors": [ "BaffledCook", "Caleb", "Cascabel", "Catija", "Edward McBride", "Elaine Anderson", "Evija Balode", "Gary Carolyn Hatmaker", "Greg Stevens", "Jackie Laplace", "Kelley Perkins", "Kris Ann Mae Trivilegio", "Leony Saguid", "Lisa Grimm", "Liz Siddle", "Lucas Hallstrom", "PoloHoleSet", "Rosalind Eden", "Sandra Ponce Channa", "Thomas Russell", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137493", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137494", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137495", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137499", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137500", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137501", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137502", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137504", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137538", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137616", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137617", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137735", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137804", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137832", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137923", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137926", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641", "janet holden", "tsturzl", "user33210" ], "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 }
98860
How to keep homemade soup and cooking stocks/broths consumable without refrigerator? Since there is a way for fruits, vegetables, meats, grains, seasonings and other stuff, I assumed there was a way for these flavouring liquids as well. Right now I'm wanting to preserve japanese dashi and korean kimchi but I think would be super nice to know of a method to preserve all types broths/stocks as well. What about pasteurization and canning or bottling ? When laboratories need to grow bacteria in a dish, they use a medium which is basically broth with gelatin--the bacteria love it. Not even normal canning will sterilize broth enough to be safe. Broth must be pressure canned, and for a long time (75 minutes at pressure for pints, 90 minutes for quarts). Many soups can be canned this way as well, but be careful not to add dairy or thickeners of any kind--the liquid must be able to distribute the heat of the pressure canner evenly throughout the jar to ensure sterilization. I preserve vegetable, chicken, and beef stock this way with good results. Dashi has a more delicate flavor that might not hold up to it, so probably the traditional method of dehydration is best. So Lee, you use the machine described in the following site to preserve your broths and meat ?https://www.thespruceeats.com/pressure-canning-step-by-step-guide-1327465 I find hard to believe if so because old japanese didn't have said machine. Also, what do you mean with dehydrating dashi? Since it's mostly liquid I don't understand why this method of preservation is considered. @DuarteAlfonsoMartin Back in the day they didn't have pressure canning machines, no. They also didn't fully understand bacteria and got sick a lot, and occasionally died. That machine's a bit fancier than mine--I have a Presto pressure cooker/canner that you can find many places for less than $100, so it's not a big investment. Dashi itself is not dehydrated, but it is made from dehydrated components. @LeeDanielCrocker So how would the dehydration occur of the dashi occur? Sorry if I'm not being clear... I'm saying that the traditional method of storing dehydrated Kombu, Bonito flakes, etc., is probably best. I've never tried to can or otherwise preserve Dashi after it's been made; I have no idea how well that would work. If you can make it acidic (sour) using lemon, vinegar, citric acid etc then it may be preserved with Sodium Benzoate. Do keep in mind the maximum permissible limits. It should not require canning or refrigeration. Could you please add more information (and possibly a link or two) about how to use sodium benzoate? And I doubt the asker wants to change the soup’s flavor profile?
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.561494
2019-05-07T15:42:04
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98860", "authors": [ "Duarte Alfonso Martin", "Lee Daniel Crocker", "Max", "Stephie", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75455", "user141592" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
98922
Discoloration in tea kettle I have a two piece tea kettle used for brewing black Turkish Tea. The bottom part is used strictly for water (specifically faucet water), whereas the top is for steeping the concentrate of the tea. Today I noticed some really odd discoloration on the lower portion of the kettle: Here is an image of the lower portion of the kettle, reminder; this is only used for water, and this is post-cleaning After some web searching I thought it was limescale so I boiled vinegar + water and cleaned it off with a rag and some baking soda, here is what the rag looked like after some scrubbing. So my question(s) is; is this limescale? And if not, what is it? Is it fine to boil water in it like this? Yes that looks like limescale. Are your water mineral rich? Limescale comes in different colors depending on minerals in water. Mostly common, white, greyish or reddish. Iron. Vinegar may leave a taste, so you can considder to buy commercial descaler from the supermarket. Should be totally safe to boil water in. Vinegar (diluted) won't leave a taste if you don't burn it into the pot. Simmer low, let it sit for an hour, throw it out and rinse well.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.561737
2019-05-11T05:33:29
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98922", "authors": [ "Luciano", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
109021
How to avoid soft bottom of home-made bread? The bottom of my bread is not hard. When I knock the top of the loaf, it gives a beautiful hollow knock sound but when knocking the bottom part -- it's not. I wonder what is the reason? How could I improve my baking procedure? Bread baked in a baking tray with baking paper. Maybe it is the baking tray that blocks the heat supply? ~450F for 15 minutes, with top and bottom heaters turned on and a fan turned off, then ~420F for 30 minutes; all the time with baking tray sitting in the middle of the oven; the original recipe requires some 15F more but that's beyond my oven capabilities. I did not want to extend the time too much, because the top of the bread is already well-baked. At the bottom of the oven I keep an ovenproof dish with water to increase evaporation. Maybe it limits the heat flow from the heater to the bottom of the bread? In the first photo you can see a corner of bread. The left side is better baked, has larger "holes" in the crumb than the right side, because the left side was closer to the crust, and the right side was cut in the middle of the bread. The bottom of your bread looks a little underbaked, by maybe 5-10 minutes. You can see that the crumb is tighter A few tips: There is no need to keep the dish with water in the oven past the point where the crust of the bread is set. It is possible that water vapour from the dish interferes with the bottom of the bread cooking. Try taking out the water when you drop the temperature of the oven. Times in bread recipes are a guideline, not a rule. If your bread comes out (a little) underbaked, put it back in the oven and/or adjust your cooking time next try. When you put the bread back in, you can also put it in upside down to encourage the bottom of the bread cooking properly. To encourage the bottom of the bread cooking, you can use a pizza stone/steel, or even a baking tray. Leave it in the oven while preheating, then put the tray with the bread on top. A soggy bottom can also be a sign of underproofing. But I suggest you try a preheated baking tray first and make sure the oven is at the maximum temperature when the dough goes in. @MarkWildon Right, the Hamelman's recipe is quite precise here: keep the formed loaf proofing for 50-60 minutes in 81F temperature. However, at home I can control only the time and not the temperature. I thought that perhaps I could compensate too low proofing temperature by extending the time. I had 2 loafs formed, and the second was proofing for an hour longer, while the first one was sitting in the oven. The result for both loafs is pretty much the same: both have soft bottom.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.561964
2020-06-13T13:23:43
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109021", "authors": [ "Mark Wildon", "dzieciou", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75623" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
51918
How is British tea prepared? Do you add any flavor of British breakfast tea? I need to know how it is prepared; either with or without additional flavor. The British tea? Don't know what that's all about. Anyway... English Breakfast Tea is a mixture of Assam, Ceylon and Kenya teas that is often served with a dash of milk and sugar to taste. The UK Tea Council discusses their view of the appropriate way to serve each variety at the supplied link. I would think that a great majority of British people take their tea with milk (I don't find the type of tea used palatable without, as it is somewhat bitter and high in tannins, and I don't think many other people do either). When I say a dash, what I mean is somewhere in the region of 10% of the volume of the cup, rather than the half and half or thereabouts used in beverages like chai. Most British people (in my experience at least) use teabags which are simply added to the cup and hot water poured on top. However adding several spoonfuls of loose tea to a teapot is not uncommon, as was probably done for millennia wherever tea was drunk, prior to the invention of the teabag. I opened the link of UK Tea Council and discovered that all the three kinds, ASSAM, CEYLON and KENYA are prepared with black tea, not green or red. @Hanaa yes, in all cases regarding UK and possibly other european countries, if any recipe or process mentions simply "tea" without any specific details, then it's assumed that it will be black tea and not anything else. Allright that means the black tea is dominant .^_^ That's right @Hanaa. In the UK "tea" without any further qualification would almost always be understood as referring to black tea. Other teas are drunk, but black tea is more traditional. Milk is almost universally used in black tea, sugar use varies. I've never thought about it, but of course there's a UK Tea Council. @logophobe not only that, but there is also a British Standard for the brewing and tasting of tea What I thought of when I read this question was what my mother and grandmother taught me about preparing tea, and the key thing was that the milk has to go into the cup before the hot tea so that you do not scald it! Here is a kind of over-the-top Instructables describing how to prepare tea correctly! Step 5 describes getting the tea into the cup. Let the tea in the tea pot stand for a few minutes for the tea to brew. The tea cosy will keep the tea warm for a long time. Take your tea cup and saucer (prererably of the finest English bone china) pour a little milk into the cup (milk in first, please!) and then fill with the clear, hot, amber liquid of life! Add sugar to taste and there you are! @Hanaa The person who wrote the Instructable is referring to the color of the tea. I'd just like to add that you'll find the advice "milk in first" actually varies region to region. In the Midlands for example, it's generally far more common for the milk to be added last. This is especially important if you brew in the mug (i.e. without a tea pot); milk, tea bag, then water, results in a distinctively different taste than tea bag, water, left to brew, remove the tea bag, then add milk. Some people prefer the taste, others don't, calling it "teabaggey"! In short - try both variants and see what you think! This is the first time i see this color . what known color is amber color near to? Brown with a slight orange tint.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.562210
2014-12-24T09:22:20
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51918", "authors": [ "Becks", "Brian Watt", "Daniela Del Toro", "Francis Davey", "Hanaa", "Luke Briggs", "Marcia Andrews Crazybitch1", "Mark Jovick", "Peteris", "Todd Ligas", "Tom W", "Troy Grooms", "brian josef", "emily law", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11059", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123123", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123124", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123125", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123129", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123133", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123134", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123135", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123140", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23390", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2771", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31193", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31206", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31207", "logophobe" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
114900
Icing Made with Yogurt powder I am looking into making icing using yogurt powder. My question is, would it still need to be refrigerated after I make it. The ingredients in the product I am look at are nonfat milk solids, whey solids, lactic acid. It will absolutely need refrigeration. The reason why the powder is shelf-stable is that it is dehydrated and lacks the water bacteria need to survive. Pretty much everything you could mix it with to make an icing will contain water, meaning that it is no longer shelf stable. Even if you were to mix it with something without water, e.g. shortening, the strict food safety answer is that it still needs refrigeration until somebody has ran the necessary microbiological tests to prove that it doesn't.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.562557
2021-03-20T15:10:23
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114900", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
115015
Residue in a cup of tea using household filter I'd like to ask some insights re potential cause of residue in a cup of tea when I used water from household filter but no residue when I used the water bought from purified water vendor. I boiled the water from both sources and used the same tea bags. The filtered water showed lots of residue while no tea residue using the water that I bought. Both of them were very clear before dipping the tea bag. Hope you can shed some light. A water filter does not remove limescale, you need a water softener for that. Jug-style filters do a bit of both, but a whole house mains-water filter is likely a filter only. Can you clarify what system you are using? BTW, mineral content of bottled water varies dramatically by manufacturer, so you'd need a detailed analysis, usually printed on the bottle, to accurately compare. Your tap water probably contains more minerals and your household filter does not remove them completely. (maybe your household filter is not working properly). Bottled water use industrial food grade filtering techniques, they work better than home filters. You could ask your city about the mineral content of your water, it should be publicly available. Thank you for your insights. I actually use 2 sets of water filter that I bought from local online stores. The 1st one is connected to the faucet and has 3 cartriges: Sediment filter, mineral filter then Activated Carbon The second is a water purifier with dispenser that has ceramic filter then a cartridge with different mineral sand and stones. Just to be sure, I'm also boiling the water for drinking. I'm sure that with these process we're drinking safe water but I'm just curious why i see lots of tea residue when I used this water vs when I used purified water bought outside.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.562647
2021-03-29T09:34:07
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115015", "authors": [ "Giovanni Enriquez", "Tetsujin", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93146" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
91184
How to make Black Glutinous Rice sticky? I've been to a Cooking Class in Thailand and learned how to do many yummy Thai dishes. One of them was Mango with Sticky Rice, but with black rice. My problem is that somehow my rice is not sticky at all although I'm doing what is written in my little recipe paper that I got from the cooking class. I show you two pictures (first time and second time): The first time, with little coconut sauce: The second time, with a bit too much coconut sauce: So now to the cooking instructions. I've got this brand for the rice: And according to my recipe paper, I need to soak 2 cups of rice in 4 cups of water at least 8 hours. (I usually do about only 8-10 hours). And then I need to steam the rice in a rice steamer for 20-30 minutes. I don't have this so I'm using the ikea steel steamer: (source: ikea.com) And I'm using a normal pot with water to steam it with the lid closed so no steam comes out. The result is that the rice is "dry" and not really sticky at all. The last time I did it we had so much of the rice left, that we thought we could do sushi with it. But it was impossible since it does not stick at all... What am I doing wrong? I don't know what is done traditionally but have you seen this recipe? They use part white sticky rice as the black rice alone did not seem sticky enough. Mango with Black Sticky Rice | Khao Niew Dam Mamuang If you are interested there is also a way to make it more like a porridge that is uses more water and is cooked longer like congee in a pot and becomes somewhat glutinous. Thai Black Sticky Rice Pudding I'm not sure the eggs are necessary, I've never heard of that in the Indonesian version. I think that is the answer that I was looking for! I have to try it obviously first, but I think you are right, that I need to mix it with white and black rice. And thank you for the pudding recipe, it's interesting!
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.562807
2018-07-21T08:10:48
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91184", "authors": [ "Philipp Mochine", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68288" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
83644
Differences between types of Italian coffee What is the difference between the following types of Italian coffee? Caffè lungo (long coffee) Caffè corto (short coffee) Caffè macchiato (coffee with milk) Espresso Cappuccino There is a coffee stackexchange, this may be better suited to that. @GdD yeah, I forgot about that. E.g. this question: https://coffee.stackexchange.com/q/257/3394 This image (from visual.ly) shows the difference between the mixture of ingredients and (possible) cup sizes of various sorts of coffee, including the ones you asked for: A (caffè) lungo is 'just' an espresso prepared with more (twice as much) water than usual, making it less intense. A caffè corto, more commonly called ristretto, is the opposite: less water (half as much) is used in preparation than with a normal espresso, making it even more intense. For the macchiato, milk foam is added to an espresso; a cappucino has milk foam and steamed milk added to it. Another important difference, when you're in Italy, is that you don't order a cappuccino after 10am. Espresso is much, much shorter than in the first picture: the second one works better. And the cup for espresso and macchiato is different from that for cappuccino (the other three concoctions not being actual Italian ones, I would not judge their cups). chocolate sprinkles on your cappuccino: Yes, but there is nothing against some powdered cocoa, which is sometimes offered by the barista or even used to decorate the surface. Worth noting that these Italian drink names can mean fairly different things in different times/places/subcultures. Even just in 2017, buy a cappucino in a small corner shop in Rome, or in a Starbucks in LA, or a hipster coffee shop in Paris, and you’ll get three pretty different drinks. Coffee drinks, like any other recipes, evolve and branch over geography and time — don’t believe anyone who tells you “This is what a cappucino really is, and anything else is just wrong!” @PLL: But the OP asks specifically about “Italian coffee”, so that is what we are talking about here, not Californian or French coffee... @DaG: Absolutely, yes. I wasn’t meaning my comment as “the question is unanswerable” — more to point out that the image in this answer (and lots of other guides online to what different drinks are) may not really answer the question, if they’re describing what those drinks mean in a different subculture. @DavidRicherby thanks, I've replaced it with a better one. Technically, the espresso in the first diagram was a 'quadruplo'. The diagram contains a few common pitfalls, like "macchiato" and "latte". (But I like the image nevertheless.)
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.562994
2017-08-11T06:43:10
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83644", "authors": [ "DaG", "GdD", "Glorfindel", "PLL", "Stephie", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36324", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53296" ], "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 }
90528
Should parboiled rice be washed/rinsed before cooking? Should parboiled rice be washed or rinsed before cooking? If yes, on average how many times it should be washed. Should it be rinsed in water for more than 10 minutes? Par boiled should not be rinsed, it is ready to be cooked as-is. It was already rinsed and cleaned and, erm, par boiled. If unsure, check the instruction on the package. The package doesn't mention anything about washing or rinsing. All rice should be washed and rinsed unless you are using it to make Risotto. Opinions, like yours here, vary on this. Rinsing removes some starch, and in some cases the starch is desired to be maintained and maximized. A good answer at SE will have details and sources and enough info that the asker feels confident. THis isn't a chat room conversation, but a place for solid answers others can refer to later.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.563224
2018-06-23T21:21:37
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90528", "authors": [ "MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars", "Xavi Valero", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67766" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
121531
Remove burned-in oil from aluminum pan I have a old camping cooker from Trangia. It comes with an aluminum pan (no non-stick coating, just plain aluminum), and when I last used it and made some eggs, due to the cooker being slightly tilted, there is now burned-in oil on it. It is very hard to remove with mechanical means, even using a mild abrasive cleaner. Since it is aluminum, I can not use the aggressive grease removers. Is there any advice on how to clean burned oil from aluminum pans? Grease removers probably aren't going to be useful for burned on grease, my advice would be to use a better pan, the ones that come with camp stoves are often complete junk. I've heard Barkeeper's Friend recommended for these kinds of things, and they claim it works great on aluminum @GdD You're asking the OP to carry the considerable weight of an extra pan. There's a reason these pans are thin and light. It's an extreme example but my entire camping cooking setup weighs less than a decent non-stick aluminium frying pan - which wouldn't fit in my pack anyway given the handle. Camping cooking sets also nest and serve double duty, so the frying pan can also be used as a saucepan lid. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22855/ and https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120038 - I wouldn't call it a duplicate, since not all methods suitable for stainless steel are suitable for aluminium though. Why do you want to remove it? That's seasoning. The ultimate way to remove burnt-on stuff from aluminium is a motorised wire brush. Solid brass is fairly aggressive but manageable (watch out for brass-plated steel, which is too hard). Sets are available with nylon and brass brushes in various shapes to mount in a drill. Brass will scratch up the surface, but you can polish the worst of the scratches out with abrasive cleaner if you really want to. Before that it might be worth trying the most aggressive kitchen degreaser you can find, sprayed on, left for a few minutes, then scrubbed with a nylon scouring pad. One I've used does slightly soften burnt-on grease, though it doesn't dissolve it. The manufacturers Bar Keeper's Friend recommend it for use on aluminium, including for burnt-on oil, but I haven't tested it myself. The degreasers to avoid are the strong alkaline solutions The problem is, I haven't found any degreaser except for "strong alkaline solutions" to work on polymerized oil. Admittedly, I haven't worked with Bar Keepers Friend or other boron-based ones (I actually believe they are illegal in Europe) - they are popular in answers to this type of question, so if you know, it would be good to mention if they can be used on aluminium. @rumtscho there is a European (or at least UK, including pre-brexit) Bar Keeper's Friend. It may be a different formulation. I agree that polymerised oil is a different matter, however slight softening would be very helpful and I have observed that with the one I linked. Of course I can't rule out the possibility that my oil wasn't fully polymerised; neither can I confirm that the OP's is. ... but Wikipedia on Bar Keeper's Friend doesn't mention boron anyway Ooops, I have no idea then how BKF and boron got linked in my mind! My bad, it isn't relevant then. Unless you happen to know if the actual BKF is damaging to aluminium. @rumtscho no idea. I had some once but no longer. I suspect it will just act as a mildly abrasive fluid, unless the oxalic acid in it attacks the oil. The manufacturers actually recommend BKF on aluminium, including for burnt-on oil BKF works fine on aluminum, though (IME) it won’t remove oxide stains like it will with other metals. When looking in stores, anything for degreasing was actually containing something like Sodium Hydroxide, and as such not suitable for aluminum. I will try with a brass wire brush, that might be a good trick. Yes, definitely avoid NaOH and KOH (often marketed as oven cleaners)
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.563336
2022-09-01T10:43:24
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121531", "authors": [ "Boldar", "Chris H", "Esther", "FuzzyChef", "GdD", "Sneftel", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100676", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
105386
Is the typical value (as consumed) refer to the product after cooking or before cooking? Looking at the Typical Values under Nutrition for Morrisons Free Range Egg Noodles, does the "(as consumed) per 100g" mean that 100g of uncooked noodles provides 107 calories when it is cooked, or 100g of cooked noodles provides 107 calories? I fry them just using heat, no oil. So can you work out how many calories it would mean if 180g (measured before they are cooked) are cooked? Nutrition tables give the value for the product alone, as is, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Cereal sometimes describes a serving as Xg cereal plus Yg milk of a certain fat content, for example. But there should always be the “pure” values for 100g, as most food labeling laws require. The product description confirms this by explicitly stating “as sold”: A 1/4 pack (as sold) provides... Calories 110 5.5%, Sugar trace trace, Fat 1.5g 2.1%, Saturates 0.1g 0.5%, Salt trace trace of your guideline daily If you check the table carefully, you’ll notice that for a 1/4 pack (slightly over 100g) the value for fat is 1.5g. This fits what the eggs in egg noodles would contribute, but is significantly less than what per the cooking instructions should be added for stir-frying. If you want or need to calculate your calorie intake, weigh the product before your chosen preparation method and use basic maths to calculate the calories or other nutritional values. Any additions (like the aforementioned oil) need to be calculated separately. So if I weighed 100g of these noodles before I cooked them then this provides 107 calories when cooked, forgetting any dressings or oil used to cook as I only use heat to cook these? @EthanFairhurst Exactly. That’s how the nutrition labeling works. I also found that the mass decreased after I cooked them? Does this mean that the calories would decrease from when I initially weighed due to the decrease in mass when I have cooked? Unless you somehow removed anything with calories (water has no calories), no. You can’t evaporate calories.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.563659
2020-02-18T19:24:06
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105386", "authors": [ "Ethan Fairhurst", "Stephie", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81203" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
96276
What is a good way to roast hazelnuts? I need to roast some hazelnuts to use later for other preparations. How do you do it? In a cooking pan or in the oven, and for how much time? According to Billie Joe Armstrong, you should roast them on an open fire. @Sdarb Maybe hazelnuts require a different technique to chestnuts! @DavidRicherby i even googled the song to find out who wrote it and still didn't catch the change in nuts... oops @Sdarb Seriously? That's nuts! *baddum-tsh* While using a pan on the stove top can result in roasted hazelnuts (or any nut), it does require constant movement and attention. It can be quick, but it can also go wrong quickly if your heat is too high...or you stop shaking the pan for too long. Alternately, roasting in a 325 to 350 F (163 to 177 C) oven, on a sheet pan, in a single layer, results in a much more predictable outcome and requires less direct attention. Ten to 15 minutes would do the trick, but use your nose and eyes for guidance. Once nuts begin to roast, they can quickly go from perfect to burnt. Start checking after 8 or 9 minutes. If you are working with hazelnuts that have the skins on them, after roasting, you can dump them onto a clean kitchen towel. Fold the sides over and rub the nuts between the towel. This should quickly remove most of the outer skins. I remove the cleaned ones to a bowl, and give the remaining ones another rubbing. You may have to work at (or ignore) the few stubborn ones. Precisely what I was gonna answer. For best results, go with the lower temperature: it'll take longer, but the nuts will taste better. I did it, 350F for 9 minutes. And it works! When they got cold it has been super easy to peel them. Just scratching them with each other. Thanks @DavideCasiraghi, I will add some info on peeling to my answer. I do like to do a quick shake of the pan at the midway point to try and even out the roasting... Work at (or ignore) or just eat and pretend they never existed. Cook's privileges! Both the pan and the oven method work, use whichever you find more comfortable. If you don't yet know which is more comfortable, try both and see. You can't predict the time, just roast until they smell good. If they are peeled, the color will turn slightly more golden. You will also recognize roasting too long (burning) by smell. The one important thing that's not obvious to beginners is to have them in a single layer, do not fill the pan. I would add to this correct answer, that using a 325 - 350 F oven is much more forgiving, will produce a more even roast, and you don't have to stand there shaking the pan. @moscafj to me, this looks like enough extra information to write your own answer. Maybe we will find out (by the vote pattern) that there are more people who prefer the oven than those who find the two roughly interchangeable. fair enough.... Microwave does pretty good job on this for me. The trick is to find the right power level and time. You'd need to find them by experimenting with the same amount of nuts. Once that is done, nuts can be roasted with no supervision. I set power 5 out of 10 and time 5 minutes for about 200g of nuts evenly spread on a plate. The result is consitent and predictable. I've had the habit of splitting the nuts in half and placing them split side up in the roasting tin. This seems to increase the flavour considerably. I do this with almonds as well (split lengthways along the thin edge). Obviously, I'm not catering for large numbers of people! I don't bother with removing the skin though, it's extra fibre after all. Also, I've been baking at 400° for a shorter period (about five minutes) but I'm going to try the lower temperature recommended above next time.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.563856
2019-02-11T09:41:26
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96276", "authors": [ "David Richerby", "Davide Casiraghi", "Marti", "Sdarb", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49752", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72769", "moscafj", "rumtscho", "user3067860" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
99487
Why is my Taiyaki (Cake that looks like a fish) too hard and dry? I was making taiyaki, and most of my friends said that the dough is too hard and dry. I have: 2 cups cake flour 4 tablespoons sugar 6 teaspoons baking powder 1 cup of milk 1/3 cup water. I use an electric whisk to combine the dry first, then add the liquid ingredients. I use the electric whisk/mixer again for around 30 rotations at the highest speed and let the dough rest in our refrigerator. I heat one side for 2 minutes in a taiyaki pan and then the other side for 2 minutes. Can you kindly help this newbie serve better taiyaki to children and friends? How are you cooking these @FishCake? Are they pan fried in oil? Baked? Grilled? @GdD they are typically cooked in a taiyaki pan mold. It is designed to be closed. There are stove top varieties and electric ones. These "hand cakes" are often filled...but not with fish! :-) @GdD expanding on moscafj's clarification, a taiyaki pan is similar to a waffle iron, but in a particular fish shape instead of a waffle shape, and the preparation is very similar, with the exception of adding the (typically sweet) filling after adding the batter to the molds. The proportions of this recipe are very similar to a traditional American biscuit recipe. I won't post as an answer since I'm not familiar with taiyaki and don't know if the potentially more acidic flavor would be acceptable, but I can't help wondering if substituting buttermilk or sour milk, as is often done for biscuits, would better activate the baking powder to make the result lighter. I have never made these, but this is what I observe from comparing your recipe to the most readily found online ones: Your mix is dry. Other recipes tend to have up to twice as much liquid as yours, by proportion to the flour. Your mix has no egg. Every recipe I found included egg, in quantities ranging from 1 egg per 1 cup flour to 1 egg per 1/2 cup flour. You include water in your mix. Other recipes I've found contain no water. These recipe differences mean that your mix has much less liquid than most and also, importantly I think, much less fat. Eggs and milk both contain fat which will give a more tender result. You also mix all the ingredients directly together. Recipes I found recommended whisking the flour, salt and baking powder together then beating the egg in a separate bowl, creaming the egg with the sugar then adding the milk and only then gently combining the wet and dry ingredients being careful not to overmix. I'm not sure how much difference this makes, but mixing the sugar and dissolving it into the egg rather than putting it directly into a lower hydration mix will allow you to capture tiny air bubbles into your batter which will also tend to make the crumb more tender. Thank you so much @Spagirl for this reply. The process I have is soooo different, so I will try your suggestion. Thank you! The recipes I see online are slightly different from yours, and could help in solving your problem. In addition to most of your ingredients, they include baking soda and egg. While baking powder does most of the leavening when used in combination with baking soda, that addition, plus the leavening power of the egg will make a significant difference. By the way, 6 tsp of baking powder seems like a lot for the amount of flour in your recipe. Also, check the consistency of your batter. It should be somewhere between the viscosity of pancake and waffle batter. Finally, I would be careful not to over mix. Like pancakes, you don't want to build up the gluten structure of the flour, which would make the cake's texture tougher. This appears to be a good resource. Thanks for the very in-depth advice! I will try these after the kids have stopped teasing me as a bad baker You need some oil. I see these are basically pancakes. You need some oil or butter to make a good pancake, or it is too dry, like your fish pancakes have been. Use an oil with no flavor or a flavor that will be good in the fish cakes. I have some sunflower oil in the refrigerator I use for making pancakes. Corn oil is good too. Or melted butter would be delicious. A tablespoon per cup of flour would be a place to start. egg and milk also provide fat Closer to waffles than pancakes; they're cooked in a closed pan and cooked from both sides.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.564286
2019-06-11T09:25:43
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99487", "authors": [ "Allison C", "Fish Cake ", "GdD", "Kate Gregory", "Vivian", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51803", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71514", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75984", "jmbpiano", "moscafj" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
93117
How to prevent milk overflow from pan? Note - To avoid duplication, I have referred the related question. Many a time, it happens that I put milk on the stove and forget about it while doing other work. So, milk always boils over. What can be done to prevent the milk overflowing the pan? related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/5207/69382 Hi, to prevent a duplicate, it's not enough to say that you have seen the other question. You have to make it clear why you are asking something different than it. In this case, I see no diffrence in what is being asked, and it seems that the people who answer also don't see a difference - all answers would fit both questions. So I am closing and merging.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.564639
2018-10-22T00:02:53
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93117", "authors": [ "Ess Kay", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382", "rumtscho" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
62489
How can I improve the texture of my whole grain pancakes? I've been experimenting for a while with whole grain pancake recipes that I can make in a blender. This is the best variation I've come up with so far: ½ cup hard white wheat 1 cup rolled oats 1 ½ cups milk 2 large eggs 1 tablespoon baking powder ¾ teaspoon salt Put all ingredients in a blender. Blend on high speed for 6 minutes. Cook on a 325° griddle. I like the pancakes, but some of my kids complain about the texture. What can I do to make them lighter and fluffier? I don't want to significantly increase the fat or sugar. I don't want to significantly decrease the fiber or protein. Are there any good options within these parameters? Blending for 6 minutes at high speed is going to activate the gluten in the flour, making for tougher pancakes. Also, pancakes made with buttermilk tend to be more tender. What is the long blending time doing for you that a shorter one wouldn't? Were you have trouble with clumps? @DebbieM., I suspect the blending destroys a lot of the gluten, too. I could be wrong. I tried buttermilk once and didn't notice a difference in the texture. @Jefromi, I could try a shorter blending time. But it takes significant time to pulverize the wheat. After six minutes in my blender, the particles are small enough to be pleasant. There are still a few larger bits that add a nice texture, similar to what some cornmeal would provide. Ah, I hadn't realized that you were using literal whole wheat, not just a wholegrain wheat flour. You could try soaking the grains in milk overnight to soften them before grinding. You could also try grinding them on their own, then adding the liquid so there's less time for gluten development. You could also mix the grains and milk, let it rest for an hour or so, then mix the rest of it. Are you using a powerful blender in the Vitamix/Blendtec tradition? If so, you could potentially grind the ingredients dry, though based on my experience grinding mochi rice it won't be as finely ground. Debbie's right about the gluten - overmixing is a reliable way to get tough pancakes. I'm not sure what the best solution is within your process. By far the easiest thing would be simply to use wholegrain wheat flour, letting someone else do the grinding for you. Failing that, I think you want to grind the grains up dry, and then it really won't take much mixing at all to eliminate clumps. That's going to require something other than a blender, though. I wonder if soaking the wheat overnight in the fridge in the milk would allow it to be ground up faster in the blender so that it doesn't need as much processing? Still would be better to grind it dry, but I wonder if this might at least help. @NadjaCS I'd be afraid of that developing gluten as well, given that you can get great gluten development in doughs just by letting them sit in the fridge. Sounds like I need to do an experiment. I'll see if I can fit it in this weekend. I'll grind some wheat as much as I can with my blender, then add the wet ingredients and blend it briefly. I'll compare that against a batch made in the original way. Just for fun, I'll try soaking some wheat for a third batch, too. I'm going to accept this as the answer. I tried a small batch this morning where I ground the wheat and oats in the blender (wheat for about 30 seconds, followed by wheat and oats for about a minute). I then added the remaining ingredients and pulsed a few times to incorporate everything. The batter was quite thin, likely because the grains weren't fully ground. (I have a cheap blender. I'll increase the grinding time next time.) The resulting pancakes were much better than my original recipe. This is clearly a big step in the right direction. On a side note, I'm also going to reduce the salt a bit. And, I'm still going to test the overnight soak idea. I soaked some wheat and oats in milk overnight and then blended them for about a minute. It was a fun experiment, but it didn't work any better than the original recipe. Grinding the grains dry and then briefly mixing them into the other ingredients is definitely the way to go. My blender isn't particularly good at being a grain mill, but it's still a much better result than blending the wheat for a long time when wet. @mrog I'm a little surprised a blender works well enough at all! Hope you manage to get an actual grain mill eventually, if you're routinely grinding grains. @Jefromi, that's on my wish list. In the meantime, I have a hand cranked grain mill (http://victorio.info/grain-mill.html), but it takes 20 - 30 minutes of cranking to get enough flour for a loaf of bread. Even though the blender doesn't produce really fine flour, it's much, much easier! Perhaps separate the egg whites, whip those whites until soft peaks form, then fold that into (perhaps a smaller portion of the) batter just before grilling? I like that idea. I'll give it a try and report back. It'll take me a few days to get to it. I don't think I'm actually going to get to this experiment anytime soon. But, I still think it's a good idea if I combine it with the other answer and reduce gluten development.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.564741
2015-10-12T22:40:35
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62489", "authors": [ "Cascabel", "Debbie Harris", "Debbie M.", "Jane Young", "JasonTrue", "Jennifer Bowden", "Joe", "Marlene Burey", "NadjaCS", "Theresa McHale", "barbara jones", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148533", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148534", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148535", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148537", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148540", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148582", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834", "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67", "mrog" ], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }
109023
Dry crispy skin on sourdough starter: is it mold? My sourdough starter is 2 months old. Some week or two ago it started to have a crispy skin on the top. The smell changed a bit, but it is still sweet-acid smell. I cover a jar with the starter with a kitchen paper towel. I replaced the jar with a clean one but the skin persists. The bread I got from it is still decent. Is it mold? I would guess it is just drying out. I keep my covered. If it is on the counter preparing to be used, it is in a jar with a loose lid. If it is the refrigerator, for longer intervals between baking, it is in a sealed plastic pint container.
Stack Exchange
2025-03-21T13:24:57.565155
2020-06-13T14:32:47
{ "license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", "site": "cooking.stackexchange.com", "url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109023", "authors": [], "all_licenses": [ "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" ], "sort": "votes", "include_comments": true }