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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
100100
|
Keep milk (or milk alternative) for a day without a fridge
I like to drink my coffee with milk, but my new place of work has no refrigerator I can use. Is there any milk or milk-substitute I can use that will not taste funny around 15 o'clock, when I remove it from my home fridge at 8?
What if I buy 1L of long-lasting milk and bring in ca 100ml in a airtight container a day for coffee, will that be OK?
Maybe a substitute like almond, soy, rice or oatmilk will keep better? Will it taste good?
Another option I can see is powder milk, but that does seems like a hassle.
Bonus points for minimal amount of waste.
Why would powder milk be a hassle? it seems the option that will taste better and never spoil, plus you can keep a kilo of it in the office, no need to bring it every day.
Is there any reason you can't use a small vacuum/capsule flask? You can get them as small as 150ml if not smaller/
@Luciano To mix powder and liquid, you either need a bottle with a top so you can shake it, of you have to add a the liquid a little at the time while stirring (which does not work with a coffee machine). Unless you are talking about coffee-creamer powder, but that tastes nothing like milk.
@Spagirl, didnt think of it, but someone else did, see this: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/100103/60602 answer.
You can just add the powder after pouring the coffee... the order is not important. All you need is a spoon - unless you don't even have that.
@Luciano are you saying i will not get lumps in the coffee if i just pour the powder over hot coffee and stir? I remember preparing milk for my kid, and it did not dissolve so easily.
@Ivana : I don't know about powdered milk in hot coffee, but for almost all cases of dissolving powders in liquids, it's better to start with just a little bit of the liquid, form a paste, then slowly thin it out with the liquid (add some liquid, stir, add more liquid,stir, etc.). It might take a little bit longer, but it's reliably lump-free.
Powdered milk in hot coffee is not a good idea: without lots of effort, that's prone to give big lumps that probably won't dissolve on their own like in cold water.
No chance of getting a fridge? It's not an outrageous request …
@Joe: I beg to disagree: soluble powders (such as milk powder as opposed to e.g. flour) don't require a paste. Small lumps of milk powder dissolve on their own within a few minutes in cold water. In hot water (or coffee) I'd be wary of heat coagulation/precipitation of the protein - this would transform a perfectly soluble powder into lumps of unsoluble goo - and it won't even become soluble again when getting cold. Even the paste technique won't be able to do much about this.
Long-lasting milk only lasts long as long as it remains sealed. Once the seal is broken, it's subject to the 2-hour safety rule just like regular milk. Right?
Clarification request - have you tried taking your preferred drinks without milk? Is not taking milk a valid answer ?
@stannius: yes, that's right. Though this rule seems to vary regionally: I've met it mostly in North America. In contrast, here in Germany there's a growing focus on avoiding waste of food and in consequence more detailed recommendations for end users depending on the actual type of easily perishable food. This leads to milk having other recommendations than, say, minced meat, sandwiches, meat/fish containing salads or food containing raw eggs. E.g. the federal centre for nutrition recommends a sensory check for milk (https://www.bzfe.de/inhalt/lebensmittelverderb-erkennen-748.html).
I would invest in a small thermos bottle, about the size of what you need for one day. They are not only designed to keep hot food hot, they can also keep cold food cold. Choose a size that will be as full as possible when you start, it will keep better.
This is what the small B&B we‘re currently staying at supplies to their guests. If it’s good for an early morning tea, it’ll be good for afternoon coffee as well:
If you want to go all the way, you can pre-chill the container, then fill it with well-chilled milk from your home fridge. You could even freeze some milk as ice cubes, if you find that it doesn’t stay cold enough until the end of your work day or your last coffee break. Store the thermos away from heat sources and not in warm sunlight, of course.
Note that you also have the “two-hours in the danger zone” buffer and that “unsafe” doesn’t automatically mean “spoiled”. Especially when the milk is still quite cold and only shortly after the two-hour window the risk for a healthy adult should be small. No recommendation, just a thought.
Switching to milk alternatives won’t change anything where food safety is concerned.
As an added bonus, you can pour your coffee into the thermos to keep it hot, although that does run contrary to the advice of getting a thermos no bigger than the volume of milk you need.
I would not put milk in a thermos bottle: if it ever goes bad, it's in my experience practically impossible to get that taste out of the lid/seal.
@GeorgeM: while it's true that I think of thermos as generic name that doesn't matter here. The stainless steel is not the problem (nor the old-fashioned glass in the glass varieties). What I'm talking about is the lid and seal. And judging from the images here https://www.thermos.com/technology/screw-top-lid/genuine-thermos-brand-element5-vacuum-insulated-beverage-bottle-with-screw-top-lid-32oz.html also Thermos uses plastic/silicone for that.
I'd also recommend the OP dispose of any excess milk and wash, or at least thoroughly rinse, the thermos immediately after the last cup of coffee they intend to drink in the day. Be sure to get a thermos which they can thoroughly sterilize, rather than just wash/rince. Putting it through a dishwasher that is set to sanitize is usually sufficient, but a container and lid which can be boiled would be beneficial. This should be done between every use (i.e. every day), which may require having more than one container. The issue isn't just the single use, but having bacteria grow between uses.
Get a thermal "jacket" for your termo, also. Mine kept water under 20 ºC that I had forgotten for a day in the car under the sun with heat wave shade temps above 45ºC. So it would probably keep you milk fresh under more proper conditions.
@cbeleites The idea is that the milk would never go bad. That would be an anomaly. It should never happen. If it does, buy a new one. A thermos solves the problem.
If you use a good thermos can properly the milk will never go bad over a sole working day. It's just completely impossible. Even if you kept it unrefrigerated (but in a cool place), it's not overly likely fresh/non-uht milk would sour that fast. And if it did sour, you would first taste it as a slightly sour taste (but still non-toxic) long before it becomes dangerous. (of course that doesn't apply to the frail or pregnant, they should be more careful. For example if the milk was contaminated with something, keeping it less cold could worsen the preexisting contamination)
Also switching to pseudo-milks could change a lot. Probably they keep longer than milk because they are probably sterile, but if they are created using fermentation techniques (some of them are) and not heated afterwards, they could spoil faster than milk (no lactic acid which helps to preserve stuff in general).
Also the two-hour-danger-rule is ridiculous. I recently enjoyed some fresh cream 2 weeks after the consume by date and it was fine and have been experimenting with fermentation of various stuff for quite a while now. Letting some grains or nuts ferment for weeks at room temperature and then eating the product raw really puts all that food safety scare into perspective. Of course you need to apply common sense, i.e. know how a product is supposed to taste and discard of it otherwise and know when you need to sterilize something, etc., but seriously, it's not that dangerous.
I do not believe this will maintain the temperature for the small amount of milk needed. However, I have once seen ice substitutes in a stick form suitable for dropping in a narrow-mouth bottle. A quick search on Amazon turns up: https://smile.amazon.com/Ice-Cube-Sticks-Reusable-Freezable/dp/B07MHFYVH6/ref=sr_1_3 This is just to illustrate, I know nothing of the merits of this particular version.
Agreed that keeping a vacuum flask clean is a nightmare. A good alternative is to put the milk in an insulated bag with an ice-block.
If you freeze a milk in an ice cubes you would effectively separate it into two (or more?) substances: one that would be more water and another that would have all fats and sugar. Not sure how is it going to do in the coffee but the taste of thawed milk by itself would be quite funny.
@AlexanderM: I've done it. As the ice part contains more water, at the beginning it is very nice, and then gets more and more watery. For milk in coffee, I'd expect that it's OK (one can easily adjust the amount needed by color).
@AlexanderM shake the bottle a bit before pouring and everything should be smooth enough.
Using milk alternative would probably help with keeping the thermos clean, or at least keeping the foul smell of off milk away. I am experimenting with oat milk.
Your best bet for longevity is UHT milk - in individual portions.
It's the same stuff you get in hotel rooms.
Pic from Amazon, anonymised.
Though it doesn't taste the same as 'real' milk it's virtually indestructible, almost inert, & will survive unopened & unrefrigerated for 6 - 9 months.
As soon as it's opened, you have to treat it just like real milk, so large cartons would not be suitable.
There are dozens of brands - this was just one that Google found near the top of the list - Amazon UK - UHT MILK PORTIONS 1 x 120 portions (10ML)
If it keeps for 6 months at room temperature unopend, surely it will keep 6 to 8 hours once open?
@Ivana once you open the package you expose the milk to air and then it will spoil the same as regular milk.
Urgh. While a valid suggestion, it tastes horrible IMHO, and the amount of plastic garbage created by the tiny Individual packages makes me cringe.
@Stephie - whilst I agree with you it's vile stuff - I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole - some countries use it almost exclusively. See the table at the bottom of the Wikipedia page.
Maybe it depends on brand? This milk is common where I live, and I've never noticed a huge taste difference. Many restaurants serve it for kids because it is shelf stable (normally served cold tho).
I agree with @Jphi1618 that some brands of UHT milk taste better than others. (Of course, it's possible that where you live none of it is good). To me, it tastes like regular milk that has been briefly boiled. Not the same as fresh milk, but quite acceptable in coffee.
Seconding this, every morning I open a carton of UHT milk to complete the breakfast cereal since the leftover milk from the previous breakfast is not enough. But a whole carton is too much, so the rest is left on the counter for the next breakfast. So there is effectively almost always an opened carton of milk without refrigeration which is consumed after 24 hours and I have never noticed any kind of funny taste.
@Stephie You can buy cartons of UHT milk.
@orlp but that answer explicitly suggest small packaging units because they won’t create the problem of how to store the open packs - the two-hours-in-the-danger-zone rule applies.
I'm confused by the comments about UHT milk being bad, where I live there is only UHT milk, I don't think I've ever heard anything about untreated milk. Are we missing out?
@ToddSewell Fresh usually means pasturized and maybe (partially) filtered. Having grown up on fresh I can't stomach the UHT stuff.
@ToddSewell UHT treatment will alter the flavor of the milk - not a problem per se, and quality has improved since when I was a kid. Still, there’s a huge difference in flavor and mouthfeel between raw, full-fat, non-homogenized milk (“straight from the cow”, what I grew up with) and the products in stores that have gone through various processing steps. Raw milk varies a lot in flavor, depending on the season, the individual animal, breed, diet... You would likely be surprised if you ever had a chance to taste “the original”. Whether you’d like it (better or at all) is another question.
@ToddSewell and raw milk can be iffy where food safety is concerned. For more vulnerable users (pregnant women, babies, immunocompromized patients..), the consumption of raw milk is strongly discouraged. The same applies for raw milk cheeses. Many countries demand a minimal processing like pasteurization before the milk may be sold at all. All other treatments are to increase the shelf life, from “ESL” milk (which may in some jurisdictions still be labeled as “fresh”) to “UHT” milk.
But the question asked for something that wouldn't taste funny at 15:00. UHT milk already tastes funny by 08:00.
@Tetsujin for clarification - my main objection is the trash, not that it’s UHT milk. OP’s 100ml means 10 packs a day, 50 in a work week, already 1000 in a month... you get the idea. I didn’t want to start a UHT debate. (Although I find the milk in the pods often especially “meh”...) But as I said before: certainly a valid answer that deserves its upvotes.
@Stephie - sure & I agree with you. On the [very slight] upside, the cartons are recyclable, but not the foil [mylar] lids. Though I didn't include it in my answer as it could be considered a tad facetious... the actual simplest solution is to drink it black. ;)
Skimmed UHT milk tastes like ordinary milk, and it's slightly thicker than ordinary skimmed milk, too. The heat treatment does something to the fat content; skimmed milk has virtually none (typically 0.1%)
In a similar situation in a previous job we successfully used an old camping trick: Wrap the bottle containing the day's milk in a damp cloth, and stand it in a bowl of water, in the draught from an open window. The evaporative cooling produced that way is really quite effective. Either buy a small bottle in the way in or transport it insulated.
Another camping style approach is a cool bag with an ice pack - put your bottle of milk in an insulated bag along with ice. You can either buy ice packs and freeze them, or 2/3 fill a drinks bottle with water and freeze that. Either way its effective enough that you might need to prevent the ice pack touching the container of milk to avoid freezing some milk
This works well in low humidity (though it basically doesn't help in high humidity conditions)
It should work perfectly well in any office where the temperature and humidity are comfortable to work in.
This is sometimes called a Swamp Cooler (added for search engines)
@MichaelKay Why wouldn't it?
@gerrit: a rainy summer over here may have temperatures around 20 °C with relative humidity > 80 °C. No need to have AC on (if it exists in the office), so no AC-dried air. And under those conditions, the cooling effect will be nominal at best. Wet-bulb temperature (i.e. the coldest you can get provided ideal air exchange around the evaporation cooler) of 10 °C in 20 °C air temp requires relative humiditiy as low as ≈25 %. At 60 %, you can get 20 °C -> ≈ 15 °C at most (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrometrics#/media/File:PsychrometricChart.SeaLevel.SI.svg), and that's not even very humid.
I've tried the damp cloth, (but without the bowl of water) and it does work, at least a bit. Not quite enough to keep regular milk for tasting funny at the end of the day but it does keep it cooler then room temperature. For UTH milk or almond or oat milk it is probably almost a solution.
@cbeleites the difference between 15 and 20 C is significant if you're talking about keeping milk for the length of a working day. If you just left it on your desk in the same summer it would probably be warmer still.
As an alternative to the (very good) vacuum bottle suggestions, Insulated lunchboxes with an ice-pack are great. My kids use them for school and the ice-pack is often still partially frozen at the end of the day, even when kept outside in hot weather.
As a bonus, you can put your other snacks/lunch in there to keep cool as well.
If OP doesn't know what 'ice-pack' means, this link offers an example. They are $1 or so at supermarkets or drug stores, and they do a great job. Freezing a small container of the milk would help if a bit extra time is needed.
This strategy is essentially how I get my almond milk shipped to me from a reputable company. It ships over two days, but the ice packs are still cold upon arrival, due to being shipped in an isolated box. If it can survive two days, the half-day of the Questioner is probably perfectly fine.
I don't know if this is possible for you at work but it hasn't been mentioned as an option: you can use a mini fridge to keep your milk cool / cold.
Here's an image of one
(I left the image out on purpose, because I'm not trying to advertise a specific product.)
I'm not affiliated with the manufacturer or seller, but I do have one of these fridges. I find it works well for small loads and is easy to carry if there's a need.
I'm guessing this is a little peltier based cooler. They do work to keep things cooler for longer, but are functionally little more than a cooler because they struggle to make things cooler; they just delay the warming. Still better than nothing, and they can run on 12V from a car lighter socket. Mine is dual-mode mains voltage and 12V and I run it on longer 4WD trips.
Yes, it has a little fan in the back and a metal plate on the inside. Mine keeps things pretty cold; ice regularly forms on the plate that I have to remove. I use it at work so it's plugged in.
First of all, it's not air that makes the milk spoil but microbes that fall in and grow there. So keeping it cool is one thing, the other thing is not getting the microbes in there.
I have milk in my office outside the fridge up to about 20 °C over the working day without problems (I do have a fridge, though where I put it if I won't finish the package same day). The milk packs here come with screw caps, so I close them again immediately and compared to the cut open packages we had before this makes the milk last much longer.
I've also kept milk etc. on the outside window sill of the office when it's cooler outside.
My experience with UHT milk is: it does taste somewhat different from microfiltrated/ESL/"fresh" milk but there also seem to be differences - I've never understood people talking about revolting taste until I once had a revolting tasting UHT milk (French brand bought in Italy). Message is: it may be worth while shopping a bit around and trying whether you find UHT milk that is to your taste for the coffee. Fun fact: there are also people who like UHT milk better than "fresh" milk - e.g. for my father fresh milk always had an association of being spoilt, he said because their milk was spoilt/beginning to spoil so often when he was a kid.
While 1 l is the standard milk package size here, milk is also sold in smaller packages (I've seen 500, 250, 200 ml).
There is also evaporated milk. The variety we have here is without added sugar, so unrefrigerated it lasts only marginally longer than normal milk. But you may be able to get it in small (e.g. 150 ml) packages even if you cannot find small milk packages.
Another solution (with UHT in normal packages) would be to pool up with some coworkers and speedily use up one package after the other instead of having n open milk packages spoiling in parallel. Most of the groups I've been in so far had this approach (even though we had a fridge in every place).
There are car cool boxes that double as tiny refrigerator - would that be a solution?
Today i tested what happens if i keep a small bottle of milk closed and unrefrigerated. At 4 in the afternoon the milk was still ok to drink, it did not curdle in the coffee but it did smell kind of funny.
@Ivana while an interesting experiment, you need to remember that there’s a difference between food safety and actually spoilt milk. The latter is a subset of the former and unfortunately not all kinds of contaminations can be detected by smell or curdling.
@Ivana: "Funny smell" is where I'd throw that milk away, if milk has been rather long outside the fridge, I'll also taste a teaspoon full first (where it can be spit out again in case): off-taste (usually bitter or sour) is another indicator that it's not good any more. In my experience, both taste and smell changes in my experience happen far earlier than curdling. Curdling of milk needs a pH below ≈ 4.5 (at 20 - 25 °C), that's rather far. BTW: as it's hard to decide whether unusually sour taste in coffee with milk is due to the milk or due to the coffee, I check the milk itself.
@Stephie: you are perfectly right. But we do have a couple of factors in our favor here: first of all, starting with UHT (or even "only" pasteurized/microfiltrated) milk, some of the really dangerous contaminants are not in the milk we stark with (thinking tuberculosis, listeria - both of them, btw. grow slowly with roughly 1 doubling per day at 20 °C compared to, say, salmonella or E coli). An urban office should be a food desert for the microbes that are of concern here, so there aren't as many of them that can get into the milk as, say, in rural settings with poultry etc. are around.
Humans also are quite good at recognizing that the milk isn't good any more many other microbes that come along but are (because we recognize the milk is bad) not of that much concern. One factor that is favorable in my office, but not necessarily in OP's: I'm north of 50 °N latitude in Europe. Unless you have some place that specifally favors flies (slaughter, farm) nearby even our summers don't favor flies as, say, a mediterranean climate does. Thus, contamination via flies bringing in E coli, salmonella, ... is not much of a problem here - this may be totally different where OP is. AC in
the office would be even better than our contitions, though as it would keep flies from coming in. One factor against having the milk over the day may be if many people in that office bring food without the possibility to refrigerate, that may favor a persistent population of microbes in that office so that food will spoil fast. And of course everyone has to decide for themselves what risks they consider acceptable and which not also considering their personal risk profile.
Insulated Stainless steel double-walled vacuum bottles, like these. Make sure to pick one with a wide mouth so that you can use a bottle brush to clean it. Just keep it out of direct sun light. Keeps cold up to 24 hours, hot up to 12 hours. Many brands, colors, sizes, configurations. No waste, reusable, will last for years. It gets really hot here in Texas and these will still have ice at the end of the day. Of course, the milk needs to be cold when you fill the bottle.
Indeed, i have one for my kid from Klean Kanteen and it keeps the inside really cool even if its only 500 ml. (Donk know why i hadnt thought of buying one for work, maybe its the price)
Use powdered milk designed to be added directly to coffee or tea. This will remove the hassle of pre-mixing your dried milk with water to form milk.
I keep a can of Coffee Mate around for this purpose. These are quite often termed as whiteners rather than powdered milk.
For coffee, it is like having heavy milk or cream added. To use, you spoon one spoonful of powder into your hot drink and stir.
In addition it's bad for you: trans-fats. https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/beverages/865282-coffee-mate-class-action-lawsuit-says-creamer-contains-trans-fat/
@GeorgeM a Milk Alternative was asked for and it qualifies at that (at least kind of).
@jcollum OP did not ask about how healthy it was and this is a cooking exchange not a health and fitness one. If we worried about health everyone would be encouraged to eat only raw vegetables and boiled chicken in every post.
This alternative was already mentioned in the question itself. Could you elaborate more about why you think this is a better alternative than other answers?
@Gretel_f I tried to indicate the key point of "designed to be added directly to coffee or tea" which makes it different to the OPs statement of having to pre-mix the dried milk with water then add it to the drink.
@TafT Health is a valid consideration, especially when alternatives are asked for. Being healthy in no way implies eating only raw vegetables and boiled chicken.
Transfats are INCREDIBLY bad for your heart. They should be avoided at all times.
"Powdered Coffee-mate is made with
coconut and palm kernel oils, so it has
saturated fat but little or no trans fat. "
Liquid Coffee Mate is bad, powdered is fine in terms of trans fat. The OP will need to weight this up when picking between specific powdered creamer brands.
The OP asked for something that didn't taste funny.
OP asked "will not taste funny around 15 o'clock, when I remove it from my home fridge at 8?" Powder Creaners will have a consistent taste from 08:00 until the end of time!
"little or no trans fat" sounds like shady lawyer-speak for "yes, there are trans fats but not many!" -- if it has zero transfats they could say that, but they aren't.
I've taken tetrapacks of almond milk on week-long backcountry camping trips. It doesn't taste like cow's milk, but it's far enough from the uncanny valley that it doesn't ruin the coffee, it just gives it a different flavour. Unopened they last like UHT milk and once opened they're good for at least a couple of days.
But even plant milks should be refrigerated after opening? At least I never came across one that didn’t state so on the packaging.
Almond milk does need to be refrigerated, but it doesn't spoil nearly as fast as regular milk. I have sometimes left a carton of almond milk out all day, and it was still good. (This is in cool weather, 60°F/15°C).
@AndyB I suspect proper handling also plays a large role. Even bottles of bacterial culture medium (literally the perfect environment for the buggers) can last a couple days on a shelf as long as you spray the lid with alcohol and only open it in a clean area. Camping is definitely not a lab environment, but almond/oat milk also isn't a culture medium...
I am going to try this, as regular milk starts to smell after a day at room temperature.
Not technically an answer to the question but a solution nonetheless...
Wean yourself off milk.
I once couldn't drink coffee without cream (I used too much), saying "no sugar is tolerable, but if there's no milk, there's no coffee."
I became frustrated over spoiled cream and wasted money. Purchasing creamer in a quart size, I couldn't use it all before well past the expiration date. The smaller pint was generally gone before it went bad, but the price was significantly higher. More annoying (shouldn't have let it bother me, but it did) was the fact that pints always seemed to have dates further in the future than quarts.
So I began using less and less cream in my coffee, and now I don't mind it black. It took a couple months of being more mindful with the dose.
The bonus is that I now consume less fat (and once a year when I go to the doctor for a checkup, I needn't abstain from coffee prior to blood work).
I still splurge now and then with a bit of almond milk (or at a coffee shop I may still get a latte), but being able to drink black coffee is far more convenient, less mess, fewer utensils to wash, less money, less fuss for friends when I'm a guest.
Most important of all, it's a tiny bit less fat every morning in my diet. Every little bit helps.
Cheers!
I really do like this answer, +1 for thinking out of the box, but i'm going with a different solution all the same.
Why thanks! Glad you liked it. What did you end up deciding?
I would say almond milk might be best. It doesn’t have the exact same taste as normal milk, but it is healthier as well!
Do not attempt to make instant pudding with almond milk. From my experience, it appears that milk's whey proteins are needed for the pudding to set. It stirs into coffee a bit funny too. This may bother you, or not. It is great for smoothies.
Nestle has a product creatively called "Coffee and Milk" which is a pre-mix of sweetened condensed milk and coffee. Available in tins or in tubes, its absolutely nothing like coffee.
Since there's nothing to chill, there's no need for a fridge. Downside is the drink is boiling hot. This stuff is also the taste of tramping/hiking trips for me.
There are other Sweetened Condensed milk products which may be more accessible, but they tend to come in cans for baking purposes. If you like the taste then its a viable alternative. And some of them recommend refrigeration after opening, so check the label.
How do you solve the problem of no refrigeration? Condensed milk will need to be stored in a fridge once the can is open - and as it’s concentrated, the asker will use even less in their coffee compared to regular milk.
@Stephie The product in the tube does not need refrigeration after opening. I was unaware the canned product was different. Will remove that part.
@Stephie: the sweet condensed milk in tubes doesn't need to be refrigerated because of the sugar (same principle as jam/marmalade: lots of hygroscopic sugar, few water available for microorganisms, so slow growth). This doesn't apply to evaporated milk without added sugar, though - so I'd always check with the label.
When I lived in China, the milk was sold in what could easily be described as a "juice box" and it was never refrigerated. Before moving there I was under the impression that milk always needed to be chilled, and this is simply not the case. As some of the answers above have mentioned it can stay at room temp. so long as it is unopened for up to 6 months (there are a few variables). However, depending on the container and the milk you are using (what % of M.F) it can stay opened for up to 8. I would have no issue, even then, tossing it into a hot cup of coffee.
Surely that's UHT milk? Many people find that tastes revolting.
Being a westerner I bought my milk from a store that carried western goods. The milk I bought was from Australia and was homogenized (only option available). I can't remember the Aussie brand anymore (I moved back to Canada 18 months ago), but I googled it and emailed them and they checked out. It was actual milk.
Homogenized isn't relevant: it just means that it's pumped through a fine mesh to make the fat globules small enough that the cream stays in the body of the milk and doesn't separate out and float to the top. Pretty much all milk sold in the UK and US these days is homogenized; probably the same goes for many other countries, too.
Also, note that even a hot cup of coffee usually isn't hot enough to kill bacteria that may be partying in your room-temperature milk.
Based on Stephen M. Webbs suggestion and cbeleites insights I experimented with a almond and oat milk, in a clean glass container.
There seem to be no problems in keeping the milk from going off during the day.
Personally i like oat-milk better than almond-milk. During the past weeks i have brought about 120 ml of oat milk with me daily without any adverse health effects or any funny changes in taste.
The glass container is a 130 ml glass bottle, easy to clean and dishwasher safe. (It was originally bought for storing breast milk.) This has benefits over a vaccuum flask in that 1) it is smaller and therefore easier to fit in a laptop bag, 2) it is easy to keep clean even for a disorganised person like me who leaves it in the bag overnight sometimes and finally 3) luke warm milk does not cool my coffee too much.
I may decide to store the bottle in a can-cooler or in an insulated lunchbox/bag, but it really does not seem neccesary.
Thanks everyone for this huge response to this particular 1st world problem.
There is no problem. Most of supermarkets stores milk in the outside of fridge. Milk shouldn't contact sunlight. You have to store it without sunlight
Most supermarkets do NOT store fresh milk outside of fridges. UHT milk, yes, but that tastes significantly different.
UTH milk containers, once opened, are also stored in a fridge. But yes sunlight will spoil milk very fast, as in under 1 hour, in my experience.
In defense of the OP, in some countries 100% of milk sold is UHT, so people who are only exposed to shops in those countries will believe milk is normally sold outside of the fridge, and having not tasted fresh milk, will also not know it tastes differently.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.601017
| 2019-07-10T08:07:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100100",
"authors": [
"AlexanderM",
"Andrew Leach",
"AndyB",
"Baldrickk",
"Chris H",
"Criggie",
"David Richerby",
"Gretel_f",
"Ivana",
"J Crosby",
"JPhi1618",
"JTP - Apologise to Monica",
"Joe",
"KarelPeeters",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Loren Pechtel",
"Luciano",
"Makyen",
"Michael Kay",
"Nobody",
"Nuclear Hoagie",
"Oxy",
"Rob",
"Spagirl",
"Stephie",
"TafT",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"cbeleites",
"gerrit",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76497",
"jcollum",
"jiggunjer",
"mbrig",
"orlp",
"stannius",
"trlkly",
"xxbbcc",
"zedmelon",
"zovits"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100300
|
What kind of vegetable has pink and white concentric rings?
What kind of vegetable is pictured here with the pink and white concentric rings? They look like they might be some kind of beet or radish.
That is a chioggia beet, I believe, but watermelon radish is also colored similarly.
The yellow and dark red slices are also different kinds of beets. Seems like a beet mix to me. :P
Those are some phat beets!
Also known as candy cane beets (because of appearance- does not taste like a peppermint stick!)
@Gretel_f - if you wouldn't mind, what are those beets?
@Alex Reinking - difficult to say, there are multiple yellow and red varieties. Check the Wikipedia article on beetroots for a rough list. The dark red one is the most common, though. Also i believe there are white ones, so the larger white slices could those. Side note: It's a bit sad to say, but those lovely rings will mostly disappear when cooking them. :( The dark red color is preserved, though.
And as a tip: when handling raw beets, especially the red ones, always wear gloves. That colorant is persistent as hell. ;) It's called betanin and is used as a natural red food colorant for example in tomato sauce or fruit juices and stuff. Consumed in large quantities it can color your urine as well. It's not toxic, though. :P just a bit shocking the first time you see it.
@Gretel_f - thanks! Maybe you could get away with pickling them without getting rid of the color?
@AlexReinking - I guess that could work. I haven't done it, though. Maybe you could ask a separate question about that. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.603660
| 2019-07-22T01:09:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100300",
"authors": [
"Alex Reinking",
"Damila",
"Doctor Jones",
"Gretel_f",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105285
|
Are the stems of rehydrated dried Shiitake usable?
The stems of the rehydrated Shiitake mushrooms are tough, even after rehydration.
In the recipes that I checked it was advised to cut and throw the stems and keep the head of the mushroom.
I want to understand why the stems of Shiitake are not eaten. Are the stems edible? Are they usable in any way?
Is there any actual known (perhaps documented) use of the Shiitake mushroom stem? Like for example a dish in Japanese Cuisine that uses stems of Shiitake Mushrooms.
They can be powdered in a spice grinder (spinning blade) and used as a thickening agent. Tastes mushroomy.
If they are so tough that they are unable to be cut, or unpleasant to eat, I use them in stocks and soups (they would have to be removed before serving).
Thank you for your answer. Did you ever find Shiitake stems that were tender and suitable for eating? Or the Shiitake stems are always tough and most certainly need to be removed?
@SpyrosK They're edible if thinly sliced, but plenty of things are edible if thinly sliced. Even young, small shiitakes have tough stems. The texture of the dish is better if only the heads are eaten. And as moscafj said, that doesn't mean the stems are wasted -- you can use them for stock.
It really depends @SpyrosK, you may get a batch with stems that are reasonably tender, or they may be very tough. You have to rehydrate them and see.
To add to the stock idea: pulverize the (dry) stems in a spice/coffee grinder. The powered version does not need refrigeration and can be added to water for broth or used as a thickener en mass, or use as an alternative to wheat flour to coat foods in some cases.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.603942
| 2020-02-12T11:39:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105285",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Sneftel",
"Spyros K",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81090",
"joynoele"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105287
|
How to use rehydrated Kombu after making Dashi?
To prepare a Miso Soup the first step is the preparation of the Dashi.
The Dashi will most certainly contain Kombu. Can the rehydrated Kombu be used in the Miso? What kind of preparation does the rehydrated Kombu need, before consuming?
Is the Kombu actually used in Miso in Japan or other sea weeds (such as Wakame) are used?
Is there any other used of the rehydrated Kombu from the Dashi preparation?
You can chop it and eat it or add to your soup, stir fry, dry and crush into a powder to use as a condiment, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.604118
| 2020-02-12T12:56:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105287",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114146
|
Storing lemon juice with crushed mint
I really enjoy grinding mint with lemon, then adding that to various drinks. I buy fresh mint but mint leaves wither pretty fast. I thought about grinding the entire mint bundle in lemon juice at once and keeping it in fridge. For how long would it be safe to store it like that?
I'd make it into ice cubes.
They'd add decorative interest too.
Fridge, maybe a week, freezer, more like 6 months.
There's a full list of storage times in How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
I would like to add that you can just freeze the mint leaves without grinding them too. Wash and dry them well, then... Put them in the freezer. If they're fresh and dry, then they won't stick together, and you can pull out as many as you like at a time.
That said, if you let the leaves thaw, they'll look and feel like they've been blanched. The water in the leaves will burst the cell walls while freezing, as surely as it would while boiling.
I've had experiences in the past where herbs + lemon juice ended up getting a kind of "pickled" taste because of the acidity of the lemon. I might just grind the mint and freeze that on its own, and freeze lemon on its own, without combining the two.
Another idea: Make a tincture/ cold infusion.
Wash and dry your lemons and mint. Dice and freeze the lemons; freeze the sprigs whole in a bag. Beat the bag about a bit to detach the leaves. Place frozen lemon chunks and frozen leaves in blender. Whiz to powder. To make a cold infusion, add water; to make a tincture, add vodka (well, not really a tincture, due to the high juice content). Whiz some more. Strain out the solids by pushing the goop from the blender through a sieve with the back of a ladle; use a muslin cloth or simply your bare hands to squeeze out the last drops from the pulp. Bottle the liquid and keep it in the fridge. Fine particles will settle out over time, yielding a clearer liquid. Add to drinks as required.
The quasi-tincture will have a long fridge-life due to its alcohol content. The infusion not so, but this can be helped by adding sugar or super-concentrated syrup at the time of bottling.
Thank you to rumtscho for helping me to improve this answer in terms of clarifying its relevance to the question, partly by expanding upon the other respondents' reasons for having suggesting alternative strategies (freezing rather than refrigerating; not combining reactive ingredients).
The answer to your question as posed (storing the two ingredients, mixed, in the FRIDGE) is about 3 or 4 days, or as Tetsujin advises, max. a week. If you're doing this often, that may be sufficient for your needs. It is worth noting, however, that the period of freshness would depend on a) the temperature setting of your fridge, b) how closely sealed the container is, and c) how much air is also inside said container (the more there is, the faster the contents will oxidise). Best strategy would therefore be to use the smallest possible container for the amount you have to store, seal it well, and keep your fridge relatively cold. Taste to test.
That said, all four answers offered so far (including this one), ultimately recommend not using a fridge but a FREEZER instead. kitukwfyer also recommends leaving your mint leaves whole until you're ready to use them, rather than crushing them, to whose prescription of making sure the leaves are fully dry (as in 'not wet', not as in 'dried herbs'-dry) when you freeze them, I'd further specify freezing them in a bag rather than in a rigid container. You can then crush them, still frozen, by whacking the bag a few times on the countertop; the leaves will detach from the stems (saving much time-consuming leaf-picking, assuming your desire for 'crushed' mint precludes the stems) and naturally crumble into a coarse powder or meal which you can then shake out easily into a glass or their other ultimate destination without them melting and turning into mush.
The ice-cubes-alternative has the advantage of making your drink sharper-tasting as the juice-cubes melt, which can be balanced by not-quite-fully-mixing any syrups you may also be adding, so the whole thing becomes more concentrated as you imbibe - the opposite of the watery dregs that sipping too slowly can leave one with when using pure ice.
I'd also second Esther's answer, which suggests storing the two ingredients separately. Different foods tend to interact, and you might end up with something more akin to salsa than cocktail aromatics.
So if 'three or four days, up to a week' doesn't meet your hopes, if you possess a freezer, and you don't mind performing the very last steps of processing your carefully-preserved ingredients at drinks-mixing time, here's what I'd do...
Lemons: Freeze them whole, fresh from the shops. Take a lemon out of the freezer and let it soften slightly (about four or five minutes). Use a very sturdy knife (not your best one!), pare off a flat bit on one side so that it sits stably on the board, and then pare off thin slices from one end. Unused lemon goes back in freezer for next time. Personally, I use the flesh, juice, peel, pith, and seeds together; you'll get more flavour (if not more acidity) from each lemon, this way. For a drink without solid particles floating about in it (besides the mint), you can use a pestle or other blunt object to muddle the parings, now fully defrosted, through a strainer to extract the juice, suffused with zesty fragrance and ultra-fresh.
Mint: Store it alive, on the plant. I know this goes a long way outside the ambit of your original question, but the more flavourful result makes it a solution worth considering. That said, the freeze-and-shake-in-a-bag method isn't bad at all, and great for dealing with large amounts at one time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.604203
| 2021-02-07T08:55:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114146",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114501
|
Flash Rust Under Wok Seasoning
This was my first attempt seasoning a piece of cookware. I used the following approach:
I scrubbed the wok down on both sides with a scouring pad and dish
soap.
I then heated the wok up and moved the wok around the flame until it
was blue all over.
I then took the wok off the heat, cooled it down with a bit of water,
and gave it another scrubbing with the scouring pad and dish soap.
I then wiped the wok off with a kitchen towel. I left it for maybe a
couple of minutes, and when I came back I noticed rust already
developing on the wok. I believe this was flash rust.
I then heated the wok up on the flame to dry it. I took the wok off
the flame and let it cool.
I then put some oil in the wok and heated it on the flame until it
was smoking to season it.
After all that, I think I have some flash rust under the seasoning. Please see the red circle in the picture. Is this rust, and does this mean I need to strip it and re-season it? If so, how could I avoid the having this happen again?
There are a myriad duplicate questions on here regarding seasoning. Looking at your pictures, you barely got one thin layer yet. Scrub it off & start over. Use your oven. A burner ring cannot get enough heat to the top edges of a wok to season properly.
Also, DON"T use a scouring pad! You scratched the heck out of the wok. Not sure it'll recover from that.
@FuzzyChef What do you recommend to use? When you say it won't recover, do you mean the current seasoning would need to be redone, or the entire wok wouldn't recover for some reason?
I mean you may have wrecked the wok, unless you want to polish the entire surface using fine-grit sandpaper followed by a butter and steel polishing compound. You really scratched it up. It's possible with hard enough seasoning you'll be able to use it normally, but it's also possible you won't.
Never, ever use scouring pads on anything softer than stainless steel.
@FuzzyChef Oh, I see. Yes, I did really scour it and there are a fair amount of scratches on the surface. In the picture, that circled "rust" (I believe it's rust, but not sure), doesn't come off when wiped. Do you think I should re-season like the previous commenter suggested, or should I simply use it to cook and build up seasoning? Thanks!
How certain are you that the stuff on the rim is rust? It looks more like congealed (but not polymerized) oil to me.
@FuzzyChef I'd say it's more likely rust than not, but I'm not sure and I'm clearly not an expert. I believe it's rust, because after I stripped the wok of its protective coating and gave it a quick wash with soap and water it started to rust almost immediately. I figured the rust would come off in the seasoning process, so I dried it on the flame and started with the first coat of oil... I'm thinking it's rust under oil, but I'm not quite sure.
Heating does not remove rust.
that does not look like rust, that looks like the metal getting heat treated, or another layer of seasoning. (It looks gold)
btw unless your wok has a hole in it, or is worn so thin as to be very close to it, you definitely have not ruined it. just season over it, it will fill in the gaps with time.
btw there are many types of steel at many different hardnesses and tempers. being stainless is unrelated to that
@FuzzyChef there are steel scouring pads and plastic ones. Are you referring to both, or just steel? The same question could also be applied to the OP.
Also, I wouldn't cool with water at any stage (except possibly by holding it upside down and pouring water over the outside). My cheap carbon steel wok rusts easily when hot and wet
On a wok, you shouldn't use any scrubby harder than bamboo. So: plastic net scrubby OK, "nonstick safe" scrubby OK, bamboo brush OK, sisal brush OK, steel wool NO, green abrasive scrubbers NO. Also, oil & salt is OK but not Barkeeper's Friend.
It's hard to tell with those lighting conditions, but no it does not look like rust.
It looks like either another layer of (partial) seasoning or the bare steel that has been partially heat tempered: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Tempering_standards_used_in_blacksmithing.JPG
Rust is a dark burgundy color and red rust in particular will wipe off with a paper towel.
If this happens to be red rust, you can just clean it off with soap and a sponge and season over it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.604681
| 2021-02-25T16:27:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114501",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"CobaltHex",
"FuzzyChef",
"Tetsujin",
"allroadbikes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91587"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114608
|
Why has my cold smoking stopped working?
I bought a cold smoke generator for a small meat smoker last year and the first go with 3 dry brined mackerel worked GREAT! But the next 4 attempts have FAILED. The meat has come out translucent and oily like lox, and tough. Not opaque and whiteish like the cold smoked mackerel I buy from my Polish baker. (I think he gets his from Canada) I thought perhaps the first batch I did succeeded because they were smaller but my last batch I fileted and got the same result. I dry brine OVER 24 hours in 1 part brown sugar and 3 parts kosher salt. Completely covered. I even tried brining TWICE on the last 2 batches.
The fish have been very fresh in all cases and my temperatures have been below 60 F in all attempts but the 2nd.
Please help. I wouldn't be so distraught if it hadn't worked PERFECTLY once, before I knew what details to pay attention to.
It sounds like you may be over-curing the fish. The salt and sugar draw water out of the fish, the longer it's applied the more is lost, and you can go too far. When I cold smoke a side of salmon it's only cured overnight, say 8-10 hours, not for a whole day. I imagine there wouldn't be much left after that.
Try reducing your dry brining time to 4 hours, then rinse, pat dry and let them dry out overnight in the refrigerator.
I had begun to wonder if that was it. Thank you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.605038
| 2021-03-05T16:13:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114608",
"authors": [
"Mitzi Fox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91728"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47558
|
Is it necessary to only boil vegetables (or chicken) or can they be pressure cooked and later be boiled for the flavour to seep in?
I was following this recipe (I've pasted it at the bottom of the question) for which the cooking time mentioned is 30 min. Although for me, it took around 45 min for the vegetables to get cooked.
Three questions:
Instead of waiting 45 min for the vegetables to get cooked, would it have been better to fry the onions in the cooking pot and meanwhile put the vegetables and some water into a cooker, wait until the first whistle, then take out the vegetables and add it to the onions in the cooking pot? I'm assuming that this would reduce the cooking time a lot, and hence save a lot of LPG gas too.
As asked above, would it be advisable to first cook chicken in a cooker before shifting it into a cooking pot for further boiling? It took me an hour to make chicken curry, starting from the onion frying, until the meat getting properly cooked.
After cooking, I noticed that the vegetable curry tasted bland. There was none of the spicy or tasty feel to it. Perhaps I added too less salt, but how exactly does one make the gravy (tomato puree was the gravy in this case) tasty? Is the salt added in-between meant to seep into the vegetables and give it a better taste or is the gravy supposed to form a greasy layer on the vegetables and give it a good taste?
The recipe
Mix Veg Recipe: Indian Mix Vegetables Recipe
AUTHOR: dassana
RECIPE TYPE: side
CUISINE: indian
PREP TIME: 20 mins
COOK TIME: 30 mins
TOTAL TIME: 50 mins
SERVES: 3
Simple and tasty recipe of mix vegetables made in indian style
INGREDIENTS
(measuring cup used, 1 cup = 250 ml)
2 cups of mix chopped veggies – cauliflower, carrots, potatoes, french beans, capsicum, peas.
1 onion chopped finely
2 tomatoes chopped finely
1 green chili chopped finely
1 tsp ginger-garlic paste
2 tsp coriander powder/dhania powder
½ tsp turmeric powder/haldi
¼ tsp chilli powder (use more if you want it to be spicy)
½ tsp garam masala powder
1 tsp cumin seeds
8-10 paneer cubes (optional)
2 cups water
2 tbsp cream or malai
2 tbsp oil
a few sprigs of cilantro/coriander leaves chopped
salt as per taste
INSTRUCTIONS
In a kadhai or thick bottomed pan, heat oil.
Add cumin seeds. Once they splutter, add the chopped onions.
Fry the onions till they become transparent.
Add the ginger-garlic paste. Fry for a minute or till the raw smell disappears.
Add the tomatoes. Keep on stirring till the tomatoes become soft and pulpy. When the mixture becomes smooth and one, then add all the spice powders mentioned above.
The process of frying the tomatoes takes a little longer. If you want to quicken the process, add some salt to the onion-tomato mixture. Fry the tomatoes on a low flame as you don’t want the tomatoes to get burnt.
Now add all the spice powders one by one.
Stir the spice powders with the onion-tomato mixture. Add the green chili.
Mix in the chopped veggies, salt and water.
Cover and let the veggies cook.
Once the veggies are semi cooked…… that is they are half cooked. Add the cream. Give a stir.
Cover again and simmer the veggies till they are done.
Don’t forget to check the veggies after occasionally.
Add more water if the water dries up and if the veggies are still to be cooked.
If using paneer, then add the paneer once the veggies are cooked. Simmer without the lid for 2 minutes.
You can also garnish mix vegetable dish with fried paneer cubes. Otherwise simply garnish with chopped coriander leaves.
Serve mix vegetables dish hot with pooris, parathas, kulcha or chapatis.
This recipe confuses me in a number of ways.
First the simplest: It calls for adding the remaining spice powders in two places, steps 5 and 7.
One of my favorite food ethnicities is Indian, and in all my years of cooking and eating it there has always (with very rare exception) been one very important rule: Cook the spices. The difference in both taste and texture is what really what makes the food.
In my opinion, this is what you should be doing: In a small skillet heat a couple of tablespoons of oil until the oil is shimmering, the add the cumin seeds and fry until they become aromatic. Add the remaining spices; coriander powder, turmeric powder, chili powder and the gharam masala and cook about 2 minutes, stirring constantly. Set this pan aside. In your cooking vessel, fry the onion and the chopped green chili until softened, then add the ginger-garlic paste, sauté just until aromatic, then add the tomato and the pan of cooked spices.
As far as your first question regarding boiling or pressure cooking the vegetables, not sure I understand why you would want to. Have you thought about cooking everything in the pressure cooker, including the chicken? If that sounds appealing then use the above method for the spices, onions and green chili, then add the veggies, water and, if using, the chicken (par-cooking the chicken can save time). This is the method I use when using a slow-cooker which should work for this.
As to question 3, go ahead and add salt at the beginning when adding the veggies, and the add more to taste after the major cooking. And yes to both of the final parts regarding the salt and the "greasy" layer (prefer the word "oily"). Adding salt early in the cooking process can make a lot of difference in both taste and texture, and the oily layer (which comes from the frying of the spices) carries a lot of flavor.
I hope this helps. Ask more if needed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.605184
| 2014-09-30T16:43:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47558",
"authors": [
"David Carr",
"Diana Riggs",
"GTO Guru",
"Jade Bonsera",
"John Letters",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162678",
"user8330904"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126348
|
How can you Shine old Chocolate
I have little hollow balls of old chocolate that I want to fill with ganache and seal. I want to keep the shape, how I can shine these?
I tried a heat gum and it looked fabulous till it dried and went dusty grey, every info I have found says to melt and redo.
How do you shine old chocolate without melting it?
is melting it and reshaping it an option, or do you want to do something while it stays solid?
Welcome to the site. This could be expanded into a great question, but we need a lot more details. For a start, what did you get when you googled this question, and how is it different from what you're looking for?
I don't. I just use it/eat it, and don't worry about shiny!
Every info I have found says to melt and redo. I wanted to keep the shape, they are little hollow balls that I can fill with ganache and seal. I tried a heat gum and it looked fabulous till it dried and went dusty grey
I heavily edited your question putting in your info from the comment. Feel free to adjust as needed.
Does this answer your question? Is there a way to add shine to a chocolate coating after it has hardened?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.605870
| 2024-01-12T20:50:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126348",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Ecnerwal",
"Kate Gregory",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99813",
"quarague",
"roylene",
"the-baby-is-you"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109169
|
how to make crumpets with bigger and more holes
I make many batches of crumpets and although they taste okay, I can't seem to get enough holes. I've tried adding bi-carb at various stages of proving, but it doesn't do anything. I've also tried Cream of Tartar. Again, it didn't work. Does anyone have any ideas.
The recipe I use is as follows:
320g flour (maida is a plain white flour available here in India)
1 tablespoon instant dried yeast
1/2 teaspoon bi-carb of soda
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon sugar
225ml warm milk
225ml warm water
Welcome! It may be a good idea to include your recipe and method in the question - sometimes a general tricky helps, sometimes a given recipe needs improvement. You can always [edit] your post. And as for all new users, I recommend you take the [tour] and browse through the [help] to learn more about how the site works.
I see you've added some information about the ingredients you used - which is very helpful, but it might help to add some information about the cooking process too (e.g. times and temperatures). Especially with crumpets, which get their bubbles through steam from cooking, it's relevant to know what process you're following there! :)
Hi Elisa, it turns out you are using a yeast dough. In that case, it is basically the same advice whether you are making bread or crumpets, so I closed it as a duplicate to the same question about bread. Don't mix soda or baking powder into yeast dough, that doesn't help.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.605995
| 2020-06-20T05:29:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109169",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84999",
"mfox",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107138
|
Does this Oat Milk have added sugar?
The label says all 7g sugar are added but there is no sugar in the ingredients.
I know oats do have naturally occurring sugars.
The brand is oat from Costco:
I've noticed the Califia Barista Oat milk brand has only 3g sugar / 240 ml.
So is there added sugar ?
Edit
Seems like this is a thing in the Oat Milk world, these guys went even further:
it is good policy to wait 24 hours or so before accepting an answer in case someone posts a better one. Mine covers the basics but someone may delve into the chemistry here.
@JamesMcLeod I was just considering writing more about this as it inadvertently raise many key points... but I feel it might be overkill.
@josh you should. The answer took me completely by surprise, and I think people would like to know a bit more - I know I would.
i would like to remind everybody to read the whole question before answering. Answers which simply repeat what the ingredient list says, or what the nutrition facts say, without addressing the apparent discrepancy, will be deleted as not addressing the question.
They are from the oats, which contain no sugar as a raw ingredient. Processing them to make milk converts some of the starch to sugar, so it is counted as added sugar as it does not appear in the raw ingredient.
From an article entitled Oatly challenged over “no added sugars” claim:
... the enzymatic process it uses to create its base oat milk (water + oats) effectively “creates sugars in situ” by breaking down oat starch into simple sugars. ... All oats in an oat beverage are processed, therefore all the naturally occurring sugars in the final product are considered added.
The same article provides an update about this from the FDA specific to the Nutrition Facts Label:
In our Nutrition Facts Label Q&A guidance issued in November 2017, we addressed sugars created through processes such as hydrolysis: When an ingredient containing mono- and disaccharides that are created through controlled hydrolosys... is added to a food during processing, those mono- and disaccharides contributed by the ingredient need to be declared as added sugars on the label.
The other answer is correct, but it should be noted that it is not the processing inherent to making oatmilk that breaks these starches into sugars, it's extra processing, as they noted, through enzymes. In my experience, Pacific foods oatmilk is by far the sweetest oatmilk, even though they also have no sugar ingredient. Different sugar levels from almost none to cloying can be had from just the oats, so I guess you just have to check the nutrition facts every time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.606146
| 2020-03-29T17:09:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107138",
"authors": [
"James McLeod",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"josh",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107682
|
What is this celery like vegtable?
We found this at a local food bank, and couldn't resist but have no idea what it is. We live in the bay area of California, so there are any number of communities it could have come from. Any help is appreciated :)
In response to comments, I'll give sensory description of the vegetable. There is little smell. The stalks are hollow inside, and crunchy with none of the stringiness of celery. The flavor is light and bitter and reminds me a lot of dandelions.
What does it smell / taste like?
Where in the world are you?
It is an asparagus chicory, or more formally known as Puntarelle. They are grown in Rome and in Italy. They are similar to endives and have that bitter taste. A famous dish that uses it is Puntarelle alla Romana, a salad with anchovies and the asparagus chicory. It is quite hard to find outside of Italy, surprised you found it in California. Enjoy it!
Thank you very much, look forward to trying the salad tonight :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.606488
| 2020-04-17T23:37:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107682",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83575",
"myklbykl",
"nedlrichards"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109059
|
Fruit yogurt tastes chalky
I made an experiment today making mango yogurt by adding mango puree BEFORE incubation. I used canned mango, pureed and strained it to eliminate fibers. I also added in the mixture condensed milk and powdered milk to increase protein. My yogurt was firm, thick and sour with mango flavor but it tasted chalky.
I'm not sure it was due to mango or powdered milk since I haven't used powdered milk in making yogurt as well and I added a quite large amount of it?
One more thing, I used skimmed milk without lactose and plain yogurt as culture.
"Tastes chalky" is a somewhat broad description. Was the problem the texture, or the aroma, or just a generally perceived "dryness" without the texture feeling actually gritty?
The texture was not creamy and smooth as usual but it was actually similar to apple puree but a bit thicker... (it's hard for me to describe!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.606598
| 2020-06-15T10:10:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109059",
"authors": [
"Sean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83760",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45007
|
What are recommendable coffee roast types for Aeropress?
Many tutorials on brewing coffee with the aeropress cover the optimal water temperature, water volume/weight, grind, for making a decent cup of coffee.
What none of them seem to cover is what type of roast is recommendable (dark roast/light roast) or what coffee bean type (Arabica or Robusta/Arabica mixture) is well suited for the Aeropress.
For example, the compression of the result suggests that Espresso beans/powder may be suitable, which are fairly darkly roasted, but fine ground when bought as powder. Then there is the standard coffee powder, which is medium ground and medium roasted. And finally there are also special Mokka coffee powders available, which are coarse ground but dark roasted.
What I can tell so far is that a medium/coarse ground, medium/light organic roast coffee powder tastes not so well in the Aeropress despite the fact that filter coffee made with it is actually quite OK.
Note that concrete brands listed here probably would not help (me), unless they are available in central Europe. Others may find them useful, though.
Coffee taste is indeed subjective. However, there are some things you can look for since the added pressure (versus drip) can force extraction of flavours you don't like. Below are some of the drivers (Disclaimer, I don't use the Aeropress):
Oily beans: Towards the end of the roasting process the coffee oil can seep out (sweat) and you end up with beans that look wet. This may turn out ok taste with drip coffee, not so much for espresso types.
Roast Colour: Drip coffee roasts tend to actually be darker and most espresso roasts are usually lighter in colour (see illy or LaVazza Oro). This may be to compensate for the forces of added pressure extracting deeper and more into the bean. There are exceptions to this (Bar Mexico in Naples uses dark roast but on a manual lever machine).
Bean Type: Aeropress might handle some robusta (similar to Muka) as opposed to pure Arabica. More than 40% and imo your coffee will taste like earth.
Grind Size: Each bean type and locale and roast level will require minute grinder setting changes. You can make the best roasted beans taste awful with the wrong grind. Try varying your grind from fine to super fine and experiment. Usually the higher pressure requires finer grind with the exception of turkish coffee.
Dosage: To the get right extraction, a balance of pressure, grind size, and dosage is required. Good cafes measure their dosage to ~0.1gram when setting their grinder. If you find the coffee starting to clear up too fast in your extraction try increasing the dose.
To answer my own question a bit, one recommendable combination seems to be a medium-dark Espresso roast as fine ground powder, and then to brew for a short time.
Perhaps this helps others as a starting point for experimentation.
Roast level is almost entirely a matter of preference. You will most certainly be extracting different flavors from the coffee, because different compounds develop through caramelization during the roasting process. Otherwise, that doesn't affect how the coffee brews.
The Aeropress is suitable for just about any coffee that you care to brew with it. You can use whatever roast tastes best to you.
Thanks for your answer, logophobe. The original tone of my question was a bit altered when it is was edited from "what are recommendable beans" to "which beans are recommended". I was actually looking for good starting points - because the roast/grind combination that I started with myself yielded bad coffee.
Having used the AeroPress for about 5 years, I can agree with logophobe that it works with any kind of roast, any bean. I'll adjust the brewing time (10-30 sec), water temperature (80 C for dark roast, 85 C for lighter roast is recommended), and dilution to achieve the results I want. I like an “automatic drip” grind because it drains fast, allowing good control over the time the water is on the grounds.
I don't believe pressure is a factor here. The AeroPress needs only a little bit of pressure to work - https://www.javapresse.com/blogs/aeropress/can-aeropress-make-espresso says 0.35-0.75 bar (they reference the AeroPress website, but I can't find that info there), which they call 25-50 pounds (that may be an error - when I do the calculation, I get 5-10 psi), but it's up to the user. I feel like it's barely more than the weight of my hand. It takes more pressure if you use a finer grind though. An espresso machine, by comparison, uses about 9 bar (https://aeropress.com/faq/does-the-aeropress-make-real-espresso/).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.606718
| 2014-06-20T08:45:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45007",
"authors": [
"Carlos Feliciano",
"DCTLib",
"Dennis Von Busch",
"Garrison Tan",
"Jeanee Kurtz",
"Malaysian News",
"Neil",
"Nikki Tomlinson",
"Pammy Poo",
"Sandra Hubbard",
"Sofi Juang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25521",
"user107044"
],
"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
}
|
128455
|
Why is my casserole all watery?
The following is a casserole recipe (I don't know where from). The last attempt came out of the oven and was quite watery after resting for 15 minutes. I'm aiming for a casserole that has a rich, gravy-like texture.
Here's the recipe/method I'm using (I'm just an everyday home cook). I'm using a 30cm cast iron frypan with lid, but keeping the lid off.
Dice 3 carrots, 3 celery sticks and 2 large onions.
Add olive oil in the pan and cook vegetables on a medium-high heat to caramelize. Season with salt, pepper, rosemary.
Sear appox. a dozen (1.7kg) chicken drumsticks in a second frypan. Put aside.
Sauté white button mushrooms in the second pan to remove water. Add to vegetables.
Add 1/2 bottle of red wine to the vegetables and reduce for approx. 5 mins.
Add a tin (400ml) of diced tomatoes and 500ml of beef stock.
Add one heaped teaspoon of horseradish and one heaped teaspoon of dijon mustard.
Add 2 heaped desert spoons of standard flour. I use a strainer and whisk to add the flour via sifting and avoid clumps.
Simmer to reduce down for approx. 5-10mins. At this point the consistency is not as thick as I'd like, but close. My expectation is that it would thicken or reduce further in the oven.
After reducing for a bit, add the chicken drumsticks, ensure they're settled well into the dish.
Place into the oven, uncovered, and bake for 90 minutes at 160°C (320°F).
Take out of the oven and rest covered for 15 minutes before serving.
After this, the consistency is watery and doesn't have the thick, rich, gravy-like consistency I'd expect out of a Chicken Bourguignon or Coq au Vin.
The consistency coming out of the oven is actually much worse than when it went in.
I'd previously cooked with the lid on, but got much the same result. I baked with the lid off this time hoping it would help it reduce but it didn't.
I'd cooked the same recipe before but using lamb shoulder chops and leaving in the oven for longer, like 2.5 hours. I'd observed that it seems like the longer you leave it in the oven the more watery it gets?!
What am I doing wrong?
How many mushrooms did you use (approximately)? How much did you sauté them/ how much volume did they loose after sauté and how much more after the oven? The only other potential source of water I see would be the meat.
@quarague I also see half a bottle of wine in the recipe, as well as canned diced tomatoes and half a liter of beef stock. Honestly, this recipe looks like a soup to me, rather than something that I would call a "casserole". Though perhaps casserole means something different outside of American English?
Reducing half a liter of wine for 5 minutes probably won't accomplish much, ditto for the tomatoes (mostly water) and stock. IMHO you should be reducing it to a certain volume/consistency. Figure out the time needed from your own circumstances.
@XanderHenderson Can you suggest more appropriate volumes for these liquids? Am I better off adding less volume to start with or reducing for longer? Maybe I will reduce with lid off on the stove and cook the casserole that way instead of putting in the oven. Thanks.
It seems to me that @DanMašek gave you good advice on this. It isn't necessarily about how much liquid you use, but that you aren't cooking it down enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.607112
| 2024-06-02T21:45:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128455",
"authors": [
"Dan Mašek",
"DaveO",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114901
|
Could I use a sous vide rack for cooking lasagna in boiling water?
I enjoy cooking my lasagnas in boiling water before using them in the pan. I am perfectly aware that putting a little oil in the boiling water helps avoiding the noodle to stick together. But I cook rather large and thick organic lasagnas noodles and I never really managed to avoid the two following issues:
the noodles will still stick together;
the noodles fall on the bottom of the pot making the water suddenly boil with unexpected bigger bubbles;
I usually cook 5 noodles only in the same pot, and need to do it three times in order to get 15 noodles for my recipe.
Then I discovered the following picture:
and while I couldn't find the very same tool anywhere on the web, I finally discovered a cooking tool called "sous-vide rack", some of them being circular:
(other models here)
I don't know exactly what they are made for, but I would like to know if it would be safe to use them for keeping lasagnas noodles in a vertical position in boiling water for 5 minutes. I understand that this tool is intended to be used with some water, but I am not sure the water is intended to be boiling water (I mostly ask about the temperature and the material), and while I don't see much reason why I couldn't use it for my purpose, I prefer asking before purchasing one.
Certainly safe, particularly if they are stainless...but will the sheets stay in place during the boil?
@moscafj Difficult to be sure before trying... As I said, I usually cook thick and rather heavy lasagnas; I didn't notice they would move much except for falling at the bottom of the pot (making the water boil more which could make them move at that time), but if I try to keep them vertical with some ustensil, they generally stick to the side of the pot without moving much.
What do you mean by "safe", what dangers are you afraid of? Also, I couldn't imagine boiled lasagna sheets staying upright, they would surely fall within the wide-ish rack to clump together?
Adding oil to the water does nothing, it's a waste of good oil.
There are no metals used in cooking that can go in hot water but not boiling water.
While metal racks for sous vide aren't meant to contact food directly they're still cooking equipment, and should still be made of food-safe materials (e.g. common culinary grades of stainless steel).
From a safety point of view I'd have no concerns at all.
Whether these racks would be much help is another matter. The upper picture shows the lasagne sheets sitting on flat shelves. I'd expect them to stick a bit; this is one time oil might help but you'd have to apply it to each layer of the rack. The second picture only has a few slots available, so the sheets would be prone to sticking together.
A stainless toast rack (example from Amazon US, not a recommendation except it's about the right shape) would also work. Do be sure to buy one that's stainless steel and not chrome plated; the plating tends to flake off at the welds before long
You can cook pasta slightly below boiling, especially when you're only par-cooking as in lasagne. What I do if I need to precook lasagne is this case is: fill a jug (sized so the sheets sit on end) with boiling water; add the sheets one by one to make sure plenty of water gets between them; briefly microwave (perhaps 2x1 minute bursts). Par-cooked like this they stick a little to each other but no problematically so.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.607404
| 2021-03-20T17:05:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114901",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"ItalienChief",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91994",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19513
|
Why is my brining giving varied and usually poor results?
I am trying to brine a chicken and then cook it in a soup. I just can't seem to do it properly and have noticed varying results for reasons I cannot figure out. My basic method is: add 1.5l spring water to pot, add 30 grams of sea salt and mix until dissolved, add 1kg whole chicken (whole or small pieces), refrigerate for 6-12 hours (usually 12), then cook. I have noticed the following things, please kindly explain why I may be getting varying results and what I may be doing wrong.
I notice that if I cut the chicken into eight small pieces these do not brine well at all compared to a 4 piece cut or a whole chicken. This is even after using high salt and plenty of time. When using high salt parts of the chicken come out extremely salty however other parts do not and these parts look raw/red/pink which I think suggests the brine didn't go far enough. I am guessing this is because brining works on chicken surfaces (perhaps this is where the pores are) and with small pieces the inner chicken is exposed. Having said that, most recipes say you can brine small pieces in 1-2 hours. Why doesn't it work for me?
Even when I do a whole chicken or 4 pieces, despite giving it 8-12 hours, sometimes there are raw looking parts in the leg pieces, any idea why? Also although the rest of the chicken seems to have been reached i.e. is white although it is not juicy and tender. Any idea why?
On one day I brined a chicken with 17 grams salt and only 5 hours, a leg piece came out perfectly, another leg piece OK and the breast didn't. Why on this day did one piece come out great whereas other pieces didn't? Even on other days I double or triple the salt and time yet I haven't been able to get the same result.
In thinking about the cause for the above I wondered:
does the container need to be air tight to brining to be effective?
does water temperature(room/refrigerator/0c) make a difference to actual brining itself?
does there have to be plenty of space between chicken parts in the brine or if they overlap a bit?
If I use higher salt and what more salt absorption, should I simply leave it to brine longer i.e. longer then 12 hours?
Suppose I do a high brine chicken, I then throw away the water and make a new pot with water and say 4 grams of salt, I then add the chicken and cook the soup. Will salt come out of the chicken and go into the water or will it stay in there?
Apologise for so many questions, I'm just trying to give as much info as possible. Hope somebody will kindly answer. I brine everyday and can hardly seem to get a good brined leg on any day.
In response to peoples comments*
Thank you for your responses. To clarify a few things, firstly I am brining and then cooking as a soup(boiling then simmering). I have to do this because I have a stomach ailment and I am intolerant to greasy foods(grill/oven) and stews(due to onion and vegetable intolerance). Strange as it sounds, my stomach is so weak that I am also intolerant to proteins that haven't absorbed a lot of salt e.g. chicken in chicken soup. The only food I can tolerate is protein that is salted quite well e.g. salted, plump,
tender and juicy as with brined chicken. This is why I am doing brined chicken soup only!
There are no red spots rather after cooking the soup I notice areas/flesh where discoloration(brown, purple,red) is present throughout parts of the flesh. I am sure the chicken is being cooked well(have cooked a lot of soups) however the colours seem
more like flesh which the brine hasn't penetrated otherwise it would become white like the rest of the chicken. I have noticed this to be more present when in pieces e.g. small cut chicken or leg pieces rather then breasts.
On the next try I will boil my salt first, however I had been stirring with a spoon until all salt visibly dissolved so don't know if this is the cause.
I have increased salt for testing purposes, on such days the brining does improve however I still notice the raw looking flesh in certain parts of the chicken. When doing a whole chicken, the problem is present usually in the leg rather then the breasts which come out good.
The chicken I use are actually quite small 1kg or slightly above and these are covered by 1.5l of water.
Somehow your post reads like you are expecting for the brine to penetrate into the meat and think that the differences in a baked chicken are due to brining irregularities. Is this what you mean, or did I understand you wrong? For example, "parts look raw/red/pink" in 1. - do you mean spots within the chicken after it has been baked, or spots on the chicken surface before it has been baked?
I've always understood the wanted result of brining as bringing water into meat to make it more juicy - and that it's best achieved using 6% salt/water solution. So maybe you are looking for the wrong results. Then again, I might be wrong ;)
@rumtscho: I think the OP is simmering or boiling the chicken (in a soup), not baking. The question remains the same, though - are you cooking it consistently?
Grilling should not be greasy... it is a no-fat cooking method and if you use lean meats (e.g. chicken breast) then there is practically nowhere for the grease to come from. Based on your update, I still think you're wasting your time brining the chicken; salt the broth, not the meat. You can also buy kosher chickens which will have already been salted (not brined).
FYI - the pink you are referring to is actually the opposite of what you think - it's an indication of the brine interacting with the flesh. Well-brined poultry is going to have a slightly pink hue when cooked. The Cook's Illustrated Brining Guide (linked below) is excellent and has always given me good, consistent results.
The brine in the above scenario is too weak however even if you made it stronger you would not see the results you wanted. The reason for this is because brines do not work when cooking soups because the salt comes out with boiling. Brines work for dry heat methods e,g grilling, roasting.
The reason you are seeing different results is because your chicken is absorbing salt due tp a dfferent factor. It could be the chicken had a lot of ice crystal damage to start with.
I suspect that the biggest problem here is that your brine isn't anywhere close to being strong enough. Cooks Illustrated has a good guide to the entire process but in a nutshell:
Sea salt is expensive and inefficient for brining; the impurities actually make it more difficult to dissolve and disperse properly. Kosher salt is generally recommended, although table salt is also fine.
A typical brine is 1/4 cup table salt and 1/2 cup sugar per quart, which translates to about 70 g and 140 g respectively per L. For very high-heat methods (grilling/broiling), you halve the amounts. Also, for kosher salt you need to double the volume (no change if measuring by weight). Even the lower, high-heat cooking concentration is almost twice as concentrated as what you're doing.
You also need to scale the amount of brine with the weight of the bird itself. The rule of thumb is 1 quart or L per pound (2.2 kg) of meat. For a whole chicken, which is generally around 6 or 7 pounds, 1.5 L of brine is nowhere near enough, especially if you're brining in a pot as opposed to a bag (does your 1.5 L even cover the chicken?).
It doesn't really matter if you butcher the chicken first (although most people don't). You're exposing slightly more surface area that way but not really enough to matter.
Make sure you are actually dissolving all the crystals! From what you're describing, you're getting high concentrations of salt in some areas and none in others. That means you didn't get proper dispersion. You really need to make sure that all of the salt (and sugar, if you're using any) is completely dissolved, otherwise you don't have a "brine", you have water with a bunch of little piles of salt. Some people will suggest heating or even boiling your brine to ensure proper dissolution; just make sure you let it cool off afterward if you do this, before submerging the bird.
In answer to your specific questions:
The container should be well-sealed to prevent evaporation, not to mention off-odours in your fridge. However, I've used pots with loose-fitting lids and had no problems. It doesn't make a huge difference as far as the efficacy of the brine.
Fridge temperature is ideal. Do not even think about using room-temperature water, that is highly unsafe for storing raw meat for 6-8 hours at a time.
As long as you don't overcrowd the vessel and do disperse the crystals properly, the actual amount of space is not a major issue. If it's exposed, it's exposed.
Longer than 12 hours is not recommended. Actually, according to CI, longer than 8 hours is not recommended. Don't overdo it - you're brining, not marinating.
No matter how you cook any piece of meat, it will give up a certain amount of water and therefore a certain amount of salt (from the brine). Left unstated is why you would even consider boiling a brined chicken; brining is primarily a technique for dry-heat cooking (roasting/grilling), and if you want to boil/poach/braise/whatever then you should be focusing more on flavouring the cooking liquid than the meat itself. I wouldn't bother brining if you're making chicken soup, there are better ways to flavour that.
A quick way to cool boiled brine is to make the brine double strength (e.g., 12% if your goal is 6%), and then after boiling, cool it with ice (equal in weight to the water, thus halving the brine strength). Boiling is also nice if you want to steep thyme, rosemary, etc. in the brine.
For smaller chicken pieces I've always heard that 2 hours is the max, which is way less than 6-12.
@Aaronut provided an excellent answer addressing all of your points about brining, but as his comment on #5 indicates it doesn't sound like brining is your problem. If your method of cooking the chicken is boiling it for a soup then brining isn't necessary. The purpose of brining is to keep the meat from getting dried out during cooking, which will not happen if it is submerged in broth and simmered gently until done. A secondary purpose of brining is to bring out flavors, but again in a soup your broth should have salt, vegetables, and spices, so the brine is unnecessary.
Brining does not cook the meat, nor will it significantly change cooking speed (whatever the cooking method), so if "there are raw looking bits in the leg pieces" you do need to cook it longer, but your brine is not the problem. If I'm misinterpreting, please do edit your question to indicate (a) your cooking method, (b) how the results are disappointing (flavor, saltiness, done-ness, texture, moisture level?).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.607720
| 2011-12-08T17:20:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19513",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ann Shihan",
"Cascabel",
"Max",
"Nancy Kurstin",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2",
"Terry Proveau",
"derobert",
"gerrit",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69040",
"justkt",
"mshildt",
"rumtscho",
"user3583166"
],
"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
}
|
91518
|
Is there a special reason why dry rubs are meant to work with grilling over other cooking methods?
I notice that dry rubs are meant to work best with grilling.
Why is this the case, why can't they work well with something like frying?
Well, if you deep-fried something with a dry rub:
all the oil-soluble flavors would dissolve into the fry oil. You lose your flavor, and also probably greatly shorten the life of the oil. (How long you can use it before it starts smoking and/or imparts a bad flavor).
a lot of the rub would wind up falling off and making mess at the bottom of the pot/fryer. (A fryer with a cold zone at the bottom would probably be OK, but most things you're using at home to fry isn't going to be — will surely start burning on the bottom of the fryer). Compare to how in a smoker or grill, if some falls of, its not really a problem.
BBQ dry rubs are often fairly sugar-heavy, would probably brown way too fast and ultimately it'd either burn or you'd have to pull the food out before it was cooked through.
If instead you mean pan-fry, shallow-fry, etc., then the latter two will still happen.
You can use a dry rub with other cooking techniques: for example, roasting in a moderate to low oven or slow-cooking in a crock pot. (The amount you use, especially in a crock pot, would be different). Ideally, with all these low-and-slow cooking methods, the flavor from the rub has a chance to penetrate; it wouldn't with a fast method like frying.
And even with fast cooking methods, you can do something similar; e.g., salt and pepper on meat before throwing it in the saute pan is sort of a dry rub. And when pan-frying, it's pretty common to put spices in the breading or binder.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.608522
| 2018-08-07T15:11:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91518",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4312
|
How do I make my cheese "crackers" less greasy?
To provide my diabetic guests with a low-carb option for dipping, I make cheddar cheese "crackers" by melting small mounds of cheddar on a silpat at 400° F. Once the cheese has started to bubble very slowly, I remove them, dab them with a towel to remove excess grease, and then place them on paper towels or brown paper, flipping them once, to cool and wick away additional grease. Not surprisingly, the crackers are always very greasy even with the dabbing/wicking.
What could I add to the shredded cheese to make the crackers less greasy without dramatically increasing their carbohydrate count, and how much of that ingredient should I use (assuming two cups of cheddar per "recipe")? In lieu of adding anything to the cheddar, is there an ingredient with which I could dust the crackers to help cut down their greasiness without dramatically increasing their carbohydrate count?
Real cheese crackers are always going to be a little greasy. You can reduce this by using a lower fat cheese like mozzarella.
I think you'd benefit by adding some flour to absorb some of the oil. Try starting with a 1/4 to 1/3 ratio of flour to cheese. From what I understand, whole wheat, whole grain, and oat flour are much more friendly to diabetics. You could even try something exotic like mesquite or yellow pea flour.
I'd first try experimenting with different cheeses; different brands or ages of cheese may behave differently. You can also try hard cheeses, as I've made something similar with hard grating cheeses (parmesean, pecorino romana).
Also, how you buy your cheese may be significant; many packaged pre-shredded cheeses contain cornstarch to reduce clumping, which might help to reduce the 'greasiness' of the final item (although adding carbs).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.608789
| 2010-08-05T08:26:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4312",
"authors": [
"Explorer",
"Hicham",
"dku.rajkumar",
"froderik",
"fuz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8405"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18770
|
What electronic tools are recommended for a cooking journal?
I am embarking on a project to cook every recipe in the "The Bread Baker's Apprentice: Mastering the Art of Extraordinary Bread" cookbook. I would like to maintain a cooking journal, something similar to a lab book, to document my observations as I attempt each recipe. The objective is to prefect my bread making method. I prefer electronic methods of maintaining the journal for efficient referencing.
Cooking-specific software recs might not be off topic here, but this one seems rather broad - there are tons of things that'll let you keep notes.
For simply a time investment, you can use one of the free blogging services (blogger is pretty popular).
I've found Evernote (www.evernote.com) to be the best, simply because it is everywhere. It supports basic features like tagging, and can adapt to most every use case you can throw at it.
And it's free!
For a windows user, I recommend notepad++ !
I maintain my notebook for my biochem lab work on Google Docs. I keep a narrative of-sorts in a document and use links that point at spreadsheets containing more numeric data. Pictures can be uploaded and stored separately in a collection (folder) or inserted into the document directly.
I recommend iPad and writing notes on it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.608974
| 2011-11-05T02:34:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18770",
"authors": [
"BonnieJ",
"Cascabel",
"Joe Basirico",
"a20",
"gurby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40765",
"technophobia"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1999
|
Which foods are high in umami?
Which foods are high in umami ("savoriness") and how can I cook them to maximize the umami taste?
Seems kind of open-ended to me... I'm not really sure how people are supposed to answer this.
you are probably right Aaronut, I saw it mentioned in another post and it got me wanting to know...
Too broad to be really answerable.
Shall I delete this? There are no votes to close yet....
I don't think you'll be able to delete it with upvoted answers. I guess it's okay, as a wiki; at least it introduces a concept that some people may not know [much] about. 'Course, the entire thread needs to be wikified, not just the question.
Umami comes from a very specific source: Glutamates and glutamic acid. MSG is a glutamate, so it is one of the best ways to add a bit of umami.
Meat, Kombu seaweed (used to make Dashi, and hence Dashi), mushrooms, onions, cheeses, soy and other beans, most high-protein foods.
Here is a quick list. Most are prepared foods, but it should give you an idea.
Second ingredient in most bouillons, after salt, is MSG.
Marmite / Vegemite contain autolyzed yeast extract, which is a very high source of umami. These spreads are therefore also great for bringing out savory flavours.
Anchovies
Parmesan cheese
Fish
Meat
The insides of Tomato's are high. Heston Blumanthal has a recipe for Tomatoe Ketchup that makes use of this.
Salting tomatoes really brings it out, too.
Miso. Yummy, too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.609134
| 2010-07-19T14:03:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1999",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Charlotte j Gates",
"ChrisP",
"Eileen Wounded Shield",
"JSBձոգչ",
"Nathan",
"Nicki Wrighton",
"Roseann Gomez",
"Sam Holder",
"Shekhar",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"ceejayoz",
"david robb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"yeradis"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55441
|
Does 100% rye sourdough bread always have a sticky crumb? How do I make it stick to the knife less?
Every time I make a 100% rye sourdough, it sticks to the knife when I cut it even after letting it sit for a day before cutting. Is this normal? I have tried to vary the hydration ratio a bit, but it still behaves the same way. Is there some "additive" to make it less sticky? Is it a must to add wheat for that?
The sourdough starter I maintain is simple: 2 cups of flour and 2 cups of water.
I dissolve malt syrup, molasses, salt, and spices in a warm .5-1 cup of water. Then I add starter, 4 cups of flour, mix it and transfer right away into loaf pan. AFAIK there is no need to fold 100% rye bread and it raises fast. I bake it at 350˚F for slightly over an hour. I sometimes use Nu Wave infrared oven (40 min), but the very bottom is not quite crispy.
The final bread looks and tastes good. But that stickiness on the knife and rolled "crumbs" are driving me crazy. Is there something I can do to minimize it?
I heard that an over-proofed starter can help lower pH; helping pentosans keep bread structure and making them absorb less water. I tried making the bread with a well proofed starter, but it made no difference. Do I have not enough starter for that amount of flour? Shall I move some flour there to prevent pH from raising much?
Here is the pic to get an idea. It is not the best one to show the issue. The bread is almost a week old and the issue is not as acute. For 1 day old bread, it sticks incredibly.
Tried kneading a bit of flour into the dough just prior to loaf formation? The less hydrated flour may be able to pick up some of the moisture that the other starches haven't completely locked in yet. An other option may be changing the amount or type of sugar you're using to prime the yeast in the levain.
Normally this happens to me with breads that I haven't left finishing baking or cooling all the way. Are you sure you're not pulling the loaf out too early?
If it's not an issue of doneness, you might see if slashing the loaf helps. (it might let more moisture escape in the time it takes to bake)
Baking for longer can help. If your outside is getting to be overdone and the inside is still not cooked it is usually one of two things. Excessive hydration or the loaf is too large.
One cause of gumminess in 100% rye breads is excessive starch degradation related to amylase enzyme actions. Amylase action is slowed down by increasing acidity. You can increase the acidity by adding a small amount of lemon juice or cream of tartar to your dough as described here.
In his books "Whole Grain Breads" and "Crust and Crumb", Peter Reinhart comments that you can use ascorbic acid (1/8 tsp / 125 mg per loaf) to increase acidity and inhibit both amylase and protease activity.
Since rye bread doesn't have significant gluten for structure, but instead relies completely on starches and pentosans, it is imperative to let the loaf cool completely before cutting it so that the starches crystallize and the gums solidify.
I've had this problem as well and also read the same information you present. My sourdough ryes are usually very sour but it takes a while for the dough to acidify during which, the enzyme is active. Should the dough be acidified early before the dough ferments?
@Sobachatina I don't know what kind of starter you're using, but you can try doing an all-rye starter and making your final dough with a large percentage of the starter. That way you'd be adding a lot more acid and already-acidified rye.
Bake longer.
If the outside is getting overdone when you bake longer, bake longer at a lower temperature (usually first 10-15 minutes hottest for maximum spring, then turn down as needed so the inside is done without the outside being burnt.)
Perhaps 350F for 15 min and then 325 for an additional hour and 15 (90 total), if the top is as black as it seems to be in the picture from an hour at 350F (sugars in there, so that makes sense - can't be too hot for too long with molasses, malt, etc. in the dough.) That's a starting guess, adjust as needed depending on results.
There's no need to add malt, especially not diastatic malt. No molasses or any other sugar either. Because proper rye has an enormous amount of starch attacking enzymes, needs enough sourdough to inactivate them and sets free an abundance of sugar for the yeasts. So there's more than enough nutrition and yeast activity is higher than in wheat, the capability of holding trapped gas bubbles is lower. Any surplus of sugar leads to that gumminess!
In a 100 % rye you should give in 35 % of all the flour into the levain build. If you are able to do a well made 3-stage sourdough it will be very mild and you can increase the amount of pre-fermented flour to 45 %.
Another point: mixing! It's an old opinion to give the dough only a short mix. Recent developments in breadmaking showed only a long slow mixing will fully develop the doughs structure. If you have a machine give it a slow 35 minutes. If you do it by hand give it three times a good mixing, with a few minutes break in between. Good luck!
(further reading: Hamelman, "Bread" and Kräling, "Brot")
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. Try using formatting to break up monolithic answers like this. Multiple paragraphs and other tools like bullets will draw more readers to your answers. Also, link your references to outside sources (your books).
Your bread looks good in the photo. Rye is notoriously sticky, and when cut goes gummy if not completely cool, but two things I find very helpful are:
After turning off the heat, and removing it from the tin, leave it in the still warm oven to dry out for at least 12 hours, with the door open slightly so moisture can escape.
Dip the knife into a jug of water between each slicing.
Preheat your oven Along with a covered Dutch oven, then bake in the covered Dutch oven for half of the recommended time and uncover for the latter half to crisp and color your bread.
Try steaming it instead of baking.
Without any instructions, I'm not seeing this answer as very helpful. Can you flesh it out?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.609346
| 2015-03-06T07:56:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55441",
"authors": [
"Derpy",
"Edna Lemonds",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Joan Ella",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lesley Robertson",
"Lisa Ellis",
"Little White Lithe",
"Mariam Sacko",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Stephen Keyser",
"Terra Cupp",
"Terry Bohlmann",
"hasan durmishi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"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
}
|
92763
|
Yo-yo/custard cookies cracking
Any advice on why my yoyo biscuits keep cracking on the surface like this would be much appreciated.
So far I've tried changing the flour (different protein level and using both self raising and plain), butter (different milk fat percentage), custard powder (brand), the temperature, baking time and how much i'm mixing the biscuit dough.
This is the recipe I'm using:
170g butter
60g pure icing sugar
170g Self raising flour
60g custard powder
Suggested baking temperature is 120°C but I've tried from that up to 180°C.
The recipe says to cream the butter and icing sugar, then to mix in the flour and custard powder in small batches. Then roll biscuits into balls and push down with a fork. It then says to bake from 50-60 minutes. I don't think this is happening because the dough in too dry because it's only on the surface and I can rub it off.
Hopefully someone can help me with this :)
Hi Lily and Welcome! Aren't you supposed to form into balls and press with a fork before baking?
Hi Cindy, thanks :) I rolled each one into 9 gram balls before pressing with a fork to make a domed top flat bottom shape. Although in the photo the fork marks are hidden in the cracking
I was asking because, in your question, you say the instructions are to bake 50 - 60 minutes and then form the balls and flatten with a fork. That seems backwards.
For the batch in the photo I used an all purpose flour because originally it ask for a cream of tartar based self raising flour, but I changed to all purpose because I thought the cream of tartar might have been causing the cracking.
Sorry Cindy, didn't realise I'd written it the wrong way round. I roll then flatten with a fork before baking them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.609875
| 2018-10-09T14:23:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92763",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Lily",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69721"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50486
|
Do you need to rinse liver?
I got into an argument about liver when I saw someone boil a tub of chicken livers by pouring the entire contents of the tub (blood) into a pot without rinsing the liver. I always though that the rinse was required for health reasons (and to also improve the flavor.) The other person insisted that she preferred the flavor of liver when it is prepared in this manner. I think she may be getting defensive about her cooking methods, but is this a safe practice? Is rinsing required or just preferred?
I like my liver rinsed, but is there anything unhealthy that could make me sick if I just dump the tub (straight from the store) into the pan an cook it all (this is how my girl friend insists on cooking liver.)
I can't speak to health reasons (and we don't answer health related questions on SA) but, as for taste, rinsing chicken livers can be quite important.
I always rinse and check the chicken livers well to be sure that there are no gallbladders (or pieces) left attached to the liver. The gallbladder contains bile and even a small piece can ruin the taste of the whole pot. Please see this .
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.610045
| 2014-12-10T22:59:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50486",
"authors": [
"Desmond Hayes",
"Glynne Guerrero",
"Hajra Khan",
"Liz Lusky",
"Mary Kemp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143124"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68602
|
Substitutions for "European style" butter in croissants
I've been trying to make croissants at home. Many recipes I've read specify "European style" butter, with a higher fat content. However, finding this kind of butter locally is very difficult. In the places I have found it, it's very expensive.
I've found that when using ordinary unsalted butter as sold in the US there seems to be no good temperature for laminating the dough. Cooled as recipes suggest, the butter is brittle and cracks. Allowed to warm slightly more, the butter is absorbed into the dough.
So I'm wondering, is there some substitute available (not for butter generally, but "European style" butter? If a higher fat content is what's needed, I wonder if some combination of clarified butter mixed with ordinary unsalted butter might work. Any suggestions?
Might just try clarified butter. Removing the water content would pretty well have to raise the fat content to near 100%...I wonder if whipping/beating/creaming it might help with the handling/behavior.
@Ecnerwal If you put that in an answer, I might accept it. I have a block of 20% clarified mixed with 80% ordinary unsalted which was then very vigorously beatten now chilling in the fridge, and so far it feels promising. I'll try laminating tomorrow and we'll see how it goes.
This doesn't answer your question, but it worked well for me with American butter: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45360/would-this-cheat-puff-pastry-really-work/45403#45403
A mix of clarified and ordinary unsalted butter works well.
I used clarified butter that was simmered for a long time to be sure the water was thoroughly removed, just to the point where it stops sputtering, and the solids in the bottom begin to brown.
If the unsalted butter has a fat content of 80% and clarified near 100%, then a 20% clarified to 80% unsalted ratio results in 84% fat.
I let the two warm to room temperature, then beat them thoroughly with an electric mixer to combine.
Immediately after beating I transferred the now very soft butter to parchment paper. Folding the paper over, I squished the butter into a nice slab for laminating, wrapped it tightly with the parchment, and put it in the fridge to chill until the dough is ready.
I'm still experimenting with the flavor of croissants made this way. Obviously this won't reproduce the complex flavors of a cultured butter.
However, the workability of this combination is great: no shattering even when chilled in the freezer, unlike 80% fat unsalted butter alone.
I am surprised that you are seeing so much difference. If getting 82% fat instead of 80% is so noticeable, I would expect that using 84% instead of 80% will also be noticeable. But I never look at my butter fat content when I buy it (I am in Europe), nor do the other home bakers I know. I just looked at the one I had, a popular brand considered slightly better than average, and it had 82%, uncultured (the uncultured part is by choice). I would have happily baked croissants with it, and I never notice a difference between butter brands.
I haven't tried this, but it could work...
Since the difference between European butter and American butter is fat content, maybe you could do a combination of butter and shortening. American butter is normally 80% fat (or more). European butter is normally 85% fat (or more). Shortening is 100% fat (it doesn't contain water). I wouldn't use all shortening though because that butter flavor is too delicious to miss. Also, I think you need the water to create steam that leads to flaky layers...also delicious.
I don't know how fast water will evaporate from butter, but leaving slices of your butter exposed to (dry) air for half a day could be a low-effort way of reducing water content? The butter would discolour slightly, but there shouldn't be noticeable off-flavours that would affect the dough. (I've successfully used a fan over egg-whites to rapidly reduce water content for a different baking task.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.610190
| 2016-04-27T15:46:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68602",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Jolenealaska",
"Phil Frost",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115155
|
From a food safety perspective, what's the difference between a dish I ate in and rinsed off afterward vs. a dish with food that I didn't eat in?
I have asked the following question before: Is it safe to only rinse visible residue from container if I then refrigerate the container?
I've gotten some great answers to it which help me further understand the variables at play here, but I stubbornly suspect a large part of their final conclusions was influenced by gut instinct, rather than genuine consideration of the scenario vs. other more traditional practices that are considered food safe.
(EDIT: I was wrong! It appears the defining factor here is the bacteria that would be introduced by eating - specifically the stuff in the saliva that would be transferred into the container via cutlery.)
I've then decided to ask a more specific, more rigorous question, which would hopefully help me decide whether I am wrong in this analysis, and if so, why. I propose two scenarios:
Scenario 1
Say I came up with a hypothetical monster recipe that included some scrambled eggs, pot roast, broccoli with cheese, steak, and black bean chilli. Then I took half of it, had a horrible time eating it, and left the rest in the fridge until the end of the night, when I reluctantly ate the rest.
(Wow, that wouldn't be a very good recipe! Yes, I agree.)
Scenario 2
Say the next day I decided that all that stuff would taste better separately, and prepared each meal individually throughout the day. I then ate each meal off the same dish, rinsing it afterward in a manner that would remove all visible residue from the dish.
For the purpose of the question, assume I rigorously measured the total sum (food+container) of time spent in the temperature danger zone, including transportation, preparation and storage, and taking into account time to cool down in the fridge etc, and it added up to exactly an hour and thirty minutes in both scenarios. I am aware it would be more difficult to perform such a calculation in Scenario 2.
I know Scenario 2 sounds more gross, but are there factors that make it worse from a food-safety perspective than Scenario 1? Would Scenario 1 be considered not food safe by government standards (due to cross contamination and mixing a lot of foods)? If not, why would Scenario 2 be any less safe? One could argue it would be even more safe, given that there is way less food in the container most of the time (a microscopic amount).
The only thing I can think of that would make it worse is the potential presence of saliva in a dish I've eaten in vs one I haven't, which would interact with the microscopic residue left on the dish - but I imagine the water would readily rinse away the spit.
Please let me know if asking a similar (but not the same) question is frowned upon. I imagined it wouldn't be fair to those who answered my previous question to change it to this one, and decided to ask a follow-up instead.
Scenario 1: Depends on time the food spent in the danger zone before refrigeration, the mixing of food is not really relevant if it is all cooked. Scenario 2 is essentially the question you asked previously, isn't it?
Yes, scenario 2 is basically the same as before, except I've asked to consider the food was definitely not in the danger zone for 2 hours. The difference is that the new question directly compares the scenario to another that is considered food safe, and asks specifically for what factors would be different.
I am a bit new to the site, so if anyone knows the reason why this question is being downvoted, please let me know! If it sounds like I'm trolling, the ridiculous propositions are designed to keep both scenarios as similar as possible (regarding cross contamination, time in danger zone etc.), so I can understand the underlying principles I should use to think about this. I swear it is a legitimate question!
The answer is exactly what you speculated - the spit. Well, not the spit itself, but the microbial contaminants from your oral cavity that you are introducing to the food when you eat.
Your mouth (and rest of you too) contains a whole bunch of microorganisms (around 700 species in the mouth). Each time you put an eating implement in your mouth and return it to your plate, you are introducing some bacterial components that can multiply in the food residues. If you used your fingers to pick up some of the food or touch the plate at all, you introduced a different set of bacteria, which may be good or bad.
When you rinse a plate all you are doing is removing gross (see definition B) contamination. There is still microscopic contamination there, particularly oils and other non-water soluble components.
Bacteria in general are very small - most are around 0.5 - 5 micrometers (that's 1000ths of a millimeter or 0.00002 - 0.0002 inches). These are so small that no matter how well you rinse there will be some left on the surface of the plate you ate off and these can multiply in the presence of the food residues also left on the plate. How much they multiply depends on the temperature (that's why cold used for storage), nutrient source (how readily metabolizable they are) and which strain of which species they are.
When you ate the meal the night before, you introduced a bunch of bacteria. Every time you take the food out of the fridge and it reaches the "Danger zone" then the bacteria are multiplying. This then leads to the question of dose.
In scenario 1 you have a bulk meal that is all sitting in the danger zone for 1.5 hours, which could provide a massive inoculuum of bacteria when eaten. This is not directly comparable to eating in scenario 2, where it seems that it is only the plate that is in the danger zone for the whole time.
If in scenario 2 you are taking each component and reheating it separately on the same plate, such that the sum total of time for all the food components is 1.5 hours, then this is likely less risky than having a bulk of food all sitting in the danger zone for 1.5 hours. In this case the plate could be providing an inoculum to the food that enhances growth once the food is reheated, but how big a component to the risk this is, is very hard to say as it will depend on the bacterial species (and all the biological complexity there) and just how much of it is there before the food is added, and what food components it is multiplying on.
However, and this is the important bit: We can't tell for sure which of these scenarios is more likely to be a problem. It would take extensive scientific testing to prove it. Take all that we say on the internet with a grain of salt because we are not all food safety experts (I'm a virologist for instance)
Ahh, I see! But hey, the microorganisms thing applies to everyone's mouth and body, though, not just mine (Though it might be the case that moreso for mine than most others'). For completeness, if one was to cut food into small pieces and pour it from the dish into their mouth from far away as to not introduce any spit into it at all, would both scenarios be similarly safe?
@MrSimplemaker. The microbial stuff applies to everything - surfaces we touch, the air we breathe, soil, water etc, all have microbes in them to a greater or lesser extent. As the recent pandemic has demonstrated to most outside the scientific community, we are surrounded by a cloud of microorganisms, so as soon as you get within a few feet (say 2 m/7 ft) of the dish, you are providing some bacteria to it. You breathe on it, then it has definitely had some bacteria added to it.
Oh yes, the "not just me" part was me attempting at a joke and apparently failing hehe. I see what you mean by just being near it or breathing on it providing bacteria, though I imagine such means of contamination wouldn't be so drastically different between Scenarios 1 and 2.
Correct. The bulk of the contamination is coming from the eating the previous night.'
I don't propose eating the previous night actually - the food/container in both proposed scenarios are completely independent, and in Scenario 2 I propose starting with a clean dish eating throughout a single day in that same dish, rinsing in between meals. Maybe my phrasing was ambiguous at some point. (Not that I think it would make a significant difference in the final analysis, just pointing it out.)
@MrSimplemaker I read it as you make a monster meal of separate components, eat half of each, put rest in the fridge. Next day take it out and eat all as one (scenario 1), or as separate dishes (scenario 2). If this is not the case, then the scenarios are not at all comparable as S1 has you eating half and the s2 would be re-making from fresh(?), unless in each case you prepped and cooked each meal from the start of the second day.
The comparison I meant to make is the following:
S1: I cook all the components. I place half in a container in the fridge and eat the other half. In the end of the day, I eat what I left in the fridge.
S2: I cook the same components from scratch, but leave them refrigerated. Throughout the day I place each component on a dish and eat it, rinsing the dish and placing it back in the refrigerator in between meals.
My point is to compare a container half-full of food (that I have not eaten in), vs a container with microscopic residue left after rinsing (that I have eaten the same things in throughout the day). Assuming for simplicity that both would spend the exact same time in the danger zone, and the rest below the danger zone after cooling down in the fridge.
@MrSimplemaker in that case, as you are using the same dish in S2, that is the riskier practice as you are inoculating the fresh food with contaminated.
Yeah, that makes sense! It would be contaminated by the bacteria in the spit that I wrongly assumed would be easily removed (along with the spit itself) with a quick rinse. Thanks for a thorough explanation!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.610504
| 2021-04-07T20:13:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115155",
"authors": [
"MrSimplemaker",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93266",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115130
|
Is it safe to only rinse visible residue from container if I then refrigerate the container?
I like to eat off silicone containers. I've noticed that if I rinse them right away after eating, there will be basically no visible residue left on the surface.
Now let's say that, err, I had a friend who is lazy and gross and was considering rinsing a container that way and placing it in the fridge in between meals, eating in that same container throughout the day and only washing it properly after dinner.
That would be yucky, yes, but not dangerous, right? Since the fridge can keep a whole container of food safe for a few days, surely it can keep some microscopic food residue safe from morning until night? The food would only stay briefly in the temperature danger zone (4-60 C or 40-140 F) when eating, so it wouldn't add up to two hours of non-safe temp throughout the day.
I coul-I mean, my friend could even rinse with hot water, or place it in the freezer instead to make extra sure. Or you know, actually wash it for real, but it's a really lazy person I'm talking about here.
EDIT - To summarize: I want to know whether it is dangerous to not fully clean the container in between meals throughout a day (like three or four times). I would only give it a quick rinse to remove visible residue, and then keep it under 4 C / 40 F, where bacteria won't grow too quickly (and then clean it properly afterward for the next day).
Technically a more accurate tag would be 'not cleaning', but I suppose this will do.
Are you really talking about the difference between adding soap vs not? Is your question better posed as: Is soap necessary to sanitize by silicone container?
Not quite, the question is more like about whether it is dangerous to not fully clean the container in between meals throughout a day (like three or four times), if I keep it under 4 C / 40 F, where bacteria won't grow too quickly (and then clean it properly afterward for the next day). I'll add this to the end of the question to hopefully make it more clear.
Yeah...but you are suggesting everything short of adding soap or sanitizer...no? ...rinsing....cold...hot...refrigerating...freezing...
I'm not sure I understand your last comment. I am wondering whether a tiny bit of food residue would be a threat if I were to keep it at a safe food holding temperature, mainly. Does that make sense?
I have a, err, friend who frequently uses the same plate throughout the day without washing it and has never gotten sick from it
I don't think this can be answered without knowing what and how you eat out of the container. E.g. for eating "dry" bread from a wooden plate (or silicone container), I'd consider shaking out the crumbs quite sufficient. If OTOH, you're talking of eating fish and a greasy sauce...
fwiw i do this all the time with dishes; eat a bowl of cereal, rinse it out, then set the bowl/spoon on my desk until the next day (wherein i eat another bowl of cereal)
i uh... suspect that people are drastically overestimating the level of danger here. in fact i find this question kind of hilariously weird :D
I see you're familiar with the "danger zone" concept. I think the only on-topic way to answer this is to help you add up the "danger zone" time, (and raise the concern of cross contamination!). I will say in response to your heading, there is no "loophole" in food safety guidelines. They are pretty stark in that things are either safe or not.
Eating something that has been treated "unsafe" aren't guaranteed to make you ill--but for this site, "will it make me sick?" is off-topic, while "is this considered food safe?" is on-topic, so I'll focus solely on the latter.
Cross contamination ❌
It's not guaranteed this will happen, but every time you handle something, you risk cross contamination. Uncovered food in the fridge can also be a contamination vector. Each time you reuse a dish without washing, you essentially double your chances of having a problem. A trace of e. coli on an apple peel during breakfast has a chance to be transfer to the plate, grow all day long and be ingested during every meal of the day, increasing the chances that you might get ill.
Danger zone math ⚡
Keep in mind that this is a CUMULATIVE time for the food (and residue)--it doesn't reset when the food hits your bowl. Also, food safety guidelines consider a plate to be "contaminated" with food from the time food hits it until the plate is properly washed/sanitized (ie, with soap). Even if there is no visible residue, if it hasn't been washed properly the plate is treated the same as if there was still a full serving of food on it, from a food safety perspective.
Based on all of that, you'd need to add up time the ingredients (for everything that was on the plate) are unrefrigerated coming home from the grocery, being prepared & cooked (between cold and hot), after cooking on your plate, time in the fridge while cooling back down, repeat for each meal.
If you use the same plate for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and dessert without washing, you'd essentially be calculating the danger zone time as if you had breakfast leftovers that you refrigerated then reheated at lunch. Then added extra lunch leftovers and put them in the fridge. Then you reheated breakfast and lunch leftovers, added some dinner leftovers and back into the fridge. Then reheated breakfast, lunch, and dinner leftovers to eat them for dessert.
So it gets complicated to do all that math... But there's a lot of time that will accumulate as it passes from warm to cold to warm to cold, etc.
My verdict? ⚖️
It seems unlikely that you'd be able to add up all that time in the danger zone and still stay within the time window that is considered food safe by government food safety guidelines.
If you're already going to rinse it water to remove visible residue, a quick swipe of a soapy wash cloth seems like a low-difficulty added effort to wash away the remaining unseen food & bacterial residue. I'd even possibly argue that a quick soapy wash is no more difficult than trying to find a way to stay within food safety guidelines.
I see! I am just now learning about food safety and started thinking about this possibility. I did not really consider cross-contamination, yeah.
I understand the analogy of refrigerating/reheating leftovers all day, but I'm curious: does the fact that the amount of 'leftovers' in the container is literally not visible to the naked eye not make a difference at all in this regard? Or does it make it a little safer, but not enough that it would be recommended I bet on it?
Just to clarify, if I were 100% sure none of the, erhm, non-roomtemp-safe ingredients hadn't spent 2h total in the danger zone, would this practice be considered technically food-safe? I know it's a bit gross and not something anyone would recommend, but it would be as safe as any other combination of danger-zone temps under 2 hours, right?
By the way, thanks a lot for your detailed response! I will mark it as accepted. I still have a few doubts, but I suppose your final verdict implies it would be safe as long as I got my danger zone maths correct, though it would be hard to make sure and thus not really recommended. That makes perfect sense and has satisfied my curiosity!
Pathogens (bacteria, etc) are the real enemy. You can't usually see bacteria because they are so tiny. Their tiny size means they only need a tiny amount of "stuff" to feed on and multiply. In fact--let's forget about food residue entirely. Bacteria like e coli (found in both meat and vegetables) can live on surfaces for up to a full day. Even without food residue, e coli can transfer from a leaf of lettuce to the plate, then live on the plate until the next meal, where it could contaminate that food
Could you edit your answer's verdict to remove the triple negative? Makes it quite confusing to read. 'Unlikely ... not ... NOT safe'.
At the same time, a microbiome genocide isn't necessarily the healthiest option either. We evolved in filth. A bit of contact with the biological world is good for us. Not to say we should be eating raw lettuce out of a manure pile, but you can go too far the other way also.
While this answer is certainly nice, factually correct (and accepted), I would suggest that OP was pretty clearly emphasizing the fact that he is putting an empty plate into the fridge for re-use. While I wouldn't like to answer whether that is good or bad, it certainly would be interesting to go into that point. Maybe there is a difference of e.coli sitting in/on something it can digest (your apple...), or e.coli sitting on its own on an otherwise bare plate with nothing to munch on? I don't have an intuition if anything comes out of it, but would certainly be interesting.
@AnoE, I've edited to add clarity to the fact that an unwashed (or improperly washed) plate is treated the same whether it has visible food still on it not. Food safety is essentially treated as cumulative, and only a proper washing can reset that.
As you are asking about a single day, I'm pretty sure it's safe.
Lets compare the concept with how we handle our typical leftovers;
Say we made chilly, and stored it in a container in our fridge, so every time we decide make tacos, simply could scoop out some chilly. 2 days after we made the chilly, it came down to the last scoop. Would we hesitate to scrape the bits of residue from the edges of the contain? I wouldn't.
Of course, this is assuming that nothing dirty made contact with the container while you were using it.
Yeah, that is basically my reasoning! Since the leftovers are basically microscopic it sounds to me like what I'm describing would be even a bit safer than your chilly scenario, technically. The only difference is that you'd have eaten in the container and taken it out briefly a few times (maybe eat quickly?), but I don't suppose tiny particles of spit potentially left on it would make THAT big of a difference over one day
Well, if the proposed mode of eating includes putting tools back from the mouth into the container that would be a substantial difference compared to using a fresh spoon every time you scoop out of the chilly.
I don't think that this plan is necessarily unsafe, in terms of likelihood of sickening or killing you, but it's definitely less safe than washing the container.
It only requires a microscopic amount of pathogens to make you extremely sick; that there is no visible residue is not as strong an argument as you seem to think. Rinsing is better with soap, too. for most consumer-grade soaps it's surfactant action that gets rid of pathogens-- they're not as good at clinging to surfaces when there is soap in the mix.
We're also talking about probabilities that add up over time-- you will be rolling the dice every meal, every day, with worse odds of success without washing. Your absolute risk of becoming ill as a result of doing this might not be very high, but your relative risk (compared to washing your dishes, or using clean ones) will be higher.
To illustrate, let's consider:
There are about 265,000 illnesses from E. coli in the United States each year. If the US population is 328,000,000, and the incidence of E. coli infections is evenly distributed among the population (it isn't, but let's keep things simpler), that is an annual illness rate per person of ~0.0008, or 0.08%. We'll also pretend that E. coli is the only foodborne illness risk there is.
That's around one illness per 1,250 people per year, which isn't too bad. Let's imagine that your plan doubles the relative risk (that's a huge jump and I have no data about how this practice might affect your risk, but should still illustrate the ideas). That would mean a 0.16% illness rate among people that eat that way.
That's still pretty low, in absolute terms! Most people certainly do riskier things every day. And yet it would still be enough to cause an extra 265,000 E. coli illnesses per year (if everyone made the switch), for a total of 530,000. That's a lot of extra illness.
But the point is that, while the absolute risk is still pretty low (0.16%), the relative risk is twice as severe, and the excess risk is (in this toy example) 100% avoidable with little effort.
Saying that it's safe is a pretty fuzzily defined conclusion-- your risk is never going to be zero, and is zero risk even the standard to use? Saying that it's safe enough for your risk tolerance and cleaning preferences is more defined but subjective; no one else can tell you if it's safe enough for your preferences. It is all but guaranteed to be less safe than washing the container.
I think you are an order of magnitude off -- 250k/250m = 1/1000. Still unlikely but not as remote.
Yes, it's a result in ten-thousandths; it's about 8 ten-thousandths, or 8 in 10,000, which is just a bit under one illness per 1,000 ; it is not "under one illness per 10,000 people per year" but 8 times that.
@Peter-ReinstateMonica Ah, that would do it! Thanks for spotting the error and pointing me to the right place.
I'd add that it depends a lot on the food. On one end you have food that's inherently on the safe side, like sour milk products: They can safely stay at room temperature for a day or longer — being kept warm is how they are actually produced. The more acidic, sweet or salty a dish is, the safer.
On the unsafe end would be proteins like raw egg (in mayo) or raw, minced meat or fish which are bacteria breeding grounds.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.611350
| 2021-04-05T20:40:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115130",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"AmagicalFishy",
"AnoE",
"J...",
"Kevin",
"MrSimplemaker",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Upper_Case",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93266",
"moscafj",
"orlp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19295
|
What makes a pasta shape pair with a sauce?
Spaghetti goes well with tomato sauce with ground meat. Fettucini goes well with a creamy sauce. Why? What general principles about the characteristics of the pasta and the sauce make them work well together? When is angel hair superior to spaghetti, and why does macaroni work well with cheese?
This question suggests some related reading; The Geometry of Pasta looks especially interesting. I'm hoping to get science-y answers that will talk about surface area, viscosity, etc.
Shape, rugosity etc. of course, but don't forget the most important thing: tradition :)
@nico Yes, but tradition created by what works well!
yes and no. I have friends who will cringe if you do pasta al pesto with spaghetti instead of trenette, because that is the traditional way of doing it. I think that is going a step too much towards being silly :D
I think traditional snobbery has a lot to do with it. Just remember that no two Italians prepare the same dish the same way -- There is no such thing as an in-authentic Italian dish.
There could not be in-authentic Italian dishes, but there are "traditional" dishes. For example, it's traditional to eat spaghetti aglio, olio e peperoncino; you will difficulty see penne aglio, olio e peperoncino.
Fats adhere to broad or flat areas nicely (fettucini, linguine) and press the creamier sauces against more tongue surface to enhance/emphasize their smoothness
Pooling sauces needs nested, medium pasta (round or flat) that help to punctuate the sharper and more diverse flavors of a smooth, acidic by alternating between pasta and sauce
Angel hair and other fine pasta do well with a chunky sauce as it is effective with pick up but doesn't obstruct the sauce's texture once you get it in your mouth
My basis for this is (1) ease and volume of transport, plate to mouth of sauce; as well as (2) how the pasta interacts with the sauce to create mouth feel and churn of sauce against tongue. As for gnocchi and other variously shaped pasta; if it has a cavity, it should have fats, if it has a textured surface acidic sauces will cling nicely.
Obviously, I would shy away from pretending any of these were definitive answers, they are reasoned and seasoned, based on sauce/pasta dynamics and experience preparing them.
This book has a listing of specific pairings of sauces to pasta.
This book, upon which Geometry was based, also has a listing of
sauces with additional options.
I don't seem to be able to find any good, objective maxims for when to use what; but, considering the variety of pastas and the prolific diversity of sauces (i.e. a different ragu for every house), it seems only appropriate that every person should have an opinion on why a particular sauce works with a particular pasta.
I'd also add that sauces which in involve large, firm chunks of vegetables or seafood need short, fat pasta to match the size and shape of what they're tossed with.
I'd also add that, some pasta has a rougher surface which clings more, which goes well with stew type sauces.
Good answer. This also explains why coupling spaghetti with ground meat based sauce (such as bolognese or meatballs) is generally a bad idea: such a fat sauce requires a broad shaped, preferably fresh, pasta to better stick on it. Spaghetti should be reserved for lighter, less dense sauces.
It is also worth to note that spaghetti with bolognese sauce is also "historically" inaccurate: bolognese is traditionally associated with Bologna area (Northern Italy), also famous for fresh pasta (e.g. tortellini, fettuccine); dried pasta, particularly spaghetti, is typical of Naples and Southern Italy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.612607
| 2011-12-01T19:39:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19295",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Chrissie Hynde",
"FuzzyChef",
"Gregor Thomas",
"Pino Pinto",
"avpaderno",
"coteyr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7893",
"mkrufky",
"nico",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28311
|
What are the effective ways to wrap a pita?
I love pitas, but I've never been able to wrap them properly. Whenever I attempt to wrap them they always come out in a crescent-moon shaped, making it a lot more difficult to eat, and the toppings being too spread out. I initially thought I was just putting too much into the pita wraps, but after some experimenting this doesn't appear to be the case.
The end result I'm looking for is something similiar to the picture below. Where the toppings are put inside the pita, and the pita is tightly wrapped, and each bite allows me to get a good mix of topping, instead of only getting one type of ingredient in each bite.
What are the effective ways to wrap a pita?
although written instructions would work, a video or written instructions making use of a diagram would be ideal
I make pita wraps like my sushi rolls - thin lines of ingredients wrapped carefully with seaweed (in this case, pita bread) of appropriate and good quality. It may be the case you might be unevenly spreading out whatever you're putting in your wrap, or you may still be using too much for whatever your bread can handle.
I think you should rephrase your question to - What are the effective and presentable ways to wrap a pita. The issue should not be "proper" but "effective" and "presentable".
@BlessedGeek: Good point. Rephrased.
I'm confused by the picture -- are you using the pita as a pocket, or as a wrap? (or as a pocket, then wrapping it in paper?)
@Joe: You use the pita as a pocket, and then you wrap it.
Pita bread is a small "pocket" bread, they are not really designed for rolling. You normally slice the pocket open, and just stuff it. Like this
Some bakeries make large or jumbo pita bread, that are generally not useful as pocket breads. These can be folded into a cone by taking the left and right sides and pulling together making a cone shape, then wrap in paper to hold it together as required
Also, you can get Lebanese style flat bread in large squares or circles. These are ideal for making wraps. Add filling in a line to one side of a square or in the middle of a circle. Then roll into a large burrito or Sushi like shape, wrap in paper if needed, slice as desired
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.612930
| 2012-11-08T23:15:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28311",
"authors": [
"Andrew WC Brown",
"Cynthia",
"Joe",
"Lanny Collums",
"Louie",
"MedMarine64",
"Nadz",
"Wipqozn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7894",
"janeylicious",
"squidlydeux",
"Ünal Okçular"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44371
|
Same recipe but sometimes white chocolate cookies come out strange
I always use the same recipe (weight everything including eggs) but occasionally the white chocolate cookies come out funny.
When baking in the oven I can see them making bubbles constantly, they always come out flatter and taste doughy.
Here is a video showing the bubbles while in the oven: http://youtu.be/ZLA1h3HzkXY
What could be happening here?
Note: I melt the butter, use a bit of baking soda and bake them from frozen. But it only happens with white chocolate, that's what is strange!
From the same dough batch that was divided into two:
I find it hard to imagine that the chocolate chips color has something to do with it. Maybe there is another factor? When you make both, do you always bake the dark ones first and the white ones second? Or maybe the other way round? If your white-chips dough is warmer before going in because it stood on the counter after shaping, or if the oven is not yet hot enough for the early batches, or overheated for the late ones, this could explain it.
Are you using the same brands of white and milk chocolate chips? Perhaps there's a difference in their moisture content that's throwing things off.
hey everybody. some answers:
yes i use the same brand (very good brand)
hey everybody. some answers:
-yes i use the same chocolate brand (very good brand) @logophobe
what you watched the video? its so strange those bubbles coming out of the white choc cookies, isnt it? its like plenty of air escaping from the cookies :/
i run a small cookie shop. i got the best recipe ever. my cookies are yummy but rarely the white choc ones turn out like this. i dont get it!
-i bake them at the same time @rumtscho
@user25106 The video actually reinforces my answer below. The bubbling appears to be at the bottom of the cookies. It looks to me a lot like the sizzle that you get when sauteeing in a pan. I think it's excess fat "melting" out of the cookies, causing the browning we see at the edges and the slightly flatter shape.
i made the same recipe two days ago (same ingredients same place same temperature same freezer and baked the white chocolate cookies one today and they came out perfect! this is what i dont understand! sometimes its perfect and sometimes they all form bubbles, come out strange and taste kinda bad. @logophobe
@user25106 They taste bad as well? How old is this batch of dough? How old was it when you put it into the freezer?
no the last ones i made didnt form bubbles and tasted perfect! (as usual actually) i prepare the dough then refridgirate it for 24 hours and then freeze it up overnight before baking them. always the same recipe always the same way and same temperature! @logophobe
from the batch that was bad i took off the white chocolate chips and baked a plain cookie and it did form bubbles while baking, got a strange shape and colour as well! so i guess there is a chemical reaction happening to the dough when in contact with the white chocolate chips when sitting in the fridge and then freezer. the question remains: why does this happen on some occasions only and not all the time? @logophobe
White chocolate has a higher fat content than milk chocolate. That's very likely throwing off the balance in your dough. Even though you're using the same batch, more fat is being added to the white chocolate cookies as the chips break down.
You may need to reduce the butter or margarine that you use for the white chocolate cookie dough by a bit. It's probably a very fine difference, perhaps 10-25% less butter. That's a bit of a guess but please let us know your results if you give this a try.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.613163
| 2014-05-24T11:29:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44371",
"authors": [
"Carla",
"Carol",
"Cody Kestigian",
"Spam",
"Spammer",
"cookiecookie22",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"k-arole",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho",
"the-cooook-er"
],
"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
}
|
108931
|
Brioche bread texture
I made a loaf of brioche today following a French recipe. Here's how it looks:
I don't like its texture. It's bland and a bit dry. Honestly, the taste of overnight-proof bread is not very atractive to me (perhaps because I used instant yeast instead of fresh yeast???).
Here's the recipe I used:
50ml milk
6g instant yeast
2 large eggs
250g bread flour (13% protein)
125g unsalted butter
50g sugar
1g salt
I kneaded the dough with hand mixer and checked with windowpane test. The dough was soft, and almost not sticky because of butter.Then I covered the dough with plastic wrap and let it proof at room tempearture for 2 hours, deflated, then covered and let it proof in the fridge overnight (around 10 hours).
After shaping in the mold, I let it proof again for another hour.
Finally, I baked at 170°C for 30 minutes, and 160°C for 10 minutes.
How should I improve it? If anyone has a brioche recipe that is soft, moist, flavorful and buttery (like Harry's brioche), it would be great.
Thank you very much.
Although I wouldn't do it, if you deflated the dough after the first proof, it means that the yeast did its job. From the picture I cannot see anything clearly wrong. Was it too dry? Too hard? In this case I think it's faster to just change recipe.
It was too dry for me, just like normal white bread. Because I have never tasted an authentic French brioche before, I'm not sure I got the right texture. I only tasted the Harry's one and I wanted it softer and moister like sweet bread. Plus, I'm not sure whether letting the dough proof overnight is a good idea for sweet bread.
Are you using salted or unsalted butter? 1g in total, even for a “sweet bread” sounds too little.
I used unsalted butter and I reduced the amount of salt since I didn't like it "salty"... is that why it was bland?
Yes, bread does not taste salty if some salt is added, but it tastes bland if you omit the salt
I am pretty certain you simply overbaked your brioche. "Bland and dry" is a very common symptom of that. Also, if we look at the recipe, you had a quite small loaf, which you baked for 40 minutes.
The first solution I'd try in your place is to bake to internal temperature of 96C, then remove immediately from the oven and swaddle in a kitchen towel, possibly spraying with water before covering.
The other things you can do are finer tweaks, but they shouldn't have that much of an effect on the dryness as such. You have way too much yeast, especially for an overnight raise. I've read books that suggest using more yeast for a brioche, but that's because they also have a shortened raise and/or baking from cold (to keep the very buttery dough firm when forming). I personally don't care much for long rests, so I would maybe reduce the yeast only partially (maybe using 2.5 to 3 g) and do two raises at room temperature, as with normal white bread. If you want to keep the retardation, then use less yeast, about 1.25 g. But since your dough is neither under- nor overproofed, the amount of yeast shouldn't have much impact on texture, mostly on aroma only.
Thank you very much. Can you please explain "bake to internal temperature..." I don't understand how to do that? And can you give me the name of books that you mentioned?
@Sean You stick a thermometer into the brioche and see what temperature it shows. When it has reached 96 C, you stop baking. You can try also simply recognizing when it's done, but that takes quite a bit of practice, while the thermometer is much easier.
Thanks a lot! Can you give me the name of books that you mentioned?
@Sean not entirely sure which bit of knowledge came from where, but Bread baker's apprentice has three brioches (graded by butter amount) and is also otherwise an all-around recommendation for bread making.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.613517
| 2020-06-08T12:50:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108931",
"authors": [
"David P",
"Sean",
"Stephie",
"Tinuviel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83760",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108134
|
Pizza crust doesn't brown
I've tried several pizza recipes but the rim/crust always comes out white, no browning at all. I used all-purpose flour, salt, instant yeast, water and olive oil.
I tried to set the temperature to maximum (230 degree celsius 230°C with my oven) and bake longer but then the crust turned out hard while cheese was starting burning. I also tried to brush the rim with milk, it was better, not white anymore, but still wasn't golden brown as I had expected. Hope someone can help. Thanks very much.
Is it a sourdough crust? Acidic doughs won't brown as well. Also, are you keeping the oven closed? Cracking it a little will help to prevent steam from building up, which can affect how well things brown
I used basically flour, salt, yeast, olive oil and water. I did open the oven to check my pizza but it was closed most of the time. Maybe that can help. Thank you very much.
You could add some sugar to the milk and get browning by caramelization. Or bake the base for a while before adding the topping. Unfortunately domestic ovens do not come close to the temperatures of an authentic pizza oven.
I think adding sugar is a very good idea, thank you very much
What ratio are you using your ingredients in?
I recommend finding a recipe that incorporates a small amount of sugar into the dough, and has you bake the pizza at a high heat. Both of these are very helpful in developing the kind of crust you seek.
As an alternative to adding sugar to the dough you can replace ~2% of the flour with diastatic wheat malt (active malt). The contained enzymes will also improve the dough fermentation and taste. The sugars created in this process will then act as browning agents during the bake.
Toast the crust.
I toast the crust under the broiler by itself first until it looks toasty. Not right under; 1 rack down. That also limits soggy crust from too many wet ingredients which I invariably pile on.
My pizza toppings are all cooked thru first or raw veggies. Complete pizza is only in the oven until I see the cheese bubbling.
You didn't say if you were baking on a pan, a stone, or on a grate. You can also make pizzas on a grill.
Pans that are darker in color will generally brown more effectively.
A baking stone will brown the bottom of the crust but should be pre-heated before you bake the pizza (at least 15-20 minutes, up to an hour). You can buy pizza stones or just use an unglazed ceramic tiles (be sure they aren't painted, treated, or sealed with any chemicals).
You can bake at a higher temp, I have baked pizzas at 550F in the oven or almost 800F on the grill.
Brushing the top of the crust with oil will help with browning.
You can simply bake it longer. Usually the crust will start to burn before the ingredients.
I used a silicone mat putting on an oven rack. Maybe that's the reason why... ?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.613935
| 2020-05-05T14:16:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108134",
"authors": [
"Dan Gravell",
"Joe",
"Mark Wildon",
"Sean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83760"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116970
|
How to avoid shrinking bread loaf after baking?
I'm having a hard time making bread loaf at home. My breads after coming out of the oven always shrink. Here's the recipe I used:
320g flour (because I didn't have bread flour so I replaced with 315g all-purpose flour 11.5% + 6g gluten)
160g water
40g heavy cream
20g sugar
5g salt
5g instant yeast
30g unsalted butter
I baked in a pullman loaf pan 2.5 liters, 175°C 30 minutes. I tried to raise the temperature or bake longer, but in both cases, the bread crust was too thick and it still shrinked a bit at the side.
Can everyone share tips to avoid shrinking bread loaf after baking?
Edit: Here's the recent bread I made. It shrinks at the top, one side and a bit at the bottom
You can't eliminate shrinkage, but you can potentially alleviate it some. Can you post a picture of the crumb?
Looking at your method and recipe, a number of factors could be at play here. I have baked many loaves without the butter and cream in an open top bread tin, and have never experienced shrinkage, quite the opposite in fact.
First of all, the dairy components will lead to a much softer "Milk bread" consistency in comparison to a "Traditional" loaf. This will mean the texture is much lighter and more delicate, so when all the steam has evaporated from the bread, as it cools it will naturally shrink as it is not as rigid as traditional bread. Secondly, the bread is partially steamed being inside an enclosed Pullman tin. This will have a major influence on the texture and density as well.
What you want to achieve is for the bread to "Set" as quickly as possible, yet maintaining the delicate soft texture. In a commercial environment, this is done using flour improvers etc. You haven't mentioned how you prepared the dough, hand kneeding and using a food mixer will also have different impacts on the end result. Pre-rise time will also have an affect, as will using a pre-fermented poolish etc. All of these will affect the crumb size and texture to some degree though.
You could try removing the lid 5-10 minutes before taking the bread out the oven to let some of the steam to escape. I'd also be tempted to use full fat milk rather than heavy cream, as this may contributing to the shrinkage.
No, there is no way to prevent it from shrinking. It is one of the basic laws of physics - a spongy material filled with air/steam, both at almost 100°C, has larger volume than the same material at room temperature. Your bread will shrink, and that is absolutely normal.
If your bread is for some reason collapsing into a solid inedible mass, that's another thing, but it doesn't sound that this is what happens in your case.
Update: Now that you posted your picture, this is a very normal look for the style of bread you are making. I have had this loaf shape many times from professional bakeries. A sunken bread in need of action looks like this:
If you go for recipes which don't produce that look, you will also end up with a different texture both of crumb and crust, and especially the crust will have to be thicker and sturdier than now - which you state you don't want.
Thank you for your answer. Yes, my bread is edible and has spongy texture, but is it normal if it shrinks quite significantly? Like it has an hourglass shape?
The shape depends on the loaf style/recipe. Yours looks quite susceptible to a hourglass shape, due to the high percentage of fat and the baking in a pan. There are bread types which shrink equally in all directions, keeping their shape - these would be typically sturdier unenriched loaves baked as boules.
Thank you. That's interesting. I understand now... This was my first time baking with a pullman pan. I found that recipe from a Japanese website and the result should look as normal sandwich bread. Do you think I should reduce the hydration of the dough? Or can I reduce the oven temperature and increase baking time?
Maybe not a complete answer, but a hack ?
You could do the same technique that Panettone bakers have.
When the Panettone is removed from the oven, they turn it upside down to let them cool and let them keep their shape.
For example (Chef John's Panettone video)
https://youtu.be/H00djJq68VE?t=515
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.614197
| 2021-08-26T16:47:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116970",
"authors": [
"LightBender",
"Sean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83760",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108272
|
Can I substitute agar-agar powder for gelatin in no-churn ice cream?
I saw that many no-churn ice cream recipes use gelatin to prevent crystalization. Unfortunately, I don't have any gelatin left but a lot of agar-agar powder. Can I use agar-agar powder instead? And if yes, what is the best way to use it? Because normally I have to bring the mixture to a boil to cook agar-agar powder but I don't want to boil my milk.
Thanks for your help.
Agar agar melts/dissolves at 90°C. You don't have to boil (all of) your milk, but you'll need to get the agar agar to 90°C in some liquid in order for it to dissolve before cooling it back down. Whether it can be used successfully in ice cream, I have no idea.
Sure, why not.
350ml of liquid with 0.5g of agar-agar powder.
Just use another 50ml of milk for this 0.5g of agar-agar powder. Before boiling it, mix 0.5g agar-agar powder with around 5 to 15ml of warm water to avoid cobble up and then only boil with the 50ml of milk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.614530
| 2020-05-10T22:02:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108272",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120390
|
Is there a difference between a Convection Oven and an Air Fryer?
I'm in the market for a new range. As the subject line asks, “Is there a difference between a Convection Oven and an Air Fryer?”
I ask because I can't tell the difference. They both seem the same to me. They are both dry heat circulated by a fan.
I'm looking at ranges that say they are air-fryers, at a cost over ordinary convection ranges. I have a counter-top air fryer that I love, but how is it different from an ordinary convection oven? Does the code word air fryer really carry any science with it?
EDIT UPDATE: I understand the marketing behind the little countertop Air Fryers. I have one and enjoy it. It's great when you need a small quantity. My confusion is when large convection (fan) ranges advertise an Air Fry function. Such as this one:
I'm trying to imagine the difference between convection (fan) mode and Air Fry mode for such a range. To me, I don't see any difference between fan mode and Air Fry mode--I'm beginning to think it's a gimmick so that they can charge slightly more.
@BillyKerr Confusingly, 'convection oven' is the standard term (in the US at least) for an oven which uses a fan to drive air circulation inside the oven.
@dbmag9 Precisely the opposite here - convection for us is natural convection currents, i.e. without a fan. We call these ovens "fan ovens". Huge potential for confusion here, and possible failed recipes if the temparatures are given for "convection ovens" in the US. UK cooks will switch the fan off. I've done it myself, learned that lesson a while ago.
@BillyKerr Yes, I'm also UK-based. I don't think I've ever used an oven without the fan on except to grill (US: broil), though.
@dbmag9, Has anyone compiled a list of differing national food-related terminology? It would be very handy. ¶ I myself have ruined recipes by using corn-flour (finely ground maize) instead of corn-starch (starch extracted from maize), because the recipe was British; and by boiling milk for several minutes rather than warming it, because the recipe was Indian and apparently "boil" simply means "heat" (I later found a similar recipe that said "gently boil for a few minutes until luke-warm").
@RayButterworth https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/784/17063
Another layer of confusion. In the US we call a typical, fan-less oven a “conventional” oven. Which just shares way too many letters with “convection” for my taste.
@Preston. Thank you. Given the wide range of contributors, language - Translating cooking terms between US / UK / AU / CA / NZ
and
language - What international cooking terms sound similar but have different meanings?
should be the first two articles on this site that everyone reads.
@Preston - yes, we in the UK also call it a conventional oven. At least that name is the same.
Yes, when you switch the fan on, it is essentially a large air fryer. The only real difference is that air fryers have a smaller volume of air to heat, which makes them more efficient. It's not all just marketing hype, these little fan ovens do have benefits over large fan ovens.
Just a note here about oven nomenclature - what Americans call a "Convection oven" is called a "fan oven" here in the UK, and I suspect some other English speaking countries. For us "convection" means without a fan, using natural convection currents, precisely the opposite of what it means in America. It's a total mystery to me as to why/how this has happened.
I learn something new about US/UK language pitfalls every time I visit this stack. Thank you. I suspect fan ovens must be much more popular there. I’ve never seen one in the US outside of a commercial kitchen.
@Preston - that's interesting. Fan ovens are by far the most common domestic electric oven in the UK these days. Another one to watch out for is "grilling" in the UK - which usually refers to the use of a salamander grill (i.e. heat from above) which is known in the US as broiling.
In my corner of the US (Great Lakes) I frequently hear the term "convectionary oven"....
@gnicko - "convectionary"???!!! -, now that is interesting!
There are two kinds of convection: natural and forced. In a laboratory setting, ovens with fans are often called forced convection ovens to make the distinction more clear.
@KarlBielefeldt says "convection" is short for "forced convection". Sounds like the distinction in football and soccer between natural turf fields and artificial turf fields. Commonly people use "turf" to refer to the one that isn't turf.
Air fryers really took off during the pandemic as people suddenly started cooking for themselves more. There are a lot of people familiar with an air fryer that don't realize a convection oven does essentially the same thing. "Convection oven" often either means nothing to people or reminds them of the old toaster oven their grandma had with the mechanical timer you turn.
So if they want to attract that demographic who might want to make larger batches of their favorite air fryer recipes, marketers use the "air fry" phrase. I doubt "air fry" is actually a distinct mode from regular convection, although they might add some of the features of higher-end air fryers, such as food-specific presets.
Air Fryer is a great example of an old technology being sold as something new with some good marketing.
Air Fryer is in essence a micro convection oven. The technology certainly not new and is in certain ways just a rebranding of an old technology.
That being said, it does not take away from an air fryers usefullness. Although some of the marketing is a bit tosh there is no denying the convenience it can provide.
It certainly makes sense to have a mini-oven for when you want to cook something small that does not justify using a full oven for.
It has much more merit to it than a lot of kitchen-gadget fads we have seen over the years.
When you say “micro convection” do you mean small or microwave?
I mean small. It is a mini.oven
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.614647
| 2022-04-19T22:40:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120390",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Debbie M.",
"Karl Bielefeldt",
"Neil Meyer",
"Preston",
"Ray Butterworth",
"dbmag9",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115205
|
How do I ask for eggs, sunny-side-up, but with the top cooked more thoroughly?
If I ask for eggs, sunny-side-up, they will have yellow barely cooked yolks. At home I avoid this by placing a lid and creating hot air or steam that cooks the top more thoroughly. How do I ask for this style at a restaurant? What term do I use?
Does this answer your question? What would you call this way of cooking an egg?
Yes, but it is probably not worth it to say "sunny-side-up, well-done/basted" lest there be confusion, and settle for old, reliable "eggs over easy!"
I have asked for them "crispy" to get them overcooked a little the way I like.
As you and others have observed, there is no unambiguous yet precise set of egg vocabulary for you to use here that will be understood generally, especially in countries where it is not common for people to have very specific egg requests in restaurants/cafés/diners/etc.
Instead, I would advise you to politely explain your preference when you order, in much the same way as the title and body of your question: 'I'd like my eggs fried but with the top cooked more thoroughly rather than runny, if that's possible'. The cooks are the food preparation experts here and they know what equipment is available to them, and this avoids linguistic issues or confusing them by demanding a specific method of achieving your goal.
You can ask for eggs over easy.
This is when the cook flips the egg over once it's ready and allows the yolk to cook a bit on the hot surface of the pan.
The phrase is an American one, if I'm not mistaken, but is probably understood anywhere.
Commenting since this question seems to have had additional interest recently: I would be surprised if somewhere that served eggs in the UK understood 'over easy', and I definitely wouldn't assume it. There's no norm of having detailed preferences (beyond 'fried', 'poached' etc.) here.
@dbmag9 I guess it depends where in the UK. The little cafe near where I worked in Chertsey understood it fine. I'll admit I didn't try it in Leeds last time I was there. :)
If they have a heat lamp, ask them to hold it beneath the lamp closer than it would be on the counter for half a minute. Use it like a toaster, because that's really only way you can get it cooked to that level of detail. You don't want to cover and baste it, nor can you flip them. You could use a torch but that may overcook them or burn the whites.
There are two different techniques possible here – obviously, simply frying for a longer time will cook the yolk more thouroghly. You might order this as “sunny-side up, well done”.
However, what you achieve by cooking with a lid isn't really considered just frying, but Basting, so what you want to ask for is probably a basted egg.
Do you have any evidence that this term is in common enough use that the waiter and cook at a typical diner would know what you wanted if you asked for a basted egg?
I wouldn't describe the method the OP uses as basting; to me that would imply collecting hot oil in a spoon and pouring or brushing it over the egg as it fried. Putting a lid on as it fries steams it (but you couldn't say that without further elaboration, since just steaming would most naturally be interpreted as a way to make hard-boiled eggs).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.615109
| 2021-04-10T20:12:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115205",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Guy",
"John Meacham",
"Sneftel",
"The Photon",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93370"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115580
|
Are these small yellow things on my lettuce worms?
I found these in my baby lettuce leaf, are they worms? They didn't move and one fell out being stiff
@AMtwo I added the original picture if that helps, the size of the leaf was like the size of a baby spinach. They weren't moving, are larvae like that?
If they're not moving they're eggs. Lady bug or aphid eggs most likely.
From the picture and description I'd say these are more likely to be eggs, but it really comes down to how you found them: were they inside damaged leaf tissue or attached to the leaf by their ends in a clump? Or something else? Were any of the other leaves in the pack damaged?
They are leafminers.
https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/lettuce/Leafminers/
They are fly larvae so technically maggots. They are crop pests that do cosmetic damage as they tunnel along the leaf.
There is no fly larva I know of that is poisonous to eat. You can rinse them off, or not. Your remote ancestors would have been delighted to get the extra protein on the miserable lettuce leaf they were eating.
But I don’t need this kind of protein….
I guess this is a [food-identification] question then!
While they might not be poisonous, there are certainly health concerns associated with eating larvae. There have been documented cases of maggots from Casu Martzu cheese embedding themselves in the intestine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casu_martzu#Health_concerns
@packetpacket those are alive, though. (And so frisky people sometimes wear goggles when eating)
These are probably insect eggs.
Being unmoving, tightly clustered together, and uniform in size, these are most likely insect eggs.
A number of common insects lay oblong yellow eggs similar to those in your image, including ladybugs and cabbage white butterflies. Yours look more like ladybug eggs to me, or perhaps some other kind of beetle egg.
I must say this looks a LOT more like OP's image than the one in the accepted answer
As Willk said, our remote ancestors would have been delighted to get the extra protein from this too :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.615416
| 2021-05-08T22:30:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115580",
"authors": [
"Alex M",
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Nav",
"aris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93844",
"packetpacket",
"phys_birthdaycake",
"tardigrade",
"Константин Ван"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115333
|
How to remove every insect from romaine lettuce?
How do I get rid of tiny insects on my lettuce, I know that there will always be insects on it but I'm so paranoid about it. I have a huge fear and I love lettuce so much. I get rid of most insects by first removing each leaf, soaking the lettuce in a vinegar water mix for 10 minutes or so, and running each individual lettuce leaf through water.
Usually this works, but I always get these little insects that don't seem to get off, I literally see them holding on to dear life when I run water through them.
I posted a pictures here too
Is there a way to get rid of these little insects? Also, what are they?
I'm not even sure what that is ... but when dealing with insects in vegetables, I look for kosher guides on them. (Jewish dietary laws prohibit eating insects, so kosher certification groups have guidelines processors are required to follow. There are also some home guides such as http://rccvaad.org/lists_and_guides/Vegetable_Inspection_Guide.pdf ).
How do you soak the lettuce leaves? Because a 10-minute immersion should have done for that bug.
How much vinegar to water? I doubt that much below 50% vinegar would have any affect on the aphid you see in this picture. They certainly won't drown in 10 min. You could try adding a little soap to enhance wetting of the aphid and promote drowning by reducing the surface tension of the water.
@FuzzyChef I soaked them for 10 minutes and I cleaned them individually by hand, the bugs were really holding on because even after seeing them and running them under water they didn't seem to move.
@bob1 Oh its usually not much vinegar, i noticed that when i add too much vinegar the lettuce starts to taste like it. Also I used apple cider vinegar, should I use white vinegar instead?
When you say soap, do you mean dish soap? If so, how much and for how long should the lettuce be in there?
@Joe, Star-K also has an extensive colorful (with realistic photos) guide on checking for insects, You'll need a thrip cloth and a light box for some of the checking.
https://www.star-k.org/articles/wp-content/uploads/bug-checking-chart.pdf
Meet the common aphid. These little insects suck sap from your salad and are totally harmless, should the occasional hitchhiker slip your attention.
To remove them, there are a few home remedies:
Soak the leaves in salted water (a tablespoon for a large bowl should do).
Or use a few dashes of vinegar instead.
Both soaking methods can be improved by gently agitating the leaves every now and then and if you use a bowl and let it overflow instead of dumping the lettuce in your kitchen sink, the aphids that float on the surface get carried away instead of reattaching themselves when you lift out the leaves.
Except for really heavy infestations (can happen to the most diligent the organic gardeners), I often simply rinse the little critters off the individual leaves under running water. Think of your faucet as a “mini pressure washer”: Don’t hold the leaves right under the faucet, but lower and let gravity help you. Then even a little water is surprisingly effective. In my experience lukewarm water works better than cold water, but I can only speculate why. Maybe because cold water makes the aphids “stiff” and they can’t let go? The most stubborn ones come off with a gentle nudge with your finger, fingernail or (if you are especially squeamish) a knife tip.
Put the lettuce in a bowl or in your sink, cover it with water so it's completely submerged, and add a couple splashes of vinegar. Let it soak for 10/15 minutes/up to half an hour and it should be bug free.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.615634
| 2021-04-20T03:35:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115333",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93500",
"phys_birthdaycake",
"suse"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115386
|
Lentils and barley used together
In Polish Sausage Lentil soup, can I use some barley to replace some lentils - can I mix the two? Same question only opposite - in Turkey, Tomato, Barley soup, can I also use some lentils?
Yes to both questions. Lentils and barley can go together quite well in a soup. Here's a recipe for a lentil and barley soup as an example. Compare it to your soup recipe to see if there are any major differences (especially in cooking time or liquid to barley/lentil ratios). My hunch is that the barley will absorb more liquid than the lentils, so you may need to increase the water a bit. Just keep an eye on the soup as it simmers, and add more water as needed.
There's one caveat about your turkey, tomato, barley and lentil soup idea. Legumes take longer to cook when the cooking liquid is acidic. Tomatoes are acidic. Lentils cook quickly enough that they will get fully cooked even in an acidic broth, but it takes longer. (If you were using a slower-cooking legume, such as beans and chickpeas, I would recommend pre-cooking the beans.) Here's a recipe for a tomato, lentil and barley soup as an example. Notice that it simmers for an hour to get the lentils fully cooked, whereas the soup without tomatoes only has to simmer for 40 minutes. If you want the faster cook time, simmer the soup for about half an hour before adding the tomatoes. That will give the lentils time to get nearly done before increasing the acidity of the broth.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.615930
| 2021-04-23T19:21:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115386",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115500
|
What effect would replacing the egg in a pie crust with egg whites have?
Based off of the recipes I've read it seems like adding an egg to a pie dough makes it easier to work with and improves the final flavor and texture of the crust. So would adding only egg whites make a drier/flakier crust? Or at least cut down on any egg flavor that might come through?
Old trick is to whip the white with a tsp of vinegar til frothy. Easy to mix into dry ingredients evenly. The bubbles make for flakiness.
I would say that the effects will be too minimal to notice. So if you want to do it, go ahead and use up your egg whites.
Theoretically, egg yolks provide some emulsifying powers, and lead to softer, richer, sometimes even slimier doughs, while egg whites increase binding more and give you drier doughs. This can be quite noticeable in egg-rich cake types such as genoise or in yeast-leavened cakes. But in the case of a pie crust, it is almost completely made up from flour and butter, with the liquid needed only so you end up with a ball of dough with a bit of gluten, and not a bowl of crumbles.
The standard American crust uses water as the liquid in this type of dough, but when it is used for making shortbread cookies in European recipes, it frequently has an egg instead. I don't remember seeing eggs in tart crusts, maybe it is present in the Alsace. These doughs are not bad to work with, but with the small amount, and especially with flaky crusts deriving their texture from the butter pockets, I doubt that eaters will know that much of the difference. You certainly don't get a strong yolky mouthfeel when you use a whole egg, and with the crust being very fatty anyway, the missing yolk will be even less noticeable. So you are quite free in your choice of liquid, including egg white.
As a side note, if you are doing gluten-free crusts, you do need all the extra binding you can get, so there pure egg white is preferred over whole eggs or water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.616163
| 2021-05-01T17:18:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115500",
"authors": [
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115554
|
How to make a facsimile of corned beef from (plant-based) ground?
I became vegetarian about a year ago, and one thing I still crave constantly is corned beef hash. I've found that impossible meat has been a fairly good substitute for when I really crave a dish with beef in it, and I just cook it like I would have cooked real ground beef - but I'm flummoxed about how to replicated corned beef.
In my (limited) experience, corned beef is made by marinating an entire brisket, then slow cooking it. But of course I only have a vegetarian substitution for ground beef, not for a big slab (as far as I know, no brand of fake meat does pieces that could be marinated). I've never heard of marinating ground beef, and worry that trying to copy this directly wouldn't be a good idea.
Does anyone have any ideas about how to impart corned beef seasonings/spices into a (plant-based) ground beef dish?
Couldn't you just add salts, spices (pickling spices) that are used in corned beef?
Do you mean you miss corned beef hash out of a can, or real corned beef hash from leftover brisket and potatoes? They are very different,and would get different answers.
@GdD I was unaware that a canned version existed, my apologies. I mean the real version (with an understanding that I will never get the brisket texture, but hoping for a similar flavor)
@bob1 would spices that are intended to pickle (sit in a brine with the meat) work without an extended brining/marinating time?
If you've never had canned corned beef hash @lilia052 don't start now.
I was unaware a ‘fresh’ version existed;) Canned corned beef used to be a British staple.
If anyone can crack the code, it's Mark Thompson of SauceStache.com
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.616337
| 2021-05-07T03:02:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115554",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Pat Sommer",
"Tetsujin",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93793",
"lilia052"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68628
|
Is butter ever the same after having been melted?
I was recently doing some experiments with butter which involved melting it gently in the microwave and pouring it into dishes. It seemed to me that after the butter had cooled and re-solidified, it wasn't really the same. The color was yellower, and the texture somewhat grainy.
Obviously if I microwave the butter a lot, the water will boil off. But I microwaved on low power, stirring frequently, hoping to minimize water loss.
Is there some change that happens to butter when it's melted and then cooled? Or am I imagining things?
Just heating won't get you clarified butter. You need to skim off the top, and leave the bottom behind. But the skin that forms on the top when making clarified butter may be the cause of your graininess.
@ChrisH Yeah, I was wondering about that.
Is your question specifically if it's theoretically possible to restore melted butter to butter consistency, why melting changes it, or something else?
Butter may look totally amorphous, but there's actually a fair amount of structure in the fat, in particular fat crystals that make it firmer. Melting it disrupts all that structure, and it can't regain it just by resolidifying, so the structure of previously melted butter really is different.
You might notice that this is similar to chocolate: if you take smooth, snappy tempered chocolate, melt it, and let it resolidify, the texture will often be grainy, soft, or even crumbly. That's also thanks to fat crystals, in that case in the cocoa butter.
To back up a bit, let's look at how butter is made. Churning is the most well-known step, but there's more:
Aging (heating, cooling, and storing the cream). The cream is heated and cooled, with resting periods at various temperatures, which encourages formation of certain kinds of fat crystals. (The details of this process vary; for example different temperatures can be used depending on the hardness of the milkfat.)
Churning. This damages the fat globules, causing them to release fat, which forms much of the mass of the butter and lets it collect into grains.
Working/kneading. After draining off the buttermilk, the grains are kneaded together. This evens out small amounts of buttermilk trapped in the grains, and fat crystals can also come together into larger networks.
So the final butter actually has three forms of fat in it: fat crystals, free fat, and fat globules. The fat crystals make it firmer, and the free fat and globules make it softer. This also explains why butter isn't all the same texture. For example, from On Food and Cooking:
Feeds rich in polyunsaturated fats, especially fresh pasturage, produce softer butters; hay and grain harder ones. The butter maker also influences consistency by the rate and degree of cooling to which he subjects the cream during the aging period, and by how extensively he works the new butter. These conditions control the relative proportions of firming crystalline fat and softening globular and free fat.
So when you melt and resolidify butter, it's not just a simple solid to liquid to solid thing. You're disrupting the crystals, and potentially even rupturing a few more fat globules. That means a couple things:
There's likely more free fat and less crystals, which explains why previously melted butter can be much softer than the original butter.
The crystals that do remain or reform won't have the same structure as the original ones, since you didn't follow the same heating/cooling/storing regimen. That explains the graininess you noticed. It's possible that working/kneading the butter might even that back out to some extent.
The exact texture of your previously melted butter will probably vary, depending on how hot you melted it and how fast you cooled it afterwards.
The change in feed also affects cheese production. (the Dutch make a distinction between winter & summer cheeses, and highly value the cheese made from the early spring when the cows go back to grass ... it wasn't until recently that graskaas was even commercially available outside of the Netherlands)
Part of making butter is churning... the churning process introduces a ton of air into the butter. When you melt it, all of the air is released so you should never expect melted butter to return to the same state it was before it was melted.
The air trapped in butter is what causes the lighter color you see... if you take softened butter and whip it (as the first step in baking cookies, for example), the butter will get even lighter in color.
The same thing happens with ice cream when it is melted... churning introduces air and melting releases that air... which is why you can't refreeze ice cream that has melted.
Do you have any reference that supports "the churning process introduces a ton of air into the butter"? It looks more likely to me that the suspension that makes the nontransparent appearence is of water in fat rather than air in fat. This is similar to mayonnaise, and the opposite of milk which is fat globules in aqeuous solution. Moreover, while you can see the bubbles coming out from melting ice cream, that doesn't happen for melting butter.
There is indeed a physical change that occurs.
If you think back to grade school science you probably remember learning about solutions and suspensions, and how the former is a mixture that stays mixed when left alone (like saltwater) and the latter is a insoluble particles dispersed in a liquid, which separate if left alone (like water and sand if you shake them up together)
Solid butter is what's called a colloidal suspension, which is basically a cross between the two. It's a suspension in a solidified state where it stays uniformly mixed. When butter is heated to the point of liquefying, the fat and protein components separate because of their different densities. Once they've come apart they're going to remain that way when the butter cools.
Attempting to mix the layers back together during cooling would bring it slightly closer to how it was at first, but it would still be impossible to mix the fat and nonfat as uniformly as it was to begin with.
Your conclusions seem correct, but your definitions are a little off: a suspension contains insoluble solids; a colloid contains (insoluble) gases.
Oxford dictionary defines colloid as "A homogeneous, noncrystalline substance consisting of large molecules or ultramicroscopic particles of one substance dispersed through a second substance. Colloids include gels, sols, and emulsions; the particles do not settle and cannot be separated out by ordinary filtering or centrifuging like those in a suspension." They can contain gases, but many don't. For instance, an emulsion is two liquids that don't mix. I did mess up by saying oil/water is a suspension though. Good catch
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.616503
| 2016-04-28T16:04:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68628",
"authors": [
"Barkode",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Phil Frost",
"The Nate",
"Tony",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"luser droog"
],
"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
}
|
5243
|
wishy-washy caffè frappè
I'm trying to do the Greek drink "Caffè Frappè". I'm using 2 tea spoon of spray dried coffee and 2 tea spoons of sugar. I've added a little of iced water and blended with an hand mixer until it's whipped. After that I add water until the glass is full, but the water/coffee is too much diluted. Am I making any mistake? Suggestions?
I would also recommend that you find dried coffee by Nescafe - specifically the Greek brand if you can find it. Depending on where you live it can be hard to find but is totally worth it and for some reason foams better than regular Nescafe. If you search the internetz you will find that there is a Nescafe with a label written in Greek. This is the one you want!
Once you have strong enough dried coffee to start with then it is only a matter of ratios with water and the coffee. Experiment, but two teaspoons sounds like not enough - I'd start with a tablespoon to 3 tablespoons water. Pour over ice. Add water after you have mixed it but be careful not to ruin the foam you just created. Remember the ice will start to melt immediately also making your frappe taste wishy washy so make it stronger from the start.
The Nescafé they use in Greece is called "Nescafé Classic". In Switzerland where I live (and also where Nestlé have their HQ, hehe) I never found any Nescafé Classic, only "Gold", "Red" and whatever... I used to buy it when on holidays in Greece, but I have seen it in stores in France too. Are you sure the Nescafé Classic sold in Greece is different than in other countries? BTW: When you're in Greece, try out a caffé freddo! It's a real Espresso with ice topped with foamed milk, I began to like it a lot more than frappé :)
My error was that I poured the water along the edge of the glass, I had to pour it directly on the foam, in this way the water dissolves the coffee since it has a bigger surface in contact with the foam.
Use less water or more dried coffee.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.617061
| 2010-08-15T17:21:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5243",
"authors": [
"A Salcedo",
"Desingh",
"Kellenjb",
"Nick",
"Saeed Amiri",
"Scott T Rogers",
"Vinz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1338",
"user6184"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24975
|
How to prevent my roux from sticking to the bottom of the pan?
I make this soup based on a roux. I make roux the following way:
I melt butter
I add the same amount of flour
After cooking it a little I start adding a stock, just a little at the time.
This is where it goes wrong. Always when i add the first but of water or stock, my roux sticks a bit to the bottem om the pan. I try stirring the hell out of it, but I never prevent a little to stick to the pan.
So this is what happens: I have a roux base that does not stick to the pan, but when I add the first liquid, it immediately start sticking.
I can imagine a couple of thinks to influence this proces:
The heat of the water/stock you add
I normally have already warm/hot stock. Is it better to add cold liquid?
The heat of the pan
Maybe I should cook less hot?
Does spices influence the stickyness?
I make roux with yellow curry mixed with the flour mostly.
Does baking onions/garlic with the butter matter while making the roux?
From the question How to mix a roux with stock I find out I should add more water at the same time. Would this also help my current problem? Because I can not really imagine that. (Also I do not see how you would get a good roux without lumps while doing that, but that's an other questions and probably just needs some more practice)
I looked in these questions:
How to make a roux? and How to mix a roux with stock but they could not really help me.
Thanks in advanced for the answer!
possible duplicate of How to mix a roux with stock?
I've provided an answer in case people don't agree that this is a duplicate, but you've basically said the exact same thing as my proposed duplicate: you're making a 1:1 roux, then adding liquid slowly, and having trouble. Rumtscho's detailed answer there explains why this is bad (despite your trouble imagining it) and adds a lot of other helpful advice.
There's already a question about roux/stock temperature (as well as a recent question that's probably a duplicate). Summary: yes, adding cold liquid to hot roux is good. Additionally, most of what I'm saying is already in the answers to "How to mix a roux with stock". I've gone ahead and tried to address your specific concerns, but I really think thoroughly reading rumstcho's answer there would help you.
Yes, it's also bad if the pan is too hot, and you rapidly cook the roux and boil off excess liquid, leaving something that was briefly wet enough to spread along the bottom of the pan, then a second later dry enough to cook onto the bottom of the pan. This is also one of the reasons it's bad to add too little liquid at once. If it ever dries out, you've messed up.
And yes, you should probably be adding more liquid initially, at the very least enough to wet all of the roux. It's fine if the first batch of liquid gets you something substantially thicker than your end goal, but you shouldn't be just trying to get a slightly wet ball of roux, then a slightly wetter one, and ten steps later have a thick slurry. You want to give yourself enough liquid to work with right away.
Once you've got all that, you need to whisk well. If anything is remaining sitting on the bottom of the pan the entire time, of course it's going to stick.
With respect to your other questions: Spices shouldn't hurt you, and a roux containing significant onions and garlic isn't a normal roux, but I've certainly made tons of thick sauces with all kinds of things mixed into the roux, and had no trouble. Bits of things are just, well, extra bits of things. They don't really interact with the liquid when you add it.
I couldn't really find there the answer to the question: Why does it stick? What in the things I do wrong causes the sticking? However, if you state: You should combine these answers and follow it up properly: -hot stock, not to hot pan, enough stock at once. And it won't stick, then I agree with you. However from your answer I think mostly the 'not enough stock' part is making it sticking. So it really did help me more. Thank you for your answer. I'm going to try that. :)
It sticks because (1) your pan is too hot, (2) you're not adding enough liquid, and/or (3) you're letting it cook too long before adding more stock.
This goes to the point of a roux - you mix the flour with the fat to cover all the loose particulate matter on the flour grains that nt to stick together in the presence of water.
The problem is, butter has about 20% water content!
After you've melted your butter, keep it on the heat until it has completely stopped bubbling. That's when the water has completely evaporated. Only then add the flour, stir hard to coat all the grains, and then you should be able to add all the water you want :)
Of course you have to stir roux when making it, and you also have to stir with the proper utensil: a spatula with a wide flat edge. If you are stirring with a spoon, fork, whisk, or some other utensil, you are not moving the parts just above the pan bottom, and they are remaining there and burning. Also, don't stop stirring until it has thickened, else it will set and burn.
Of course the other answer (too hot a pan) is important too, but at the heat you need for making roux, it will burn quickly if not properly stirred. You need both - the correct temperature and the correct stirring spatula.
I recently discovered this whisk, which does a pretty good job with the bottom of the pan.
Interesting thing - does it also work well as a normal whisk? Also, I would be afraid that it won't move the bottom layer far enough but just go "under" it instead of pushing it aside the way a spatula does.
I haven't done anything really intense with it yet, but so far, just fine for normal whisky things, and I've made one roux-based sauce with it in a broad pan with no problems. (But then, I've never really had problems with this stuff, and I don't use recipes. Just melt butter, add some flour, cook a bit, add some liquid, stir, add some more, there we are!)
I tried whipping egg whites with that kind of whisk just this weekend. It seemed to be working, but I can't tell because the container of the egg whites was too narrow to have the whites nicely whipped. But it was certainly better than a spatula (although I haven't tried it to whip whites with).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.617263
| 2012-07-10T18:22:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24975",
"authors": [
"Ampeire Timothy",
"Ben W",
"Cascabel",
"Cristina VH",
"Lotte Laat",
"Mien",
"Wendy Nester",
"cberlind",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57173",
"owjburnham",
"rumtscho",
"vmonteco"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68838
|
Pressure cooked stock out overnight, still safe?
I see a question here about stock out overnight, but in my case it's a bit different in that I used a pressure cooker.
My question is, is there anything that could possibly have survived an hour of high pressure cooking? I've essentially gone far beyond what's done in pressure canning, and never opened the cooker.
Is it really possible that anything survived that inferno? Pressure cookers by definition have an air tight seal, so I can't see how anything would crawl in after the deed.
Safe to eat?
Did the cooker still have pressure? If not, it's possible that something might have gotten in through the pressure vent at some point in the cooling process.
I'm not sure anyone would dare to declare your stock "safe" - me included, hence no answer. But personally, I would probably eat it.
I would say it exceeds canning at that point.
@Paparazzi If by that you mean it's safer than canning... no. Canning relies on having an airtight seal, which was not present here.
@Jefromi Right?
No, it is not safe. As soon as a pressure cooker loses pressure it is not hermetically sealed. Stock, in particular, is often used as a culture medium in petri dishes to GROW bacteria. They love the stuff.
Pressure cooking or pressure cookers do not confer magical powers to food - once the pressure is gone all the regular food handling rules apply:
Always refrigerate perishable food within 2 hours (1 hour when the temperature is above 90 °F).
When in doubt, throw it out.
Here's a little story about Bending the Rules on Bacteria and Food Safety, wherein a cookbook author feeds lethal week-old stock to his family - and the expert opinion on why this is NOT ok.
According to the article you reference, the food scientist actually "gave a pass" to allowing stock to cool overnight. And that wasn't even using a pressure cooker, which would have destroyed the lamented botulism spores as well. He says that stock left at room temperature for a week is unsafe. I'm talking about a very different situation.
@DougW In that case, the stock was boiled again before refrigerating in the morning to deal with potential contamination in the meantime. You don't mention doing that in your question.
I've read a number of opinions since posting this and I have to say that I think the top answer is conservative to the point of absurdity.
According to a strict reading of the FDA food safety rules, yes this stock should be considered a lethal poison. However there are a number of mitigating factors here, which I believe render this food completely safe. The FDA rules will keep you safe, but they are written to keep you safe under any circumstances.
To be clear, after cooking there were zero bacteria in this stock or on the stockpot. There were zero botulism spores in the stock or stockpot. Pressure cooking on high for an hour has completely eradicated everything. So the only potential source of contamination would have been from airborne bacteria or bacterial spores happening to float through the extremely small aperture of the vent after de-pressurization.
There is probably a tiny bit of ongoing air exchange due to convection between the heated air inside and cool air outside the pot. All told though, this is clearly going to be a tiny amount of air overall. Heck, let's say it's a few liters, which I think is generous.
So, what we're terrified of here is that there was enough airborne E. coli or botulism or something evil in a few liters of kitchen air to colonize a stock to the point of being unsafe (even with reheating) in maybe 5-8 hours. I have to believe that if that was even remotely possible, we'd all be dying left and right simply from breathing our kitchen air for more than a few minutes at a time.
Do what you feel is right, but in my opinion saying to throw this out is 100% about fear of legal liability and 0% about science or sense. Yes, I ate the stock. It was delicious. YMMV.
Perhaps the issue here is in how you're reading the FDA food safety rules? They make no claims about "lethal poison". They make claims about what is a safe level of risk. None of their rules are "do this or you'll die" they're "do this, or too many of you will get sick sometimes".
As for the risk assessment... airborne contamination is quite real, not super likely, but it is a real risk. And since you don't mention reboiling, if you're unlucky and do get contamination, the 5-8 hours is absolutely long enough to multiply to dangerous levels. Sure, as you say, the air that contaminated it would never be dangerous, but once that bacteria gets into an ideal growth medium like stock, it can multiply to become dangerous in hours. I totally agree with you that this is much lower risk than a lot of things, but it doesn't appear to be a safe practice unless you reboil.
Sorry, that was a linguistic flourish. Obviously the FDA doesn't use the term "lethal poison". I disagree with the assessment that the risk is "quite real". I think in this case, the probability of getting sick is in the neighborhood of being struck and killed by a meteorite. Is that a "real" risk? Depends on your definition. Yes it could happen. My personal level of risk tolerance is many orders of magnitude greater. The FDA guidelines' level is not. Would I serve this to immune compromised individuals at a restaurant? Probably not.
We defer to government agencies on levels of safe risk because we're not at all sufficiently qualified or well-informed to make judgments about risk levels otherwise. Your answer is a good demonstration of this: we can agree the situation is lower risk than a lot of common dangerous ones, but we have no real quantitative idea, and yet you're comparing it to a meteorite strike nonetheless. So if your claim were "this is unsafe but probably not that awful", okay. But your answer is more like "the FDA is way too paranoid and this is totally safe", no, you can't really conclude that.
Sure, I get your point. Government has a team of scientists that have crafted guidelines that will keep even the stupidest of persons safe in even the most dangerous of situations. That is true. Maybe it's egotism but, in this case, I personally feel confident enough in my abilities of deductive reasoning to come to a different, yet safe, conclusion. I'll still accept the answer that will keep everyone alive, Darwin be damned.
No, it's not safe, even withe a closed pressure cooker air must enter in order to equalize pressure.
This goes for everything you cook: The temperature danger zone goes from 41f to 149f and you need to reach the bottom bound within these margins:
149f to 70f in 2 hours max
70f to 41f in 4 hours max
After that you have to put the food in the fridge or the freezer.
What this does is to minimize the reproduction of microorganism such as fungus and bacteria, since you don't give them enough time on their "comfort zone".
Pressure is created by boiling water. The extra pressure is caused by the steam which takes up more space than its liquid water form. Outside air is not pumped in.
Have you guys heard of the famous experiment done by Pasteur to disprove the spontaneous generation theory? In this experiment, he boiled broth to sterilise it, then kept it in an open glass jar, a glass jar with cotton covering the top and a glass jar with a long swan neck. Both the cotton (as a filter) and the swan-shaped neck stopped contamination. The same principle that applies to a swan-shaped glass neck applies to a Petri dish: the seal is not airtight, yet no contamination can enter due to the shape of the minuscule gap.
I would argue that it depends on your pressure cooker seal, but if it can seal off pressure then the gap that allows air exchange is probably also preventing contamination. In fact in autoclaves (fancy pressure cookers) we sterilize media with the lid slightly loose to prevent the bottles from exploding, and then let the whole system cool down for hours, pick up the next day, and nothing grows on it.
In conclusion: I don't think anything will grow overnight if the pressure cooker is left unopened. Happy to be disproven otherwise by anyone who wants to experiment!
I often make a pressure cooked stock, turn off the gas, leave the pot alone (allowing the pressure to dissipate naturally), leave the lid undisturbed, and return to it the next day to strain, package and use or freeze. Depending on your altitude, the temperature inside your pressure cooker can reach 250 degrees F. This is well beyond the temperature to kill off any potentially harmful bacteria. As you state, if you don't open the lid, nothing can enter. Bacteria don't crawl or fly around, so it is hard to imagine something getting in through the pressure release...unless you dumped some tainted liquid on the pressure cooker...then....maybe... Draw your own conclusions, for me it is a routine practice.
Bacteria don't literally fly, but they can definitely drift around in the air all the same. And the pressure cooker isn't airtight anymore after cooling. In fact, it may even pull some air in - the pressure will equalize while it's still warm, then as the steam inside condenses and the air inside cools, it'll end up lower pressure inside than out. When you're canning, you regard things as unsafe if they don't get a good seal; seems like the same should apply here. Not saying it's as risky as uncovered food left out, but doesn't seem entirely safe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.617770
| 2016-05-06T15:54:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68838",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"DougW",
"Matthew",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8043",
"logophobe",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115584
|
Why does slightly cooked (wilted) spinach give me dry mouth but not raw or fully cooked?
I used raw spinach in salads. I use it well cooked in soups, pies, and sauteed by itself. For some recipes (mostly in omelettes) I like it flash-fried, just to the point it starts wilting. And in those recipes, it leaves me with a dry mouth for an hour after I eat it. Any clues?
If it is of any relevance, I only buy fresh pre-washed baby spinach so I cannot compare to other kinds, or to frozen, or to spinach I wash myself.
Oxalates most likely.
Cooking doesn't change the oxalates but I reckon how it is chewed, more vrs less, might be the reason.
Wilted seems the chewiest to me.
"Spinach contains a high amount of oxalic acids which contain small crystals that do not dissolve in water. These oxalate crystals are released from spinach as you chew, coating the teeth, resulting in that chalky or gritty feeling"
Some further reading, after this answer, provides at least a theory. Recipes with dairy provide calcium for the formation of calcium oxalate crystals as you suggest. Salads don't. Some types of cooking apparently break down oxalic acid. I wonder if heavy boiling (soup) or high temp baking for 45 minutes or more (pies etc) destroy the compound, whereas wilting in a pan simply makes it more available to bind with calcium in the recipe? I emphasize this is just an idea from some hasty reading.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.618950
| 2021-05-09T12:18:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115584",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93827",
"jay613"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115733
|
Cooking custard for crème brûlée macarons
I'm planning to make crème brûlée-flavored French macaroons, which will consist of vanilla-flavored macaroons, topped with caramelized sugar for the shatter-y effect, and a vanilla bean custard filling. However, I'm unsure of the best way to cook the custard filling, since I'm not after the same consistency as the custard in real crème brûlée; I'd like something a bit softer and more spreadable. I doubt that cooking the custard the same way for a shorter period of time would work, but I also don't have much experience cooking crème brûlée, so any ideas would be appreciated!
Have you tried following an existing recipe for macarons filled with crème brûlée or other custards?
I think your flavor ideas seem fine, I'd advise against a custard filling for two reasons. First, custard is squishy, even if you make it harder it's going to squish out when the macaron is bitten into, which isn't the result you want. Second, the excess moisture in the custard could make the macarons soggy, also not the result you want.
Almost all the macaron fillings I know of use chocolate ganache or butter cream fillings because they have the right combination of spreadibility and resilience, and their low moisture content will keep the macarons from getting soggy. I would suggest you change your approach to use one of these two options. You could try making a vanilla butter cream with toasted white sugar to get a caramel flavor, it's an extra step but makes a big difference flavor-wise.
If you want to try a custard then a cornstarch (aka cornflour depending on where you are) thickened custard is likely the way to go as you can get a thicker set than an egg yolk custard, and it's easier to modify through experimentation to find out how much you will need to get the consistency you want when cooled. You will also want to give the inside of each half a thin layer of white chocolate to prevent them from absorbing moisture from the custard.
Building on GdD's suggestion that a custard might be too wet for the meringue, how about using a white chocolate ganache instead? You can make it at least reminiscent of custard by adding vanilla bean seeds. And if you make a ganache with egg yolks, you'll get some of the egg-y taste of custard.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.619106
| 2021-05-20T03:30:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115733",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115835
|
Effect of adding whole egg or yolk to filo pastry?
I had some success making filo pastry for apple strudel with a mixture consisting of flour, olive oil, lemon juice and white vinegar. The result was actually quite nice except the pastry was very delicate. I made the dough very thin using a pasta machine. I am wondering what would happen to the pastry if I used an egg. I am thinking it might be more crunchy... due to the egg introducing more protein fibers. What do you think?
Are you asking about filo, or about strudel dough? Not the same recipe.
I am interested to learn of course but I always associated filo with strudel. The distinction is very much food for thought :) https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-make-phyllo-dough-apple-strudel
per my answer below, if you search on "strudel dough" you'll find a bunch of recipes that include an egg.
I saw a few recipes... this was more like my own rendition, so probably I should call it something else :) I went for the pasta machine as I did not have the confidence to try to stretch out the dough. The result is very thin and quite easy and predictable if you are used to the machine. There is also the option to stretch after rolling out the dough. Definitely, can see there will be a merit for avoiding addition of olive oil. I might try with egg white :)
The idea to add vinegar and lemon juice came from examples I found but in terms of the chemistry I cannot see what impact this has, other than possibly leaving elements that have preservative action ... might omit this also :)
One more thought ... think I might make more layers of pastry next time.
In my personal experience, adding eggs to dough makes it softer, not crunchier. Adding an egg makes it an "enriched dough" that has the ability to hold onto moisture despite being baked.
Many apple strudel dough recipes include an egg or two in the dough, so you should just go for it.
Finally, while strudel dough is very similar to filo, it is not the same thing, which may be causing some confusion for you. Per one baking blog:
So the difference is simple, it's the fat! In the Puff Pastry the butter is folded in, in the Strudel dough the oil is part of the dough from the beginning and the Phyllo dough is brushed with oil before being baked.
So per your question, strudel dough sometimes includes an egg, whereas filo (phyllo) never does.
While it is possible to add an egg, it isn't a very promising idea. If what you like about phylo pastry is its traditional texture, then the easiest way to get it is to use the tried-and-known methods to make it, instead of doing random experiments.
So first about the egg: the yolk would be a no-go, it will make the pastry softer and less crunchy. Adding an egg white (or rather replacing some of the water with egg white) would be something to try, since egg whites do produce a drier result, but you will still be moving away from the standard phylo texture, even if you do achieve some kind of crunchy.
As for making a crunchy strudel, you don't need any complicated recipe. A standard phylo has flour and water, nothing else. I would certainly search for a recipe without oil if you have problems with crunchiness, since it softens the dough. The acid is also not needed - if you have problems with insufficient gluten development, just knead properly, rather than trying to adjust with acid. It probably won't hurt if you want to keep it, but my personal preference would be to choose a simpler recipe for learning the basics before switching to something with higher complexity.
Once you have made the dough, all you need for crunchiness is thin enough sheets (I would be suspicious of that pasta machine) and sufficient fat, both inside the dough sheet and on top of the rolled strudel (the taste is better if you place pieces of butter on top instead of sprinkling with oil). This ensures that the outer layers of the pastry get quasi-fried in the oven, making them crunchy. It is normal for the inner layers to stay soft, especially if you have a dairy-based filling or something on the wet side.
Importantly, the OP is actually asking about strudel dough and not filo, per the question.
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.619305
| 2021-05-26T16:32:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115835",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94093",
"rumtscho",
"user8369515"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115898
|
Culinary purpose of frying pan foil sheet for cooking fish? (not wrapped in foil)
I came across some videos about how to cook mackerel (Chef Saito's Saikyo-zuke with Spanish Mackerel [Japanese Cooking] - Dining with the Chef) and several of them recommended the use of a "fish cooking sheet" that looks to me just like aluminum foil. They put this foil on top of a frying pan and then put the fish on top of the foil and then cover with a glass lid on low heat for 3-4 minutes before flipping.
Note, the fish is not sealed inside the foil with herbs and spices, and the recommendation is for low heat.
If any, what is the culinary purpose of using foil for frying pan (when cooking oily fish)?
It says one side is non-stick, but surely it is not just for help with clean up? Does it modify the heat in some special way not otherwise achievable without the use of foil?
The foil is from Japan, but the pictures on the packaging make it clear what it's used for.
[Bulk Purchase] Kitinto-san Foil Sheet for Frying Pans, Wide 11.8 x 2.6 ft (30 x 7 m) x 4 Packs
Related (but not what's happening here): if you place your fish on a square of aluminum foil when grilling, it won't stick to the grill, but you'll still get grill marks.
Is it me, or does that ‘fish’ look awfully like bacon?
It's a silicone-coated aluminum foil.
It's just something that makes your life easier when cleaning. You could just use a regular non-stick pan to get the same benefits.
There's no "culinary purpose" for it.
In my experience, when using non-enameled cast iron, the skillet retains a distinct fishy smell, and imparts that Umami note to any other food cooked in it. Even after scrubbing and re-seasoning, that skillet is no longer used for anything but fish, or something being served with fish. I have also noticed that one of my anodized aluminum pans, used once to sear tuna steaks, has a much less pronounced fishy aroma while preheating, but does not change the taste of the food. I have heard of this also happening when using carbon steel, but I have no first hand experience with that. My family does not dispute me on the cast iron, but thinks I am bonkers when it comes to the anodized pan. I won't deny that they may be somewhat correct; however, I have a much stronger sense of smell than they do. For example, I can tell from the other side of the house, behind a closed door when when something in the oven is done -simply by the smell. My olfactory hypersensitivity notwithstanding, if you are using non-enameled cast iron, I would definitely line it with something. Either way, as Max points out, it makes clean up a breeze. The silicone will make the fish release cleanly from the heat preserving that beautiful finish without flaking off into the pan. Silicone can't take temperatures much higher than 400f/200c, so do heed the low-heat warning.
Aside: Silicone-lined aluminum foil? That is genius! I wish I cold find that state-side.
It is special foil (my friend gave me some!) and it is the best!! It absorbs fish smell. Put the foil in pan, fish on foil, put lid on pan. When done, throw out special foil. Fish smell goes out too—be careful flipping the fish to keep fish on the foil—and smell will be minimal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.619652
| 2021-06-01T05:08:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115898",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108601
|
Does a high content in salt extend the refrigerated shelf life of cooked meat?
I cook usually 1kg block at 65°C for 6 hours with 40g (4%) of salt, 10g (1%) of sugar, and a good amount of white and black pepper.
After cooking it, I cool it in an ice bath, then I store it in the fridge; first, one day uncovered, so it dries out a bit, and then in a Tupperware.
My question is: would this high content of salt increase the shelf life over the normal 3-4 days of a roast?
ADMINS: I am well aware of this question. What I want to know is if making a dish salted would extend its shelf life, and if not, what would be the alternatives. If you don't have the answer, please leave the question open. Maybe someone else would have.
You really haven't changed the question from your previous attempt. Food preservation requires multiple hurdles to be exceeded. Simply adding more salt to the cook step is certainly helpful, but you have not followed a food preservation procedure that would extend shelf life.
Simply adding more salt to the cook step is certainly helpful, but you have not followed a food preservation procedure that would extend shelf life
Could you explain this a bit further, or let the question open so someone else has the opportunity to do so? @moscafj
@Daniel I wrote this in a comment to your older question: your food does not fall into the category of "preserved" by just adding salt. You either get a book on charcuterie and follow a recipe for salami, pökelfleisch, or whatever you fancy from there, or you follow the table for "cooked protein" in the linked question. It is not that we do not know of alternatives, it is that such alternatives do not exist. Food preservation is a well-researched subject with very firm rules.
And just for clarification: The fact that one or multiple attempts didn’t give you food poisoning after the safe time frame doesn’t mean you have a safe process. It’s still unsafe, note that no longer safe doesn’t equal spoiled. You need significantly more salt plus an established procedure to make the meat “safe” by food safety standards.
You either get a book on charcuterie. On the other hand, how convenient would it be to be able to find the information on the Internet. You know... Maybe from a community dedicated to cooking advice? Sometimes I have weird ideas... @rumtscho
@Daniel If you want a recipe for making salami, yes, you can find it on the Internet too, with the caveat that there it is a bit harder to distinguish between reliable and not reliable sources. Our site does not accept recipe requests as questions, our stronger side is when you have a recipe and run into trouble executing it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.619923
| 2020-05-24T21:42:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108601",
"authors": [
"Daniel",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18033
|
Can I use green cardamomm pods and ground cardamom interchangeably?
I have some green cardamom and would like to use it in dishes such as Indian-style rice pudding. Can it be used in place of the standard ground cardamom bought in an American grocery store?
If by green you mean green cardamom pods, the short answer is yes. You will have to remove the outer green shell and grind the black seeds inside. The black powder available in stores is made from the same black seeds. It is always preferable to grind cardamom seeds fresh because ground cardamom tends to lose flavor with time.
I get an acceptable result if I grind the seeds with a mortar and pestle.
sometimes I just lightly crush the green pods and can then pour out the seeds that are inside.
Just a side note: What is commonly referred to as "black cardamom" is actually a different variety of cardamom than the green, with black hairy pods. The black pods are bigger than the green variety and they are usually dried over an open fire. Black cardamom has an earthy, smoky flavour as opposed to the more aromatic green variety and is mostly used whole in curries and such. @user7538: You refer to the pre-ground cardamom as "black cardamom", but it is actually green cardamom, just like Avinash explained in her answer. More on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cardamom
@HenrikSöderlund: I'm a "he" :-)
:D Sorry about that, man.
There is a caveat: Some green cardamom powders have a strong greenish colouring effect that can be avoided by using the pods cracked but whole.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.620156
| 2011-09-27T04:13:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18033",
"authors": [
"Akeiga Tombs",
"Avinash Bhat",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Lawrence Marquit",
"Manako",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4817"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123859
|
Japan Pufferfish preparation technique training
Where can I find resources on how the Japanese chefs are trained to prepare pufferfish delicacy safely? I understand their standard requires a written and practical exam.
I've tried searching for authoritative books on the topic but can't seem to find any resources on it.
Surely there are resources geared towards exam preparation. Perhaps such books may contain information on general food safety such as preventing cross contamination etc.
This definitely falls under the professional hospitality sector as this is a high risk task (no homemade or DIY) and you can't make simple mistakes without severe health consequences.
I assume you're actually searching through books actually written in Japanese? Because if you're not...that's probably your first problem.
Or you could just buy the safe kind; https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/world/asia/04fugu.html
You are saying it yourself: since fugu preparation is no place for DIY, you won't find general resources on how to learn to prepare it, because easily available resources would be a prompt for DIY attempts.
One needs to train under the direct supervision of a trained person
How does one obtain authorization to cook fugu?
Fugu cooking licenses are granted to those who pass a fugu handling examination, usually after having undergone apprenticeship under someone already qualified.
It should be noted that fugu cooking licenses are administered by local goverment (ie: prefectures, municipalities in the case of cities like Osaka or Kyoto), therefore the contents of the exam and the apprenticeship prior can differ from region to region. The course that one must complete can take longer in some places, while the exam can present itself to be more difficult in other areas.
For instance, in what is said the be the strictest place regarding fugu licensing in Japan: Yamaguchi Prefecture, it is necessary to work for at least 3 years under someone qualified before being allowed to take the exam, while in Tōkyō it is possible to take the test after 2 years of apprenticeship.
Also to be noted:
Fugu in the world
It is also interesting to note that Fugu dishes can also be found in South Korea, where it is called bok-eo (복어). It is also imported into the United States where it can sometimes be served under very strict regulation and licensing. Fugu is, however, entirely banned in the European Union.
To address the comments that there are videos explaining how to do it:
I am very passionate about Japan, and I have read many things related to Japanese food, including also the topic of fugu.
One of them, which I can't find back to properly quote, mentioned that the art of preparing fugu is not in removing all the toxic parts, but in doing so while leaving just enough toxin that one feels it without ending up being killed. The Japanese connoisseurs call the slight numbness which should follow eating well prepared fugu "the taste of death". Judging the amount of toxin in a fish and tune the subsequent cleaning based on that is hardly teachable in a Youtube video.
"you won't find general resources on how to learn to prepare it" regarding this point, I could find books on electrical transformer and grid electricity distribution (in the US at least) when these are off limits to non professionals. You can even find books on the National Electric Code Sample Examination questions. (Beware, they aren't cheap) The reason for this analogy is that a person like me may want to educate ourselves and understand the process, not necessarily becoming a Fugu chef. You could be a hotel owner, deciding whether you want a Japanese buffet restaurant on your premise.
@Nederealm the difference is that electrical transformers are an application of a well known study field, whereas fugu preparation is much more niche and probably only in Japan. I don't believe there are as many fugu trained chefs as there are electrical engineers.
It's a matter of time before the information is 'leaked', but until then the answer will probably hold up.
@Nederealm If all you want is the general how-to and not the in-depth information, I guess this would be good enough? https://www.kobejones.com.au/the-art-of-preparing-and-eating-the-worlds-most-deadly-fish/
The other thing to mention is if such books do exist they are almost certainly written in Japanese, and if the OP isn't searching for books written in Japanese...
My brother obtained a pufferfish license in Japan. As this answer says, he was an apprentice for a good while before taking the exam(s). Regarding whether the information about safe preparation is any kind of secret, I doubt it. In words it’s very simple: cut away the portions that have concentrated poison (the liver, for example) without spreading any poison to the meat. That’s it. The first trick is knowing where the poison is concentrated and recognizing those parts of a pufferfish carcass, and the other trick is highly developed knife skills to excise cleanly. It’s skills, not knowledge.
@Nederealm There's probably a bit of a cultural difference here as well, I suspect there's a fair bit more gatekeeping in the world of Fugu preparation as opposed to utility scale electrical engineering. The latter is probably keen to hire more motivated and enthusiastic engineers, whereas the former might want to control their competition, or might not trust others who they, or one of their associates, haven't taught personally not to poison their customers.
@Crazymoomin Cooking is an art, and much of Japanese cooking, especially high-end sushi, is a very refined art. Before even starting the apprenticeship that involved learning to prepare pufferfish, my brother worked and studied in a Japanese restaurant for nine years, and that is a considered a short amount of time in Japanese cuisine. It is a completely different type of work from electrical engineering.
@ToddWilcox to an extent, yes, though I'd argue this is a less artistic and more technical aspect of cookery (as you said so yourself), your primary goal is to remove most (or all) of the poison. It is a skill that probably could be more accessible for more people, if the demand was really there, but as it's an expensive fish generally only eaten in high end restaurants (I am aware detoxed fugu can be bought to eat at home as well) it's easy for a powerful gatekeeping culture to form around it. In a world where electricity was a rare luxury, the same might be true of electrical engineering!
@Crazymoomin I just did a web search and found many guides and videos online about how to prepare pufferfish. Doesn’t seem like there’s much gatekeeping going on. Or whoever is trying to keep it a secret is doing a really bad job of it.
@ToddWilcox if that's the case, then the answer and most of the comments are incorrect. You may wish to consider posting your own answer considering your knowledge, though I appreciate the concern that someone might be tempted to follow one of those guides. Though I think we can both agree the commercial preparation is pretty well guarded, there aren't very many fugu chefs in the world.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.620315
| 2023-04-10T02:38:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123859",
"authors": [
"Clockwork",
"Crazymoomin",
"DKNguyen",
"Luciano",
"Mast",
"Nederealm",
"Richard",
"Todd Wilcox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91020"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108186
|
How to make pizza without pizza sauce?
Does anyone know how to make pizza without pizza sauce? Maybe some kind of replacement?
You mean tomato sauce? Then just cheese, maybe several kinds as long as they melt nicely. Depending g on your oven you may want to bake your base alone first, in this case I brush some olive oil. Or just olive oil and salt flakes and call it focaccia. Or Pizza bianca if you want to call it pizza;)
Focaccia dough stretched and rolled thin, painted with olive oil, sprinkled with fresh herbs and coarse salt then lanced about with a fork is a wonderful pizza with no need for any sauce or other toppings as a snack of side dish. From there as a starting point you can start adding toppings, cheeses, even sauces to ones hearts content. Herbs could be dried rather than fresh, but fresh basil or oregano are a good starting point. I love a good sauce, but in no way is any sauce needed for a pizza. If you want a sauce however, most anything that pairs with your toppings will work and there is no reason to skimp on creativity. BBQ with chicken or shredded pork. An Alfredo with shrimp or chicken. A yogurt with fresh fruits for dessert. There really are no rules. Pizza is in my opinion defined by location and taste, not by some specific definition and is fully open to interpretation. With a good base if needs no sauce. With a lesser base, yes I want a sauce, but not to be limited to what some shop defined as appropriate.
Pizza can be made with all kinds of sauces, that’s the best part about pizza, it’s so flexible. My best friend is allergic to tomatoes, so I either use an Alfredo sauce as a base for her pizza or pesto. You could also make a buffalo or type of hot sauce, or a barbecue sauce and vary the toppings along with those sauces. You could also put like a tikka masala simmer sauce on a pizza and make it Indian style with chicken!
If you still want a red sauce you can make your own. Store-bought spaghetti sauce is usually too thin and sweet, something like ketchup is also too sweet and has an odd flavor on pizza (though I've had pizza in Hungary that had ketchup on it). You can mix these with tomato sauce or fresh tomatoes to get a good tomato sauce.
But you can put anything on a pizza, my favorite non-tomato sauce is caramelized onions. There is a traditional French pizza called "Pissaladiere" which has caramelized onions, olives, and usually capers and anchovies. The onions also go great with bacon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.620896
| 2020-05-06T21:12:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108186",
"authors": [
"David P",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19364"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108746
|
How to make cauliflower pizza crust without using parmesan cheese?
I want to make cauliflower pizza crust for keto diet, but all the recipes I have seen on internet require a lot of parmesan cheese, which is too expensive for me.
So I want to look for a cheaper alternative of parmesan cheese to use in cauliflower pizza crust. Can someone suggest something?
Following edit is mostly copied from edit suggested by @NSGod, his/her edit was already rejected by someone senior on forum, so I couldn't mark it as approved. So I am posting this little note to give credit where it is due. Thank you.
An example recipe from https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/katie-lee/cauliflower-pizza-crust-2651381 is:
Ingredients:
1 head cauliflower, stalk removed
1/2 cup shredded mozzarella
1/4 cup grated Parmesan
1/2 teaspoon dried oregano
1/2 teaspoon kosher salt
1/4 teaspoon garlic powder
2 eggs, lightly beaten
Directions:
In a food processor, chop cauliflower to a fine consistency. Steam cauliflower and then drain thoroughly. In a bowl, combine the cauliflower with the mozzarella, Parmesan, oregano, salt, garlic powder and eggs. Transfer to the center of the baking sheet and spread into a circle, resembling a pizza crust. Par-bake for 20 minutes @ 400 degrees F, then add toppings and bake for another 10 minutes.
Welcome to the site @Shy, please post the full recipe and method of what you are trying to make.
@GdD Thank you. Complete recipe: https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/katie-lee/cauliflower-pizza-crust-2651381
That link is a 404 page not found @Shy.
@GdD: The link works for me here in the US.
It doesn't appear to work outside the US. It would be helpful if the recipe could be written into the question.
@SZCZERZOKŁY The only cheese easily available in my area and affordable is cheddar cheese, mozzarella cheese, burger cheese (I have noticed it doesn't melt that easily) and cottage cheese. There is one called pizza cheese but I think it is just a combination of cheddar and mozzarella.
As far as I can tell from the recipe, the parmesan cheese is included mostly for flavor, plus a little crispiness as suggested in a comment. The mozzarella and egg are what keep the base together.
Omitting the parmesan altogether should work. You can substitute any hard(er) cheese. I would also recommend breadcrumbs if cheese is too expensive, but that will probably not fit in the Keto diet.
As a final note: the recipe calls for 1/4 cup of grated parmesan. Given a quick search for the density of grated parmesan, this comes to about 25g (less than 1 oz.) of cheese. This does not seem like a lot to me, although you might disagree.
Hi. Thank you for your answer. I got my parmesan cheese little block from store of https://www.esajee.com/. It is the best store with alot of imported stuff in my city. I tried it with it but the crust was still breaking. I need a better and cheaper binding agent.
The only cheese easily available in my area and affordable is cheddar cheese, mozzarella cheese, burger cheese (I have noticed it doesn't melt that easily) and cottage cheese. There is one called pizza cheese but I think it is just a combination of cheddar and mozzarella.
@Shy I don't think the parmesan in this recipe works as a binding agent. Cauliflower crusts are inherently less sturdy than regular old wheat-based crusts. If you want to make yours less brittle, try adding more egg and/or mozzarella. You can probably substitute cheddar for the parmesan without issues.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.621195
| 2020-05-30T16:09:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108746",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"LSchoon",
"NSGod",
"Shy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84747"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5765
|
What is the name of this chicken soup dish?
I've been making this simple chicken soup dish for years. I learned it from my dad, who got it from my mother, and who knows how far back it went beyond that. But, I really don't know what its called. I'm curious because I'd like to look up similar recipes to get ideas on how to tweak it. We've always called it "goulash", but it doesn't look like the goulashes I've seen on the net.
(Sorry about my terrible recipes. I never measure anything for this.)
Soup:
A couple diced onions
3-4 lbs of chicken (I usually use breasts. Not boneless or skinless!)
A bunch of paprika (I just make it nice and dark red)
4-6 chicken bouillon cubes
Water
Toss everything into a big pot. Bring it to a boil, and then let it simmer for a few hours. Try to get all the chicken bones out somehow at some point.
Dumplings:
some flour
some milk
Mix together in proportions that make it good and gloppy. You don't want dough, or soup. When the soup is nearly done, drop large spoonfuls into the boiling soup. They'll be done when they start to float - maybe 10 minutes.
Cucumber salad:
1-2 peeled cucumbers, sliced very thin
a few large spoonfuls of sour cream
a bit of vinegar
Mix together in a bowl. The sour cream/vinegar portion should have the consistency of thick milk. Cover and put in the fridge for a couple hours while the soup cooks.
Serving:
Ladle soup with a couple big dumplings into a bowl. Put a few big spoonfuls of cucumber salad into it. Eat it and smile.
So, what the heck have I been cooking?
+1 good question. BTW, do you mean 1-2 cucumbers sliced rather than 1-2 slices cucumber?
Yeah, I fixed that. Should be 1-2 cucumbers. Although, no matter how much I make I usually end up having to make more for the leftovers. :)
It sounds like Hungarian Chicken Paprikash. Basically is just Hungarian chicken and dumplings. Really tasty though.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&pwst=1&&sa=X&ei=PFVxTITfIcH58AaHlemMBg&ved=0CBYQvwUoAQ&q=hungarian+chicken+paprikash&spell=1
Looks like a winner! Looks like most recipes add sour cream directly to the soup instead of using cucumber salad dropped into the bowls, but very close otherwise! Thanks!
@joe no problem sir, glad I was able to help.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.621453
| 2010-08-22T16:34:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5765",
"authors": [
"Aravindhan",
"Jill",
"Joe",
"Josh",
"Tool",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"ponsfonze",
"sarge_smith",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30058
|
Why does milk curdle after being boiled with ginger?
I had heard that raw or simply pasteurized milk does curdle if ginger is put in it before it reaches its boiling point.
Alright, so yesterday I boiled the pasteurized milk at 23:00. Room temperature was around 17 degrees Celsius.
In the morning I put in the ginger and then started boiling it, but the milk curdled! (I had put the plain tea leaves and sugar also along with the ginger).
When the milk had been boiled in the previous night, why did it then curdle with ginger in the morning?
I boiled the remaining milk separately and it was fine.
please give answers w.r.t raw AS WELL AS boiled milk. Thanks. And No, no fridge was involved anywhere.
I was making Ginger milk tea.
If you want to prevent the milk from curdling when adding ginger, you have to boil the ginger or at least add it to boiling milk.
Ginger protease (the curdling agent in fresh ginger) is rapidly destroyed at temperatures above 70°C. It does not matter if the milk has been boiled in advance if you add ginger to cold or room-temperature milk, it will still curdle.
If I understand what you are saying in this answer correctly, it is not that the ginger prevents the milk from curdling in general, but rather that pre-boiling the ginger specifically prevents the milk from curdling as a result of the ginger--it could still curdle from other causes such as microbial action or presence of acids.
@SAJ14SAJ: Yes, that is exactly what I meant.
I think you have your answer, @AnishaKaul -- ginger does not prevent curdling of milk. Heating the ginger above 70 C for some time prevents the ginger itself from curdling the milk, but it could still happen from other causes.
Tor - helpful answer! So, curdling due to ginger is not related to preboiled or raw milk. It is related to the -temperature- of the milk! Thanks for enlightening.
@Anisha: That was not actually what I wrote, but yes, the curdling process itself also depends on the milk temperature. The important issue however is that ginger looses its curdling capacity when heated (once) above 70°C for a few minutes. The ginger juice can then be added to cold or room-tempered milk and the milk will still not curdle.
This was a very important learning in the process of making Chai. If you're following a traditional indian recipe for chai, remember to bring the water to a boil, add ginger to it before adding in the milk. If you start with a milk and water mixture, you're going to get chai flavoured paneer.
Ginger contains an enzyme, zingipain. When milk is added to ginger juice, this enzyme breaks down proteins in the milk, leading to the formation of cheesy-looking milk curds.
Welcome! We explicitly exclude health and nutrition except for clearly measurable effects and food safety. Based on that, we can only leave the paragraph with the chemical explanation and will remove the rest - especially as it doesn’t answer the question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.621658
| 2013-01-14T05:08:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30058",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Brennan Garland",
"Darlene Ess",
"Molly",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephie",
"Tami ",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"Travis Terrell",
"ffledgling",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70175"
],
"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
}
|
116021
|
Glass pot on glass top stove
I have a lovely glass double boiler which I would love to use on my glass cooktop. Cooktop already has scratches so that doesn't worry me, but will my pot break if I use it?
We already have questions about glass vessels on gas (https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103723/, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17970), so answers here should address the matter of using them on a glass cooktop specifically.
This is probably fine. A double-boiler should be designed for stovetop use, and a double boiler shouldn't reach high temperatures.
Most glass cookware (Pyrex and such) is tempered glass, which isn't really safe for stovetop use. Stovetop puts stress on glass because all the heat is coming from the bottom and highly concentrated, so if you put a tempered glass casserole dish on a burner, it is likely to shatter. However, there is also borosilicate glass, which handles this better, and would be safe to use on the stovetop. There isn't a great way to tell the difference between these two visually, unfortunately. You can inspect your double boiler to see if it states the material. (Or other identifying markers that can be looked up.) If it doesn't, I'd just assume it's using borosilicate, and move on, because tempered glass for stovetop use is a stupid idea, even for a double boiler.
You do need to look for cracks and chips, though. If glass cookware is damaged it is not safe to use.
The handle will get hot. Have a oven mitt or something handy.
It seems some Pyrex still is borosilicate glass (as confirmed on e.g. Amazon) — though some switched to tempered soda-lime glass in the 1980s (according to Wikipedia).
What does Pyrex make that's borosilicate? I just ran through their entire catalog on their site; nothing was designed for stovetop use, and the random items I opened were all noted to be tempered.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.621932
| 2021-06-11T03:45:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116021",
"authors": [
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"rumtscho",
"user3757614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116071
|
Is stinky tofu safe to eat
How safe is stinky tofu since it does smell like feces? Is there risk of bad prep when making it or coming out of places with questionable food safety practice?
Counter question: Why would you want to eat something that you perceive as revolting?
Hi, it seems that you are assuming that food safety is connected to smell. I am closing as a duplicate of one of our basic food safety questions, but the more pertinent information is probably in the tag description, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info.
Lots of cheeses taste revolting for many people, and they are safe to eat.
Voting to reopen. I think @rumtscho assumes it's tofu that's gone bad, while Stinky tofu usually refers to a deliberately-fermented food.
@ChrisH I did not misunderstand it to be tofu that's gone bad. I understood the question such as: the OP checks food "by nose" and if it still smells good, they declare it "safe". Since "stinky tofu" smells unusually, they are asking by what criteria to determine whether a given piece of tofu is "safe". Since our site uses the official definition of food safety, the only answer we can give is to follow the official rules of food safety. The question I linked has a basic explanation of how food safety is determined without smell, and the tag info explains why smell cannot be used.
@rumtscho it's meant to smell like that. There's no suggestion that it's been improperly stored, just a worry about the prep, i.e. it can't be a duplicate of a storage question as it stands. It could be answered with a pointer to those food safety rules, as we do for prep-related safety. It's just like saying "I hate the smell of blue cheese, is it safe?" - that's not about storage
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
@Pi A: hey, if you want to ask an acceptable version of this question, it would be something like "Are there specific food preparation risks associated with preparing Stinky Tofu that I should watch out for?" Food safety is on-topic for SA, but your question is too vague and confusing to be answerable.
To answer your question: You can't know without sending a sample to a lab.
Your safest course of action is to ditch it.
There are safe bacteria in food and there are unsafe bacteria in food, and it's not easy to establish which bacteria has contaminated your food.
The various food (and drugs) administrations around the world have established certain safety procedures. This answer might help you.
That's like saying that the safest thing that you can do with a Camembert is to send it to a lab or ditch it because it smells like fart. People have been eating chòu dòufu for centuries and it does not seem to be less safe than any other food.
@Daniel, Camembert is supposed to stink, so that's not a valid objection. I was not aware of the existence of chòu dòufu which is a valid objection.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.622100
| 2021-06-14T05:45:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116071",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Chris H",
"Daniel",
"FuzzyChef",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116160
|
Question about cooking meat from a beginner
This is the first time that I will cook meat. My question is that in the method of boiling/simmering meat, the foam of fats I see and I remove it with a large spoon. If I use another method for cooking meat (such as frying or grilling) will the fat remain in the meat?
If you want low fat meat cooking methods make little difference, you need to start with lower fat cuts.
Hi huab, we only take one question per post. You can use the small grey "Edit" link below your post to leave only one question, and we can then reopen. We can post the other one separately. By the way, we don't take question on "what is healthier", but if you want to know something measurable, like whether the fat content is reduced by your method, then we can take the question, preferably without references to health.
@rumtscho I click delete multipe times but nothing happen
@huab yes indeed, deletion is prevented when you have gotten good answers, see https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221. You don't need to delete though, the idea is that you edit it so only one question is left out of the two.
Side note: if you're just starting with cooking meat, boiling usually will not bring out the best flavour. At least brown it (fry / grill) first.
ah ok, that would probably be a stew... Even then, browning the meat first gives it a richer flavor. You can also drain some of the fat at this stage if that's your intent.
What you are skimming certainly is some fat, but it is probably mostly comprised of denatured proteins. We can't answer questions about healthy or not on this site. That is all relative to you and your preferences. Salt enhances flavor. Salting well in advance, removes moisture, concentrates flavor, and enhances flavor by penetrating the meat.
To add: the salt is then partially removed so the meat doesn't end up too salty
@JulianaKarasawaSouza ....perhaps....it really depends on how much you use in the first place. When I salt a chicken two days prior to roasting, for example, I don't rinse or remove any salt.
that's true. Absolutely no point in removing any salt, coarse or fine, 2 days after salting, a lot of migration already happened in that interval, completely different salting techniques
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.622346
| 2021-06-21T12:56:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116160",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94429",
"huab",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116239
|
Does food steamer require ventilation
I am considering getting a food steamer but I don't have access to a kitchen. I have a microwave in my room but I think I could use a steamer as well to cook vegetables. I've never used a steamer before and I won't be able to use it if it gives out a lot of steam due to damp issue.
Do steamers require ventilation? Or is it internally a closed system so nothing comes out? Can I use it in a closed room without having to open the window?
If you are limited to living in a room without a kitchen, it might be better to not collect one-trick ponies like a steamer and a microwave, but to get something more versatile like a hotplate, or a programmable pressure cooker. You'll be able to cook many more things for the same footprint.
If you have a microwave, you can steam vegetables in it by just putting them in a closed dish in the microwave, and running it either at low power or intermittently.
@rumtscho, many steamers double as rice cookers. In many cultures a rice cooker isn't a "one off" but something used for 2 or 3 meals every day.
I'd rather not use hotplates. They're unreliable i.e. fail often, the risks of fires and burns are very high, you need good quality hobs, which are relatively expensive, or else heat transfer is uncontrollable. I just got the steamer and it was cheap (about $25) and I steamed some vegetables and it was so much easier than cooking them would have been.
instead of a hotplate I'd get a single-zone induction hob; even cheap ones are very good. But I suspect either won't work for OP, since it's a closed room and there's not a lot of ventilation.
The amount of steam released is comparable to boiling a kettle for a few minutes. Without knowing what your room is like we can't provide a general recommendation, since the answer would depend on the preexisting humidity, size of the room, height of the ceiling, temperature, ventilation etc.
I would expect that if the room is sometimes ventilated (i.e. sometimes you open a window), using a steamer to cook some vegetables once in a day wouldn't be a problem. If you were using it very frequently with no ventilation you could find the room getting humid (and the room getting hot!) fairly quickly. If you notice water condensing on surfaces or everything feels damp then reconsider.
I do have a kettle in my room and there are no problems when I boile water. And I ventillate daily. I think I should be alright.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.622555
| 2021-06-28T08:35:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116239",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"Some Student",
"The Photon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94502",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116381
|
Dirty cutlery holder hanging over glass stove lid with drip container
When I cook, I use cutlery to get the food from the pan, and after using them I put it on a plate that is on the table.
But I thought I could do better, putting a frame of hooks to hang the cutlery in the vertical direction having a container underneath to contain dripping broth that runs off the used cutlery.
I searched for a long time on the internet and I didn't find anything like that.
I'm thinking of making a frame like this with aluminum alloy metal blades and solder.
But I decided to come here first and ask if anyone knows the name (if there is this silverware holder) or if they could give me clues.
I decided to draw the cutlery holder I'm trying to find positioned over the open lid of a stove (I'm not a great designer).
Hanging something involves almost always a swinging motion. Drippings will get all over the place. I would rather stay with putting your stuff on a plate next to the stove.
Not sure about the idea - wouldn’t hanging something from a lid pose a risk of said stove lid closing from the weight and jostling of the tools? In other words, I have never seen anything like the contraption in your sketch and either you found a business opportunity or others have dismissed the idea for a reason.
I have seen products sold as "upright spoon rest" that hold your utensils vertically, with the business end sitting in a small bowl up collect drips and the handle up so that it stays clean. This isn't the same as your idea, but seems to address your concern and the potential problems Stephie and Johannes mention
Even more than the drippings and the stove lid closing, I'm concerned about OP reaching over boiling and steaming pots to get to the tools, depending on how the stove is positioned relative to the rest of the kitchen (e.g. bench, walls)
It is quite common to have clean cutlery stored not in a drawer, but hanging from hooks, either fastened separately to a wall, or hung over a rail. If you want to hang food-dripping ladles and the like, all you would need in addition is a small vessel on the back of the stove to catch the drippings - is this equivalent to what you are looking for?
why not just put them in a pint glass?
@dandavis Thank you for the comment, but the point is that I do not want to go outside the air space above the stove, avoiding walking with dirty cutlery through the kitchen space, isolating any drop or broth (for example) to the stove and prototype that I drew and that should be supported on the stove in some part of it.
What you're looking for is a utensil rack with drip tray, one example here on Etsy.
The design seems to have phased out of fashion, all the items I can find that resemble your drawing are labeled "vintage" and have this older look to them - including construction materials (enamel instead of SS / plastic / aluminum).
I get not having enough bench space and wanting to save as much as possible, and your design in specific would work if it was NOT attached to the stove lid, but instead attached to a wall to the side of your stove so you don't have the following risks (pointed out in the comments by myself and others):
Stove lid closing under the weight of the tools (@Stephie)
You reaching out over steam / oil spatter / other hot surfaces to hang your tools (myself)
Dripping tools going over other pans (@Johannes_B)
Exactly, the design of the utensil is very similar, moreover the model presented by you has a vertical surface preventing the utensil from dirtying the vertical wall that supports it (I forgot about this detail). But even so, I would only want to hang it over the stove to facilitate its removal for cleaning purposes with running water, sponge and this means the possibility of easily detaching it from the vertical wall that would support it. But this can be achieved by adapting with some soldering details on this model sent by you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.622764
| 2021-07-10T23:32:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116381",
"authors": [
"7beggars_nnnnm",
"AMtwo",
"Johannes_B",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Stephie",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94636",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19041
|
Toss Pizza Dough to Shape
Possible Duplicate:
How to throw a pizza dough?
When I make my pizza dough and let it rise for about two hours, I then shape the dough for the round pizza pie. I have tried numerous times to toss it in the air and spin it on my fist to get the shape but to no avail. My dough just rips, and its easier for me to just shape it on the counter.
Whats the trick to this?? Is the problem my actual dough?
Tossing is a technique better suited for a video demonstration than a narrative. Fortunately we have Alton Brown (yet again...) In the Good Eats Episode "Flat is Beautiful" AB goes into a great pizza crust recipe and demonstration of tossing and stretching your pizza.
The link I provided goes to an outside site that has both part 1 & 2 of the "Flat is Beautiful" episode.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.623101
| 2011-11-21T03:15:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19041",
"authors": [
"Jeff Y",
"Martin",
"Nelson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45722",
"user41327",
"user886596"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34753
|
Do fresh ramen noodles come in a curly form, or only instant?
Put another way, if I am served curly ramen noodles in a restaurant or for take-out, does that mean they are necessarily instant noodles? If there are fresh noodles that are curly, can someone provide a reference?
Here's a picture of what I mean. I don't eat instant ramen often, but they look as curly as instant noodles that I have eaten. Has this place served up instant ramen?
Picture from Wikipedia of which I am referring to as 'fresh ramen', distinct from the fried dried stuff coming in packages, which I don't think would cook up the same way:
The second picture appears cooked (probably fried, possibly baked) from the way the noodles are stiff (see the little hook shaped noodle off the lower left corner, whose tip is sticking up in the air, for example) and from the browned color.
The short answer is yes, they can come in a curly form. There are several types of fresh noodle used in Rāmen, which can be classified mainly according to thickness and shape.
Noodles are classified in shape into the straight sutorēto-men (ストレート麺）, the curly chijire-men（縮れ面）, and the more rare flat hirauchi-men（平打ち麺） . With the exception of the flat type, these are further divided into several degrees of thickness: the extra thick gokubuto-men（極太麺）, the thick futo-men（太麺）, the middle thick chūbuto-men（中太麺）, the middle thin chūboso-men（中細麺）, the thin hoso-men（細麺）, and the extra thin gokuboso-men（極細麺）. The thin types are also further differentiated in the amount of water they have in their dough.
Which shape and thickness of noodle is used depends on the style of ramen and on the chef's preference. For example, hakata rāmen（博多ラーメン）, of the sorts served by Ippūdō in their Japanese stores, usually uses straight gokuboso type, but the same franchise uses chijire gokuboso type for their spicy rāmen and chijire gokubuto for their tsukemen. Likewise, yokohama tonkotsu-shōyu （横浜豚骨醤油）, also known as ie-kei（家系）, uses chijire-gokubuto.
The choice of noodle is related to many factors, but cooking time is an important one. In hakata rāmen, where the practice of topping up your noodles (kaedama／替え玉) is common, one has to be able to cook the noodle quickly, and hence the very thin noodle. Thicker types of noodle need longer cooking time (aprox. 10 min for gokubuto-men), and are only used by rāmen traditions that do not offer a noodle refill.
Another factor affecting the noodle type is the type of broth. Thicker broths ask for straight type of noodles, and thinner broths for curly noodles.
These are not rules etched in stone, however, as rāmen itself is a sort of creole food born from a mix of Japanese and Chinese cuisines. Some would say that there is not right or wrong in rāmen, and that anything is possible. However, what I have described above is what is customary and what you will find if you go to rāmen shops in Japan.
By the way, not all rāmen dishes in Japan use fresh noodles. There is a type of rāmen that originates from Chiba prefecture and is called takeoka rāmen（竹岡ラーメン）, which was originally cooked by part-timer old ladies hired from the neighbourhood, and uses dried (what you would call instant) noodles because they are easier to cook.
For those that might not believe -- there was an article/video released today on Sun Noodle, a company that makes fresh ramen, and at 2:05 they show it going through a machine to add the curl : http://eater.com/archives/2014/07/22/sun-noodle-ramen-company-momofuku-ivan-ramen.php
I once made an egg-based pasta recipe, meant to be spaghetti, which I didn't allow to dry to rest long enough. Texturally, the result was identical to ramen (even without the kansui, or bicarbonate solution) because the noodles were cooked so moist.
The pasta stayed pretty curly after cooking, most likely because it wasn't dried over a rack; it was just rested for a short time in flour-dusted clumps, the flour there to keep each noodle from sticking together. My wife, who has spent a pretty substantial amount of her life in ramen shops in Japan, was commenting that we seemed to have produced ramen with tomato sauce.
Real ramen noodles tend to cook fairly curly in my experience (but there are different types). Normally, they are made with water, flour, and kansui, and like my hurried pasta are typically dusted with flour and allowed to sit already slightly twisted together before cooking (you might have seen racks of ramen outside a shop in the movie Tampopo). I'm not sure what the root cause is, but I'm fairly confident that you won't be able to recognize instant ramen purely from the fact that it's curly when cooked.
The better indicator is probably oiliness. In "real" ramen, the broth tends to be super oily, typically from pork fat; the noodles are low in fat. In instant ramen, the noodles are very high in fat because of that pre-frying stage, and they can only fit so much fat in those little soup packets, so the soup itself is not that fatty. (Some ship with an extra flavored oil packet to get an appearance and aroma that Japanese, Korean and Chinese instant ramen customers want). If the noodles aren't overcooked and they are greasy, that's a better indication than the shape of the result. To me, the instant ones have a fairly distinctive smell, but I'm not sure everyone could recognize it. Additionally, well-made fresh ramen have a textural "bite" that's hard to describe but easy to recognize if you've had it.
The noodles in your first picture are white enough that I'm not sure there's any (or much) kansui in them. But I couldn't say conclusively whether they are instant or not from looking at them. I'd probably be able to tell from the texture if eating them. The lack of golden color suggest that they could just be a locally available fresh noodle but not actually ramen.
Dried Ramen is not the same as instant ramen. There are many types of dried Chinese noodles that look exactly like the instant noodles, but which are definitely not, none of which are called "ramen" in China.
Disregarding dried ramen noodles is like disregarding dried Italian pasta or dried Japanese somen noodles. The really curly Chinese noodles only come dry, there's no way to achieve the same tight curl and have it hold that tight after cooking unless its dried.
Dried noodles of a high quality that you would call ramen, are made only of wheat flour, water and salt, and nothing else. Some are made with whole wheat, some have other quality dried ingredients added for flavoring, but all of them take a much longer cooking time than instant noodles.
Really the only difference between normal dried Chinese curly noodles and dried Italian pasta is the type of flour and the thickness of the pasta. The dried Chinese noodles are much thinner and more flat than Italian flat noodles. Its thinner (less wide) than linguine and much more flat (less thickness).
Instant noodles also have a ton of weird ingredients you can't pronounce or can't figure out why they're in your Noodle. Its the difference between quality dried Jasmine rice or some instant rice that cooks in a minute. One is a very high quality food and one is complete inedible rubbish.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the difference between quality dried Chinese pasta, and the instant chemical crap. If they look like puffy cardboard, and taste like puffy cardboard, they're instant. If they taste wonderful, they're not.
I, personally, can't even eat instant noodles because they taste exactly like cardboard to me. You can make the real version of ramen using quality dried Chinese curly noodles that come in individual round, square or rectangular cakes in a bag of 10-20 cakes. Then boiling that for some time, and making a separate quality broth with whatever additional things you want to eat with your ramen, straining and rinsing the noodles, resubmerging in boiling water then placing them into a bowl together with the broth.
Ramen is a Japanese version of Chinese-style noodles popularized in the West under the Japanese name "ramen", like the Chinese mushroom is known in the West by its Japanese name "shitake".
In China, a great many extremely high quality food items are dried. Being dried doesn't mean being less than fresh, and many times dried is much more desirable than fresh for its special consistency and intense flavor. They're also the most expensive things you can buy in China, with a lot of things costing more than gold by weight. Dried Shitake and countless other Chinese mushrooms, dried vegetables of every kind, dried seaweed, dried scallops, dried shrimp, dried squid, dried fish, dried abalone, dried sea cucumber, dried mussels, dried clams, dried sea vegetables, dried limpets, dried pork, dried chicken, dried duck, dried beef, dried sausages, dried fruits, seeds, barks, dried rare medicines, medicinal plants, medical herbs, exotic ingredients like birds nest and silk worm, various rices, grains, legumes, literally everything. They ate like kings for thousands of years without refrigeration. They are the original source of noodles from Italy, and the rest of Asia as well.
I will guarantee you that a Chinese soup made with 100% dried ingredients, including dried Chinese noodles is better than any soup you could possibly make out of fresh ingredients, when given to the most advanced, refined, sensitive, developed and sophisticated palates on the planet to compare. Period.
I would say from your picture above, the noodles are probably the least of your worries. It just doesn't look like a good soup, mainly because of the broth and that onion & broccoli. But they're probably trying to make it to American tastes. Chinese cuisine has been ridiculed by Americans for so long they're accustomed to trying hard not to gross you out with complex & sophisticated flavors and ingredients, so they dumb it down to your level so you won't cry or complain, like you do for kids. Its the Chinese version of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
What you have in that bowl there is udon. Also, fresh ramen noodles can be bought at an Asian grocery - look for sun noodle or yamachan.
Sorry, but that is most definitely not udon. I know what udon looks like, and unless there is a skinny, wimpy noodle that is a poor excuse for udon, that is not it.
Ramen are a pre-cooked noodle. That is, they are usually deep fried (or less often, baked) before even being delivered to the home cook or restaurant that will serve them. You can even eat them straight out of the package if you want.
While straight ramen noodles do exist, most are curly.
So I am not sure what "instant" ramen means--by their very nature ramen are instant in that they are precooked, and only need to boil or simmer long enough to get soft and hot.
I would not read anything in to the fact that your restaurant is serving you curly looking ramen.
On the other hand, if they were making their broth from a little powder packet, I would be upset.
"instant" probably means packaged and costing 29 cents at the local Asian mart.
Darn, I have been overpaying at $5 for a package of 12!
Are you sure about the claim that they're generally precooked, at least with more traditional Japanese ramen (as opposed to Americanized versions, including instant ramen)? There are a lot of ramen places around here, and I'm pretty sure some of the good ones make their own noodles.
@Jefromi You are absolutely correct that there are some places with house-made fresh noodles. They also tend to be sure you know it, often making them where you can see the process, and advertising it. So I didn't go there.
@SAJ14SAJ I call "instant" ramen the versions which don't need boiling. They only get hot water poured over them, but the whole cup does not need to go on the hob/into the microwave. Non-instants are supposed to cook for a while - even if they are possibly cooked enough for the starch to fully gelatinize, they are just too hard if you only pour the water over them.
@rumtscho Even italian pasta will cook through at 180 F. But I have never personally had ramen that didn't require at least 3-4 minutes of very hot water to soften through.
I'm not sure if your answer is accurate. If I went to a restaurant that was serving this, of which there are plenty in New York City, I don't think my soup would have looked like the picture I showed. Are you saying all ramen is the same as the pre-fried ones that come in the plastic packages?
Instant ramen, namely the stuff that comes out of those packages that are pre-fried as you described, are a facsimile of real, fresh, ramen. Fresh ramen have a much longer history than instant ramen; in many parts of the world, though, few people have tried the "real" thing. This answer is only correct in describing instant ramen, not the type that Japanese ramen shops make.
I have posted what I know. the OP is in Cambridge, MA, not Japan according to their profile. We do not have a tradition of fresh noodle shops here. I invite someone to post a better answer, but that hasn't happened yet.
@SAJ14SAJ the OP is currently in NYC and experiencing much better ramen than availabe in Cambridge, MA.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.623336
| 2013-06-18T18:10:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34753",
"authors": [
"Andrew Mao",
"Cascabel",
"Douglas Foris",
"First Southern National Spam",
"JasonTrue",
"Jo Horton Barber",
"Joe",
"Kersi Rustomji",
"Raiko ",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Skylar Grant",
"Spyros K",
"Yigit Kocak",
"djechlin",
"ehambright",
"ginmenor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97685",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30431
|
Is my maple syrup still good?
Possible Duplicate:
Should maple syrup be stored in the refrigerator?
I have pure maple syrup and it has only been opened for maybe 5 days or so. I do keep it in the fridge but the other day I was distracted after breakfast and forgot to put it back in the fridge. It sat out for about 7 hours before going back in the fridge. Is it still safe to eat?
You didn't ask this in exactly the same way as the duplicate I proposed, but the top answer there definitely answers your question - it's best in the long term to store it in the fridge, but doesn't actually have to be, so 7 hours is perfectly fine.
I did check that thread. It is not the same question, therefore not a duplicate. Some maple syrups say they must be stored in the fridge, so do not. Mine does. I wasn't sure if there was a difference or not.
There's more than one way to ask a question; five of us agree it's a duplicate. Doesn't really matter whether a particular bottle says it needs refrigeration.
Your syrup is perfectly safe. People will argue about whether it's necessary to store maple syrup in the refrigerator in general. Regardless of your feelings about that, it's a fact that many people don't refrigerate it at all, ever, with no discernible ill effect. Certainly, 7 hours or even 7 days at room temperature will do you no harm at all. Maple syrup has a fairly low concentration of water, so few organisms are able to grow in or on it. And those that do grow very slowly.
Enjoy your syrup.
The reason I ask is because it says on the bottle to store in the fridge after opening. Some maple syrups do not say to store in the fridge.
@user15453 That's just because of the argument Caleb mentioned. None of it needs refrigeration in the short term, and it all lasts longer on the long term if it is refrigerated.
@user15453 In order to legally be called maple syrup, the product has to have a certain minimum concentration of sugar, and that's enough to prevent the growth of most pathogens.
and that % is 66.6
We store maple syrup on the shelf for months, and it only very rarely gets moldy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.624327
| 2013-01-26T17:00:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30431",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"Caters",
"Linda Reyburn",
"Paolo Valenti",
"Peter Shor ",
"Pips",
"Xaramel Fan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71101",
"spl",
"user15453",
"user93223"
],
"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
}
|
62837
|
What is the difference between preserves and conserves?
I will start off by admitting that I do see technical definitions here, but I did not actually learn that there was such a thing as conserves until today. I am used to putting jelly, or jam or preserves on my toast in the morning, but apparently I can also put conserves on toast as well. So what is the difference then between the two and how would a cook use them differently? Is it a regional thing, or are there times one would choose one over the other? Does one complement certain foods better than the other?
I've never heard them called "Conserves" but the definition you linked to makes them sound more like mincemeat (or possibly even a chutney?)
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/3027/67
That is another good description thanks. I notice it is on the translate terms between countries question, but that particular answer does not do that. So where is conserve popular and sold? I imagine I would have a hard time getting it in the US if I were looking for conserve?
The main difference is conserves are boiled down until they reach a consistency that can heap on a spoon. Preserves generally are not boiled down, and are chunky.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.624538
| 2015-10-26T16:20:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62837",
"authors": [
"Carol Bohman",
"Desiree Spellings",
"Joe",
"Joe Bruce",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"demongolem",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6859"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16785
|
How do I find tart pans like these?
I want to make a lemon tart, but I want tins with straight walls, like the ones in this image.
How would I find them - is there a name I can look for? I've been unable to find them online (and they need to be shippable to Australia).
I would have proposed Bed Bath and Beyond, but googling that for Australia got me here: http://yanksdownunder.net/topic/461876/1/ Oops :S
Meta discussion on sourcing questions: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1292/what-types-of-sourcing-questions-should-be-allowed-revisit-march-2013-plea
@SAJ14SAJ This one's a bit of an XY problem - the OP asked where to find them, but judging by the new answer, the real problem was that they didn't know what to call them. I'm tempted to just edit it to suit the new answer.
@Jefromi This is a tricky one... I am persuaded by Aaronut's argument that we should not let the quality of the answers determine our disposition of the question.
@SAJ14SAJ But we can change the question; community editing is available for a reason, and I find it's very helpful to have the attitude "what do I think of this question in its best possible form", then edit it to that form if it makes a difference. In this case, it's the difference between "where do I find X" and "how do I find X", analogous to the difference between "what's a good stand mixer" and "how do I evaluate a stand mixer."
In any case, I edited it, and am inclined to leave it in the new form, but if others want to vote to close that's cool!
First, those are not a "tin" which may explain why you've had trouble finding them. They are individual tart rings which must be placed on a baking sheet. Sometimes they're called flan rings or, if they're larger, cake rings.
If you do a Google search with Australia "tart ring" you'll see that plenty of baking supply businesses in AU sell them.
Good luck!
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, Kate!
Amazon seems to have quite a bit of choice. For instance:
Mini Cheesecake Pan
6-Inch Mini Pie Pan
Straight-sided Muffin/Cornbread Pan
Alternatively maybe these cookie cutters could do?
Those are English Muffin rings. Do a search for them. Most are 3.25'-3.75'diameter. You can usually get 4 of them for about $6-$7 plus shipping. Many are made by fox river
Those are muffin rings. If you are in the USA you can get them 4 for $7 at Walmart. They carry Norpro and Fox Run.
Some people call them flan rings but the muffin rings are exactly the same and much cheaper.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.624695
| 2011-08-10T13:38:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16785",
"authors": [
"Barbara",
"Cascabel",
"Cooking nerd",
"David says Reinstate Monica",
"J Sargent",
"Preston",
"Rikon",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SushiLady",
"Wendy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76017",
"user76016"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17670
|
What to use instead of white wine in recipes?
Possible Duplicate:
What is a substitute for red or white wine in a recipe?
I am Muslim and we do not consume alcohol in any form. I love European cuisine, but many of the recipes call for the use of white wine, or red wine or alcohol in any other form.
So I was thinking that there must be something that can be used instead of wine in those recipes (e.g. Swiss Fondue).
why not just skip the wine
Closed as a duplicate (see the [FAQ] for more details). If you have a particular recipe you'd like to adapt, feel free to ask a question about that specifically (i.e. fondue without white wine).
@Prometheus87 Most fruits or high sugar vegetables and even some grains contain small amounts of alcohol. So sorry you have probably been drinking the stuff all your life!
@TFD you thin i don't know that? that stuff is unavoidable. It's the avoidable I am talking about.
A lot of the time, the major purpose of the wine is acidity. You can get this with lemon juice, tomato, or vinegar instead. Since the flavor is different, you will need to experiment by tasting, and probably use different amounts, but you should still be able to get good results. In the fondue recipe you mention, you would probably do well with a combination of lemon juice and red wine vinegar.
Would it just be something as simple as using a non-alcohol wine? I'm not really sure if there're any that are 100% free of alcohol, but what if you boiled a non-alcohol wine to remove even more (or possibly all) of the alcohol in it?
how can the alcohol content be tested?
i mean after the boiling
Someone did that test and found that it is very difficult to remove all alcohol: http://www.ochef.com/165.htm
Actually, there is such a thing as non-alcoholic wine. It's called unsweetened apple juice. :)
perhaps Jake is on the right track. rather than using a wine claiming to be non-alcohol, it would be easier/safer to just use an unsweetened fruit juice.
@prometheuspk - Since it seems you mention in the comments to the Q, that you're OK with some foods naturally containing a small amount of alcohol, you might really consider de-alcoholized wine. The numbers I saw the few times I bought one where such that its alcohol content was well in the range of fruit juices. (typically it has to have < 1% vol around here)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.624952
| 2011-09-12T15:08:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17670",
"authors": [
"Asmus",
"Bruno Vincent",
"Chris Bouchard",
"Jake Robinson",
"Martin",
"Midhat",
"TFD",
"Tanya",
"bakerwannabe",
"castaway2000",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7303",
"michael",
"prometheuspk",
"user3366525",
"user38025",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24904
|
Why does my cheese sauce taste like flour/paste?
Possible Duplicate:
How do I make my roux taste less like flour?
I'm trying to make a basic cheese sauce for putting over broccoli, etc. A typical recipe I've tried is:
2 tablespoons butter
2 tablespoons unbleached white flour
1/4 teaspoon dry mustard powder
Sea salt, to taste
1 cup low fat milk
1/2 cups sharp cheddar cheese, grated
White pepper, to taste
Melt butter in a medium saucepan. Whisk in flour, mustard powder and salt to taste. Gradually stir in milk, whisking over med-low heat until thickened. Add cheese, stirring until completely melted. Season to taste with white pepper.
The problem is that it always ends up with a flour/paste undertaste. Am I just not cooking the Roux sufficiently before adding the cheese or what?
@Jefromi, while making the roux is the critical stage here, leaving this question open will make it more 'findable' by people looking for information on 'cheese sauce' if they don't know to (or think to) search for roux. Since OP has the specific goal of cheese sauce I don't believe this qualifies as an 'exact duplicate' see aaronut's answer on meta
@CosCallis: The other question does ask about roux for soups and sauces, implying that there's a sauce that tastes like flour, so the other question is likely a more general form of this one. In any case, closed duplicates can still be found by searches; they're intended to be a mechanism for directing people to a place with good answers.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4381/ (then add cheese)
It seems like you are not cooking the roux. Even a white roux should be cooked. A roux made with butter froths when it is cooked, after that you can add the milk. You can try adding it gradually, if it works for you, I find that dumping it at once and stirring vigorously is better for me - else the first small amount of milk gels the roux into too-hard lumps which the next portion of milk doesn't dissolve. Also, "until thickened" is a bit of a hit-or-miss. I wait until I see bubbles of cooking - not the rapid small bubbles of boiling water, but big, slowly rising bubbles plopping here and there, only then I stop cooking the sauce.
I don't use flour for my cheese sauce, I use corn starch. If you use one cup of milk you'll need about one or two tablespoons of corn starch, depending on how thick you want it. Experiment.
Your recipe has cheddar cheese, which for me always clumps, so I use american cheese
or a bend of three cheeses, mozerella, cheddar and american. I've used all sorts of cheese for cheese sauce, as long as it melts smooth.
Make a corn starch paste instead of the flour paste and you won't have the pasty flour flavor. Corn starch clumps just like flour if you just toss it in the hot mixture, so as with flour, make the smooth paste first before adding it in the pan.
Welcome to the site, tam. I'm starting to go through all of the answers you've posted recently and edit them. We prefer to keep things in good writing style here, so if you could start out that way, it'd be a big help.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.625430
| 2012-07-07T20:06:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24904",
"authors": [
"Binky",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"Joe",
"Marc Butler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"metam0rphose",
"rluks"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115361
|
How does the flavour from aromatics actually get into food?
I've always wondered what the exact mechanism is which allows flavours from aromatics to permeate food. For instance, I bake chicken with sliced lemon, sliced garlic, and parsley (each in hefty amounts), and it doesn't really seem to matter where the aromatics are in the pan when I put it in the oven, as the chicken still comes out with some of the flavour.
I haven't been able to find an answer online, perhaps because it's simpler than I'm imagining. Is the chicken basting in a liquid flavoured with the aromatics? Are the flavours of the aromatics carried in evaporating water molecules through the air?
Also, what are the implications of this mechanism of flavour transfer? For instance, where should my aromatics be placed relative to my food in order to maximize flavour transfer, and what ingredients work best as aromatics?
If flavours are aerosolized and transfer to the food that way, is it a good idea to loosely cover the food with aluminum foil before putting it in the oven to "trap" the flavour particles?
There's lots of different ways to answer this question.
Is the chicken basting in a liquid flavoured with the aromatics? Are the flavours of the aromatics carried in evaporating water molecules through the air?
The answer is yes to both, and it really depends on what you're cooking and how you're cooking it. I'll try to think of a couple examples, but before I dive into that, there's some plant science we need to discuss.
When the aromatics heat up, they release their own oils, and the oils are part of what flavours the food (there is still flavour in the leaves/spices/fruit itself, so not all the flavour is coming from these oils). For example; when you cut into, say, an orange peel, you (typically) smell a strong orange scent. What you're actually smelling isn't the fruit inside (because you haven't made it to the fruit just yet), but the oils of the peel that get released because when you broke the peel, you broke the cell walls of the plant and released the oil into the air (sometimes you can even see the spray of oils depending on the lighting). This is also why some recipes tell you to "bruise" your herbs, because doing so breaks the cell walls and allows the oils to escape easier/faster (side note but this is especially true of dried herbs! Whenever I add dried herbs to food, I always pour them into my hand and rub them as I sprinkle them to bring out the flavours more). These oils then dissolve into water, fat, or alcohol, and thus flavour the water/fat/alcohol. Typically, these oils dissolve best in fat.
Let's talk about the example you gave of chicken with sliced lemon, sliced garlic, and parsley. For this example, I'm assuming this is chicken breast baked on a sheet tray, and I will also be assuming you're using olive oil (or any oil/fat). When the chicken and aromatics get heated in the oven, the chicken will start to release fat and the aromatics will start to release their oils. Some of the flavour of the oils will be released into the steam and will lightly flavour your chicken, which is why your chicken has "some of the flavour" of the aromatics. However, the majority of your flavour (in this case) has actually dissolved into the fat that you see on the sheet tray. There will probably be brown bits on your sheet tray as well - this is called "fond" and it is basically concentrated flavour. If you were to remove the chicken and aromatics from the sheet tray and make a gravy/pan sauce using the fat and scraping those brown bits off, the flavours of your aromatics will be much more intense in the sauce than the meat.
Another example I can think of is pho broth. Pho broth is perfumed with star anise, cloves, and cinnamon. To get the best flavour from these aromatics, you would heat them up before adding them to the broth to release their oils. From there, the aromatics simmer with the broth for a few days. This allows the aromatics to release more oils, and allow the oils to dissolve into the broth, thus adding their flavours into the mix.
Also, what are the implications of this mechanism of flavour transfer? For instance, where should my aromatics be placed relative to my food in order to maximize flavour transfer, and what ingredients work best as aromatics?
Typically you'll want to place your aromatics as close to the meat as possible, and sometimes inside the meat (in the case of things like whole poultry). Again, it kind of depends on what you're cooking and how. If you're roasting in the oven it's not a huge deal so long as you don't open your oven a bunch of times during the cooking process. The steam generated doesn't really have anywhere to go in the oven until the door is open, so keeping it shut helps trap the steam and the oils inside.
As far as ingredients that work best as aromatics? That entirely depends on what flavours you like. You could get a notebook and jot down what flavours you put into a dish, then when you're done eating make a few notes about how it tasted (ex. 'needed more glaric', 'too much thyme', 'didn't like the taste of star anise and dill together'). You'll get to know your preferred flavours and find combos you love. If that's too much hassle, try to find cooks/chefs on YouTube or Instagram and follow their recipes, especially if it's a new food or flavour you're trying out. Josh Weissman, Binging with Babish, Sohla El-Waylly, and Alison Roman are a few of my personal favourites. Buzzfeed/Tasty recipes are typically pretty easy to follow and great intros if you're very new to cooking.
If flavours are aerosolized and transfer to the food that way, is it a good idea to loosely cover the food with aluminum foil before putting it in the oven to "trap" the flavour particles?
I wouldn't recommend covering your food to "trap" the flavours, unless otherwise stated by a recipe, because you risk either overcooking your meat or making your food soggy, and no one wants that.
I hope that helped!
Brilliant, informative answer. Thanks for the help!
Some aromatics dissolve in water, some in oil and some in alcohol. That's the basic idea. Of course some will dissolve at least to some extent in more than one medium.
This will also change the flavour transfer that the OP talks about too — e.g. you could put a wedge of lemon inside a chicken cavity while it roasts. As the water in the lemon is released it will carry flavour into the inside of the chicken. Whereas something like a cinnamon stick, you'd probably want to add to oil & let the oils from the bark get mingled with the cooking oil. Things that dissolve in more than one medium can often provide different flavour emphasis too — e.g. boiled garlic tastes very different to roasted garlic
I don't think this directly answers the OP's question, which is one I've wondered myself: what's the mechanism by which the aromatics actually reach other parts of the food when they don't seem to be directly mixed/in contact? For example, if the lemon, parsley and garlic are in a pan next to the baking chicken, how do those flavours reach the chicken?
A large part of the answer is that the aromatics become vapours/gasses during the cooking process. These volatilized compounds then float around in the air at a high concentration inside the oven (and outside too through leaks in the oven, that's why you can smell it cooking).
As an explanation, the reason you can "taste" (actually it's to do with smell more than taste) the aromatic flavours as you put them in your mouth is because they are volatile at room temperature or there abouts and at the higher temperatures of an oven too. This is also the reason your spices and dried herbs lose flavour with time during storage - the volatile flavour compounds evaporate slowly.
The flavours also permeate the meat through methods dependent on the chemical that it is made out of; some move via the fats/oils, some via waters, depending on what they are soluble in. Transport of this sort is dependent on diffusion for the most part. Diffusion rate is generally measured in very small amounts like micrometers per hour, but the rate at which something diffuses is temperature dependent, so the higher temperatures of an oven will increase the rate of diffusion and spread of flavours. Diffusion can happen from either the gaseous phase onto the surface or through direct contact (e.g. stuffing inside the chicken).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.625791
| 2021-04-21T17:56:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115361",
"authors": [
"anotherdave",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54437",
"user3002473"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109487
|
How much baking powder & baking soda do I need to use for my cocoa cookies?
How much baking powder & baking soda do I need to use for my cocoa cookies?
Based on the following recipe that does not contain egg, and makes use of both types of cocoa powder. I am trying to get the crunchy and airy texture.
200 grams all purpose flour
10.5 grams natural cocoa powder
10.5 grams Dutch process cocoa powder
0.5 gram ammonium bicarbonate
1.3 grams salt
0.2 gram vanillin
113 grams sugar
61 grams butter
Are you looking to substitute the ammonium bicarbonate?
I am open to it since it is not a healthy additive.
You don't strictly need to use any leavener in this type of cookie. You can certainly get a firm, nonchewy texture without it, although it is unlikely to be "crunchy" and not very airy - it is more sandy, melts-on-the-tongue thing. Of course, if you use crystal sugar (as opposed to powdered sugar) you will experience some crunch from the non-melted sugar crystals, which might be what you wanted.
If you want to try a leavener, a typical amount would be 1 teaspoon (around 5 g) of baking powder for 250 g of flour. Use that as a starting point for the recipe development - I don't think you have to reduce it to 4 g from the start, since 1) traditional recipes are not that accurate anyway, and 2) the cocoa powder also adds starch, which kinda "counts as flour" for the purpose of calculating leavening. There is no reason to use any baking soda. And of course, remove the ammonium bicarbonate - if you really want to experiment with a combination, do it after you have created a working simpler version of the recipe with just baking powder.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.626449
| 2020-07-06T10:56:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109487",
"authors": [
"Backyard Chef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54873",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115547
|
Cake not rising - too many wet ingredients?
I've tried making this three layer cake twice in the past two days. I think the issue is too many wet ingredients. It’s from a cookbook I trust for the most part, but after two failures, I’m not sure what else to change.
If the issue is too many wet ingredients, how do I substitute or alter the recipe to remedy this?
For reference, it calls for:
2.5c AP flour (12.5oz)
2t baking powder
1/2t salt
3/4c room temp unsalted butter
1.75c sugar (12.25oz)
1/3c maple sugar
1/3c canola oil
1t vanilla
2 egg yolks
4 eggs
1c milk room temp
Approx 1/2c “burnt sugar” syrup (mixed in with room temp milk
I started typing this last night and have now discovered that my pans are also an inch too wide, but I’m almost positive that additional batter will still be somewhat too dense. Is that the issue or do we think it’s the high proportion of liquid to dry?
Attaching photos for reference:
The flat cake from my second attempt (first picture), and then what the cookbook says it should look like (second picture)
I have difficulty understanding the problem. Is it only that you expected the layers to be higher at the end? Or are they also unpleasantly dense when eating? Is the second picture your own cake (which looks perfectly fine), or a picture from the cookbook? As for the 1-inch difference in pan diameter, that should account for 15 to 30% difference in height, depending on the diameter you were supposed to use.
Yes I was expecting them to be probably 50% higher. The second pic is of the cake in the cookbook (apologies for not specifying there). Even so they seem kind of dense for the height they bard at (and now I’m trying to figure out if it’s from the excess of wet ingredients or the pans being 1” too wide in diameter.
Process - could you include the preparation method in the post and are you reasonably sure you followed the instructions well enough?
@Stephie I feel fairly sure it’s not a process issue. It’s pretty standard beat sugar and fats (+ the maple syrup) slowly mix in oil and vanilla, mix in eggs on at a time. Then alternate adding flour with milk until combined. Bake at 350 for 28-30 minutes. Mine have been done by 25 though.
How old is your baking powder? I believe the shelf life is only about 6 months. After that it stops working
I would suggest viewing it a different way: the recipe did not fail. It is most likely performing exactly as expected by its author.
First, there is the matter of the different pan. You might intuitively think that 1 inch is not much of a difference, but you have to remember that the height of the cake will vary proportionally to the pan area, not to the pan diameter, which means a quadratic relationship. At typical cake sizes (if you went from 8 to 9, or from 9 to 10) you will have ~25% more height if you use the smaller pan. The exact area numbers from 8 to 11 inches are: 50/63/78/95 square inches.
Second, you are correct that a cake of this type, with milk and oil, and additional egg yolks, is going to rise less than other cake types. This doesn't mean that the cake is rising improperly, it means that you have chosen a cake which doesn't fit your needs (assuming you have a reason for creating a high cake). This doesn't mean that there is a simple way to get this cake recipe to rise more though; the amount of work you would have to invest is the same as in creating a new recipe from scratch. And if you succeed, the taste and texture will not be the same as the cake from which you started. So, the typical thing to do is to choose a recipe which produces higher cakes, and stick with it.
Thank you - I think you’re right. I was fully invested in the wet ingredients bit, but what you’ve said confirms that the additional dense ness is related to the wrong pan size. I appreciate the insight!
If the taste/mouthfeel/etc. of the current recipe is something @user68196 likes, but just wants more height, then there are at least another couple of options than just choosing a different receipe: A) use more batter per pan, making each layer taller, but may require cooking adjustments (the cooking has already been inherently adjusted by using a larger pan); or B) just use more layers. There's nothing that prevents having a 4, 5, 6, or more, layer finished cake. It all comes down to taste and what is desired as an end result, but the basic thing is: does the current recipe taste as desired.
@Makyen indeed! I was assuming that the OP intends to change the recipe, and I was saying that a different recipe would be the way to go. Using more of the current batter, as you suggest, either per-pan or as more layers, will also produce a taller cake overall.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.626603
| 2021-05-06T14:04:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115547",
"authors": [
"Makyen",
"Rick",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/855",
"rumtscho",
"user68196"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115601
|
Does starch thickened custard get thinner after a few days?
A few days ago, I did a crème pâtissière (thick vanilla custard), using
milk (300ml/1.25 cup)
egg yolks (2)
sugar (15g/1tbsp)
potato starch (10g/1tbsp).
The end result had a relatively thick consistency, fit for my purpose. I had a bit left over, so I put it in the fridge after it cooled down. After a few days in the fridge, the custard got thinner, like a crème anglaise (thin vanilla custard, picture an eggnog-like consistency).
I wonder what happened. One of my guess is that the amount of starch was too small, but I can't explain the change of consistency.
It is not the starch alone, but the combination of starch and egg yolks. Yolks contain an enzyme which digests starch after some time, making the whole custard thinner.
If you absolutely have to use a custard with both starch and yolks, either consume it quickly, or boil it well (at least of minute of visible bubbling) to deactivate the yolk enzymes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.627008
| 2021-05-10T13:41:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115601",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5633
|
How can I make very small quantities of balsamic reduction?
Last night, a dish called for a drizzle of balsamic reduction. I thought that, in order to get a good reduction and not burn anything, I'd need way more balsamic than the recipe called for.
Is there a way to make very small yields of balsamic reduction?
I've sometimes made small reductions in the microwave. Just put the liquid in a much deeper container than it fits in so it doesn't make a mess, and run it on 50% power, check every 30 seconds or so until it is reduced to the degree you need.
Personally I've made small quantities like that without burning them. It's easier if you use the smallest pan you have. Using a smaller pan gets the liquid more to a depth you'd expect from a larger amount in a larger pan.
Putting a flame tamer under the tiny pan will help, too.
Just speaking generally, why would reducing less liquid be more of an issue if you watch the heat? It would probably reduce very quickly, like in 2-3 minutes on low-medium heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.627115
| 2010-08-20T13:20:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5633",
"authors": [
"Ale Amadei",
"Barb",
"Dani",
"Danielle Crowe",
"Grant270",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"nicholas"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8194
|
How can I make this curry given my list of ingredients?
I'm trying to recreate a dish I had at Alinea a while ago. Their forum actually had a good start for this dish:
The garnishes on the surface are
Hawaiian volcanic salt, cucumber,
garlic chips, fresh banana, young
coconut, red onion, lime segments with
zest, toasted cashews, and red chili
pudding. The glass circle contains a
basil seed-lime vinaigrette.
We press the herbs in between two
pieces of rice paper to form the
centerpiece. Once the frame is
assembled the server drapes the flag
over the frame. We cure the pork belly
with salt, sugar and aromatics. It is
cooked sous vide until tender, seared
and shredded. We make a curry sauce
from coconut, ginger, mint,
lemongrass, thai chilis, kaffir lime,
cardamom, coriander, and lime juice.
We mix the curry with the shredded
pork belly to make the ragu spooned
over tableside by the service staff.
My question is, given the list of ingredients for the coconut curry but no sense of how to make it, how should I go about preparing this curry? Should I just toss everything in a pot an simmer for a while? Should I toast the spices? Sautee the lemongrass?
@Daniel, unfortunately, the forum won't let me register, saying they're not accepting new members (weird) and I have all the stuff to make this tomorrow (starting the sous vide tonight).
If you get a good answer there, you should repost it here (or post a summary and a link).
I don't know if this is how it is done at Alinea, but considering that it is geared towards a modernist dish, not a traditional Thai curry, this is what I would do:
(1) Pound the lemongrass. Toast and then then grind the coriander. Bruise the kaffir lime leaf. Leave those to infuse in the lime juice for at least one hour and up to overnight.
(2) Remove the lemongrass and lime leaf. Combine the infused lime juice with all of the other ingredients, including the coconut milk without heating. Puree. Salt to taste. Strain very thoroughly. If needed, thicken slightly with xanthan gum or ultratex (as they don't require heating).
I suggest this because I know @gachatz's philosophy is to avoid diluting or muddying flavors, and I think this approach would keep them very fresh and distinct.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.627240
| 2010-10-16T16:20:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8194",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Dave",
"Don Noll",
"Kevin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5820
|
How to keep thin sponge bases moist?
I enjoy making multi layered sponge cakes (specifically chiffon sponge), but I find that when cooking a much thinner base than for a normal sponge (around 1cm height), I am faced with a decision of having an undercooked sponge or having one that is perfect in the middle but a bit crunchy around the edges.
Is there anything I can do to make sure that I get the same moistness in smaller bases as I do in larger ones?
Is there a reason you're not just baking a standard thickness and splitting it into layers? This is going to give you more control.
If you have troubles moving the layers without breaking them, have a piece of cardboard handy (traditionally a cardboard cake round would be used by any would work) and after cutting the cake horizontally, lift up the edge of the top piece to slide the cardboard under and then proceed to push it all the way under the top layer before carefully removing the layer. Proceed with the next layer.
If they cake is a bit dry but not crunchy, moisten the cut surface by brushing with simple syrup on its own if you don't want any added flavor, or add a bit of a complementary-flavored liqueur to the syrup before moistening.
To be honest the main reason I don't cut them into slices afterwards is that I don't have the dexterity to do a nice job of it (whenever I try the slices end up uneven in thickness) - I'll see about giving simple syrup a go (given I usually have buckets of it lying around) - didn't consider it as thought it would make it far too sweet!
@Davin - do you have a cake slicer? This small tool might help quite a bit.
@justkt - I think I do (a very thin metal spatula) but for chiffon sponges in particular it just doesn't seem to work so well :(
@Davin - I was thinking of a tool that has a small wire. Is this the same thing? http://www.amazon.com/SCI-Scandicrafts-Inc-Slicer-Leveler/dp/B000253492
The type of pan that you use to bake your sponge in can help determine how evenly it will bake. I like to use a very flat, thick bottomed non-stick sheet pan lined with parchment paper or silpat.
I would also look to see if your oven racks are tilting the pan in any direction (this can shift the sponge batter to one side and make it bake unevenly or be more prone to crispy edges), or if the pan has the tendency to warp as it is heated. You might even hear the pan "pop" and that is obviously not a good thing. Does your oven heat evenly and hold a steady temperature? I know mine doesn't so rotating my pan during baking to ensure the center cooks evenly is key.
Otherwise, how you spread the batter to the corner will matter as the less batter you use, the harder it is to keep it from deflating. Try to use 3 to 4 strokes of a large flat offset spatula (you can purchase these at any baking/cooking store) to get the batter into the corners, no more than that, and then tap the pan on the counter to get rid of any bubbles (if there are any). I think that you also might want to experiment with scaling the batter up ever so slightly (like 10-15%) so you have a bit more wiggle room with deflation of the cake in the oven. You will still have a very thin layer, but perhaps more batter will keep those edges from crisping up. I'd be tempted to just scale up the egg whites for more volume when folding those into the base, but every recipe is different, so you'd have to experiment.
It is normal to expect that you will have to trim some of the sponge after it comes out of the pan with a very thin layer, but if it is more than 1/4-1/2 inch then something else is probably going on.
I tend to prefer actually using silicon bakeware (as this makes it so much easier to remove the cake afterwards), and would not have thought that this would make much of a difference - could be wrong though! My oven cooks much faster on one side, so I like you need to rotate every few minutes (which is a royal pain!) I've tried bashing the pan against the side, and using a spatula on the top so will see if adding a bit more batter helps...
How about thinking outside the box for a solution. Try a using a microwave sponge cake recipe this one is from Ferran Adria. The microwave should cook it fast enough to eliminate the dry spots on the edges. It should work great with such a thin cake you're making.
A light syrup is what the pros use, so I wouldn't worry about it making anything too sweet.
If you have a "Cake Spinner", one trick to get even layers by cutting is to put your rounds on it, hold the knife steady, and turn the cake, instead of the knife. Works pretty well for me, and I'm no surgeon either.
thanks I've been toying with one of these for a while, so will give it a go and see what comes of it!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.627469
| 2010-08-23T10:53:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5820",
"authors": [
"Brandon Hipkins",
"David Pittelli",
"Dibstar",
"NOTjust -- user4304",
"Randy Syring",
"Yao Yao",
"derivative",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2129",
"justkt",
"terry wambotl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4671
|
Difference between natural and organic
For products such as bread, state they are either natural or organic, what is the difference?
Natural is purely a marketing term, and it is essentially meaningless since it isn't regulated by the USDA (I'm assuming you are in the USA, I can't speak for other countries). Since the term isn't regulated (with the apparent exception of meat), any manufacturer can put it on any (non-meat) product that they want, whether it is actually "natural" or not.
Organic is well-defined by the USDA and places a number of restrictions on the types of pesticides and other chemicals that can be used to grow the crop. For things like meat, the organic label regulates both the drugs that the animal is given as well as the production of the feed.
Certified organic food products are
regulated by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and produced by farmers
and manufacturers under a strict set
of rules. But the agency defines the
term "natural" only for meat and
poultry. In the rest of the food
industry, the meaning is largely up to
the producer.
See: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-07-10/business/chi-natural-foods-10-jul10_1_organics-or-least-chip-popular-horizon-organic-brand-organic-industry-watchdog-group
There is a certification for "Naturally Grown" also.
of course "organic" is a massive marketing hoax as well. ALL meat, plant material, etc. etc. is organic matter. There are very few things in our diet that aren't organic matter (salt comes to mind). Independent studies of "organic farms" also constantly find them to be rife with pesticides, herbicides, and all the other stuff they claim not to use.
Natural
"Natural foods" and "all natural foods" are widely used terms in food labeling and marketing with a variety of definitions, some of which are vague. The term is assumed to imply foods that are minimally processed and do not contain manufactured ingredients, but the lack of standards in some jurisdictions means that the term assures nothing. The term "organic" has similar implications and has an established legal definition in many countries and an international standard. In some places, the term "natural" is defined and enforced. In others, such as the United States, it has no meaning.
Organic
Organic foods are those that are produced using environmentally sound methods that do not involve modern synthetic inputs such as pesticides and chemical fertilizers, do not contain genetically modified organisms, and are not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives.
(Information from Wikipedia)
"that do not involve modern synthetic inputs such as pesticides " That's a major flaw, as "organic farms" often use more of those than regular ones. (or used to, the study I saw on it was some years ago, showed 10 times the pesticides on a large sample of "organic" fruit and produce as compared to normal fruit from the same region.
@jwenting: Even that criticism (while perhaps true) suffers from lack of definition. There are organic pesticides that can be used while retaining the "organic" label. And (presumably, if not in fact) such pesticides would be safe(r?) than a non-organic pesticide. So having 10x more of a non-harmful substance than a harmful substance isn't really a very interesting statistic. Of course maybe your study found that non-organic pesticides were indeed being used, but without seeing the actual study, it's impossible to conclude that it means "organic" is meaningless.
It's important to note an "organic" certification does not, in any way mean food is produced "using environmentally sound methods." It simply means the food is free from certain chemicals during production. It is still possible (and indeed common) to raise organic foods in ways that exploit natural resources--such as slashing and burning rain forests, irresponsible irrigation methods, etc. While I believe "organic" is generally going to be better than non-organic, for the purpose of human health, don't be fooled into thinking "organic" means "completely environmentally-neutral."
@Flimzy botulism, anthrax, Ebola, are all "natural". While not used as pesticides, there are those who consider human beings to be pests and they work very well against human beings. Just because something is "natural" then doesn't make it safe. Similarly, a lot of things that aren't "natural" are quite safe. The whole "natural pesticide" thing together with "organic farming" is just bunch of balony, pure marketing trickery to fool people into paying excessively high prices for otherwise ordinary (and often substandard) produce.
@jwenting: I never made the claim that natural == safe. And there's certainly a lot of wiggle room in the terms. But that makes them "pure baloney." "Organic" in particular has a specific legal meaning, and maintaining compliance with that label requires real effort and expense. As such, the label can be useful--especially to those who actually take the time to understand what it means, and that it isn't some sort of magic bullet.
From http://www.organicfacts.net/organic-food/organic-food-basics/difference-between-organic-and-natural-food.html
Organic food refers to food items that are produced, manufactured and handled using organic means defined by certifying bodies such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under its Organic Food Products Act. Natural food, on the other hand, generally refers to food items that are not altered chemically or synthesized in any form. These are derived from plants and animals. Thus a natural food item is not necessarily organic and vice versa.
as far as I understand it, there's really no clear definition to either of these two terms and they're mostly overused by companies to sell you products. I believe the use of "Natural" is a little more devious. For instance, I just bought some "Natural Style" apple juice the other day. I'm sure it's just as processed and pasteurized, it's just a slightly different flavor/color.
"Natural Style"? That's kind of like those movies that are "inspired by actual events"... In other words, a complete work of fiction except with the names of actual places and people...
@GalacticCowboy See also "juice beverage".
I wouldn't say that there is no clear definition to organic in the US. There are actually quite strict certification procedures that you must undergo before you can legally claim that any food you sell is organic. For instance, because I use 10-10-10 fertilizer in my garden I cannot sell my produce in a farmers market as organic. These restrictions span across both animal and vegetable products. You can find all the details on the government website, including the text of the actual bill in Congress that enacted these regulations here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.627888
| 2010-08-09T19:35:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4671",
"authors": [
"Flimzy",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Jonah Braun",
"Judith Dial",
"Luis",
"Magick Bunny",
"Naseer",
"Ricardo Gomes",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8988",
"justkt",
"jwenting",
"kagali-san",
"user1853181"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45717
|
Effect of undutched cocoa on baking
I'm trying to add unsweetened non-dutched cocoa powder to a biscotti recipe (this one).
I've read that this type of cocoa is strongly acidic. Will I need to make any changes to the quantities of baking powder? Should I just use baking soda instead of the baking powder? Any other suggestions would be welcome.
Note:
I put in the biscotti recipe as an example. My actual question is quite generic as I tend to add cocoa/chocolate to everything! must.. resist..
I looked at several recipes for chocolate biscotti with cocoa and they all called for baking powder in roughly the same quantity as in the recipe you linked to UNTIL I got to David Lebovitz Hmm, soda. Personally, I'd go with a recipe that already includes the cocoa, that one looks really good.
@Jolenealaska Ah I see. About that recipe, no butter either, so I'm quite tempted to try it. I don't want to end up breaking my teeth though.
He's pretty stellar, I'd be much more inclined to trust a recipe from him than a recipe from AllRecipes, particularly one that I'm altering. Here's one from Mario Batali also no butter, that one uses baking powder.
I'd still like some answers around my original question though - why doesn't the cocoa negate the effect of baking powder? I tend to put cocoa/chocolate in everything :), so it would be good to know.
Working on it as we 'speak'! :)
According to David Lebovitz:
Because natural cocoa powder hasn’t had its acidity tempered, it’s generally paired with baking soda (which is alkali) in recipes. Dutch-process cocoa is frequently used in recipes with baking powder, as it doesn’t react to baking soda like natural cocoa does.
So, if you're using non-Dutched (natural) cocoa, you can use baking soda for leavening, but you don't have to. As I mentioned in comments the vast majority of recipes for chocolate biscotti in fact call for baking powder. I suspect that part of the reason for that is that many people don't know the difference between Dutched and non-Dutched cocoas, and in some places outside the US, Dutch-processed is the norm. There is no harm in using additional acid (like natural cocoa) with baking powder. The effect of additional acid is not enough that you're likely to even notice it.
Also note that if you use baking soda for leavening, you have to bake right away. Baking soda, like single-action baking powder, causes the release of carbon dioxide only when it is first mixed with the liquid (and acid, in the case of soda) in the recipe. It doesn't react to the heat of the oven. So, its leavening action is short lived.
Baking powder is roughly one-third baking soda, so if you do choose to substitute baking soda for baking powder in a recipe that contains plenty of acid, you want to use about a third of the amount of soda as the recipe called for baking powder.
EDIT: I just came across this answer: How can I identify dutch process cocoa? by hobodave. That excellent answer has more information that you might find helpful. Of note as it relates to your question is this paragraph:
There is a bit of misinformation that floats amongst bakers that the pH of the cocoa can affect the leavening of the baked good. Many recipes will actually sternly suggest using either Dutched or natural cocoa depending. This makes sense since leavening is a sort of balancing act that involves both acids and bases. However, it has been experimentally shown that this does not actually occur, and baked goods made with both Dutched and natural cocoa powder showed no differences in leavening.
So he concurs. While it is fine to substitute baking soda for baking powder when introducing natural cocoa, it is unnecessary. No modification of leavening agent is necessary.
Wow, that's a lot of research! :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.628536
| 2014-07-20T02:55:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45717",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26000",
"metacubed"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94726
|
What's the difference between cooked and uncooked eggnog?
I am planning on making eggnog for the first time, and in looking across recipes I am finding both “cooked” and “uncooked” recipes. For example, Alton Brown's eggnog recipe on Food Network has both an uncooked variant (first half) and a cooked variant (second half).
I do not have much experience seeing eggnog made and have not tasted it before. I grew up in a country where eggnog is not a thing (Australia) meaning I have not grown up around people making it, and am living in another where that still seems true (the UK).
What's the difference between cooked and uncooked? What should I know when making a choice between which version to make? Is this just a personal preference thing?
Chef Treble comments on cooked having a richer flavour, at least for one recipe. I have read about people recommending pasteurised eggs for eggnog, and UMN says in their article about making safe eggnog that “using a pasteurized product means that no further cooking is necessary.” Should the uncooked version only be using pasteurised eggs, or something like that?
When dealing with egg safety, be careful to concentrate on sources that are based on the same processing as the eggs you can buy. For example in the US, eggs must be washed and refrigerated, in the EU they must not. I don't know about Australia. In the UK, laying hens are vaccinated against salmonella, so that's much less of a concern than in countries where this isn't the case
@ChrisH That's a relief to hear actually; I am living in the UK at the moment! I've updated just in case the country is particularly relevant to answers.
A BBC Good Food article reckons you should tell your guests if it's made with raw egg, but the Food Standards Agency (reported last year in the Guardian says raw eggs are fine, unless people are "severely imuno-compromised" - so they're OK in pregnancy and for babies (though the alcohol presumably wouldn't be)
You probably don't have time to use my egg safety technique -- buy eggs about 2-3 weeks before you need them, then keep them in the fridge and see if the news reports on any egg recalls. ... then use them.
@doppelgreener Does my answer add something of value to you? If not I'll gladly delete... (see comment below it)
Cooked or Uncooked eggnog is a safety decision.In US you get pasteurised eggs generally, unless you are in a raw food store or something. With pasteurised eggs you can use then raw in recipes without worry. In some other countries (like in India where I am now) eggs are not pasteurised. So to kill the salmonella etc, it is required to bring the eggs to above 160F in recipes. This you can see in Tiramisu recipes also where it similarly starts with a custard.
Pasteurized eggs are not the norm in US grocery stores. Most eggs are not pasteurized, however pasteurized eggs are generally available for a higher price.
As you've never made any eggnog, stick to the uncooked version this year and ensure all of it is gone by New Year.
The cooked eggnog is what you use during the year to get rid of the excess eggs you have all year long from your chickens and then drink during the Christmas period.¹
Noter¹: Or at least, that's how my granny used to do it, so I've never bothered making the cooked version
Answer does not add useful info
It shows the difference between the two so the OP can make up his own mind whether or not to go the cooked route (or not).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.628831
| 2018-12-11T20:38:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94726",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Debbie M.",
"Fabby",
"Joe",
"doppelgreener",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68856",
"manu muraleedharan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109037
|
How can I make 'rich chocolate' flavor?
I am in the process of making a DIY Soylent meal replacement. I've tried Hershey's cocoa powder and it tastes awful.
Commercial manufacturers of flavored protein powders, shake powders, etc. make such tasty drinks. What substances and flavorings do they use?
For reference, my recipe was:
Oat flour
Flaxseed powder
Barley powder
Whey protein isolate
Acacia gum
Hershey's cocoa powder
Sugar
Subsequently I also tried adding nutmeg powder and cinnamon as suggested by some recipes on CompleteFoods. It didn't help.
I've read that the commercially available powders contain isomaltulose, maltodextrin, and xanthan gum. Do these have anything to do with how the drink tastes?
'Rich chocolate' does not have anything to do with richness. It's just a common phrase shake/powder sellers use for their whey protein/shakes.
How can I do this?
Edit: Got a hold of the ingredient list of the desired end result. Which ingredients make for the creaminess and richness, as if I were drinking a milk shake?
Cocoa powders are rather variable between manufacturers. It would not surprise me if Hershey's wasn't very good, going by their chocolate. When testing alternatives it's probably worth making a simpler drink to try, before going for the more complex final goal
Not really an answer, but a pinch of salt always helps, and could you add some kind of malted milk or syrup instead of sugar?
This lacks focus, it's asking general instructions on how to make shakes.
Hershey are not a chocolate maker. They produce brown bars made of sugar and vegetable oil. Chocolate content, and indeed chocolate flavour, is minimal. The best answer for making something taste of chocolate is "not Hershey's".
Re "isloate": Do you mean "isolate"?
In addition to what others have mentioned about the quality of the product, you might want to research what's called "blooming" the cocoa: https://www.thekitchn.com/bloom-your-cocoa-powder-we-tried-it-240457. Basically you want to add the cocoa to something very warm, this should significantly enhance the flavor.
Not sure it is ok to recommend a brand, but Van Houten makes high % chocolates having rich flavor.
Example of professional grade material: https://www.barry-callebaut.com/en/manufacturers/products/22/24%20Highly%20Dutched%20Cocoa%20powder/100003
Depending on the manufacturer "rich chocolate" taste ranges from rubbing pumice stone on a tree after a bear got done scratching itself all the way to instant-cavity. The secret is either sugar, fat, or both.
"Food Snob" answers aside, you're not going to get an acceptable "rich chocolate" flavor by adding plain cocoa...regardless of the quality of cocoa. There's more to chocolate than the cocoa. For what it's worth, how does the mixture taste without the cocoa and sugar? I'm guessing that's quite a flavor deficit you're trying to overcome....
The ingredient list of an industrial product is not very relevant. There are billions of ways to combine and process these ingredients, and some of them will produce a rich mouthfeel, others won't. At home, you not only have a difficult access to these ingredients, you also can't do the research into the exact combination that will give you a certain mouthfeel and taste. So you will have to go after the desired results in entirely different ways from those used in the industrial product, and the list doesn't help in inventing your own method. ....
... It also doesn't help us to imagine the quality you are going after, since as I said, you have endless ways to combine and process them, and some of these (a minority) will have that quality and others won't. This is not a rebuke for you trying to make your question more clear - such edits are very welcome - just a note that in this case, it is unlikely to make much of a difference.
@GregNickoloff it tastes aweful without cocoa and sugar
Frankly, Hershey's cocoa powder is low quality. Buy a higher quality cocoa. One objective measure is the cocoa fat content.
This is from Harold McGee's Keys to Good Cooking, published by The Penguin Press, New York, 2010, p. 476:
Higher-fat cocoas make richer dishes. To compare the fat contents of different brands, check their nutrition labels.
It might be worthwhile to state explicitly that this is talking about cocoa fat content, aka cocoa butter. Fat from other vegetable oils will of course not contribute to the chocolate taste.
For rich chocolate taste you need rich chocolate.
All cocoa powders intended to be mixed with milk to form a quick cocoa drink contain a lot of additives like sugar or milk powder in addition to the actual cocoa to make it a sweet drink and to keep it cheap. But all these additives take away the actual cocoa taste (which is actually intended because cocoa is bitter).
Instead you could use pure cocoa powder (pay attention to the quality) and add sugar to your own taste. But the richest chocolate taste can only be achieved by using real chocolate with a high cocoa content (at least 75%). Grate it very fine and mix the powder to your other ingredients.
A high quality drinking chokolate ist made the same way. Instead of mixing cocoa powder with milk, finely grated dark chocolate is used instead, which created a rich taste and creamy texture.
Is cacao powder something to be looked into? I hear it is a less processed form of cocoa powder.
@Saurabh 1) The cacao bean is fermented and roasted, then ground into cacao powder. 2) This powder can be processed to be soluble in cold milk or water and have sugar and other stuff added to become cocoa drink powder. 3) Alternatively the cacao powder gets ground extremely fine with some sugar, which produces heat, which melts the cacao butter. After tempering and cooling the liquid, it becomes solid chocolate. So as far as I understand "cacao powder" is the pure cocoa powder without any additives, but it still has a slightly bitter taste. Dark chocolate is better for your plan.
@Saurabh: Also see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35590/chocolate-difference-between-cocoa-mass-and-cacao?rq=1
"cacao" powder is just cocoa powder with a different name to make it sound more expensive. In the EU at least "cocoa powder" is powdered cocoa solids, perhaps with an anti-caking agent. The stuff you put straight into hot milk and drink is called "drinking chocolate".
Unless you are adding a substantial amount of fat (like using half & half or heavy cream), I would recommend using dutch-processed cocoa powder instead of regular cocoa powder.
Regular cocoa powder is highly acidic and generally requires lots of fat and lots of sugar to make it palatable. Dutch-processed cocoa powder has been treated with an alkali to neutralize the acidity and tame the sharpness quite a bit. It usually won't require near the amount of fat to taste good. If you look at most protein powders or shake mixes that are chocolate-flavored, you'll likely see that they include dutch-processed cocoa rather than regular cocoa powder (it'll usually say something like "cocoa processed with alkali").
Maltodextrin is primarily used as a bulking agent for "high intensity" sweeteners like Sucralose and/or acesulfame potassium. It may have a slight sweetness but it wouldn't alter the taste in a perceptible way. Xanthan gum is usually used in tiny amounts to help thicken the mixture and should have little effect on overall taste.
I don't think your title question is answerable, because I'm not sure what you mean by "rich", however, I'll tell you what I know about the question at the end of your post. Isomaltulose is a natural disaccharide. Google suggests it tastes similar to sucrose with half the sweetness. So, it probably adds sweetness to the powder. Maltodextrine is a starch based polysaccharide, it can range from slightly sweet to flavorless. Some have a perceptable flavor, but I doubt you to know it is there if a flavor like chocolate was present. It is usually added to powders as a bulking agent. Xanthan gum is also a polysaccharide, most often used as a thickening agent. Xanthan probably adds no flavor. So, other than adding some sweetness, these ingredients are probably serving other functions like, reducing clumping, bulking, and thickening (xanthan) and keeping the mix in suspension when liquid is added.
I suspect thickening will add to a perception of richness, up to a point at least (I recently threw away a ready-made chocolate protein shake that had a consistency too close to mucus). Anything that imitates creaminess would be better, which to some extent whey powder achieves. A little vanilla might help in this case too, but that's more about building the flavour than richness as I see it. Anyway +1 before my comment turns into an extra answer
What is the difference between bulking and thickening?
@Saurabh Thickening refers to viscosity. Bulking refers to the amount of product.
You can try mechanically "powdering" (grating or finding some other way to turn into powdered form) real chocolate (not compound chocolate) and mixing it in, if you really need it in powdered form.
You can also use compound chocolate if you want to use something more affordable, depending on whether or not compound chocolate tastes richer to you or not.
On using cocoa/cacao powder vs actual chocolate:
Real chocolate is made by combining roasted cacao/cocoa beans with other ingredients (normally sugar) and grinding them together to make a moldable paste (the real chocolate we know). If you mix 70 parts cacao based substances, plus 30 parts sugar (and other substances), then you get 70% chocolate. Or if you just grind 100% cacao, then you get 100% chocolate.
On the other hand cocoa powder is made by taking the cacao bean, and extracting its vegetable fat from it (called cocoa butter). The pulp left behind (normally in powdered form) is basically cocoa powder, which can be used for cooking and baking. Dutch processed cocoa powder on the other hand takes the pulp and processes it further (through the dutch process). Either way, cacao powder is basically cacao with its fat content removed.
On real chocolate vs compound chocolate:
While real chocolate is made of ground cacao beans, compound chocolate is made by combining cacao powder with some form of vegetable oil, palm oil, etc. Compound chocolate is what you normally see used by more affordable "chocolate" candies.
One of the main benefits of using compound chocolate however is that it doesn't melt as easily as real chocolate. Real chocolate can start getting real soft and melt on temperatures above 27 C. If you have powdered real chocolate in your mix, and it gets heated above that temperature, then you can just imagine the chocolate melting and clumping with the powder together.
On what kind of chocolate to use
If you're fine with the chocolate manufacturer's ingredients (which includes sugar and other chemicals) then you can look for n% chocolate bars (80%, 70% etc). If you just want 100% chocolate, then try to look for 100% chocolate bars, then just add some powdered sugar if desired (or other sweetener), to your mix.
As to chocolate taste, cacao beans from different geographical regions and different estates taste differently from each other (like wine). The way the cacao is fermented and roasted also affects the taste. In my case, the cacao I use from 2 different places produces 2 fairly distinct tasting chocolate bars.
In your case, I suggest looking for a manufacturer that produces the "right" chocolate taste for your purposes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.629151
| 2020-06-14T10:02:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109037",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Déjà vu",
"Elmy",
"GdD",
"Graham",
"Jeffrey",
"MSalters",
"MonkeyZeus",
"OrangeDog",
"Peter Mortensen",
"Saurabh",
"gnicko",
"hodale",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85083",
"kitukwfyer",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113213
|
Do you fold or blend the olives in a fougasse?
As a variation from making focaccia with fried onions (impatience to spend 30 minutes frying onions, really), I experimented instead with sundried tomatoes.
It's a success, although I needed to keep a very close eye after switching low-broil on (to get a more interesting crust and golden hue on top). The oil in the tomatoes makes them burn very quickly.
My next experiment is a sibling dish: olive fougasse, still in a 12" cast iron pan to get a nice crust.
Here the recipes call for burying the olives inside the fougasse, not keeping them on top.
But it's unclear whether the olives should be blended in before the first/second rise, or folded into the dough after the first (second?) rise. Can you comment?
As you see from the picture above, the oily tomatoes weigh down the dough considerably, stopping it from rising quite as much as it would otherwise. Presumably the (equally oily) olives will
also inhibit excessive rising, although it may be that that's a characteristic of focaccia/fougasse.
Clarification (update)
A (good) pizza dough is not that different from the dough for focaccia or fougasse. Focaccia may have a bit more oil within the dough, but otherwise they're all similar.
Within that line of thinking, fougasse is an inherently easier dish to eat away from home (even in the car of someone who insists on absolute cleanliness inside, with no pieces of rosemary scattering around). Whatever would have made it as topping is simply burried inside the dough. The extreme is to fold the ingredients inside the dough. If the ingredients include tomato sauce, then the folding makes the dish become calzone—another dish that's particularly easy to take on trips.
Returning to the focus of the question: Is there any reason why you would want to fold the dough, possibly multiple times, to keep the olives out of the fabric/mesh of the dough? Or would you simply mix the olives in the dough (what I called earlier "blend in")? The nicest doughs result from two rises, not one. If you'd mix the olives, is there any reason why you'd mix them after, rather than before, the first rise?
Hi, I don't understand your question. To "blend" the lines means to makes them liquid with a blender. To "fold" also has a specific meaning in cooking, but it can only be applied to batters, not doughs. Can you please explain the difference between the two things you're planning to do? I can only think of one way to stock the lives in there anyway.
@rumtscho Could you check whether my clarification clarifies?
This is not so much an answer as it is a suggestion of what not to do.
In short, black olives are too humid. If they are mixed in with the dough, this humidity interferes with the proper baking of the dough, which will remain mushy around the olives. At the very least, the time you are used to will need to be increased considerably.
The question is now is whether black olives can be dehydrated before baking, and whether green olives by nature keep their humidity rather than exude it into the dough.
In a sense, this is no different than the reason why a calzone is a folded pizza, except that the ingredients (/toppings) must be far drier. Anything moist will prevent the dough from properly baking.
Fougasse is a French bread, akin to Italian foccacia. It is most frequently "filled" with herbs, but there are versions with olive and shallot or onion. I am sure you can add other items as well. It is frequently cut and/or slit into a leaf shape just before baking. The processes of both are similar. Make the dough, proof, punch down, rest, shape (perhaps another rise), and bake.
In terms of your mix-ins, I would knead them in after the first proof and punch down. Then, rest before shaping. You might also add another rise at this stage. The mix-in step might be messy at first, especially if using oily ingredients. Keep at it, the dough will eventually smooth out. Remember, each time you manipulate the dough you are impacting the gluten network. It will tighten up and become difficult to shape. So the resting step is important for final shaping.
1/2 Your advice to always rest after each mixing step is right on, but there is one difficult detail. We might get away with olives (or other items) if the are merely oily. The trick then is to give the dough time to incorporate the oil into the gluten network. But water moisture is more difficult since it inhibits the formation of a nice network around each olive inserted. Since olives are often salty, it's safer to cut them in half to avoid a concentration of salt, but that also enables the moisture to get out more easily.
2/2 One solution (https://www.aspicyperspective.com/focaccia-bread-focaccia-recipe/) may be to leave the black olives half burried on top (so they won't pop out, as suggested at the URL), but to also leave them exposed to the oven's dry heat. This last detail may be what's needed to avoid any mushiness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.629991
| 2020-12-18T16:12:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113213",
"authors": [
"Sam7919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85398",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115855
|
Making a cremeaux lighter with whipped cream. Is there a name for this?
Making a cremeux lighter with whipped cream. Is there a name for this? I used this method to make a lighter filling and it was great. I know diplomat cream is similar but I was just wondering if there's a name for lightening a cremeux with whipped cream.
Edit: "cremeaux" to proper spelling of "cremeux". ;-)
What's a "cremeaux" ? can you share a recipe ?
What is a Cremeux exactly? Well, it translates to “creamy” in French, and it is dessert that looks like a mousse but extra creamy. Also it’s incredibly versatile, it can be served by its own, maybe with some toppings or you can use it to fill a pie, doughnuts, decorate a cake, spread on a toast, anything you want.
https://www.santabarbarachocolate.com/blog/cremeux-recipe/
Welcome to the site @JaneWIlkie, can you please edit your question and add the recipe and method to it?
The name for this is still 'cremeaux', nothing changes.
In English pastry jargon, "cremeaux" is a (somewhat rarely used) umbrella cream for any sweet filling with a creamy consistency. It is not connected to a specific recipe or technique. If the thickness is such that you can pipe it, and the texture is more similar to a custard than to, say, jam, then it can be called a cremeaux.
An alternative word for a substance of this consistency is "cream", as in "buttercream" or "shaving cream". The difference is that it is also used outside of the culinary context, and when it is used in culinary language, it can be confused with "cream" the dairy liquid made by partially removing the water from milk. I suspect that some people use the word "cremeaux" to avoid the confusion, and others just because it sounds fancier.
So, if you take a random recipe that can be called a cremeaux, maybe a custard of the right thickness, and then fold whipped cream into it, you still have something that is sweet, pipeable, and creamy in mouthfeel. Which makes again the word "cremeaux" applicable.
Depending on the final texture, the result may also fall under the term "mousse". The mousse's central characteristic is that it is very airy, while still spoonable. If you added a lot of whipped cream, and managed to keep most of the air in, it may be recognizable as a mousse.
Exactly the ( accepted ) answer I was looking for. Thanks!
Re: "an alternate word for this substance is cream..." How about "pastry cream"?
@Damila no, pastry cream is a very specific type of cream. It is made with eggs, starch and dairy. Cremeaux is a much broader term.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.630481
| 2021-05-27T13:30:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115855",
"authors": [
"Damila",
"GdD",
"Jane Wilkie",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8418",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114942
|
Difference between Vietnamese and Moroccan preserved lemons?
One ingredient that I enjoy using is Moroccan preserved lemons, which are lemons that have been packed in salt. However, I don't always get around to making my own, so I sometimes buy them at Middle Eastern markets, where jarred ones are quite expensive ... from $7 to $12 a jar in the US.
So I was startled to find a jar of Vietnamese preserved lemons at a local Asian market for $3. As far as I can tell, these lemons are made exactly like Moroccan ones are: with lemons and salt, and indeed the ingredients on the jar are lemons, salt, and water.
So ... are there other differences I should be aware of, or can I just enjoy my new cheap preserved lemons?
The Vietnamese recipe adds water, while the other does not, maybe that can result in a different end product ?
Following from Max's comment, the procedure you describe for preserved lemons is a long, multi-step one, with repeatedly adding more salt and lemons to the jar. Maybe to make the Vietnamese sort they just stick everything in the jar at once?
"Cheap"... more like "low priced" :)
Stuart: if so, I'd be fine with that.
There's probably not much difference.
There is a fair amount of variation in preparation methods for Vietnamese preserved limes and lemons (chanh muối). The Garden Betty recipe you linked is probably the most common technique - soaking nearly-quartered lemons in heavily salted water for a few weeks - but that may not be the same method used for the $3 jar you found. Sometimes sugar is used in addition to the salt. Like your Moroccon recipe, sometimes no water is added and the salt instead draws juice out of the fruit to supply the preserving liquid. Boiling the lemons before jarring them is very common. I've also heard of other pre-jarring routines like scrubbing them with salt, sugar, and even tea, or letting them partially dry in the sun first. They may also be jarred in different forms, such as thin slices or left whole.
There is also the obvious case of what actual fruit to use. Because of the nature of citrus fruits, there isn't really a clear divide between limes and lemons in the first place, and there are quite a lot of varieties and hybrids that make classification difficult. I live in the US and use Meyer lemons and Key or Persian limes (which themselves are actually lime-lemon hybrids). The Moroccan recipe calls for doqq and boussera, but suggests Meyer lemons if the traditional varieties can't be found. In Vietnam the fruits are called chanh tây and chanh ta, but I'm not actually aware of a definitive conclusion on which one is technically a lime and which one is a lemon.
Overall, I'm not familiar with different spins on the Moroccan approach, but I assume there's a similar range of variance. That said, it seems like it's basically the same process. Besides the choice of fruit - which, outside of Morocco or Vietnam, is probably going to be the same anyway - I think it's safe to say that any differences between the two cultures are indistinguishable from differences between variants within the same culture.
Of course, the easiest thing to do is just spend the $3 and find out how they taste!
Oh, I already bought them, I just haven't opened them yet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.630705
| 2021-03-24T04:33:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114942",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"FuzzyChef",
"Max",
"Stuart F",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114005
|
Cooking a mix of raw and cooked meat
I have cooked meat that is fully prepared, I like its taste but not its texture. I want to mince it, add it to some raw minced meat and prepare something from the entire mass.
What is the correct way to do it?
Safety concerns, the meat will be cooked thoroughly, but still are there any concerns regarding mixing the meats pre cooking.
Texture and taste, what is the best way to cook the entire mass without overcooking the already cooked meat?
Should the raw meat be pre cooked separately and only combined when cooked? What is the best way to do it?
Also related to 'fixing' texture issues with cooked meat : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/42714/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/55464/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/42260/67
Once the meat is cooked, there really isn't a way to turn it into minced meat without there being a noticeable difference in texture. However, it is not unusual to see fully cooked meat getting finely chopped (in fact) to become, for example, filling, and used in ways sort of like how one would use fried minced meat.
Also, from The BBQ BRETHREN FORUMS:
You can grind cooked meat, no problem. Some sausage recipes, actually call for ground cooked meat.
You best bet is to cook the raw minced meat as you would usually cook it, and dump in the cooked meat, that's all chopped up, at the last moment to heat it up.
I know that I've seen recipes on TV for hamburgers that included some form of slow cooked meat that had been chopped/ground down and added to the mix, but I've never gone to that much trouble myself.
As temperature is the main issue with how far something is cooked (as that affects how the proteins tighten up and squeeze out moisture), so long as the original meat is fully cooked, you just need to cook the raw meat until it's to a safe temperature.
Of course, in terms of storage safety, you'll want to consider the cumulative time that the older meat has been around, so I wouldn't necessarily consider doing this with cooked meat that's been sitting in my fridge for multiple days if I was going to be serving this to other people (I'm not so risk adverse when I'm just cooking for myself), or treat this as a way to extend the life of the older meat.
But as Anastasia hinted at, you could also mince up the cooked meat and use it other dishes ... and those don't necessarily need to include more raw meat. I've chopped up roasts or steaks to make stews, fajitas, dirty rice, stir-fry, stroganof, casseroles, hash, etc. (although how heavily you've flavored the original meat may affect what you can do with it afterwards)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.630983
| 2021-01-28T19:53:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114005",
"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
}
|
128957
|
Does the volume of air in an air tight container affect food shelf life?
I'm specifically talking about storing tea bags here, but equally any other dried foods. I'm trying to switch to buying certain things in bulk, so I'm trying to understand some basic principles.
I understand that once I put foodstuffs in an airtight container, the air inside the container contains bacteria and mold floating in the air.
When the container is full of food, there is obviously still air in there, even is it is small. And as you consume the food product, the air volume gets larger.
So my questions are:
Will a foodstuff, such as tea bags, go off or degrade quicker in a larger volume of air as the volume increases or does it not make much difference? I could buy two or more smaller containers so that the air volume is much smaller once food is removed, or I could buy one large one.
If there is air in the container with bacteria and mold anyway, what benefit does an airtight container provide?
For this exact reason, I buy tea bags in multiple smaller packages. Only one is open at a time (the rest still wrapped in their airtight(?) plastic). But all are stored in a lunchbox.
Your question in general is a good one but the example of tea bags seems odd to me. As long as they stay dry tea bags don't ever go bad. For high quality tea the flavor is preserved better if it is stored in an airtight container but tea bags in general contain low quality tea.
Yes, but it’s not so much about mold and bacteria, but about oxygen.
Oxygen availability results in deterioration of some foods via chemical reactions. Some packaged foods, especially those intended for long term storage (such as disaster preparedness meals) will either vacuum seal the package, ‘oxygen absorber’ packets to reduce this problem, fill the package with nitrogen to push out any oxygen, or a combination of these.
There are hard sided containers that have a one-way valve on them, so they can be connected to a vacuum to remove air, but this can cause problems for some foods (marshmallows are a classic example, as they will expand to fill the space).
One way to deal with your issue is to use more than one container. You keep a smaller container that you’re opening for regular use, and then a larger container that only gets opened when you need to refill the smaller one. This reduces the number of air changes that the food is exposed to before it’s used up. To reduce it further, you can use multiple smaller containers, fill them as full as you can, then use up the remainder (not entirely full one) first.
Brilliant. Thanks
"Oxygen availability results in deterioration of some foods via chemical reactions" You mean food oxidises?
Flushing food storage containers with nitrogen is a fairly common technique for people looking to have, say, a year's supply of food on hand.
@Clockwork : yes. There are many types, though. Enzymatic browning, fats going rancid, etc
I thought the absorbing packets you find in food are for moisture, not oxygen.
@MarkRansom : there are both. Some are labeled with what they are. (Others just say ‘do not eat’)
1. Degradation
Having a larger container with more air volume does not do much to the foodstuff inside. Especially if it is "dry" like tea bags, noodles, rice, etc. (A little different would be fresh food in a container for storing in the fridge, of course).
Tea for example is best stored in tin cans. The air tightening is only needed, if you do not like the odor/smell of the tea lingering in the air. Tea will stop smelling after long periods exposed to air, which might affect the taste (connoisseurs will care).
Keep in mind that plastic containers tend to take on smells (tea) and always stays smelling like that, even after washing thoroughly.
Metal boxes (stainless steel) does not take on smells or at least is easily neutralized with a little water and dish soap.
Glass containers work also nicely for rice, noodles, etc.
2. Usefulness
There are multiple benefits for containers:
prevents insects like flies, moths, spiders, ... reaching and infesting the food
allow easier stacking and storage
can be labeled, sorted by date of expiry, whatever you like
keeps odor/smell inside (see above in case of tea)
prevents moldy/spoiled food inside from spreading over to other food/containers. So you lose maybe only one container, not the whole stock. Considering the right size can greatly help reduce damage in such a case, but is a trade-off in storage space / cost etc. of course.
prevent food from getting humid or wet in the worst case.
For example, I use 5 liter airtight plastic containers to store multiple (2-3) packets of rice, noodles, dried beans etc. in it (separated per type). Mostly to fend of vermin/insects and for easier storage.
That's brilliant. Thanks so much for explaining that. Why use tins over say glass kilner jars?
In the case of tea: You want to protect it from UV-Light. So either use "brown glass", or just tin cans. "Clear" glass might also work, but I have no experience with it in case of tea. For noodles, rice etc. there is no problem, as I can see. For herbs brown glass is commonly used (could be a analogy to tea). I for one have clear glass for herbs. So the difference may be marginal.
Concerning tea: I also use one larger tin box (formerly from a cookie brand (filled), check you shop, might be a cheap way of acquiring those, they are not airtight, tho) and store the open boxes of tea inside there. This saves on expensive tin cans and is also convenient when picking one. The odor mixes a little inside, but does not come out (no degradation on taste noticeable).
Ok great. Thanks again. The setup I'm going for is 1-2L kilner jars put inside a dark cupboard. Tea lives in there, then a 750ml tin can on the shelf for day to day use.
Sounds good! A dark space also helps of course.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.631214
| 2024-08-07T12:20:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128957",
"authors": [
"Antares",
"Clockwork",
"Joe",
"Jon Custer",
"Kingsley",
"Mark Ransom",
"Roger Balfour",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91755
|
'Caramelization' of tomato sauce in slow cooker
For the last few years I've made my tomato sauces in a slow cooker ('crock pot'), or actually, in a machine that is sold as a 'plate warmer' but works great for low temperature cooking. I pre-heat the ingredients on my stove, then transfer it to the slow cooker for 10 or 14 hours to let all the flavors blend, then I puree and can the result. When I first learned this technique, I was told not to stir the sauce, because the long cooking time makes the sugars at the top caramelize and that would bring out a great sweet flavor. Indeed the top, after being in the cooker for that long, browns a bit, and the flavor is great.
However, recently I was learning a bit more about caramelization to understand my baking better, and it turns out that there are no sugars that caramelize at temperatures < 110 °C. So now I'm wondering - is this caramelization of my tomato sauce just a myth? The machine only goes up to 90 °C. I've checked the temperature at various depths in my sauce with an infrared thermometer, and indeed the temperature is nowhere higher than that. Anyone have more than anecdotal information on the chemistry of making tomato sauce?
Short answer: if it doesn't get heated to the caramelization temperature then it does not caramelize. The science is here, and it says you need at least 110 °C for fructose.
Browning in your case is probably not caramelization, but a Maillard reaction, which
is a chemical reaction between an amino acid and a reducing sugar, usually requiring the addition of heat.
Maillard reaction can happen at lower temperatures if given enough time.
Lifted directly from this very useful answer that cites the excellent Harold McGee's book On Food and Cooking (emphasis mine):
There are exceptions to the rule that browning reactions require temperatures above the boil. Alkaline conditions, concentrated solutions of carbohydrates and amino acids, and prolonged cooking times can all generate Maillard colors and aromas in moist foods. For example, alkaline egg whites, rich in protein, with a trace of glucose, but 90% water, will become tan-colored when simmered for 12 hours. The base liquid for brewing beer, a water extract of barley malt that contains reactive sugars and amino acids from the germinated grains, deepens in color and flavor with several hours of boiling. Watery meat or chicken stock will do the same as it's boiled down to make a concentrated demiglace. Persimmon pudding turns nearly black thanks to its combination of reactive glucose, alkaline baking soda, and hours of cooking; balsamic vinegar turns nearly black over the course of years!
So in your temperature range:
~212-300 °F (100-150 °C) - Maillard gets slower as temperature goes lower, generally requiring many hours near the boiling point of water
~130-212 °F (55-100 °C) - Maillard requires water, high protein, sugar, and alkaline conditions to advance noticeably in a matter of hours; generally can take days
In an actual slow cooker, a little caramelisation may be possible at the edge (the pot can get enough above 100C above the waterline that stirring can cause splashes to sizzle so above that 110C) but this answer explains the vast majority of the browning even then.
@ChrisH I thought about that, but didn't want to mention since OP verified the temperature with an IR thermometer
Yes, it's probbaly better not in the answer. This is a rare example of slow-cooking that isn't in a slow-cooker, which was topic of discussion in meta recently
Ah thank you, for some reason I was under the impression that Maillard reactions only happen when baking, and I didn't realize their effect on flavor either. So this is then probably what explains the difference in flavor of this sauce when slow cooked vs when made on a stove top in say 45 or 60 mins?
@Roel probably. Low temp + long time affects flavors differently than high temp + short time.
My tomato pasta sauce simmers on the stove as gently as possible for a very long time, which also gives these nice rich flavours and darkening (I normally make it when the slow-cooker is otherwise occupied and I'm having a batch-cooking session)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.631950
| 2018-08-17T09:06:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91755",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Luciano",
"Roel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68749"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5197
|
Where can I find ancient ages/middle ages recipes and preparation techniques?
I always had an interest for recipes from ancient ages (ancient Greece, Roman empire) and middle ages (i.e. after the fall of the Roman empire until the Renaissance). It's nice to experience what people who lived hundreds of years ago ate daily, or in special circumstances.
Does anyone know books or similar resources to propose on this regard ?
Thank you!
If you're looking for books, you could try "Roman Cookery" by Mark Grant or "The Classical Cookbook" by Andrew Dalby and Sally Grainger for ancient Roman food, or "The Philosopher's Kitchen" by Francine Segan, which combines ancient Greek and Roman cuisine. Many of these recipes are derived from the works of Apicius, but are not solely based on his writings. "Roman Cookery" has been praised for getting beyond just Apicius (the best known resource on Ancient Roman cuisine), but also may be harder to find than the other two.
For Medieval cooking you might try "The Medieval Cookbook" by Maggie Black, which focuses on English and French recipes, or "Pleyn Delit" by Butler, Heiatt, and Hosington. Black's book was inspired by "Pleyn Delit" and the two books are somewhat similar, so you might want to only choose one, depending on your interest. Another good choice might be "The Medieval Kitchen" by Redon, Sabban, and Serventi (translated to English by Edward Schneider), which focuses on French and Italian cuisine in the era before New World ingredients were introduced, which sounds like what you're looking for.
All of these books include a lot of history and discussion of ingredients and cooking techniques of these eras, and often include original texts so you can judge for yourself how close the interpretations are to the original recipes.
On the web there are a number of sites devoted to Apicius and ancient ingredients and recipes.
For Roman you might browse this page:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mjw/recipes/ethnic/historical/ant-rom-coll.html
or for Medieval recipes you might try these:
http://www.celtnet.org.uk/recipes/medieval.html
http://www.medievalcookery.com/recipes/
http://www.godecookery.com/godeboke/godeboke.htm
Medieval Cookery also makes it easy to browse by category or country.
Have you ever visited Gode Cookery?
From the site:
Many of the recipes in this site originate from true medieval & Renaissance sources, are fully documented, and have been adapted for use in the modern kitchen. Original sources & bibliographies are featured whenever possible; historical authenticity and research are our main concerns, along with producing viands that are enjoyable & good to eat. Those recipes that are neither authentic nor documented are clearly defined as being so, and are included for those who wish to prepare modern foods with a medieval flavor. Whether it's a small repast for two or an entire medieval feast, a documented period dinner or a party with a medieval theme, Gode Cookery can provide authentic and delicious dishes with which to please and satisfy your guests.
A Roman by the name of Apicius is credited with one of the earliest printed cookbooks called "De Re Coquineria". As of a few years English versions of it were still be printed under the name "Food and Dining in Ancient Rome" I believe (I have a copy at home but am currently at work).
I realized I gave the same recommendation! It's a cool resource to have online.
Besides the stuff that other people have already mentioned, you might check to see if there's an SCA group near you. Most of them focus on different aspects of historical recreation (combat, clothing, dancing, etc), but they also tend to do banquets and such, so they might not only have recipes, but also advice on how to deal with changes in cooking techniques and materials.
Ahhh, happy memories... I have my (very pretty) AOA still around somewhere.
I was thrilled to see this question. I've always been fascinated with ancient recipes. There's a great online resource of thousands of Ancient Roman recipes. It's called De Re Coquineria by Marcus Apcius. The recipes have been translated from Latin. I covered the information and the links in a post called Eat Like a Roman: http://www.spicesherpa.com/2009/10/14/eat-like-a-roman/ Good luck and have fun!
If you would also like to try out prehistoric recipes and cooking techniques, then Jacqui Wood, an environmental and experimental archaeologist is a great source. Her book "prehistoric cooking" and "Tasting the Past: Recipes from the Stone Age to the Present" are brilliant.
for medieval cooking there is a website http://www.godecookery.com/mtrans/mtrans.htm which has translations of medieval recipes
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.632303
| 2010-08-14T21:10:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5197",
"authors": [
"Alois Mahdal",
"David Mason",
"Michael Bishop",
"Monty420",
"Patrick Carstens",
"Spice Sherpa",
"Umesh Moghariya",
"amander",
"daviesgeek",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"huzzah",
"maximus",
"sdg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6479
|
Why do so many cheeses have artificial ingredients?
Here in Europe (and perhaps only in Spain) I've noticed that most of the cheeses (hard and soft, but more often hard) contain an interesting list of artificial additives in the ingredients: conservatives, acid correctors, colors etc. Finding cheeses without these is a real chore. Going organic helps, but the offerings are small.
My questions are:
Is it like that everywhere else?
How bad is it for the consumers?
Why do they do it? is there a law of some kind regarding this?
I feel this question might be considered on the border of suitability for the site, feel free to suggest a different site if you think it is inappropriate here.
Here in the states it depends on where in the grocery store you look. Usually behind the deli counter and in the dairy isle, yes most the large commercial cheeses are loaded up with additives and preservatives. In a store like Whole Foods (increasingly in traditional grocers too), there is usually a devoted cheese section. If you look at those cheeses, you'll often find the only ingredients to be milk, enzymes, salt. There are also local farmers markets that often have a variety of handmade cheeses that are less likely to have additives/preservatives as well.
Question 2 Is subjective and depends on what the consumer is after. The mass-produced stuff is more homogeneous in color/taste, can have a longer shelf life, and is generally cheaper than the other offerings. As far as health concerns, many customers feel that you are better off avoiding unnecessary additives though I don't believe there is much subjective evidence supporting one side over the other.
Roux has it right on for point number three. Safest assumption for why a company does something a certain way is cost.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.632690
| 2010-09-01T08:33:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6479",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2773
|
What are good resources to learn food chemistry?
Does anyone know of some good resources to start learning about food chemistry?
I am thinking specifically about a description of the chemical processes involved e.g. in cooking/preparing the different foods and their relation with changes in flavor etc.
Also: do you know a reliable source to understand what is the purpose of all food additives used by the industry? Here I am not thinking about colorant/preservatives and the like, but more about the "strange supernumerary" ingredients we can see on industrial food's labels.
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1710/which-food-writers-do-you-take-to-bed, and the food-science tags on this site, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/food-science.
McGee on Food and Cooking: An Encyclopedia of Kitchen Science, History and Culture will answer most questions on what the chemistry is behind most cooking processes, without being too academic.
For a more academic look at the chemistry of the subject find Hervé This is one of the founders of the Molecular Gastronomy movement.
is there a particular book you would recommend to get started with molecular gastronomy?
@FordBuchanan: That book doesn't appear to be available in the U.S. for some reason, although this one is. Do you know how they're related?
Yes, that's the US edition.
To update this 2010 question, McGee is still active and an excellent primary source. He has done more work in addition to the book in the accepted answer. You might also look into Arielle Johnson, formerly of MIT and currently Alton Brown's chief science officer. She has a ton of experience.
I believe both McGee and Johnson have new books coming out soon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.632866
| 2010-07-22T13:58:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2773",
"authors": [
"Daniel Standage",
"Flimzy",
"FordBuchanan",
"Ocaasi",
"Sobachatina",
"Solracnapod",
"Steve Chernoff",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"priscilla"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51814
|
Local special ingredients on Cape Cod
I will be spending some time on Cape Cod and since I'm from a landlocked country, I wonder what local ingredients I could take advantage when cooking during my stay. I suppose seafood and fish are in good supply, though probably still not cheap. Is there anything else worth hunting for? What are some typical dishes in the wider area utilizing local ingredients?
What season are you visiting during? Seafood is the most obvious ingredient, perhaps lobsters or clam chowder. Cranberries also come to mind, but they are much more dependent on season/weather. Searching for "New England" recipes is likely to lead you to some interesting ideas, but I honestly can't think of much that's highly local to Massachusetts and/or not widely available elsewhere.
It will be the end of the summer. Lobsters are a good suggestion, I thought they might be more of a Maine thing. How about shrimp? Can I expect seafood to be reasonable prices say in comparison with pork or beef?
"Maine lobsters" can actually be found all over New England. Shrimp I think is more prevalent in southern states (e.g. Louisiana, South Carolina). Prices might be better if you avoid restaurants -- ask some locals where they get their seafood -- but at the peak of tourist season, lobsters will be pricey. Fish might be a better option.
Hello VoY. As with most StackExchange sites, questions which result in list-style answers are not accepted. As there is no way to enumerate all possible Cape Cod local ingredients, or to distinguish between them (X is more of a Cape Cod ingredient than Y!), they just don't work with our voting system. I will remove the recommendations tag too, if it applies to a question, this is a clear sign it isn't suitable for the site.
I understand. How do you suggest I rephrase the question so that I can learn about my subject using the QA format?
When I lived in Boston, and occasionally visited the Cape Cod area, there was more of a regional cuisine than local ingredients. Seafood -- lobster, fish, clams, mussels -- is the most uniquely Cape Cod ingredient I can think of, since it is right on the coast.
This infographic describes some of the foods that are associated with New England, although that is a little too general for your question -- dairy, for example, is much more a Vermont or non-coastal ingredient. However, Cape Cod is close enough that Vermont cheddar will be quite easy to come by!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.633143
| 2014-12-21T13:25:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51814",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Grant",
"Karen Price",
"Linda Sheill",
"Oliver Larcombe-Moore",
"Thomas Lampone",
"VoY",
"dana grubb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7760
|
Flavourless Carb Free Thickeners
Can you suggest any Carb Free thickeners that don't affect the flavour of soups/casseroles?
For casseroles I would recommend making sauces that are thickened with eggs -- savory custards if you will. Soups can easily be thickened with pureed cooked vegetables. Yes, this will add some carbs depending on the veggies used, but the amount of fiber in relation to the carbs negates some of the effect. Stay away from very starchy or sweet veggies, like potatoes and onions, and limit the use of carrots/beets. For some soups pureed cooked legumes (ex. dried peas, lentils, or beans/soybeans) would work well.
Some carbohydate-based thickeners work better than others. Cornstarch is more effective than flour, for example, and you might have even better luck with tapioca starch or potato starch.
Otherwise, I like the egg idea, although that'll add a bit of flavor, and it's hard to do without getting an egg-drop effect. Or, letsee... okra will thicken your soup!
A couple alternatives come to mind:
Gelatin
You can find Knox in just about any grocery in the US or Canada. Mix one packet with a cup of the liquid from your soup or casserole (or mix it with a cup of water) and let it sit for 5-10 minutes until hydrated. Stir it well back into the dish. It'll thicken a quart or two of liquid.
Agar
Gelatin is not vegetarian. If that's a concern, consider using agar. I find it in the local East Asian shops here in Seattle. Mixed like gelatin, a tablespoon or two will do a job on a quart or so of liquid. It's not strictly carb-free but the carb content is minimal (maybe 0.25 gram per tbsp vs. 7 grams in corn starch).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.633368
| 2010-10-02T08:15:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7760",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109596
|
Tools used to spread oil for crêpes
Making crêpes on teflon-coated cookware makes it possible to fold the fat (butter, ..) inside the mixture, and to use no fat while cooking. But some may want to avoid teflon, perhaps for health reasons, perhaps because they're partial to cast iron, etc. For any surface other than teflon (stainless steel, cast iron, ...) applying fat before pouring the crêpe mixture becomes necessary.
In this video at 2:00 and at the very beginning (and later on) in that one crêpe chefs are applying fat using what seems like a towel in the first and a foil-covered cylinder in the second.
What are these two tools? Are these tools accessible to the home cook? Are there substitutes that the home cook can use?
In the first (and other videos) I've seen what looks like an oiled paper towel. If the pan is already at medium heat (and adequately preheated), an oiled paper towel would surely burn quite quickly (not to mention possibly leave lint). Likewise any towel would burn.
The tool used in the second video seems to be some kind of aluminum-covered spreader, but it's unclear whether the handle contains fat or the instrument was simply sitting in a plate of fat.
Having now been able to watch the videos, they do seem like what I've seen. The first isn't very clear but looks like cloth rather than paper towel to me. The second looks a bit more manufactured, but again familiar. It's a (presumably cotton) cloth, possibly cheesecloth, rolled, and kept rolled with a crimped handle or foil. A cotton or linen tea towel (AKA dish towel) would work too. The handle also means less oil getting on the cook's hand. The only slightly odd thing is the foil at the bottom.
Cheesecloth is primarily meant for use in contact with food, and tea towels for contact with cooking equipment. Lint isn't an issue after a few washes.
The reason they don't burn is the very brief contact time, combined with a lot of the heat going into the oil; they're saturated by being kept in a dish of oil. This is a quick way to get a sufficiently even layer. If you look closely you may see that the spreader is used in a brushing motion so contact between any one part and the griddle or pan isn't continuous, meaning even less time to scorch. And after all, a cotton cloth can be used as an oven cloth.
Is a cheesecloth-based spreader reusable? I'm less than enthusiastic washing a cloth soaked in oil, and reusing the same cloth for an extended period while just adding oil seems unhygienic. The only option then is to discard the cloth after one or a few uses. Is that right?
@Sam good question. I'm not sure. In professional use they may have short enough lives to not need washing. I clean cheesecloths and jam-straining muslins by washing them first in the dishwasher, then in the washing machine. I haven't ever needed to try it with really oily ones. As an amateur cook (who rarely makes pancakes) I just use paper towel. You'd need a magnifying glass to find any lint in the oil, and it doesn't burn over the course of one batch
Funny.. I see the answer, provided by none other than yourself: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/81505/85398
I answer here the "how might a home cook do it?" part.
I can confirm that a simple, inexpensive, dishwasher-safe, silicone brush does the job admirably. I was initially concerned the plastic might melt on a hot cast iron plate. After several experiments, there is no need to worry. The temperature of the plate is likely a relatively mild Maillard-reaction temperature of 140 to 165 °C (280 to 330 °F) and silicone sustains at least 375 °F.
For the extra curious, the tools used by the pros seem to build a very thin oil film. At best, a silicone brush will produce a thin oil swirl. Yet it works perfectly. The crêpe bottom is entirely uniform colored, with no trace of the oil swirl. Quite likely another phenomenon is at play. Depositing the mixture spreads the oil uniformly, and a seasoned pan conducts heat well enough that the browning is just about perfect.
My experiments so far have been limited to cast iron. [None of my triply skillets remain flat enough to get a uniform gold color using my (ceramic electric) stove]. If you use triply (presumably on a gas stove) or enameled cast iron, and run experiments with silicone brushes, please share your experience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.633521
| 2020-07-11T06:31:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109596",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Sam7919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85398"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109424
|
Keeping oil spray nozzle from clogging
An entire category of cooking oil sprayers seems to exist on the market.
I intend to use such an oil sprayer to deposit a thin layer of oil on a cast iron pan before cooking (crepes, omelettes..).
The idea from using my own oil sprayer is to avoid the ingredients (lecithin, dimethyl silicone, butane/propane) that are in the industrial variety (Pam)—besides that lecithin could cause the polymer seasoning to become tacky.
If I use the sprayer daily, I can hope that the nozzle would not clog, but if I use it weekly, it seems hopeless.
I'm thinking of this recipe:
Estimate the oil (canola oil, melted coconut oil) needed for one cooking session; pour in the clean and dry sprayer.
After use, discard the remaining oil, fill with a little vinegar and a touch of baking soda. Shake. Spray until empty. Rinse with water. Air dry.
The bottle itself is dishwasher safe. I don't like the idea of running diluted dish soap in the mechanism since it's too easy to leave trace amounts.
What are my chances of success? Will the steps above keep the nozzle from clogging? Can you suggest an alternative?
Coconut oil is solid at 'room temperature' - which of course depends on your room temperature - 24°C [78°F] is about its melt point.
@Tetsujin Interesting. I didn't realize it's that low. Hence potentially hand-warming a container is sufficient (for the patient). Regardless of the heating method, melting coconut oil (and butter) before use mean one more item to clean.
This won't work, and it isn't about the clogging - you just won't be able to spray.
First, you cannot refill an aerosol bottle at home, so you are limited to using pump spray bottles. The pump spray bottles you can buy are meant for water and water-based liquids. If you fill a normal pump spray bottle with cooking oil and spray, what you get is a single streak of oil, not a mist of droplets.
Second, there is a reason why the industrial spray uses lecithine and other emulsifiers. Without those, your oil will not be sprayed-on, it will run together into a few large droplets, leaving most of your pan oil-free. So, even if you find a spray bottle that works with oil, you still won't have an oil-coated pan.
Third, these sprays are meant for baking. If you give your pan a small spritz of oil only, this is likely not going to be enough oil for an omelette. So you will have to use as much oil as when applying standard oiling techniques anyway.
In the end, the bottle would not be really worth it if it worked, and chances are you won't even get it to work. So, I would call the idea a dead end.
2 & 3 are compelling arguments, but I can't reconcile 1 with the description of this (https://www.walmart.com/ip/Starfrit-092063-006-0000-Oil-and-Dressing-Mister/55466063) product.
The present question is, incidentally, an attempt to work around your (https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/109400/85398) answer. There you suggest pouring oil in a cast iron pan, then pouring it out to oil. This would work well for those using a live-flame stovetop (and it would season the bottom of the pan, to boot), but on a ceramic stove, pouring out, even after wiping, is a recipe for a lot of mess. The spray, if workable, would be a solution for the cast iron + ceramic combination.
@Sam you're right, it makes a mess. I also have a glass ceramic stove, but tolerate the stains. You can try if brushing works better for you. Also, I have heard of a pump bottles sold for oil (again for salads, not for pans) but have never encountered them in the wild and have no idea if they are indeed designed differently and can really turn the oil into mist. The answer assumed that you are planning to use an average household bottle, the kind that is widely available, and these don't separate the oil into droplets (I've tried them).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.633861
| 2020-07-02T15:47:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109424",
"authors": [
"Sam7919",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85398",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109971
|
Can I start to cook on a cast iron pan while it's smoking?
I like to think that I have nailed the Maillard temperature on my stove. It's my go-to temperature for preheating tri-ply pans, as well as teflon-coated hard-anodized aluminum pans.
After years of relying primarily on tri-ply for cooking, I'm now returning to cast iron. (I lost a perfectly seasoned cast iron pan during a move, and couldn't see myself going through the labor of starting another).
As I preheat my twice-seasoned (once at the factory and once upside down in my oven at 375F for 90 minutes) cast iron pan, I see smoke rising.
Seeing some liquid oil after the second seasoning, I had (carefully and gently) washed (with mild dish soap and the blue-variety scotch-brite) the pan and dried it thoroughly. As I preheat it, it's smoking—despite the washing.
Can I start to cook on a cast iron pan while it's smoking?
It continued to smoke for a few minutes, and I suspect that that means it's not ready for cooking, but I'm not quite sure what the smoke means. Does it mean that the oil has not properly polymerized and it's still burning? Would just leaving it like that (still on the stove at the Maillard setting, not in the oven) for 30 minutes do the trick? (I'm reluctant to use the oven because the drips from the upside-down pan were far too messy.)
Yes, you can - for foods that are cooked at high temperatures, like steak, the oil is commonly heated until smoking anyways.
I suspect that the reason your pan is still smoking is due to the fact that you put too much oil when seasoning it - "I'm reluctant to use the oven because the drips from the upside-down pan were far too messy". When seasoning your pan, all you need is the thinnest of coats, and if there is so much extra oil that it drips out, you should wipe most of it out. Having too much oil results in a sticky or tacky surface rather than a smooth patina, and even if you manage to polymerise such a thick layer of oil, it tends to chip off more easily.
That makes sense. I thought I was immune to too-much-oil because the pans were upside down in the oven. Duh.. Now it makes sense. To depend on the excess oil dripping out, the pans must also be slanted. Otherwise the excess oil just forms pockets that are now sticky. This is a pair of new pans (used twice), and I now have to figure out whether the cure for the stickiness is to clean them with a harsher pad and restart the polymerization, or to continue cooking with thin layers of oil, while watching out that the flakes will not make it into the food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.634178
| 2020-07-31T17:33:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109971",
"authors": [
"Sam7919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85398"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115955
|
What are strategies to identify restaurants where you will learn as much as possible?
How do I identify restaurants that offer excellent training/education? I considered looking at the number of chefs that learned at a certain restaurant and afterwards achieved a Michelin star or won prices etc. However, I could not find any database for this kind of information. Does such a database exist? If yes, would it be a good approach? I don't know many people in the culinary world who could recommend a suitable restaurant to me. As an alternative, is there some kind of forum with this kind of expertise? Maybe the chat of this site? Or is there a ranking of restaurants with regard to their educational quality?
If it matters, I am interested in restaurants in Europe, especially in Germany.
TLDR: What are strategies to identify restaurants where you will learn as much as possible?
Edit Based on the advice from the comments some additional information: I don't have experience as a chef until now and my goal is to learn as much as possible within two or three years. I don't necessarily need a formal degree, but ideally I would also obtain one.
Where are you starting from? Any cookery college will have avenues to the real world for its graduates. If you're trying to start without any formal training, you will be washing pots for quite some time before anyone will let you near a stove.
@Tetsujin Thanks for your question :) I don't have experience as a chef until now, so basically I would start at the very beginning. My goal is to learn as much as possible in the next two or three years. I think that in Germany (however, I am also interested in the possibilities in other European countries) the usual way is not to go to a classical culinary school but kind of a dual system (Lehre) where you are alternating between time in the restaurant and time in school. But I don't necessarily aim for a formal degree, my main goal is to learn as much as possible as fast as possible.
You ought to add that information to your question. One thing is for sure, without formal training of any kind, your employment opportunities will be limited to 'whoever will take you on'… & that will not include Michelin star kitchens unless they encompass training specifically. You can't even get into something as open as Jamie Oliver's Ministry of Food without formal introduction from a participating college.
@Tetsujin I think that the dual system in Germany is such that even exceptional restaurants train beginners (the pay during this time is very low) and they are even obligated to really train them (they have to pass practical tests). So (at least in theory) they cannot only let you wash dishes but have to actually teach you. Clearly many restaurants won't do this properly, so part of my question is how I can identify those who do really educate beginners.
@Tetsujin I added the information to the question.
It's hit or miss.
@Johannes_B I am not completely sure what that means. Does it mean that there is no way to increase the probability to identify a restaurant that offers good training in advance and it's only about luck? If yes, why is this the case?
Europe is too wide an area. Do you have an EU or other Schengen citizenship? If not, forget to get work anywhere in the EU/Schengen countries. Best add the country of your citizenship.
@Willeke My focus is on restaurants in Germany. I edited the question accordingly. I have an EU citizenship.
What i meant is ... Well, you cannot know in advance. The kitchen is a place to learn, but always as a team, but with one leader. If the leader decides to use Maggi-Pulver all over the place, there isn't much to learn.
Since you seem to speak German -> https://youtu.be/ie30Pi2Q2to
personally, even after clarification, I think your emphasis is wrong. You learn most about actual cooking technique & kitchen management at college. You see how that applies to the real work using their resources & connections to real restaurants. You seem to want to do this the wrong way round, in the mistaken belief that it will somehow be "quicker". It won't, it will be slower & have no qualification at the end.
@Tetsujin Thanks, I will look into it and consider the way with culinary schools. To be honest, I was not even aware that these exist in Germany (apart from "Berufsschulen"). Are you sure that your advice also applies to the situation in Germany where there is a dual system? Do you have an example of such a culinary school in Germany? Maybe you could also have a look at my comment to the answer below concerning this dual system? Thanks for your advice :)
I have absolutely no idea how Germany differs from anywhere else, even within the EU. This distinction is really not covered by your question nor the purview of this site. You need to do your own research.
SA is a bad place to ask this question. Try asking on eGullet, which has an audience of professional chefs and will have more useful advice.
@FuzzyChef Thanks :) I was not aware of that site, I will look into it.
There is a forum: eGullet, which is an online message board for culinary professionals.
Try their Culinary Classifieds for staging advertisements, and Restaurant Life to ask about advice on how to find a good stage.
There are probably lists of restaurants that accept interns, but those will be in the hand of culinary schools.
Those restaurants will have agreements with the culinary schools that covers the curriculum and maybe costs associated with the internship.
If you go with the culinary school way, you will already be "trained" in some way, you will have a base education where you will be useful in some ways to the restaurant; the risks to the restaurants are minimal. Depending on the laws (germany?) you might be paid or not.
If you go the "independent" way, without any basic education or training, you might/will be hired as a dishwasher or a kitchen runner or busboy; as an employee, you will/should be paid.
It will be your responsibility to learn by watching, by asking questions and eventually by asking the chef/owner for increased responsibility in the restaurant, this is a medium/long term endeavour.
You will probably try the restaurant dish at your home (or at the restaurant in your own time if the owner is cool with that)
--
You need to identify what kind of restaurant or cooking you want to work for, either high end restaurants (for example michelin star), less formal bistro/diner or even small catering companies or even a large hotel kitchen.
Go through the list of restaurants in your area, look at the menus/website, get a peek inside the restaurant (seating area), see if it looks like a place people enjoy, or a place you'd like to work for.
If you see a place that you'd like to apply, call the restaurant and see if they would have an opening for a person like you; keep it clear and open about your goals.
Good luck.
Thanks, +1 :) Particularly the second part is very helpful. Regarding the first part of the answer, I am not completely sure that it takes into account the dual system in Germany. For many professions the usual path is to make a "Lehre" where you alternate between working at an (independent) business and between school ("Berufsschule"). This is not limited to chefs but the usual path for many professions. I think it is quite normal even for high end restaurants to accept such applicants ("Auszubildende"). They are then obligated to properly train them, but the pay is very low.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.634405
| 2021-06-06T08:38:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115955",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Johannes_B",
"Tetsujin",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84958",
"simplemind"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116350
|
What to do to cool down oven after grease fire?
I have cleaned the grease out the oven but the oven is still warm and it’s not on. What do I do to get the oven to cool down so it’s back to normal?
So long as the fire is truly out, then just give the oven time. It may take a few hours to cool the metal back to room-temperature, just as it would if you had baked something in it.
You sure it's not on? Turn off the breaker to the stove and see if it cools. Possible the grease fire damaged the controls..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.634927
| 2021-07-08T23:32:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116350",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116389
|
Day 3 My Preserved Limes Are Not Filling the Jar
I packed all the nearly quartered limes I had tightly into a quart jar with plenty of salt. When I finished, there was about 1/3 of the jar empty. I put them in the dark cupboard because I didn't know what else to do. Now I have more limes. Would it be safe to scrub, cut, salt, add them to the jar, and mash them down until the jar is filled?
Yes, that’s fine. Not much to say here, really. It’s okay to have a head space in the jar (the high acid and salt content makes the limes inhospitable for all microorganisms that might otherwise colonize the surface), and it’s also okay to add more salted limes.
I'd also suggest squeezing a bunch of lime juice on top, to cover.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.635008
| 2021-07-11T22:30:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116389",
"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
}
|
116400
|
Eggs whites on top and side of yolk
When I make a sunny side egg, I notice that the yolk can be sunny side up and ready to eat, yet sometimes there is what seems to be a "ring" of egg white around the perimeter of the yolk and also a small coating of egg yolk surrounding the egg.
Is it okay to eat that or do I have to make sure that the egg white liquid turns solid first? One of the issues with that is that it makes the yolk cook longer and gets harder. I just want to make sure what is safe to eat.
Not an answer, but you can baste the eggs to prevent this. Carefully splash some oil from the pan onto the top of the eggs, cooking the hard to reach bits of the white.
Btw., the amount of egg white clinging to the yolk is an indicator of freshness. The more the fresher.
You can eat eggs raw, so long as you're not pregnant or in an at-risk health group.
Fry them however you like them.
UK chickens are vaccinated against salmonella. Elsewhere, less so. Apparently the US doesn't do it at all, hence their tougher handling regulations.
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/01/poultry-vaccinations-credited-for-uks-big-drop-in-salmonella/
sorry, wrong link - fixed
The UK's National Health Service goes so far as to say
There have been improved food safety controls in recent years. So infants, children, pregnant women and elderly people can now safely eat raw or lightly cooked hen eggs, or foods containing them. Make sure that the eggs you buy have a British Lion stamp mark.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/eggs-nutrition/
There was a furore in the late 80's when a British politician, Edwina Currie, falsely claimed salmonella was a high risk in eggs. After that all died down [which took quite a while;) safety was increased still further.
Historical précis from the BBC -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/3/newsid_2519000/2519451.stm
Old, non-https link. Should be safe enough from Auntie Beeb
"Is it ok to eat" is a personal question that can't be objectively answered.
What we can say is that eating soft whites or yolks is not considered safe by the FDA or the CDC:
Cook eggs until both the yolk and the white are firm. Scrambled eggs should not be runny.
FDA - What You Need to Know About Egg Safety
Cook eggs until both the yolk and white are firm. Egg dishes should be cooked to an internal temperature of 160°F (71°C) or hotter.
CDC - Salmonella and Eggs
In 2008, the CDC estimated that about 574,000 Americans per year acquire some sort of foodborne illness as a result of consuming eggs. Of this number, about 4,000 are hospitalized and 7 die. As a point of comparison, consuming meat leads to about 2 million illnesses, 13,000 hospitalizations and 420 deaths.
CDC - Attribution of Foodborne Illness in the United States
Nobody follows this advice. Cooking eggs until the yolk is hard ruins the experience for most people, millions of people eat runny yolked eggs in the states every day and it's extremely rare for someone to get sick off of them.
@GdD, I've added more data to help clarify the incidence of egg-related foodborne illness. For what it's worth, I eat extremely runny eggs and raw eggs fairly regularly. I am not attempting to answer the question, "should I eat runny eggs," but instead "are runny eggs safe?" - "safe" used in this meaning: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info.
@GdD this doesn't matter. On our site, we assume that whenever somebody asks about food safety, they are asking about official guidelines. We can either answer citing those, or close the question. What we cannot do is turn it into a discussion of people's personal opinion of what is safe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.635106
| 2021-07-12T16:19:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116400",
"authors": [
"Dave",
"GdD",
"Juhasz",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94447",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119691
|
Best way to bind crab cakes
What is the best way to bind crab cakes? I cannot, ever, use any kind of flour or breadcrumbs, no even NG flour/bread; no bread, cracker, flour G or NG.
Would just an egg or egg white be enough to bind the crab cake?
Welcome to SA! Why do you say "clearly no bread crumbs"?
The questions states 'the waiter told me the chef adds almost nothing ... no fillers' @FuzzyChef, that implies no breadcrumbs.
"almost nothing" is quite different from "nothing". For example, I personally add a little flour to my crab cakes to help them hold together. 1/2 cup of breadcrumbs is a filler; 1 Tbs is a binder.
But what about an egg? or at least the white? I really do not mind dropping the crumbs, but not sure I can drop the egg or white. What are your thoughts on the egg?
So your question is "what are the minimum binders required to hold a crab cake together"? If that's correct, can you edit your original question to clarify?
If you search for ‘gluten free Maryland crab cakes’, you should find some recipes that don’t use breadcrumbs. (There are people who insist that breadcrumbs shouldn’t be used in ‘true’ Maryland crab cakes.). But you’ll also find a lot of recipes that call for gluten free breadcrumbs
It probably depends on how you’re planning on cooking your crab cakes.
There’s a style of Maryland crab cakes that are baked or broiled (top heat only) in an oven that don’t require as much binder as you don’t need to flip them or need them to hold together in a fryer.
For this style, it might be bound with just egg, or a mix of egg and mayonnaise.
Here are some example recipes:
using egg, egg yolk and mayo
using just mayonnaise
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.635530
| 2022-01-30T20:24:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119691",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Little ol' lady",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97651"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116106
|
Can red lentils be used for mujadara?
I feel like making some mujadara, but the only lentils I've got currently are red lentils - no green or brown lentils. Many recipes I've read have specifically said that red lentils are to be avoided, as they will lend themselves to a mushy consistency.
I understand that red lentils take less time to cook than green or brown lentils, but I don't understand why they supposedly won't work for mujadara. Would adding them into the pot with the rice later than most recipes call for work well? Since that would result in them cooking for less time. I ask in part because if substituting for red lentils in this way were so simple, I'd expect recipes would note it as a substitution, rather than specifically cautioning against it.
I think red lentils are just the insides of green/brown lentils. Without the seed coat, they disintegrate very quickly. That’s desirable for some applications but I think it would be a little unsatisfying in a mujadara where I enjoy the textural contrast between softer rice and more toothsome lentils.
This is partly, or mostly right. The red lentils that a typically sold are hulled and split and their hulls are greenish-brown. But you might be able to find hulled red lentils. And not all lentils have red insides (technically called the cotyledon). Some cotyledons are yellow or green.
Yeah, this is correct. If you cook red lentils together with rice, they just become mushy, red rice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.635695
| 2021-06-17T03:13:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116106",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Juhasz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"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
}
|
108672
|
is Doubanjiang (sezhuan hot bean paste) an acceptable substitute in recipes calling for gochujang (Korean hot sauce)?
These days I keep on seeing repeated shout-outs to gochujang, which is not available where I live. However, I do have a container of Doubanjang just sitting there in my fridge, taking up space. Would it be a reasonable substitute in recipes calling for gochujang?
without a chemistry conflict, substitution acceptability is in the mouth of the beholder.
Well, J, I moved to Abbotsford BC a couple of years ago. Forgot to update my profile.
@Doug Pan Asia Market on Fraser?
Thanks J, I didn't think of that and will give it a try.
Both are mildly spicy, but the similarities end there. Gochujang is tangy and slightly sweet, whereas doubanjiang is more salty, savory and fermented-tasting. Even the textures don't match up: gochujang is smooth, while doubanjiang is chunky and ragged. I wouldn't substitute either one for the other.
Incidentally, if your doubanjiang is just sitting there because you got it for some elaborate Sichuan recipe involving like eight other seasonings... doubanjiang is more flexible than that, and will work well as an addition or even just on its own. Try frying up some ground pork with a bit of doubanjiang and some scallions, served over rice.
It was ma-po tofu. I will give your suggestion a try.
As @Sneftel has said, the flavor profile of doubanjang is too distinctive to serve as a replacement for gochujang in any real context.
That said, the flavor of gochujang is relatively easy to compartmentalize, and thus reasonably replaceable. The uses of gochujang in Korean crusine stems pretty much directly from its constituent ingredients:
Ingredient
Purpose
Replacement
Gochugaru
color and hotness
can be replaced by gochugaru, or any type of red pepper flakes with a neutral aroma profile
Malt or sugar
sweetness
can be replaced by sugar, honey, or other sweeteners
Rice flour or other starch
thickening
a bit of potato starch or flour (typically not very important)
The meju and additional fermentation does impart some savoriness and fermented flavor, but Korean recipes will typically call for doenjang or even ssamjang (which is in essence doenjang and gochujang combined) if those flavors are significantly desired.
So, depending on the dish or even personal preference, a combination of ingredients that can impart the all or some of the above aspects will generally work quite well (although red pepper flakes are de facto mandatory) - for example, people who prefer a cleaner "broth" in their tteokbokki may use only gochugaru and sugar in place of gochujang.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.635838
| 2020-05-28T05:10:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108672",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"J...",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.