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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4084
|
A steak story: dry crust
I followed all of the tips. Prime sirloin, taken out an hour before cooking. Salted thoroughly 30 minutes prior. Patted dry with paper towels. Thrown on a high (650) degree grill for two minutes per side, finished on low for 3 minutes per side (internal temp was still about 400). Rested 10 minutes.
Results: Good sear, beautiful medium-rate insides. Plenty of juice. Enough salt.
Problem: the exterior was almost like bark. It wasn't scorched or burnt, but just really really dry.
What was the misstep?
It sounds like you may be searing the steak for too long. Indeed, you want to initially be cooking the steak at a higher-than-normal temperature in order to sear it, but I'd suggest a period of more like 30 seconds each side, followed by slightly longer at a reduce temperature. At 650 degrees, the steak does not need long to sear. The same principle has worked for me when pan-frying steak, though obviously at much lower temperatures.
I'm not sure how large a role the salting is playing, but I would only salt the steak minimally before cooking. It's often just as well done towards the end of cooking, and is less likely to dry out the steak.
In addition, a common mistake is to pat down the steaks too much while (or after) cooking them. This may speed up the process slightly, but it certainly dries out the meat (the outside in particular). This is probably not the main problem, but is worth noting anyway.
Hope that helps.
Salting in advance actually helps keep steaks juicier because while the salt initially draws out the moisture it is eventually reabsorbed back into the steak where it helps retain moisture in the cooked steak, and it tastes better. Source. I agree that extended searing is probably the real culprit. Doing a reverse sear on the steak may help. Source
Since you note that the inside was nice and juicy, I doubt that salting 30 minutes in advance was the culprit. Either sear at a slightly lower temp or do it for less time. I just got a new grill and the "high" setting was much hotter than I expected and my first steaks seared much quicker than I expected.
A note on the salting in advance: Cook's Illustrated highly recommends the practice of liberally salting and then allowing to sit for an extended time. Provided that the meat sits long enough it actually acts like a "dry brine". The salt initially draws out moisture but due to the high concentration of salt on the exterior of the meat, the salt is drawn into the tissue through osmosis (same as brining) and the juice re-enters the tissue at which point it retains the juiciness from the moisture retention capabilities of the salt.
You might try salting the meat immediately upon removing from the refrigerator to provide additional time for the "brine" that forms to be reabsorbed by the meat.
Agree-- Serious Eats did a similar experiment here. Steaks should be salted at least 40 minutes before frying.
I would say you salted the steak too early. Salting draws out the moisture which could be a reason why the exterior was dry. I have seen two schools of thought, one is salt it just before cooking (which seems to be the French style) and the other is salting towards the end of the cooking.
I personally go for the French style and it seems to work fine for me.
It's possible, but I doubt salting is the sole cause.
If anything he salted the steak late. Steaks should be salted at least 40 minutes before frying for maximum juiciness/flavour (Source)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.636051
| 2010-08-03T09:48:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4084",
"authors": [
"Boris_yo",
"Dugan ",
"Noldorin",
"Rajeevan",
"dnigmig",
"eplawless",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79018",
"lumpynose",
"martiert"
],
"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
}
|
1902
|
How to prepare shallot greens?
I have a bunch of shallots with the greens (stems) on them, and I was wondering if anyone has experience with them. How are they used? Throw them in with the shallot bulbs? Use them like green onions or chives? What dishes are good with them (or require them)?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.636363
| 2010-07-19T03:25:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1902",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56928
|
Cast Iron - Enamelled - Season or not?
I have one of these - http://www.victoriasbasement.com.au/Product/Details/75766 - which I bought recently. Its an enamelled cast iron pan. I've been seasoning it by rubbing it down in oil and putting it in the oven. The seasoning doesn't seem to last very long though. Should I not be seasoning it because its enamelled? If so, should I try and get a non-enamelled cast iron pan if I want something with better non stick properties?
Plenty of cast iron seasoning advice already on SA. Basically you need to do more of it!
You don't need to season an enameled pot. The enamel serves much of the same purpose as building up a layer of seasoning.
Although the enamel won't ever be quite as slick as seasoned cast iron, it protects the vessel from rust, makes food less likely to stick (with a little help from some oil), and easier to clean up afterwards.
Look at the links picture! only the outside is enamelled. It will need seasoning just like any cast iron pan
@TFD : we've gone over this on other questions -- just because the inside is black doesn't mean that it's bare iron that needs to be seasoned. I can't verify on that particular brand, but there are brands that enamel the inside in black, and even some that teflon coat the inside. (Le Creuset has a few that are teflon coated)
Your eyes must be better then mine. Either way your answer should then really ask what is interior surface then? A blanket statement isn't helpful without information
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.636425
| 2015-04-25T05:49:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56928",
"authors": [
"Gayle Harter",
"Janet Roberts",
"Joe",
"Prabhat Khanal",
"Sam Francis",
"Sidra Basheer",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55445
|
Can rosehip tisane be used as a substitute for red wine in cooking?
I'm currently watching a cooking series (The Everyday Gourmet) and in one of the lessons the chef talks about what to look for in a wine. For red wine he mentions to look for a wine with a deep red colour as well as a good tannin content, mentioning that subtleties of flavour will likely be lost during cooking.
As he was talking about it, rosehip tea popped up as something that meets those two criterias. I tried searching online but couldn't find anything on the subject. It seems a bit far fetched but it has me curious.
I don't drink alcohol and have no idea what red wine tastes like so I can't test it as I don't have anything to compare it to. What are your thoughts?
EDIT: Instead of straight rosehip, would there be anything I could add that would make it resemble red wine a little more (i.e. a bit of sugar, something acidic, etc)?
This is not a duplicate of the question you asked, but you may be interested as possible alternative substitutions for red wine if the answer turns out to be "no": http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1332/what-is-a-substitute-for-red-or-white-wine-in-a-recipe?rq=1
If you're not drinking alcohol, because of the effect - could you not take a drink but not swallow to see the taste of real wine and compare?
I avoid it due to religious reasons. I can't buy it, let alone swirl it around my mouth. :)
I'm in the same boat. Although I've never tried using rosehip tea as a substitute, and just by the taste, I think it would be better than many suggested wine substitutes (apple juice, red wine vinegar, balsamic vinegar), there are better substitutes. See What is a substitute for red or white wine in a recipe?.
My recommendation is a nonalcoholic grape juice made from similar grapes (such as Meier's Sparkling Grape Juice). There are many different types of red wine, and Meier's doesn't have options for all of them, but the ones they have seem to work well for me, especially the Burgundy. It is also often available at my local supermarket. You could also go with a real wine with the alcohol removed such as Fre, but there are many people who say not all the alcohol is removed, and they are also pretty expensive (one bottle is cheaper than Meier's, but by the case it's much more).
Don't try using the purple grape juice available at most grocery stores (Welches or similar). The taste is very different and the color will usually not be appealing.
NOTE: I have no affiliation with Meier's other than being a happy and frequent customer.
I'm in Australia and I've never seen that brand here, however I have used sparkling grape juices (as well as verjuice) as substitutes before. I'm not comfortable with alcohol-removed wines.
Grape juice will be way too sweet
@ssdecontrol: I'm not talking about standard purple grape juice (see third paragraph) or even the white grape juice available at most grocery stores. Meier's makes several varieties including a Chablis, which is quite tart. I suspect there are other makers as well.
Verjus is tart grape juice produced in France and other parts of Europe, often from wine grapes; it should work well, although can be expensive.
This depends on your application, but in general the answer is no, or not entirely.
Rose hip tea lacks one thing that wine has: alcohol. Many flavors in food (notably tomatoes) are alcohol-soluble, and alcohol also is more volatile than water. So it helps extract more and better flavor from certain ingredients, and then a fraction of it evaporates, leaving behind a concentration not only of it's own flavor but also the flavor it extracted.
Wine happens to be a great pre-mixed blend of fruit sugars, acid, tannins, alcohol, and other flavors. Rose hip tea might provide all of the above apart from alcohol, but it will not provide the alcohol, and the flavors provided will be different.
This is why I said that it depends on your application. If you only want the wind for it's acid, tannins, and sweetness, use the tisane. If your dish depends on wine (eg coq au vin or sole piccata), you can try it but the results will be unpredictable, and probably very lackluster.
Your best bet is to go to a liquor store and tell them what you're cooking and that you don't drink wine so you don't know what to buy. They'll direct you to something cheap that will work.
This is a lovely answer, unfortunately, the OP states in the comments that they can not actually buy wine for religious reasons.
@Catija I missed that. Is it only wine, or all alcohol? You could always drop in a tiny splash of rum or a fruit (non-grape) brandy
I'm not the op but if you read the comments, there's no need to ask : I avoid it due to religious reasons. I can't buy it, let alone swirl it around my mouth. :)
@Catija I saw, but it's not clear if "it" is wine or all alcohol
The comment the OP is responding to is about alcohol in general: If you're not drinking alcohol...
I tried a coq au vin (first time making / eating it) using 1 piece of maryland (didn't want to waste a lot of chicken if it came out bad), 2 bags of rosehip + hibiscus tea steeped in a cup of water and 1 cup of chicken stock. The mixture was a bit sharp tasting at first but after braising for an hour in the oven, it came out quite tasty. Could've used a bit of acid at the end to freshen up the dish but I was happy with the result. Only issue is I still don't have anything to compare it to since I don't know how the dish would taste with wine...
@NRaf it probably wasn't bad at all. I wouldn't be surprised to see "coq au rose hip" on a menu
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.636589
| 2015-03-06T11:59:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55445",
"authors": [
"Alf Firmin",
"Anne Gregory",
"Brendon Vernall",
"Catija",
"Emma Appleton",
"Erica",
"Glenys sully",
"Helen Zweig",
"James",
"NRaf",
"Ruth Billheimer",
"Stuart F",
"alan bowyer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"rfusca",
"shadowtalker"
],
"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
}
|
19306
|
Cooking Chicken meat with bones in soup is better than cooking Chicken bones in soup?
Possible Duplicate:
How do I optimize my chicken stock for the best flavor at the lowest cost?
Which soup will be better? The soup with just the chicken bones only or the soup with both the meat and bones of the chicken?
From my understanding, it require longer time to get a delicious chicken soup by only using chicken bones and if we put the meat together with the bones and cook them. Would the soup taste better (but of course the meat will be discard as it had been cooked for too long)?
My answer to this would be more than encompassed in that answer, so I'd agree
In addition to being (largely) a duplicate, this question doesn't do anything to quantify or qualify the word "better". You like white stock, I like brown stock... this might be OK to reopen if expanded with a specific definition of "better" (and one that is not identical to the linked duplicate).
If you create a soup with a whole chicken, the soup will be much better.
The chickenflesh could be used to create a vol-au-vent (this is a french dish) and is made with these ingredients
250 g meatloaf
250 g Parisian mushrooms
60 g butter
80 g flower
1 egg
1 big spoon of breadcrumbs
1 clove of garlic
1,5 l chickenstock
1,5 dl cream
a bit of sherry
lemonjuice
pepper and salt
Mix the meatloaf, egg and breadcrumbs together and spice it of with pepper and salt.
Divide the meatloaf into small balls and bake them in a pan.
Cut the mushrooms in 4 and bake them in hot butter in a pan. Crush the garlic and put it in the same pan. After the backing leave them a side.
Now get all the meat of the chicken and cut it in not to large pieces.
The sauce:
Create a roux, put the butter in a pan, add the flower and make it bake (it should smell like cookies). When you get the cookies smell, add the chickenstock (half of it).
Keep stirring to avoid clots, when the sauce thickens, add more stock.
You could optionally add a bit of sherry to give the sauce a nice taste.
The sauce should be like a thick soup. After that add the meatloaf, chicken and mushrooms.
It's a very nice dish.
For more info on this dish, see http://www.een.be/programmas/dagelijkse-kost/recepten/vol-au-vent
It is in Dutch but the movie is very clear.
Enjoy
Quick answer is bones and meat make better broth.
Couple of ways to make a chicken stock for soup.
Traditional French medthod has you using bones, vegetables(mire poix) and herb sachet...simmer for about 4 hours. Gives you a really nice rounded flavour. Light in colour not super strong in flavour but great for sauce making and with reduction becaomes a nice base for a soup.
If you roast the bones first, it will give you a darker stock with a much stronger low end to the taste.
Use stewing hens...tough old birds that you simmer for 4 hours and suck every last bit of flavour out of them. The meat becomes void of any flavour as that gets left behind in the liquid. However, you could use the meat as a garnish for a dish while you get all the flavour from your sauce for the dish but it won't be very nice so make it into a small dice for texture but don't expect much from it. The stock/broth/liquid you get from this method won't be very clear no mater what you do to try and get it that way. However the flavour will be better than the first two methods. Due to the longer simmer times for these methods you get a deeper overall flavour and less high-end notes.
If you want that really bright chicken smell and taste then you simmer for a short time like a fish stock (45-60 minutes). This gives you an intense chicken flavour but not much low end in taste. It's really good for using in asian dishes as you get a nose full of chicken but it doesn't have a heavy taste.
What I do to try and balance out a chicken soup when I've used a traditional stock is to give it a hit of fresh lemon juice before serving. Don't let it cook out. Give a squeeze or two before serving and make sure the balance is right, then serve. The fresh lemon flavour makes it taste lively but won't last long if you simmer it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.637030
| 2011-12-02T02:44:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19306",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex Budovski",
"Groatmeal",
"PJS1987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45352",
"vwiggins",
"zeb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19279
|
How should I handle food that sticks in stainless steel pans or woks after cooking in sunflower oil?
Possible Duplicate:
Why does my food turn out poorly using an All-Clad Stainless-Steel Fry Pan?
Is there a way to prevent food that is cooked in sunflower oil from sticking to the pans / wok? Would a low heat help? If the food does stick, how could it be removed?
This has been asked many times - see for example Why does my food turn out poorly using an All-Clad Stainless-Steel Fry Pan? Food sticking to fry pan How do I prevent food from sticking to a standard (non-coated) pan?, How can I stop fish from sticking to a stainless steel pan? and the advice in How to measure the temperature of a pan?
For the last part of the question, there are also several existing questions on how to clean stainless steel cookware.
To prevent sticking, your pan surface should be around 150 to 160°C. The farther away you move from that (higher or lower temperature), the more likely that your food will stick. So the temperature is very important, but without knowing how you are cooking, I can't tell you if you need more or less heat.
If you have a layer of food which sticks, but hasn't burned, scratch it with a spatula and stir or turn. If it is burned, remove from the heat, scoop the food above the burned layer, and, if not yet ready, continue cooking in another pan. Be careful, because if you include flakes of burned food, your whole meal will taste burned.
Also, of course, for meat, its important to leave them alone for a minute; they will stick upon initial contact with the oiled pan, but release shortly thereafter.
If scraping with a spatula doesn't work, deglaze by adding a liquid while the pan is still hot, then scrape the "sucs" with a spatula to make a "fond." If it's burned on, or the oil has lacquered to the pan, Barkeeper's Friend works wonders. … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deglazing_(cooking) & http://www.barkeepersfriend.com/
The best way to stop food from sticking to non-Tefloned pans is to season the pans properly. Iron and steel pans have a porous surface and so are prone to stick, not to mention rust.
Seasoning the pan initially involves applying a thin layer of oil with a kitchen cloth and heating the pan gently. This allows the pan to absorb a little of the oil, which forms a protective, non-stick layer on the pan surface.
To keep the pan's non-stick coating, you should avoid washing it in soapy water. Instead, rinse the pan well in hot water and use a brush to remove food particles, dry it, then apply another layer of oil to the pan. Eventually you will build up a good layer of oil that will make the pan very non-stick.
I think you overlooked the title, he said "stainless steel", your advice is accurate for carbon steel.
A good point well made!
@ElendilTheTall, + 1 Nevertheless, even though your advise is accurate for carbon steel as mention by rumtscho, but it could come in handy if I had carbon steel pan.
As far as cleaning, I have found that a Sodium Percarbonate-based cleaner (Oxyclean, for instance) works quite well for getting heavy soils off of glass and stainless steel (don't use it on Aluminum, as it will cause pitting). Fill the pan with hot water, then pour some oxyclean powder into the pan, and let it sit overnight. Any remaining soils can be removed with the scotchbrite green scrubby pads and elbow grease.
Again, only use this stuff on non-reactive surfaces, such as glass and stainless steel. Aluminum will degrade quickly, and the scrubby pads will remove non-stick surfaces.
Wow, Bar Keeper's Friend works so much quicker on stainless.
Well, usually an overnight soak will break things down to the point where you can just rinse it off with no scrubbing. I'm just not in a hurry.
+1 Thanks baka for the tips on - Again, only use this stuff (Sodium Percarbonate-based cleaner) on non-reactive surfaces, such as glass and stainless steel. Aluminum will degrade quickly, and the scrubby pads will remove non-stick surfaces.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.637373
| 2011-12-01T09:28:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19279",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alicia",
"Anderson Karu",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Izzuddin Saify",
"JDiMatteo",
"Michael A",
"Moo",
"T.E.D.",
"Taj Moore",
"Tom",
"baka",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8174",
"mmw",
"rumtscho",
"user41927"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10885
|
Overpressurizing a cream whipper?
This might be considered off-topic, but thought it was worth asking, as I have no idea where else to ask --
I'm trying to make something forcibly eject from a cake. I've done some testing with a can of reddi whip, and I've found that I can get decent distance by restricting the size of the opening. But I'm debating on getting my own whipper, thinking that I can then tint the results, but that I might also be able to charge it more than once to get a more forceful ejection.
Are there any problems with over-charging a canister? In the response to the question about ragged peaks from a whipped cream dispenser, one of the responses said it might be from over-charging the container, so I'm a little concerned. (not that much, as it just needs to shoot out, being pretty isn't necessary, so ragged peaks aren't an issue; the whole thing turning to butter and clogging the canister or being inedible would be)
(I also assume there's a safety margin so it's not an explosion issue if I only double or triple charge it... I seem to remember my mom once double-charging one, when it didn't dispense, only to find out she had clogged it up with home-grated nutmeg; there wasn't an explosion 'til she tried taking the lid off)
Charging a whipper two or three times is definitely not going to make it explode; for certain lower-density preparations you're supposed to charge it twice, but even if that weren't the case, consider that one of the chargers holds only a fraction of the volume of the whipper itself (8 g, to be exact), so if the chargers don't undergo explosive decompression then it's definitely not going to happen to the whipper.
As for it possibly turning into butter, that's a more realistic possibly depending on what you're putting inside it. I can't verify whether or not it happens with cream since I've never tried it and probably never will; I wouldn't recommend it, since whipped cream gets very dense to begin with.
But honestly I think your biggest problem is going to be that whipped cream dispensers aren't designed to dispense upward. The instructions are very explicit that you have to hold it upside down in order to dispense; if you hold it right side up then it's just going to vent the gas and make it impossible to get the cream out with opening it up.
Simply stated, the cream is much heavier than the gas, and I believe that whippers don't actually achieve saturated vapour pressure inside. That's why the gas will always eventually end up on top no matter how you orient the whipper; the key to getting the cream out is forcing the gas back down through the cream by depressurizing it, which is why you need to hold it upside down.
So unless you want to eject it from the bottom of the cake, I'm sorry to say that I don't think this is going to work for you.
One alternative you might be able to try is to pre-whip the cream with a stabilizer or make a fondant, then put it into a hollow tube and eject the gas from the whipper into that tube. That way you can guarantee that the "liquid" is actually in the path of the gas, and the gas should propel it upward. I emphasize should; it's going to depend on the density of what you're trying to propel and how good your seal is, and you'll probably have to experiment a little.
I know it's not going to work spraying up ... I'm hoping that I can get it horizontal, with the tube lower down, and then bend it back up so it's shooting out the side. Basically, hide it in a custom cake stand, so it's actually below the cake, so the cake's still edible. But if the whipped cream idea doesn't pan out, I've already got a friend who's a pipefitter who said he can get me a Gallo gun if I just want to make a real mess of things ... but then it's a single shot, and might not be fit for consumption.
Ah, I see @Joe. I'll try dispensing mine sideways when I have a few minutes and see what happens. I suspect that some might come out but it wouldn't be very "forceful". And, actually, I meant to mention in my answer that even when dispensing down, you really can't try to dispense too fast, otherwise the gas will just blow straight through the cream and you'll get nothing. These things just are not designed to propel.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.637808
| 2011-01-10T02:51:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10885",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Joe",
"Johnny boy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"sar918",
"storm",
"syclonefx"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114573
|
Why are my Rucola and Lettuce washed in ice-water?
I bought rucola and lettuce at the grocery store today and on the packaging is said in Dutch Drie keer gewassen in ijswater which translates to washed three times in ice-water.
Is there a reason why ice-water seems to be the water washing of choice, instead of water in general? Is it for a longer shelf life or freshness? I might be missing something obvious here. Could someone clarify?
Using cold/ice water helps crisp up leafy vegetables.
I had a feeling it was gonna be something like this, combined with marketing. Would it be possible to add some of the conclusions to your answer here? That way if the link breaks the info is still available. Thanks again!
I would suspect advertising speak. No-one these days can sell anything at all without some form of hyperbole.
We all know that rinsing salad in warm water won't be great for the leaves, so we'd rinse in cold water.
… but 'cold' doesn't really sell it, does it.
You can't sell 'just water'. Look at the advertising on any bottled plain water… it's got to be mineral, or spring, or highland, or naturally filtered, or organic, or made by celibate monks in the highest mountains of wherever* … anything except just water.
Ice-water just sounds better than cold.
*…or filtered through mountains for a thousand years - Best before Sept 2022 - after all, the palindrome of Evian is naive ;)
Yeah advertising does seem to go overboard with claims. My own irritation is himalaya salt advertising, you'll need to eat a kg to get any benefits of the minerals inside. The answer of Max touches on the subject that it does work better with "ice" water. But the triple wash seems like marketing. I find both your answers to be on point. One looking at the marketing aspect and the other on the the biological reason to do it.
The reason for using cold water is that warm water causes the vessels of the leaf to dilate, allowing them to release water and pressure. If you've got already wilted lettuce, a quick soak in warm water actually helps as the dilation stage encourages the leaf to open up and take in water to rehydrate itself. Once the leaf is hydrated, cold water causes the vessels and pores to constrict and the leaf to hold onto the water and firm up.
@J... That would actually make a decent answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.638421
| 2021-03-03T16:36:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114573",
"authors": [
"J...",
"Tom Sol",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81541"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119824
|
Can you make pasta dough in a breadmaker?
Is it a good idea to buy a breadmaker instead of a food processor for making pasta dough (and bread, obviously)?
And can you make bread in a pasta-maker?
It really depends on the bread maker, zojirushi latest model can make udon and their recipe book that comes with it contains fresh pasta recipes, as to the quality of that pasta, that would come down to the quality of the ingredients you use and the temperature of the dough during the kneading process. Also zojirushi's bread machines have customizable settings (except for temperature(you can pick crust darkness but not temperature to exact degree) and knead strength). The machine has it's issues, such as it's nonstick kneading and baking vessel wears which should not happen if you only use it for kneading dough. So by no means am I advocating you get a bread maker, save your money for a good stand mixer or do it the old fashioned way if you have the time and energy.
No. Pasta dough is much firmer than bread dough and could possibly break the machine or the blade.
I don't agree; I often use bread machines to make pasta, and they turn out great. No firmness has ever been a problem; if it's too dry, you get dry clumps or dough; any wetter and you get anything from a firm dough to a soft one.
Neither a bread maker nor a food processor are the best tools for this job. Most pastas are traditionally made on a countertop, mixing by hand. Feel is often important as one gauges hydration. A stand mixer can also be used, as they have the power and attachments to mix these typically stiffer doughs.
Food processors work fine for pasta. The thing is, you don’t over fill it, and you add just enough water until it forms a ball and then it beats the ball against the side of the food processor. (My mom is third generation Sicilian American, and this is how she always made lasagne noodles). Some food processors specifically have a plastic ‘kneading’ blade, but the metal one will still work
I had a bread machine once that could make pasta—I can't judge how well, not being a connoisseur. As I recall there was a generic mixing setting that did a better job than I could with a fork.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.638635
| 2022-02-12T08:24:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119824",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Joe",
"Richard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"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
}
|
67250
|
How can I use up a large quantity of egg?
(This is not a recipe request, as I will try to make clear.)
It's Easter egg season in our household, and my 5 ½-year-old niece is going for quantity, not quality. This means that we have an even-larger-than-usual quantity of the blown-out innards of all the eggs we've dyed with food-safe dyes.1
So, we're talking whole eggs, not fully scrambled, but not exactly in a separable condition, either, and with the occasional streak of purple or pink.2
At this point, we're all deathly sick of scrambled eggs and omelets. We've even gotten tired of the Hungarian harbringer of spring, tojásos nokedli, which is basically spätzle with a scrambled-egg sauce.
What other types of things could we look into cooking that would most efficiently use up all these eggs? By "efficient", I mean things that don't require a whole lot of other ingredients. Obviously, I've eliminated the most efficient use, i.e. just cook the eggs (=scrambled eggs), but there's got to be other things we could do.
1 We try to stick to food-safe dyes around kids, because they're not terribly good at not sticking their hands straight in the dye, and from thence in their mouth.
2 e.g. if an egg was accidentally left in the dye overnight, which never happens, no sir, not here, never. :)
Related: can you freeze them? http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/5021/1672
To the close voters, have you seen the meta question about this?
By now, the Meta question has had more than enough time to gather answers and votes, and the higher voted answers argue for closing. Also, the answers here clearly show that this is a typical big-list question, with all its downsides. For me, this shows that it clearly falls under the closing rules.
Perhaps some breakfast strata would do the trick. I don't know how many ingredients you're looking for, but the basic recipes would (in addition to eggs) include bread, butter, cheese, milk or half-and-half, and a few meats, vegetables, and/or herbs. I've seen variations that use potatoes and rosemary, some that use bacon and scallions, some that use spinach or asparagus. Quite a variety.
My favorite ones are behind a paywall, but if you subscribe:
http://www.cooksillustrated.com/recipes/506-breakfast-strata-with-sausage-mushrooms-and-monterey-jack
(Cooks Country also has a strata-inspired recipe called Featherbed Eggs that I love.)
Otherwise, you can find strata recipes anywhere:
http://www.food.com/recipe/ham-asparagus-strata-85885
Another one I quite enjoy is called Eggs Piperade, which is essentially scrambled eggs with a stir-fry of peppers, onions, and tomatoes.
Unfortunately, giving it a fancy name like "Eggs Piperade" isn't going to make me like lecsó. :) However, savory bread pudding (aka strata) might be a winner.
LOL! If the name puts you off, just call it "scrambled eggs and sweet peppers."
If you're willing to occasionally toss in a few eggs in separable condition, you might think about making baked custards.
Cakes may be another good option, if you can stand all the sugar and fat (a.k.a. "where the flavor's at!").
It's also pretty hard to go wrong with a quiche (I don't think you need to toss in an egg yolk to get a yummy quiche), IMHO, and there's nothing wrong with the odd fritata every now and then!
If you've got a taste for southwestern or latin cuisine, might I recommend chilaquiles or migas?
Gato's Scrambled Eggs may provide you with an interesting twist on the notion of a scrambled egg.
ALSO! If you're willing and able to get a bit technical, you might think about hacking together your very own water oven and setting the yolks around 70 deg.C (). The still-runny whites will then perhaps be separable from the ever-so-creamy yolk. Saucy notion, eh?
On the cake side of things -- you could use them to make cookies (which would have a longer shelf life, so you could stretch out when you had to eat the eggs by)
One of my family's Easter traditions is pizza rustica -- it's a pie with a quiche-like center, but there's enough sausage and other stuff in it that it's not as blatantly eggy as a quiche. (unless you also add hard boiled eggs into the mix).
Another high egg count dish we serve for Easter (that doesn't require hard boiling, or separating the eggs) is Italian cheesecake (aka. 'ricotta pie'), made with citrus zest to lighten it up. (and sometimes wheat berries & citron, but I'm not a fan of that variation)
A Dutch Baby is a kind of pancake. It is prepared very simply in a blender from eggs, flour, milk, a little sugar, and seasonings such as cinnamon or nutmeg. It takes about 5 minutes to prepare (yay blender!) and 25 minutes to cook. It being a fairly eggy batter is what makes it a candidate for using up your eggs.
Here is one recipe: https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/6648-dutch-baby
Unlike many breads that don't like being overworked, a Dutch Baby is quite happy if you blend the heck out of it. The air bubbles introduced during blending help it to rise, which it does despite having no leavening.
While preparing the batter, you preheat a cast iron pan in your oven. After melting butter in the pan you pour in the batter. Then bake until it's puffed up. I say baked, but the bottom of the pancake is fried in all that butter, while the top is baked in the hot oven. The contrast in textures adds to the Dutch Baby's appeal.
Unlike the traditional American pancake, which is sweet, the dutch baby is more savory, getting its sweetness from its topping. A fruit compote works. Jams and jellies are great. And as with any pancake, maple syrup is delicious.
I bet it will work with savory topings as well.
@Willeke I'll bet you're right. Maybe some cheese? Someone with a lot of eggs to use up could have fun experimenting with toppings.
Egg breads, some of which are even traditional Easter foods. You can, in fact, simply replace all the liquid in a yeast bread recipe with eggs (it will, of course, be quite different than with other liquids or a mixture of egg and other liquids) - but it will be bread, and since the point is to use it up in some manner that is not scrambled/omlet, there you go. Then you can take that when it goes stale and dip it more egg (and a little milk) for french toast.
Custard would be another approach.
A solution for a different place in the process: why do you only color blown-out eggs? I know that they have some advantages, but you also end up with a lot of raw egg at once.
My family always colors hard boiled eggs only. That way
colored eggs get disposed of, instead of staying around for months and taking up space
the person who breaks an egg usually eats the contents, no reason to make tons of eggy dishes three days before a feast
when somebody has had enough of eating eggs, they don't go on breaking more eggs. The (whole, boiled) colored eggs can stay for weeks in the fridge and wait for your appetite, or a day of egg salad.
You don't have to switch to boiled eggs only, but a mixture of both will reduce the amount of raw egg contents on Maundy Thursday.
If you still end up with tons of egg contents: Easter breads have a very high egg content, make one of those. They are very tasty and keep for a long while, my grandma used to start with 3 kg of flour for a family gathering of 6 adults and 3 children. You can also start making French toast with them if you haven't eaten them within the first 4-5 days, although the egg contents won't keep that long out of the shell - you should make a separate question about the suitability of frozen eggs for French toast (they are no good for other stuff such as custard).
Yeah, we don't just dye the eggs. There's a whole lot of work that goes into them. Even if you're my niece; her "quantity, not quality" merely means that she often does a design on only one side of the egg. Ain't no way in H-E-double-hockey-sticks I'm letting anyone break one of the eggs I've decorated, like on purpose and everything.
@marti We also had very elaborate designs on our eggs, but still broke and ate them. Which is good, because else there would be boxes of fragile content in the attic nobody is ever looking at (my family is a big packrat about everything else). Even my cousin's grandma breaks hers, and she does those wax-filigreed ones, like http://thehungariangirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/iStock_000001376648XSmall.jpg. You can see it a bit like cake decorating: takes hours, is beautiful, but the result is a consumable.
We do the "boxes of fragile contents in the attic" thing. Well, basement, not attic (house doesn't have an attic), and blown-out eggshells are surprisingly durable, especially if you keep them in old egg cartons, but same idea. :) The way we keep it manageable is the Easter Monday tradition of the boys coming to water the girls, and getting decorated eggs for their trouble: in other words, we give away most of our production. Attrition happens, but we have some eggs from 40 years ago.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.638867
| 2016-03-09T00:10:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67250",
"authors": [
"Anne Reaney",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Bergin",
"Dave Hearn",
"Joe",
"Joy Mercedes",
"Juliet Ross",
"Laura Stinson",
"Marti",
"Nick Farfsing",
"Rachel Dalton",
"Richard Steinick",
"Sushant Dotel",
"Tim Burle",
"Wayne Conrad",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112873
|
Bread maker - is this even a collapse or did it not get started?
I have used the machine successfully several times but something went very wrong today. My machine is an Oster. The top surface is powdery and underneath it is as hard as a rock. Almost looks like power was lost part way through. We did hear it operating for quite a while. What went wrong?
That looks like the flour didn't get mixed in, so it never really started. Did you use sufficient liquid for the amount of flour?
That looks like a measurement error. Not nearly enough liquid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.639583
| 2020-11-28T22:29:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112873",
"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
}
|
112952
|
Dough loses flexibility and strength once mixed with starter and starts raising
I've watched many videos on making sourdough bread and in most of the cases it looks like the elasticity and strength of the dough is not affected by the starter.
In my case, it doesn't work like that.
I first mix flour with water and leave it for at least an hour, sometimes a couple of hours, then add the starter and leave it raise.
Once I add the starter, I leave it for about 1h before pulling the edges to the centre to make it stronger. The thing is that from that moment on, it's not that flexible like before I added the starter. What's more, if I leave it for a few hours to raise, then it's like a thick juice, so I can't create a consistent loaf. As a result, I just put it in a pyrex and once raised put it as is in the oven.
Recipe is ~600g mixed flour, 400ml water, 200gr starter.
Last but not least, it doesn't raise much once put in the oven, so no need for that cut before putting it in the oven, as it's shown in various videos.
Any ideas what's wrong?
How did you develop your starter, what is your feeding schedule, and what is the hydration % of your starter?
@moscafj I make bread once per 5-7 days. I put it out of the fridge in the evening and feed it (80gr dark rye flour, 80ml water), use it after 12-18/h when it's ~X2 in volume. In the remaining one, I put another 80gr flour + 80ml water, put it in the fridge until next time. It won't double in the fridge until next time
When do you add salt?
When I put the starter. Last time actually I put it later, after it raised but it was already not strong anymore. I saw a video where the guy is suggesting both the % of the starter and the acidity could affect it. I can leave it less time to raise but it wont much and it doesn't much either when put in the oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.639661
| 2020-12-03T00:45:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112952",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89939",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110101
|
How do I determine roasting temperature as a function of time?
TL;DR
If it takes 90 minutes to roast a leg of lamb at some temperature (perhaps somewhere from 350 to 450 °F?), and it takes 840 minutes to slow-roast a leg of lamb of the same exact weight at some other temperature (possibly 175 to 275 °F?), what is the temperature setting that one should use if one wants the leg of lamb to spend 420 minutes in the oven? Is it suitable to calculate the temperature using linear interpolation?
The mid-length story:
The purpose of the question is to avoid the tyranny of recipes, where I have to go to my tablet, computer, or book shelves to do anything. I'd like to understand the ideas (in this case, for roasting lamb or beef) well enough to be able to cook without the handholding of recipe authors.
In this era of internet-sourced recipes, recipes seem to be, by and large, copied, or inspired (possibly even sometimes plain plagiarized). For example, search online for "roast leg of lamb" and you will find a hundred pundits claiming to provide a recipe. Search for "slow roast leg of lamb" and you will find more results. But these recipes are not gospel. We should be able to do anything we want, so long as it's flavorful and healthy. Is there such a thing as semi-slow, average-slow, and rather-fast-than-slow roasting, or are we stuck with just "roasting" and "slow roasting"?
The long story:
Cooking a whole lamb, starting by defrosting it, will have to remain a 5- or 10-year project, when I will know that I can nail every detail right, and when I will know that a 40-or-so-large family reunion will happen, if they're ever in the same place at the same time.
At this time I have the much more modest objective of properly cooking a leg of lamb, defrosted for 36 hours in the fridge
and smeared with mustard, rosemary, and garlic
My intention was to leave it in the oven overnight at 275 °F / 135 °C. Slow roasting is much more of a foolproof method, because I don't have to calculate precise minutes-per-weight numbers. If it's in the oven two hours more or an hour less, it's still perfectly alright. (Yes, yes, no need to lecture me about food safety; I do make sure that the internal thermometer reading reaches whatever the thermometer says.)
Here is the problem: I really don't want the flavor, the texture, or, as mentioned above, the time sensitivity of roasting at 375 °F / 190 °C. I would like the fall-off-the-bone tenderness of 275 °F / 135 °C, but.
I was much too tired (tennis for just one hour did it) to think about standing on my feet for the 5-10 minutes that it takes to prepare the roast before going to bed. I'm starting to roast early in the morning instead, for guests who will arrive 420 minutes after the roast went to the oven.
If I need 90 minutes at 375 °F / 190 °C and 840 minutes (14 hours) at 275 °F / 135 °C, I am speculating that there is a precise temperature that I can use for 420 minutes, and the roast will be just perfect when the guests arrive. (Then the roast will rest outside during chatting and appetizers.)
How do I determine roasting temperature as a function of time? Would, for example, linear interpolation
375 + (420-90) * (275-375) / (840-90) = 331 °F
make sense?
N.B.: This might be a difficult question, in the sense that cookbooks do not discuss it. Feel free to "throw me a bone", figuratively speaking, and make a suggestion that I can try. If the roast is under-cooked, I can always use one of various remedies and apologize that I didn't get it quite right. The guests will be gracious. But if a better answer comes along later, it's fairer, and better fitting for a reference site, that I update the "correct" answer. Cooking is an art form anyway. There isn't just "right" and "wrong".
90 minutes at 375F does not equate to 14 hours at 275F, 14 hours at 275 is far more application of heat.
I had to close as a duplicate, but note that while what you want to do is impossible, you should probably look more into different topics (such as how long people generally suggest to roast different types of meat for), our site and the internet is full of them. The 14 hours roast was probably unnecessary in the first place.
@rumtscho I'm not sure how you see that this is a duplicate question of the one you cite. That question talks of only "roasting". The present question asks whether there is a continuum between "slow roasting" and "roasting", and how to figure it out—even if emperically, without a shed of science. Also, I really don't want to dwell on the precise temperature (or duration) for slow vs fast roasting, partly because the internal temperature in practice is far from the only parameter. There is also the personal taste factor ("saignant" to well done).
@rumtscho But sure.. I'll wait a couple of days and delete this question is there is no interest in finding, collectively, pointers to a solution. The net is full enough of dead ends and half truths. There is no point to adding to either collection.
@Sam the answer is the same as in the other question: there is no formula you can use in practice, certainly not linear interpolation. And for the same reason as in the other answer.
FWIW, I'd rather delete this question. I have, possibly, not asked it quite right, and it needs, perhaps, a different formulation. Also the answer given is not too helpful. Yet the site won't let me delete it, and so it stays, for better or worse.
I have not seen this discussed in terms of oven cookery, however, it is certainly a part of the conversation when cooking with sous vide. Douglas Baldwin, noted expert, has a guide. Here, I have linked his appendix, "The mathematics of sous vide." Now, I am certain that you CAN NOT use this guide for oven cookery, because in the oven, you have a significant amount of evaporative cooling happening, which I think would dramatically change these calculations (I'm no mathematician). However, I do include it to point out that the size and shape of your food must be taken into account. You can't just consider time and temperature.
How do you know you need X minutes at Y degrees? For how much lamb and bone?
I googled "slow roasted leg of lamb." There are plenty of recipes, I don't see anyone cooking them for 14 hours. I think you can achieve the texture you want in much less time. So, I doubt you need to be as precise as you are suggesting. You might err on the side of your roast being finished early, rather than late, but even if it were finished well before your guests arrived, that is workable for a delicious meal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.639839
| 2020-08-09T13:00:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110101",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Sam7919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"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
}
|
109398
|
Ways for success on cast iron crepe pans without cooking spray
I get good results making crepes on non-stick pans.
It's quite easy to flip a crepe, but it's hard to get the surface to be golden. The color remains closer to white, as you see in the picture above.
On ceramic-enameled cast iron, I can get the heat considerably higher, but crepes will stick.
I see on the market cast iron pans marketed specifically for crepes, and I'm wondering whether the polymer cover from a good seasoning makes it easier to prepare a batch of crepes.
Is there a way to avoid cooking spray when preparing crepes on a cast iron pan? One reason for my failure on enameled cookware (I'm guessing) is that it's hard to add fat to the pan. Here I'd like to avoid using cooking sprays with a multitude of ingredients. I'd like to use butter only. Adding butter on the hot pan will brown (burn) the butter too quickly. Hence it's necessary to remove the pan, cool off for a few seconds, add the butter, then return to heat, which makes the process too time consuming. And even then, the butter is not a uniform coat. Using a brush, whether made from hair or from silicone, is a way to melt the brush.
The batter already has fat (butter). On non-stick, no additional fat is needed. On either of the other two, it's necessary.
Asked another way, what is the secret of making crepes on a (well-seasoned) cast iron pan?
Related:
Does cast iron enable making crepes with no additional fat (besides that in the batter)? (that would be nice!)
Is the Leidenfrost point relevant?
I do crepes in a cast iron pan: just a drop of oil and medium-low temp.
Enameled cast iron is indeed not as good as non-enameled, because you can't heat it as much. But it still should give you good crepes. If your butter burns, just use simple oil instead of butter - any oil will do, the more refined, the better (so the cheapest no-plant-named ones work best). It may burn to the point of getting dark brown, but you won't get the tiny coal particles you get when butter solids burn.
I'd like to use butter only.
it's hard to get the surface to be golden
These two wishes are mutually exclusive. No matter what pan material you are using, if you get the proper heat transfer rate for getting a golden crepe, butter will burn badly.
Ah! That clarifies a lot. But how do you apply a uniform layer of (corn, sunflower) oil? What is the trick to spreading it uniformly, short of spraying it?
As a quick sequel to your other answer (https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/45940/85398), is it possible to make crepes with no additional fat at all on a well-seasoned (crepe) cast iron pan, besides that in the batter? I am willing to experiment with temperature until I find the narrow window where that is doable, but I'd like to know whether this can be done in the first place.
You pour a thick layer of oil into a very hot pan, then pour most of it back out into a cup. Only a few droplets and rivulets remain on the pan, but they are sufficient. As for no additional fat, not entirely. If you have a nonenameled (home-seasoned) cast iron, you can keep back the oiling and only put in oil once per 2-3 crepes. But afterwards, the next crepe will stick for me. I don't know for sure if that's due to temperature control or if you need a minimal amount of oil remaining. I have never cared for oil in the batter, doesn't seem to stop sticking for me.
One option you have to use butter without having the burnt butter solids is to use clarified butter or ghee; that way you should retain a good deal of the butter flavour while still being able to bring it up to the temperatures you need.
I wouldn't say any oil will do, olive oil will smoke at a relatively low temperature.
@GdD all oils will be above smoke point at the right temperature for nice golden crepes. There is a slight advantage in getting one that has a higher smoke point, that's why I said "the more refined, the better" - but the difference between an extra virgin olive oil and an aggressively refined sunflower oil will be a difference in the degree of smoking, not a "this one works, this dosn't". None of them will have solids that will burn the way butter solids do.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.640442
| 2020-06-30T19:54:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109398",
"authors": [
"Blargant",
"GdD",
"Look Alterno",
"Sam7919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64007",
"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
}
|
110944
|
Can a good cast iron seasoning really be built from butter?
I don't get it. Various net pundits assert that it's a bad idea to season cast iron with butter, because butter consists of proteins + fat, and the proteins will burn and be incorporated into the polymer mesh. That collective wisdom says that it's quite alright to cook with butter after a pan is well-seasoned, but one should not season a pan with butter.
Yet a maker of cast iron pans provides a recipe (for cornbread) that does exactly that: they say that this is a good way to season a cast iron pan.
I'm not expecting you to be a polymer researcher with intricate knowledge of whether burnt proteins will slide off during pan cleaning after cooking with butter, or will be incorporated into the seasoning (but hey, if you are, perfect!).
What I'm asking is this: do you have practical experience using butter as the main source of building up a seasoning? If yes, how good is the seasoning?
I don't see from the link that they suggest using butter to season the pan; they only add the butter to a hot pan before putting the batter in.
They mention that this can “help season” your pan in the comments in the left margin.
@Max I added a URL to "Five Recipes for Building Cast Iron Seasoning," where the seasoning-building abilities of the five recipes is discussed.
Funny, I have a Field skillet and didn't make any of those things for months after I got it. Doesn't seem to have hurt it any.
As long as you use clarified butter (ghee), ie; with the solids removed, there's no obvious reason it shouldn't work as well as any other fat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.640774
| 2020-09-30T14:51:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110944",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"FuzzyChef",
"Max",
"Sam7919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"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
}
|
109618
|
Oven semi-baked semi-fried potatoes starting from raw (for the lazy cook)
The objective of this question is to avoid spending time in front of the stove, moving a stove-top method to the oven to enable, in particular, quadrupling the amount that can fit in a skillet, without also quadrupling the cooking time.
My batch of peeled russet potatoes now sits in salted water for about an hour, to absorb the salt. The idea is that fried potatoes are, from experience, tastier and crunchier when the salt is deep inside, not just on the surface.
Next, I'll cut the potatoes into wedges and fry them. Deep frying is unnecessarily unhealthy. My standard method is to parboil and fry in the same pot/skillet. For that I mix water and oil, boil the wedges in the water/oil base semi-covered until the water evaporates. Frying starts on its own once the water is gone. The remainder of the time I must be near the stove—to turn frequently. This method doesn't scale easily (cooking quadruple the batch takes quadruple the time in front of the stove). Worse, it requires a teflon coating, which I'm trying to move away from.
This all works well, but I'd like to do nearly the same in the oven, to avoid the labor of standing in front of the stove, and to be able to handle a larger batch for a larger number of guests.
How will the following work out?
After cutting into wedges, air dry for a few minutes in a colander—long enough to dry, but not so long as to turn color.
Coat the wedges in oil. I'm planning on melted coconut oil, imagining absorption into the outer layer of the starchy potatoes.
Bake in the oven at 425F for an hour (in glass).
When I see semi-baked semi-fried potato wedges at restaurants, I'm sure no one stood in front of a stove, turning frequently in small batches. Am I on the right track? Is turning halfway (or, worse, multiple times) absolutely necessary? What stops the oil from falling all the way down; or, alternatively, how can I encourage absorption to make this an oven method?
N.B.: I know I can do this using a bag from the supermarket. I'm avoiding hydrogenated oils.
Results
1
I'll put here pictures of experiments using the ideas suggested in the answers.
Using Max's answer (parboiling wedges, briefly air drying, coating with oil, then baking) produces the following.
The texture and taste were perfect. The only fault perhaps is that baking (in a preheated oven) did not seem effective. It was necessary to broil on low. This meant that the labor to produce the fries, even though less than turning over the stove, was still more than I wanted. In particular, it would be nice if the amount can be doubled with only doubling the necessary parts (peeling, if done, etc).
2
I see that Willk anticipated the broiling step. What's odd in aiming directly at broiling (rather than as a rectification) is that the oil will navigate down, hence the top, the part with the least oil, will be the side to broil. Is there then no higher oven temperature (450F? 475F) to experiment with that enable full-surface oven frying, foregoing both the frequent check-if-they-re-burning and the turn-them-over steps?
In the following experiment, the potatoes are sliced rather thin (~4mm; ~1/4") to ensure they cook through. They are then brushed with oil on both sides, and are turned halfway under the broiler.
The outcome is somehow not quite as satisfying as the first (parboil). Perhaps it needs fine-tuning. Mainly, though, this doesn't scale. If instead of cooking for two people you want to suddenly cook for eight, thin slicing will mean that your oven time will quadruple, which would sort of make you yearn for deep frying.
why add oil to the water when you're boiling the potatoes? the oil will just float in the surface of the water
@Luciano Right. I'm not sure how you concluded I added oil during boiling. From the picture? This is just surface reflection.
@Sam the words "I mix water and oil" might have something to do with it.
@Luciano (and at-Chris-H) Ah.. That is the method I was trying to avoid, not the one I am seeking. In retrospect it works quite well. Let me clarify in the body of the question.
That third picture looks like you're crowding the pan
@Joe With cookies one would leave quite a bit of space to allow for expansion, but with potato slices it's enough to keep a millimeter or so to allow for air flow, but as long as one does not overlay the slices, then the pan is not crowded. Is this about right? (The evolution of overlaying leads to gratin-dauphinois -style of recipes, I'm starting to suspect, but that's a different question.)
@Sam: maybe if you have a convection oven, so there's airflow ... but in a regular oven, you want space for the water vapor to move away quickly, or you won't get good browning. Spacing things out in an oven also makes sure that items aren't casting shadows on each other, so you'll get radiant heat on the sides, not just the top.
Restaurants usually pre-cook (either parboil or parfry) their potatoes and freeze them in serving portions.
I would just parboil the potato wedges, then coat with oil and put in oven until golden brown (or just brown-ish).
When baking potatoes, I prefer using a metal pan sheet instead of a glass bakeware.
Could you indicate what temperature I should use to get them to be golden brown? I much prefer using the normal (full oven) setting rather than the broiler setting, since I can then let them cook with a timer rather than inspect every other minute to make sure they don't burn. Also: do they have to be single-layered? (In other words, is overcrowding an issue, if they're all coated?)
I do this all the time. Does this make me a bad person?
Cut potatoes into wedges or sticks, coat in oil (add spices if required), spread on a baking sheet and bake at 180-200C (depending what else is in the oven) for 20 minutes or so, till they're done, turning once.
Also useful for other vegetables; parsnip, carrot, sweet potato... or paprika, zucchini, aubergine if you add them halfway through.
edit: To avoid having to scrub the baking sheet I might use a sheet of baking paper. I never thought of silicon sheet, I shall try that. But it's not so bad to clean an enameled sheet, if you soak it while you are eating. Mine have raised edges.
edit 2: the point of this method is, you get the fried food taste and feel, the browned edges and so, without deep-frying, so you save drenching it all in fat. The food doesn't fry on the sheet, it bakes, but with oil on the outside, so it's sort of micro-frying.
this works really well on a silicon baking sheet and if you salt the potatoes while tossing them in the oil (it draws out some of the water.)
@KateGregory Since I had to endure fumes getting out of the oven for having a few drops of oil (fallen from cast iron seasoning) in the oven, I'd like to ask: If you use a silicone sheet rather than a silicone pan, how do you avoid a bit of oil dripping in the oven?
@RedSonja I missed how your method works the first time I read your answer. Now I think I get it. You do not need to broil, and you are still able to get the process of frying going, because the wedges fry from the bottom side, unlike broiling, which fries the top side. Is that right? In that case you need either parchment paper (is that what you mean?) or a silicone sheet (as KateGregory writes) because doing this on a metal pan will result in a pan that is distinctly difficult to clean up. Ca you clarify?
I put the silicone sheet on a cookie sheet, which supports everything but doesn't get oily
Cut potates in wedges
Boil salted water (the bigger pot the better - the temparature will not drop drastically so the wedges will have not have to sit for long in the water)
Put batches of wedges into water and boil for a short time (time depend on your potates) you don't want to boil them, just to make the outer side little softer.
take wedges out and spread out for drying (no need to put them in freezing water, a little extra time is ok).
Dry wedges (I usually put them for 1-2 minutes in oven preheated to 120°C), put them in bags and freeze.
Fry them when needed in max temp your fryier allows
Usually when fries are pre-fried (or pre-baked or whatever) the temperture They are put into is very consistent. So when the potatoes are put in the (for example oven) they are first dried in low temperature so the outer surface will absorb a fine mist of oil. And fine mist is very crucial. If you are spraying oil thin of pointing nozzle up or straight rather then down. Then shake and oil-mist again.
When you bake them (which is around 220 celcius) you need to remeber that temperature drop when you open the oven. You also introduce cold tray and wedges so the temp is not 220 from start. I would rather set to 240 with grill (or turbo grill) option, keep it like that for 5 minutes afte putting food in and then drop to 220 with a fan turned on.
When the fries are pre-fried they go through a very hot (220 °C) oil (but it's not oil, it's a mix of different fats) for a very short time. The temperature ensure that potatoes are pre-cooked and very little oil stay on fries themself (because it's very hot and runny and just drop back to the frying basin)
Sounds good, but 1- what device do you have in mind. It sounds like you are aiming for the use of a convection (hot air) oven, not a classical oven, and 2- applying oil through mist sounds healthy (less oil for the effect desired), but it's implicit that one must turn the wedges midway to fry the other side; is that right?
@Sam A regular oven with fan on so the air is moving. I have used ones that had non working fan so I just turned the temp for 5 minutes, opened the oven to let the hot air out. Kept the higher themp for 3 minutes and then turn back to normal. You don't have to turn them just bake them on a rack that you pu t on regular tray. Or use something like this https://shopee.ph/1xStainless-Steel-Oven-Baking-Tray-with-Rack-Sheet-Drainer-Fryer-Cooling-Pan-i.188247620.5716814471 (just a first results in google) if you like to do that often and can spend some extra
Broiler potatoes!
Slice them.
Worchestershire if you want.
Toss in oil.
Salt and pepper.
Under the broiler they go! You will have to figure out top rack or one down depending on how hot your broiler is.
I take them out and turn them over and put them back in when they look brown on top.
Sometimes I sit by the oven with a drink to keep an eye on stuff under the broiler. But even if the potatoes get a little toasty they are still good.
When you take out potatoes and they are done, you can sprinkle some grated cheese on them and put them back in to toast the cheese. Yum.
If you do not believe me, google "broiler potatoes" and marvel at the many.
"Under the broiler they go! Or as the Brits call it, a grill."
I haven't tried what you're suggesting (yet), but I don't understand. How will they cook through? The broiler will fry the surface, but even if the wedges are on a low rack and the broiler is set to low, I suspect it will be hard to get the wedges to cook through (unless I parboil, or bake first for some length of time). What's the trick?
I suspect the missing steps/detail involve slicing them relatively thinly and laying them in a single layer on the pan which, together with the included flipping step should let them cook through even under a grill.
@Blargant - yes, just so.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.640965
| 2020-07-12T18:22:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109618",
"authors": [
"Blargant",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Luciano",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Sam7919",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85398",
"mbjb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126639
|
Is wiping with mineral spirits a viable option to reset cast iron?
I didn't wipe out the thin layer of oil. Big mistake. The layer of goo that has now formed is hard to scrape, and the outcome will anyway be patchy without a ton of effort.
I am thinking of using mineral spirits, a powerful solvent meant for removing grease from garage door runners. I'd of course need to rinse very carefully, before starting from a bare pan.
Is wiping with mineral spirits a viable option to reset cast iron?
Related
Questions on cleaning & cast-iron & seasoning-pans
I would recommend warming up the pan, and then scraping with a heat safe scraper (I use the ones from lodge which are especially good at getting into corners). Once you get the bulk of it off, you can scrub down anything remaining (which is still easier to do when it’s warm)
I would not suggest it. First mineral spirits are toxic, and unless you strip the pan down to the bare metal it would be hard to be sure you'd removed all residue. Second, the spirits wouldn't necessarily remove just the goo; they'd be likely to strip off at least part of the seasoning underneath.
I'd recommend instead scrubbing with soap and boiling hot water.
I see your point. Unlike, say, stainless steel, cast iron is porous, and no amount of subsequent cleaning will guarantee that some of the solvent doesn't remain lurking in the nano-crevices, subsequently leeching into the patina then the food.
It probably won't remove the seasoning, because it doesn't remove linseed oil that has polymerised (which happens at room temperature). But it will taint the seasoning. Similarly it's really hard to get it completely off your hands if you're going to be cooking. A couple of washes might be enough before chopping onions but not before kneading bread
Mineral spirits are bad news—you don't want to eat them, and you don't want to inhale them after you heat them up. Moreover, cast iron is porous, so you really have no way of completely removing mineral spirits from the iron once you start using it. Using mineral spirits to clean anything you are going to cook with is likely a bad idea.
My usual strategy for cleaning cast iron which has food or other gunk cooked on is to put it on the stove over high heat, and boil a couple of cups of water in it. After boiling for a few minutes, scrub it out with a scouring pad. A little bit of dish soap might help. After scrubbing it out, quickly dry it an reseason.
OP here. This is not a direct answer to the question asked. It's a sequel for what to do next.
Boiling a little water in the pan will somewhat soften the not-enough-polymerized oil. It would then be easier to scrape it off. (It would be prudent not to throw the oil, in any form, down the sink. Doing so risks 1- eventually clogging the system, perhaps one's own, and 2- the folks at the municipal authority would get really mad, because it means they need to use that much more emulsifier before waste water is returned to nature. Use a fine sieve and ditch the oil with compost or with refuse.)
Ultimately you'll find that attempting to clean with any kind of scouring pad is difficult. The pad will instantly be filled with gunk, and it will be immediately harder to collect anything. A better approach is to continue scraping with a hard object (such as a metal spoon or spatula).
Note to self: never keep a cast iron pan perfectly horizontal after adding a thin layer of oil after cleaning.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.641926
| 2024-02-10T20:03:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126639",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Sam7919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"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
}
|
119940
|
What can I use in lieu of bacon in boeuf bourguignon and coq au vin?
Boeuf bourguignon, coq au vin, even many pot roast chicken recipes call for a few slices of bacon.
A dietician nicely approved of everything in my diet, with the exception of the bacon (fried nitrates are a known carcinogen, I believe was the reason).
Yet from subsequent experience I know that bœuf bourguignon simply doesn't taste the same when I omit the bacon—and replace the fat rendered from bacon with butter. Instead of heavenly it tastes ordinary and mundane.
What can I use in lieu of bacon in boeuf bourguignon and coq au vin? Is this just one of those hopeless problems?
Thought/Sequel
Pancetta
may
be a suitable substitute.
Arguments like this are one of the reasons nutrition based questions are off-topic here, too much is based on different risk appetities. Regardless of the reason asking for a bacon substitute is a perfectly good question.
Nitrite-free bacon is available in some markets, e.g. "Naked Bacon" (brand) in UK
Dear all, I would like to remind everybody that we have a policy of not discussing health matters. In this case, the OP wants a substitute for cured bacon, and that is within the site scope. But comments and answers questioning their reason behind avoiding it, or suggesting that the OP's reason is invalid, are very much off-topic and will be summarily deleted.
You could perhaps take some ideas from vegetarian recipes. Obviously, I know chicken isn't vegetarian, but if you need to avoid bacon there are vegetarian options for imparting the flavouring that you would otherwise get from bacon.
If it's a smoky flavour I want, I use Spanish smoked paprika. I frequently use it in lentil soup when cooking for vegetarian friends to avoid using bacon/ham. I use it in combination with vegetable stock cubes. Another smoky-flavoured spice is chipotle chili flakes - obviously this is much spicier than paprika, so be careful!
Another possibility is to use something like dried mushrooms, such as porcini; these have an almost pork-like concentrated umami/savoury flavour. I've also seen porcini mushroom powder, which can be used similarly, if you want to avoid pieces of mushroom.
Perhaps you could use a combination of all of these.
Another option, not vegetarian, is what is often referred to as Italian MSG - salted anchovy fillets. I know it sounds a bit weird, but these can add a wonderful salty meaty/umami flavour to dishes. Maybe just use two or three fillets. They will dissolve almost completely in a sauce. They're a strong flavouring but in small quantities they don't add a fishy flavour at all.
Also add: smoked salt and smoked sun-dried tomatoes as options.
@FuzzyChef - I always forget about sun dried tomatoes. They're so yummy!
You can get anchovy paste in tubes for easy dosing.
Doesn't smoking add carcinogens similar to nitrites?
If nitrites are the issue, make your own bacon without using any pink curing salt, or use raw pork belly or fatback. Note: using commercial "uncured" bacon wouldn't work, because that's just cured using natural nitrites from celery.
Curing your own meats can be dangerous, so consult an expert, and/or make sure it is cooked immediately.
Bacon adds 4 things:
Fat: In theory, any fat will do as a replacement. In practice animal fats have different characteristics than most vegetable fats as they give a different mouth feel. Butter is a reasonable substitute, you could try a bit of coconut oil as it has some of the characteristics of animal fat
Salt: this seems simple to replace, just add salt, there's more to it because salt sometimes gets confused with Umami, see point 4.
Smoke: Note that in French cuisine you'd be using lardons rather than belly bacon, and that may or may not be smoked. So, replacing the smoke flavor may not be essential. If you want to replace it you could use smoked spices or other ingredients like smoked salt, smoked paprika, or a dash of liquid smoke
Umami: Bacon is high in Umami, and is likely the thing you're really missing rather than the three above. Tomatoes and mushrooms do add umami, but they also will significantly change the flavor profile,my go-to ingredients for umami are soy products and MSG. I keep reduced salt soy sauce and regular dark soy sauce on hand and I used them for much more than Asian cooking. I use dark soy in darker stews and gravies and regular soy where I don't want color. Where I don't want any tint at all I will add a small amount of Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) crystals as they are very concentrated. Stock cubes are often flavored by MSG as well, I often crumble half a cube in as a flavored salt
If you are trying to reduce your fat, salt and smoke intake I'd start with adding umami first to the dish and seeing if you like it, then add the other elements. I make a turkey chili where I replace the beefiness using smoked paprika, dark soy and part of a beef stock cube, no extra salt besides the cube and it comes out really flavorful. It's very low fat with no added salt besides the cube, but nobody misses either.
If you could add what "MSG" is, that would make the good answere more readable
Sure, done @Eulenfuchswiesel
Just an addition to what you said: dried mushrooms work very well to improve the umami flavour. In Chinese cooking, dried shiitake mushrooms can sometimes be used to replace meat in dishes. Although dried porcinis or something else could work fine if you can't find them.
I'm not a fan of mushrooms as a substitute as they change the flavor profile @RYZEXY
I believe that in many traditional recipes, the main reason for bacon is to get the fat in which other ingredients are browned. Lard and bacon fat were common cooking fats in rural areas. For this purpose, the bacon can be replaced with a suitable amount of vegetable oil.
In the process, the bacon also brings flavours of browned pork and smoke. Billy Kerr's answer describes good replacements for these.
Is it the flavor or texture of pig fat that's lacking? Can you substitute lard? Smoke and salt flavors are easy to add, and pork meat umami can come from nitrate-free pork products; you might need to use more to get the same amount of flavor, though.
Thinly slice some pork belly and fry it with some salt and sugar until caramelized. Use it in place of the bacon, and use smoked paprika and/or smoked olive oil in your recipe to make up for the smoky factor of bacon.
Below is a recipe from YouTube on caramelized pork belly (no curing required):
I haven't followed that recipe, but many people commented on the video on how it the result tastes like bacon!
What a delicious looking picture!
Dried dulse (a type of seaweed) is regularly touted as a vegan ingredient with a flavour profile remarkably similar to bacon. If the smoky flavour is also required, add a little liquid smoke, or perhaps use smoked garlic or smoked paprika in your recipe.
It is readily available online, and probably in shops/stores too, but I can't vouch for that.
I tried using uncured turkey bacon in Coq au Vin today. The overall flavor was good but the texture of the bacon is unpleasant - it appears to harden with cooking. A further thought on the contribution made by bacon to the dish - in addition to rendering fat in which to cook other materials, I think bacon caramelizes as you cook it. My guess is that a great part of the flavor imparted to Coq au Vin comes from the deglazed bacon remnants in the pan, a taste that you will not obtain by instead adding smoked anything. Maybe this is the umami that others refer to.
Try liquid smoke, there are some that have relatively low sodium and sugar that are also vegetarian by themselves as condiments.
Once tasked with coming up with a vegetarian substitute to Coq au Vin, I took the following approach:
Smoked tofu,
coated in Grünkern flour and roasted with lots of oil (or maybe it was clarified butter), and
more spices, salt, and extra dried tomatoes.
It wasn't the best thing, but good enough.
My invention concurs with the other answers round here: the tofu substituted smoked flavour, the pre-roasting gives you some good Maillard reaction and fat, and more salt and tomatoes are for the umami and spice.
Since you don't do this for meat avoidance, you could actually use rendered lard instead of oil for better taste. Nowadays I'd probably add light soy sauce.
(Why Grünkern? Because it has a nuttier taste than flour, and doesn't thicken a sauce as much. And I just wanted to try it.)
If you have time you can try and put more wine than usual, a little bit more seasoning and overcook it.
Use (uncured) salt port or fresh pork belly -- it is bacon with the curing and smoking. As others have mentioned, smoked paprika or smoked salt might be used to replace the smoky flavor. However, for French recipes it would be traditional to use unsmoked lardon, so replacing the smoke might not be necessary.
My suggestion is to add chipotle or some other smoked chili to the stew. I recentely made beans, I have to say it really tasted like there was bacon in the beans solely from the chipotle, more so than just adding e.g smoked paparika.
Fat wise, maybe butter + chiptole would to give a bacony flavour.
You can just skip it.
It's just one of those "traditional" ingredient that can be omitted.
IMO, it does not add that much to the final product when you take into account all the other ingredients.
You could use nitrate-less bacon/lardons.
Also, you could just fry up the fat in the meat you're going to use (chicken skin, residual fat in stewing meats).
I rarely use bacon/lardons when doing stews, there's enough fat and flavouring in them already.
The asker has tried leaving out the bacon and reports that they are not happy with the results, hence the question here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.642262
| 2022-02-22T17:50:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119940",
"authors": [
"Anentropic",
"Billy Kerr",
"Eulenfuchswiesel",
"FluidCode",
"FuzzyChef",
"GHP",
"GdD",
"RYZEXY",
"RedSonja",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98106",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124522
|
What to do with insoluble tamarind parts found in a paste pouch, to prevent them appearing in dishes
When I use tamarind paste, which I buy in a pack that looks like this, ..
.. I end up with seeds (which I can remove), with paste (which I can dissolve on low heat), but also with what seems like skin, and a few fibrous parts.
I never recall seeing those part in restaurant dishes.
What am I doing wrong? Should I scoop out these parts one by one. Should the paste really pass by a blender/kitchen machine first? Will an extended duration on low heat eventually dissolve them?
Other Tamarind questions on cooking.SE
How to store tamarind paste?
How do I use whole fresh tamarind?
Where do I find the fruit tamarind?
How do I use tamarind powder?
What can we do if we accidentally buy tamarind puree instead of paste?
Can you eat the seeds of Tamarind if you roast them or boil them?
I didn't even know you could buy tamarind paste. I have only seen it fresh in the pods.
You can also get it in jars; they've done all the hard work for you;)
You can get it in blocks, paste (with salt) and fresh, and the jarred stuff is 'different' from the block stuff
@JourneymanGeekOnStrike Somebody should ask a question asking to show us what these variations look like, and perhaps identify the extra ingredients in each variation, if any.
I suspect that the "skin" you're talking about is the membrane that surrounds the seeds (separating it from the pulp) in the tamarind fruit.
@MichaelSeifert Perhaps. In any case, it may be best to simply refer to them as 'insoluble parts'. I updated the question.
Remove the amount of tamarind you want to use from package. Place in a bowl. Add some water or other liquid...often hot to better dissolve the tamarind. Let soak a bit. Stir and mash with spoon or fork. Place all of that in a strainer over a bowl or the pot in which it will go. Use a spoon to force as much pulp and liquid as possible through the strainer. Discard the seeds and "skin" or pods.
Perfect. Quick sequel question to avoid minuscule questions: tamarind arrives in a non-hermetically sealed package. Hence it can remain in the pantry. Is that accurate?
I keep mine in the refrigerator. I think we have a question on tamarind pulp storage on the site. You can use the search bar.
Cool. Thanks. Added some links.
Its acidic and generally dosen't spoil. We just dump it into a large glass screw top bottle and it lasts quite a while
@JourneymanGeekOnStrike You're presumably talking about a version of tamarind that's different from the one pictured; no? This version is quite solid, requiring some force to cut it.
actually very similar , its break-up-able by hand
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.643146
| 2023-06-20T19:26:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124522",
"authors": [
"Escoce",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Michael Seifert",
"Sam7919",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85398",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113520
|
How does the metal of a baking sheet get burned?
My kid wanted to boil a kettle of water on the back burner.
An empty baking sheet was sitting on the front (we had baked some cookies earlier).
They accidentally turned on the front burner instead of the back, and walked away for a minute.
How does a baking sheet itself get burnt? Are stove tops a lot hotter than 500 degrees?
A natural gas flame is about 1950 C or 3540 F, so yes, a lot hotter than 500 degrees. (source)
Electric stoves will get red hot, indicating a temperature in the range of about 500-900 C or 770-1220 F. (source)
I take it this is an Induction cooktop/electric glass cooktop.
"Induction cooking is performed using direct induction heating of cooking vessels, rather than relying on indirect radiation, convection, or thermal conduction. Induction cooking allows high power and very rapid increases in temperature to be achieved, and changes in heat settings are instantaneous" - Wikipedia, Link
An electric glass cooktop uses electricity to first heat a burner. The heated burner then heats the cookware in contact with it - baconappliance.com, LINK
Because it is directly heating the cooking vessel, this induction stove will "cook" your metal directly, not boiling what is inside of it. It's the same principle as all kinds of stoves basically, it cooks your pot.
So, without anything inside of it the heat will be rise quickly (and because it's thin nothing like a pot), it could reach up to 260C (500F)Link. But this is depending on your stove because some stove doesn't have thermocouple to check the temperature it only adjusting the power of your induction, and it will rise quickly to 300C or who knows in max setting on the knob..
The black burns will show up because it reaches the temperature to burn the outer layer of steel because lacks cooling/food inside to cook it.
Edit:
"How hot does a stovetop get on high?
I have found that using an IR thermometer to read pan bottom temperature after 5 minutes of heating (the temperature is no longer rising), that high corresponds to 375 degrees F, medium-high to 330 degrees, medium to 300 degrees, and low to about 275 degrees." - expandusceramics.com
so either you have the induction cooker that has more capability to reaching more temp, or you have an electric stovetop that has a broken thermocouple or it sets to max temp.
edited to correcting my dumb :)
Why are you assuming it's an induction stove rather than a regular electric glasstop?
are you testing me or joking? the stove or 'cooker' with glass top is using induction process for heating the pan over the glass. That's why its called induction stove.
I have a glass top stove that is not induction.
@Preston well i stand corrected..
@Johanna edited to add an electric stovetop
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.643404
| 2021-01-01T14:11:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113520",
"authors": [
"Cubic273.15",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90443",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113915
|
Too much wine used in coq au vin
The NYT coq au vin recipe called for 3 1/2 cups red wine and marinate overnight, then reduce to make the sauce. Husband added an extra 2-3 cups of wine to the marinade. It is now the morning after. Which should I do? Reserve 2 cups only of the marinade to reduce (as probably 1 cup has been absorbed by the chicken?), or take the time simmering all of the wine down.
Marinades are generally surface treatments, especially in thicker cuts. With the exception of salt (if any in the marinade), I doubt your chicken has absorbed any marinade. So, your issue is the higher quantity of liquid, and flavoring of the wine. I think you could go either way...remove some, or reduce. If it were me (so as not to be wasteful), I would just cook as normal, reduce longer, and taste and re-season along the way.
When I cook with wine I usually use a whole bottle (no use to keep it as it would not be drunk and it would not last long enough for the next time I need wine) and I never had problems with too much wine. You are likely to end up with more sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.643668
| 2021-01-24T12:21:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113915",
"authors": [
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
240
|
Removing fat from a recipe
If I see a recipe I like and it includes a marinade or sauce where butter or oil is a significant ingredient, is there any way to substitute that fat and preserve a similar taste and texture? For example, I recently cooked a citrus shrimp recipe and simply skipped 90% of the recommended oil and it tasted pretty good, but I don't know what I may have missed out on. I know fat is pretty fundamental to food, so maybe the answer is no.
As my friend and mentor, Mssr. Jacques Blanc Puissant LaFrômage once said to me: Fat is flavour, fat is love. Skipping 90% of the recommended fat simply means that you skipped 90% of the bliss.
It depends entirely on the recipe and how it will be used. Fat can work as a medium for flavors and heat, to provide texture (especially in the case of emulsification), and for its own flavor. Blindly removing it from a recipe may "work", but leave you with something quite different from what was originally intended - whether that's ok with you is a personal decision.
Rather than looking to eliminate fat, look to maximize your benefit from it. Find out what purpose it serves in a given recipe, then find an oil you like that fulfills that purpose and add only as much as is necessary.
To add to what @Knives said -- it also affects texture and moisture in baking.
It's also important to remember that butter has water in it, so removing butter from a baked good might remove water vapor that's needed for lift -- and you can't just add water back in or it'll mix with the flour.
All that being said, in quick breads you can get away with replacing about 1/2 of the oil with applesauce or mashed banana. You might need to experiment to figure out how far you can get away with it. (and remember to write down what you did! I'm still kicking myself for the time when the low-fat apple/carrot muffins came out perfect and I have no idea what I did).
This will not work for other baked goods, such as those where you have to cream the butter first.
...
Oh ... and when you see butter being stirred into a sauce right at the end ("mounting" the sauce ) -- it's actually being used as a thickener, which will affect mouth feel. You might be able to use a starch to thicken it slightly, but won't have the same feel.
For a sauce, fat can release a lot of flavor and color ( tom sauce). Working around that, toasting spices first before grinding and sauteeing ing in the reduced portion of oil can mitigate the change.
As for body in a savory sauce, onions to the rescue:
sauteed in min fat to desired color then cooked in own juice slowly under lid. Puree til silky smooth.
I've cut my cocont milk way down this way. Even aglio olio.
I think it is more important to look for what fats are in your ingredients. You should avoid transfats (mostly in prepared foods) and saturated fats, but unsaturated fats are very important for your health. See also this website as an example were to find information about this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.643794
| 2010-07-09T21:21:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/240",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ellen Landry",
"Mark H",
"Paul Rowland",
"Stuart Helwig",
"Zach",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/533"
],
"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
}
|
3551
|
How to tell the proper amount of oil to use when sautéing vegetables and meat?
A common meal That I make in a pinch is Italian sausage with peppers and onions. I'll cut up a few red and yellow peppers, a whole onion, and throw it in a pan with some olive oil. Once the vegetables cook down a bit, I throw in the sausages, making sure they contact the pan so they can brown.
My problem is that I can never tell how much oil to use. I always end up using too much. My vegetables are drenched in oil. I hate having to break out a measuring cup to do precise recipes, as I'm trying to get a natural feel for the right amount, and I also don't know how, and if, I should scale up or down the oil if I'm making a bigger batch.
Are they any good rules of thumb I can apply to get a natural understanding of using oil in this manner?
This question is problematic -- the sausage is going to give off a fair bit of fat, so it likely doesn't matter how much oil you added to start with, you always risk it being greasy unless you cook the sausage first to drain some of the fat off.
I would do it the other way round, I'd fry the sausages first, then add the veg. This has a few benefits as I see it:-
The sausages will brown more evenly, purely aesthetic but some people will think they are not cooked if they are not brown.
You'll get the oil out of the sausages so you'll have a better idea of how much oil to add when you add the veg, if any.
The veg will sweat down in the sausage oil which is likely to be much nicer than the other oil
You can cook the sausages on a really low heat to start with so that they really get sticky and caramelised, then when you add the veg back in you can add a spoon of water/vinegar/stock to deglaze the pan an get that lovely sticky sausage goodness all over your veggies, which will be delicious.
You could optionally take the cooked sausages out of the pan and do the veg separately, or keep 'em in there, I'd probably take them out so I could turn the heat up a bit without having to worry about the sausages.
I'd say that when you do add the veg you want a thin (1mm ish) layer of oil in the pan. Depending on the pan this is probably a tables spoon or 2. You probably don't need to scale up as if you are cooking a bigger batch you will probably use a bigger pan, and so a similar depth of oil should suffice. If you are using the same pan, but with a deeper amount of veg, then I would add a little more, but I would make the depth of oil in the pan proportional to the depth of veggies.
Remember the golden rule. You can always add, you can never take away. And once the veg start to cook down and the volume decreases then the oil ratio will be higher, so start out with a little less than you think, just enough to coat the veg when tossed in it.
Low heat and caramelize go together like fish and bicycles. The pan should be at about 160ºC / 320ºF.
Have you tried cooking the sausage first? Cook it with a small amount of oil (just enough to keep it from sticking to the pan), and let some of its intrinsic fat render out. Transfer to a bowl with a slotted spoon. Now: pour out the oil/fat from the pan until there's just a couple tablespoons in there. Get the vegetables started, and once they're hot and sizzling add the sausage back.
A good enough non-stick pan will probably only need a glaze of oil, if any at all. I use a silicone pastry brush to coat it as it's heating up.
Perhaps cook the sausages first as mentioned, then set them aside and mop up most of the oil with paper towel before adding the vegetables?
Then again, I really dislike the taste and mouthfeel of oil in vegetable dishes and will go to puritanical lengths to avoid it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.644071
| 2010-07-28T12:39:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3551",
"authors": [
"Avi",
"BaffledCook",
"Ilari Kajaste",
"Jeff",
"Joe",
"Michel Van Mellaerts",
"SharkHugger",
"Soumya Simanta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8573",
"ps2goat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7685
|
Low Carb Pizza Dough Recipe - How Will This Make Dough?
I have found a low-carb pizza dough recipe where you add 6oz of Cream Cheese and 6 eggs to make the dough (also includes some garlic, spices, and cheese). The recipe claims to be deep-dish, but I just can't see this recipe working out, or tasting good.
I would like some feedback on this, because I really don't have much time when I come home to cook, so if I make it and it doesn't turn out right, I won't have much of a backup plan.
I know this site isn't about nutritional advice, but you should really consider if you want to replace wheat and water (low fat, relatively low calories, no cholesterol) with cheese and eggs (high fat, high calories, high cholesterol).
Don't think of that as dough. This looks like basically making a quiche base to put pizza toppings on.
I don't see any reason to think this recipe won't be stable but it won't be anything like pizza crust. Still it sounds tasty.
Not a dough. You may want to look at a pizza made with cauliflower rice. I have never made it, but there is even a picture showing it holds up and dozens of positive comments. The low carb cauliflower rice is cauliflower pulsed in the food processor, a well imitated idea by J Beard Award winning author Fran McCullough.
I've actually made this twice now. First time I did not let the cream cheese get to room temperature, so it wasn't the right consistency. Second time, the "crust" was right, I just didn't cook it long enough.
The recipe says to cook just the "dough" until it starts getting brown, but you really need to cook it longer. Next time I cook it, when it starts getting brown, I am going to put olive oil on the "crust" and cook it longer.
The edges (the second time I made it) were real good because they got a little crispy, but the inside was still a little loose. I must say, this recipe makes a very good pizza. The biggest problem for me was finding low carb pizza sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.644399
| 2010-09-29T19:51:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7685",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50142
|
Reasonable level of inaccuracy in thermometer?
A little over a year ago I purchased an expensive digital scale / thermometer combo: http://www.breville.com.au/thelittlegeniustm-kitchen-scale.html
It works fine however recently I took a go at testing the thermometer to see if it was reading accurately. I fill a pan up with water and left the probe sitting in, waiting for the water to boil.
When the water was a rolling boil, the thermometer was only reading about 94C or 96C (can't remember which one, will do another test tonight), which was disappointing given the cost of the product.
The scale has a five year replacement warranty so I sent an email through to the customer support department. This was their response:
Thanks for your enquiry.
The temperature probe tolerance is +/- 5 percent and there is no way of resolving this.
Hope this helps with your enquiry.
Personally, I find this hard to believe and couldn't see it specified anywhere on their website. The thermometer is stated to work up to temperatures of 150C, which, means it could vary as much as 7.5C at that level...
Given that the thermometer gives reading to one decimal point (i.e. 96.6%) it seems ridiculous to accept that the temperature could actually be anywhere between 91.X% to 100.X%.
Is this to be expected with food thermometers or should I argue my case? Are there any other reliable thermometers I can use as a point of reference?
EDIT: Did some further testing over the weekend. I tested it again in a shallow pot of boiling water and it was hovering around the 96C mark. After filling the pot so that most of the probe would be submerged, it began to hover between 97C and 97.5C.
I also tested it in a cup full of ice cubes and it read 0.0C...
Where do you live? It's not necessarily wrong that your water boild at 96°C.
BTW The website you linked to allows you to review the products. It sounds to me like you would be doing a favor for potential buyers by writing a review. Of course @Tor-EinarJarnbjo is correct, but I assume that you'd know if you're at high altitude.
And high altitude doesn't affect what the company says about its own product. That company puts out some good stuff, but that product smells like a lemon
It sounds really fishy that they said 5 percent not 5 degrees; I don't really know why there would be a percentage tolerance on a thermometer. (0 doesn't mean anything special.) Does it mention anything in the manual? I didn't see anything in the one I found online.
It sounds as if customer service or a not-so-competent technical support just quotes the tolerance of the thermistor in the probe (most thermistors have a ±5% tolerance) without really understanding what they are talking about. Even if the thermistor has a ±5% tolerance in its resistance compared to the specifications in the data sheet, it does not mean that a product using it cannot be accurate. The deviation is (for all practical purposes) not variable, so a single calibration of the actual thermometer is enough to rectify the tolerance of the temperature probe.
I live in Melbourne, Australia. My house is 100 metres or so above sea level.
@Jefromi: the normal tolerance for measuring devices is always given in % of the max measurable value. OP is talking about an electronic thermometer which surely has a max measurable temperature. Therefore it's absolutely reasonable and not fishy at all that the vendor specifies the tolerance in %.
@NRaf: it's even worse. The tolerance is always 7.5°C, no matter whether you're measuring 15 or 150 degrees! I'd call this rather an estimation than a measurement. 5% is really bad.
@eckes My original comment pretty well explains why that doesn't make sense. A percentage tolerance in Fahrenheit would mean something different than a percentage in Celsius, because the zero points are different. It may make sense to give percentages for other sorts of things (even including a component inside of a digital thermometer) but to give a percentage tolerance for the resulting temperature value simply doesn't make sense. You could convert 1°F for a thermometer that goes to 500°F into 0.2%, but the percentage isn't meaningful.
I checked several thermometers (Thermopen, top ones on Amazon) and all the ones that provided an accuracy did so in degrees, not percentage.
"5 percent" would be a typical by-the-datasheet tolerance if you buy a temperature probe as a component wholesale. Of course, to build a good thermometer, you should calibrate it - which probably was too expensive to do :)
That is ridiculous. 5% is simply too large for an acceptable margin of error. I'll accept 2 degrees F tops, and I have never spent that much on a thermometer.
If you want to spend that kind of money, this one won America's Test Kitchen testing:
That's the Thermopen. It's accurate to less than a degree F and it gives a reading in 3 seconds.
These two thermometers tied the testing for less expensive thermometers. They are both also accurate to less than a degree F.
RT600C Super-fast Water-resistant Digital Pocket Thermometer
CDN DTQ450X ProAccurate Quick-Read Thermometer
Incidentally, this is my scale. Amazon tells me that I bought it in July of 2011. I highly recommend it, it's spookily accurate. That scale, a dollar store timer and one of the recommended lower cost thermometers would pretty much wipe the floor with your product at significantly less than half the price, and would be more convenient to use. I want a timer I can put in my pocket, and a thermometer I can bring to something on my oven shelf without bringing my scale along for the ride.
To me, that makes no sense, imagine trying to gauge the doneness of a Thanksgiving turkey with that thing! Never mind that you can't trust the reading.
Yeah, it definitely seems like they made some compromises in their 3-in-1 deal, and tried to sell it as best they could in the description. They say the scale goes in 1 gram increments, not that it's accurate to the gram, and sorta imply that it's just as good for the thermometer but never actually say anything specific.
Also worth mentioning: usually what extra money buys you in thermometers is faster reading, or in the case of probes that you leave in, fancy things with timers and alarms and such. But not accuracy - most everything is calibrated reasonably well, even the cheap stuff, I think.
@Jefromi That is my understanding as well. My thermometer was pretty cheap, but it's accurate. Slow, but accurate. One other thing to look for in a thermometer is that it can be calibrated. Over time, thermometers will slip in a consistent direction, most of the cheap ones are kind of disposable that way. Interestingly, the $109 thermometer in the OP doesn't mention calibration in the manual.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.644579
| 2014-11-28T00:09:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50142",
"authors": [
"Bastian Block",
"Bertha Allen",
"Blue collar Badass",
"Carolyn Richard",
"Cascabel",
"Deborah Roll-Hauser",
"Jacqui Barnett",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kaleb B Brundy28",
"Maria Malik",
"NRaf",
"Shirley Parulski",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95774
|
What does "season it to taste" mean?
I hear chefs like Gordon Ramsay say this and many, many others.
When a chef has boiled potatos or bacon or spinach...
Be it my family or Betty Crocker ...
What are the "seasons" they are talking about????
[Please note] I am not asking "How much" but "What is"
Possible duplicate of In a recipe, how much is "to taste"?
@AllisonC disagree. The proposed duplicate is about the “how”, I read this more as a “what”. But both questions are related, imho.
@Allison_C Re-read the question please.
@Chrips, the duplicate includes the "what" in the question, and expands on the "what" in the accepted answer. Any seasoning more specific than the ones in the existing question will also be recipe-specific and impossible to answer without that recipe.
It means the Chef/Author is lazy. This is particularly true of Ramsey, who generally doesn't even try his own recipes.
@Chrips Please note that asking for clarification in comments is ok, but no matter how much users disagree, all interaction falls under the “Be Nice” rule.
Add your preferred level of salt and pepper
Seasoning usually refers to salt and black pepper, but occasionally to other flavor-enhancing ingredients in the dish such as acid (vinegar, lemon, etc.) and heat (red pepper, sriracha, etc.). "To taste" means to the degree you enjoy it.
Additional note: If the ingredients list contains spices, herbs or other intense flavors (e.g. vinegar or lemon juice) without giving a specific amount or just a range, that’s often an indication of the “what” the recipe writer thought of as “to taste” ingredients.
How would one know to extend beyond salt though? Not all foods deserve pepper
Then, your "taste" for pepper on that food is zero. If you don't know, then you try adding a little and tasting (hence the "to taste"). I agree with this answer, the default definition for "seasoning" is salt and pepper. "To taste" makes the entire thing subject to your preference.
I was taught as I worked through the ranks of several kitchens that "Salt seasoning, pepper is flavour." I think by this, they meant that salt essentially alters how flavour is received, whereas pepper simply adds another level of flavour. In sweets, the parallel to salt would be sugar. Herbs/Lemon/Vinegar would all fall into the flavour category for me...
to season
verb [ T ] UK /ˈsiː.zən/ US /ˈsiː.zən/
season verb [ T ] (FLAVOUR) to improve the flavour of savoury food
by adding salt, herbs, or spices when cooking or preparing it:
Drain the rice, stir in the salmon and season to taste (= so that it
has the taste you like).
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/season
to season (v.)
"improve the flavor of by adding spices," c. 1300, from Old French
assaisoner "to ripen, season," from a- "to" (see ad-) + root of season
(n.) on the notion of fruit becoming more palatable as it ripens.
Applied to timber by 1540s.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/season#etymonline_v_23063
The nicest rule I've heard for seasoning (as opposed to flavoring) is:
"Not so much you can taste it, not so little you can't"
You can season with many things: salt, pepper, nutmeg, mace, Parmesan, anchovies, mustard, lemon juice.. I could go on. Seasoning enhances whatever you have decided are your main flavors. It shouldn't taste strong enough to confuse them, It should just make those flavors taste better.. 'more of themselves'.
@robin_betts someone really didn't like your seasoning ideas hahah.
@Chrips They're not my ideas.. They come from classic, well-worn recipes from around the world.
@robin_betts it was a joke because someone downvoted... I upvoted
@Chrips Thank you! I guessed you had .. I can understand that some people might want to restrict the meaning of 'seasoning' more than this .. but I've found this distinction between 'seasoning' and 'flavoring' really helpful in my cooking.The idea that you might add just enough of something to enhance the main flavors.. but if you asked a diner what was in the dish, unless they were really trying, they couldn't identify that ingredient.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.645627
| 2019-01-18T16:27:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95774",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"Doug",
"FuzzyChef",
"Robin Betts",
"Stephie",
"chrips",
"dwizum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67281",
"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
}
|
120503
|
Is there a way to proof a wet dough in the same container?
I'm here not questioning that a second rising (a.k.a. proofing)
of a
wet
dough
is necessary. It is, or else you'll get what someone termed "elephant skin".
But I am baking a wet dough too frequently to appreciate a counter that needs cleaning so often.
Is there a way to second-rise (a.k.a. proof) a wet dough in the same container?
Update
The basic steps (I use) are (video):
First Rise (a.k.a. bulk rise) Mix (by a spoon works well; unlike a traditional drier dough, the heat from your fingers is not needed). Let rise/ferment for 12+ hours. I started with a flour:water weight ratio of 1:1, but that invariably remains too wet all the way. I'm working my way down and am at 10 parts flour to 9 parts water. I'm also working my way considerably up from what Jim Lahey @Sullivan St Bakery suggested, and am at 3/4 teaspoon dry yeast for each 400g flour (that's just under 1lb=453.6g) to get improved puffing with nice big pockets of air.
Second Rise (a.k.a. proofing) Pour on a floured clean surface. Shape (again, with your hands or with utensils). Fold to create seams where it will open (or else slice the top after pouring into the preheated container). Let rise for 1-3 hours.
Baking Transfer the dough to a preheated closed heavy container. It's nice if you dust (flour, cornmeal, ..) on top.
The critical steps to save cleaning are "pour" and "transfer". Pouring (step 2) means to pour the dough as a lump. Transfering (step 3) means to carry the dough to the preheated baking vessel.
The same container as the first rise, or the same container as you bake it in? I've switched to a final rise in a loaf tin for my sourdough because I find that shape more convenient than a round loaf and transferring a risen ball into a rectangular tin knocks too much air out of it
But if you do want to rise on a flat surface, how about a large pastry board or rolling out mat, that can be taken away and washed up? My worktops are oiled oak and dough sticks to them like glue so working dough without an intermediate surface is really not an option in my kitchen
This question needs clarification. I often use one bowl for high hydration dough. Mix in the bowl, rest, reach in the same bowl to stretch and fold, rest, repeat. Bulk ferment, again in same bowl. Then you need to remove from bowl to shape and move to proofing container (is this what you call 2nd rise?)...so we need to know what you mean by "second rise."
@moscafj Cool... we're on to something. I also have been doing the second rise (added details) in the same container that held the dough during the "first rise". The dough rises a second time just fine. But here is my problem. I now need to carry the dough to the preheated vessel without disturbing it. Pouring it into the preheated vesself means basically that I'm distressing much of the volume it acquired in the second rise. How have you solved this?
@ChrisH (Homemade bread is an ideal way to carb-preload and to replenish glycogen stores; isn't it?) I tried using a plate or a glass cutting board for the second rise. But the difficulty here is sliding the dough off into the preheated dutch oven. I may still be using too wet a dough (9:10 water to flour) for this to work. 7:10 or 8:10 might be the answer.
@sam....yeah...can't do it that way....so, as in my comment, after the bulk ferment, you need to shape, and probably place in a basket (or other container) for the final proof. That is what is transferred to the oven. It sounds like you are using dutch oven method. If transfer to oven is an issue, bake on a stone. As soon as you place on stone cover with large stainless bowl...does the same a dutch oven...remove bowl after about 20 min and finish bake.
@sam...also, folding doesn't create the seams....any folds should be at the bottom of the loaf, then use a razor to score the non-folded side of the bread...I go from proofing basket to parchment paper on counter, score, lift (using parchment) into dutch oven.
@moscafj I see. Stone+bowl is a nice idea, and sliding onto a stone is a bit easier than sliding into a dutch oven. (BTW, are you saying that you do two rises before the proofing?) Also, do you pick up from the basket or do you somehow slide onto a stone?
@moscafj Got it.. Parchment paper is the trick. The brand I'm using is only good until 420F/216C. But even if I find one good till 450F, being right at the limit means the paper itself will become worryingly (as in it's almost burning) brown.
@moscafj I guess I didn't figure this one out on my own. One solution is to remove the paper midway (https://youtu.be/I0t8ZAhb8lQ). The humidity will keep it safe before then.
I never really mastered transferring into a hot container. Done well, I could invert the loaf from an oiled bowl into a Le Creuset, but I often aimed badly or an under-oiled spot caused it to stick and not drop well. Then I decided I wanted squarer slices, and switched to a loaf tine, lined with resuable non-stick sheet
I didn't fully understand the question until I watched the video. Some of the terminology may have evolved in the last 16 years or just not been common parlance for amateur bakers at the time.
What you're calling second rise is what most would call proofing. What you're calling first rise would usually be called bulk fermentation - because you often divide after, but even if not dividing by convention it's still called "bulk". In-between bulk ferment and proofing is shaping.
When bulk fermentation is finished you turn the dough out onto a (usually) lightly floured surface for shaping. You want to get rid of large gas pockets but you're not kneading. You gently stretch and fold (and roll, etc. - everyone has their own method) to develop tension so the dough keeps its shape in the oven. This would be nearly impossible to do correctly inside a bowl or fermentation vessel. Other than getting a large cutting board for this purpose to keep your counter clean - and personally I've never had great results with those vs. the smooth bare counter - there's really no way around dirtying your counter.
For proofing, the best method depends on the kind of bread. For a baguette or some round loaves you can wrap in a linen couche or just a kitchen towel to give it a little bit of structural support, and proof on a flat surface, which is what he does in the video. For batards and boules people usually use a banneton or proofing basket, sometimes lined sometimes not. Could you re-use your fermentation vessel? Possibly, if it has the right shape and you line it with a heavily floured towel to prevent sticking. But you're really better off just getting a banneton or two which are very affordable and require no cleaning, even when lined.
You can of course proof in a loaf pan and go directly to the oven to avoid the transfer step, but you're not going to get the kind of result I think you're looking for. It'll be more like sandwich bread than a crusty artisan loaf like is shown in the video.
For transferring to a Dutch oven, I find it much easier to proof in a banneton and then carefully turn it out onto a decent sized piece of flour dusted parchment. Then I lift the parchment with the loaf on it into the very hot Dutch oven. (I also tuck two ice cubes under the edges of the parchment before popping the lid on for extra steam). Works flawlessly for me. I really wouldn't worry about the temperature and the parchment. It might get a bit brittle but it's not going to combust at 450 degrees in a humid Dutch oven. After 25 minutes when you move to the uncovered portion of the bake, you can take the whole thing out, remove the parchment if you're concerned (I don't bother and still have never had a problem), and finish on a stone until it's done.
What he does in the video - lifting the dough off the flat surface and into the oven directly - is not as easy as it looks. Definitely not for a six year old.
Perfect. Two quick sequels. What's special about a banneton (thanks for the keyword)? Is, for example, porosity essential and an ordinary mixing bowl (with towel etc) would not be suitable? Also in the same vein, I am getting reasonably good results by proofing on parchment paper, but I did indeed need to reduce the water, hence coincidentally compensating the evaporation. Bonus third sequel :-) I like the idea of ice cubes; might these be risky if I'm using a dutch oven coated with ceramic; might the ceramic crack?
My pleasure. :) When you see a banneton I think you'll get it right away, but yes porosity helps dry it out a little bit and form a nice crust, and it makes sitcking much less likely. In a lined solid bowl, yes the towel will absorb some moisture but there'll be nowhere for it to go after that, so sticking is more likely and the crust might not be as nice. And btw you don't need an expensive one - don't pay more than $15 each.
Re: ice cubes, assuming you're using an enamled dutch oven, I suppose there may be a small risk but I've not had a problem. It's not like you're submerging the thing in ice water. But if you are concerned, a spray bottle of plain water works great too. Just spray everywhere, including the underside of the lid, and spray AS you're lowering the lid too. In fact I do both ice AND spray because I'm a little obsessed with oven spring. :)
Regardless of what you mean by "the same container", and of your definition of "wet" dough (your recipes only have 70 and 75% hydration, which is rather average) you cannot save yourself a cleaning step.
When you take out your dough for the second rising, you have to knead it - without a kneading in between, there is no "second rise" per definition. The only way to not having to clean anything would be if you would knead it in the container in which it was rising. And this won't work well for several reasons.
Container size/shape. To knead a ball of dough, you need a container which is noticeably wider than the ball of dough (or, instead of a container, a flat surface). But for rising dough, you need a container which is as wide as the ball. If it is too wide, you will have a huge surface for drying out, and the thin shape will also change its temperature too quickly, which is suboptimal.
Stickiness. You won't be able to take an overnight-risen ball of dough out of its container in one piece, there will be tiny pieces sticking to the bottom and walls. And before you start kneading, you have to prepare the kneading surface by flouring it. And the surface has to be clean - you cannot have small pieces of dough already sticking to it, or these will bind with the flour to make terribly hard pieces of dough, which then embed themselves into the bread dough, creating unpleasant lumps in the bread. So at this point, you would have to transfer the ball to a second container or surface, wash the first container, dry it, flour it, then knead the dough in it, then wash the second container/surface.
I cannot see a way to avoid the problems caused to stickiness - if you oil the container, it has to be clean and dry before that too, and if you raise the bread in flour, you will afterwards get too hard a bread if you do the intermediate knead in that flour. So, you do need a separate container for rising and a separate one for kneading.
Re: "you have to knead it" I'm not sure we're talking about the same process. The recipe I'm using is this (https://youtu.be/13Ah9ES2yTU). They called it "no knead bread", and it would be nice to truly avoid kneading altogether.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.646027
| 2022-05-03T16:37:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120503",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Peter Moore",
"Sam7919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85398",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115907
|
Identifying bulgur from cracked wheat
In an excess of zeal to remain tidy (or to get tidy, rather), I discarded the bag and can no longer recall whether it was bulgur (bulgar, bulghur, ..) or cracked wheat.
Cracked wheat is "raw". Bulgur is parboiled. Some recipes call for one; other recipes for the other.
How do I determine whether a particular container has bulgur or cracked wheat.
Possibly, the difference in use is small. Might one boil and adjust the cooking time by tasting (as if seeking some kind of al dente)?
Conclusion
Luckily the methods provided by Tesujin and by FuzzyChef give the same answer. It is bulgur. In an update I (or anyone) could post pictures comparing cracked wheat next to bulgur—perhaps with bright light to make the translucence evident. Meanwhile I'll check-mark Tetsujin's answer since it provides a method that anyone can use, not just me for this particular sample.
On a side note, I also use jars for storage. And when the bag has some pertinent information, I cut out the piece with that information and drop it into the jar together with the food. This can be the name of the food, or, in a jar with dry pasta, the cooking time. I also had to learn the hard way before I started doing it :) It works better for me than writing on the jar.
@rumtscho 1/2 Ah, yes indeed. I've been diligently cutting the labels and taping them outside the jar. Even bulgur seems to turn slightly if forgotten in a cupboard for two years. Intuitively it could last a longer time. I guessed that the (little) oil that's in there goes rancid. This is all to say that along with the label, I found it critical to also cut and paste the expiry date. For spices, the expiry date is absolutely critical.
@rumtscho 2/2 I now choose spices not by my interests that day, but by which ones are fresher, because even if a spice is only halfway (one year) to its expiry (which might have originally been two years), I can still detect a different aroma and flavor.
Cook some of each.
The one that's done in 20 mins or so is bulgur. [I tend towards 1:1.6 bulgur:water, 15 mins simmer, 15 mins rest.]
The one that eventually needs more water adding & takes at least another half hour is cracked wheat.
…then label them ;))
Alternatively, the heat-free method.
Soak both overnight in excess water. The edible one is bulgur.
Ah, neat! But... do you mean that you don't discard the water in which you cooked bulgur? I assumed we treat it like the water in which we boil pasta (discard), rather than the water in which we prepare porridge from oatmeal (boil until the water left is very low). Do you keep the water because too many nutrients would otherwise be lost, or is either option possible?
I cook it like I cook rice, rather than pasta. There's no water left to discard, it's all absorbed. I started doing it this way because someone suggested it might be easier… it was, so that's what I still do ;) Also, most times I cook it, it's part of a pilaf etc.
Based on the appearance, that's bulgur (we eat a lot of bulgur). #3 size.
The bran on cracked wheat is more opaque and sometimes more colorful. In bulgur, it's translucent as it is in your photo, and hard to distinguish from the endosperm.
What do you mean by “#3 size”? Is it just a specific brand’s designation, or is it some regional/national/international standard for sizes/grades of bulgur? On quickly googling, I see some Indian brands using that kind of notation, but I’ve not come across it myself as far as I remember (in NW Europe).
How nice to read a way to distinguish them visually! After googling "cracked wheat" and looking at the resulting images, I see that, in addition to having many grains of different colors and not looking translucent, cracked wheat looks simply dusty, which is to be expected after having been cracked but not washed. Bulgur's color is not just uniform and translucent, but is quite clearly discernible by looking as if it was washed—a side effect of having been parboiled. In your experience does "dustiness" indicate a jar has cracked wheat and not bulgur?
Wait.. Maybe what I just said doesn't make sense. Brittanica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/bulgur) says "parboiled, dried, and ground". If they really mean that order, with parboiling preceding the grinding, then bulgur would be equally "dusty". But it makes no sense. Bulgur factories surely want to save energy by grinding before parboiling, since the boiling time needed for the same tenderness would then be reduced.
PLL: ah, I had no idea they didn't use it in Europe. In the US and the Middle East, bulgur is graded #1 to #4, smallest to biggest. You use #1 for tabouleh, and #4 for pilaf.
Sam: Yeah, and I've seen dusty bulgur; a standard step for some recipes is to shake the bulgur in a sieve to remove starchy dust so the resulting bulgur is more "fluffy". However, whether the bulgur is actually dusty can be separate from whether it appears dusty.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.646891
| 2021-06-01T18:08:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115907",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"PLL",
"Sam7919",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"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
}
|
114550
|
Large milk dough for pizza; doesn't seem to knead at all
So I set out to make pizza dough, with these ingredients:
1.25 cups whole wheat flour + 3.75 cups refined flour(5 cups total; around 750g)
1 cup water + 1 cup milk
1 tsp active dry yeast
10 tsp olive oil
2.5 tsp salt
2.5 tsp sugar
The dough I made from this is yellow/white in color. The strange thing is that despite having 66% hydration ratio, it wasn't sticky when I started kneading it. It wasn't elastic either, so kneading wasn't optional(obviously).
The trouble is, no matter how much I kneaded it, it just didn't seem to "set" into that elastic dough ball that we're after, after normally about 8 minutes? I kneaded for more than 20 minutes and it was still breaking.
I had to literally pound it with my closed fist like a hammer. It wasn't done even after that.
Right now, it's in the fridge, and I'm letting it cold rise for 24/48 hours.
What's the issue here? Why didn't the dough come together even after all that kneading?
You need to look at your flour, did you by any chance use gluten free?
You call it "large", do you usually work with smaller batches of dough?
@rumtscho Yeah, most of the time 2 cups of flour. This time I wanted to make 4 pizzas at once, so I took 5(I have a large pan).
"Milk" in pizza dough is totally new to me.
@Gigili That's to make a browner crust. It also tastes a bit sweet.
I would recommend malt powder or just straight sugar instead
Do you scold and then cool your milk? Also did you try adding a tablespoon of water until your dough had the right consistency? Wheat flour tends need more moisture.
@TheDefiantWriter It's pasteurized, so I use that. And no, I don't boil milk immediately before I use it in a recipe, but I do boil it when it's taken out of the packet, then cool it and store it in the fridge.
I'm not a professional baker however I've noticed that when I use room temp or a bit warmer liquids it helps my gluten form which helps give your dough the right texture and elasticity.
Probably a combination of causes. You're using whole wheat flour, which really does not knead like white flour, even used in moderation with other flour: in addition to having less gluten, the shards of bran cut through the dough structure as you knead. Particularly if the "refined flour" (hmm) you were using wasn't high-gluten bread flour, that could leave you with very little cohesion. The olive oil will also interfere with gluten formation, as will the milk to some degree, particularly whole milk.
Now, none of that may actually matter. Pizza doesn't need a gluten matrix for structure in the same way a free-form bread loaf does, and the recipe you've chosen indicates that you're not looking for the classic Neapolitan crust texture anyway. If you're forming the pizza on a pan, you don't need the gluten to pull the crust, and the starch gel that forms during baking will make it hold together just fine as a cooked pizza. Treat it like pie crust, and roll it out instead of pulling it out.
Oh, incidentally, 10 tsp is a real weird measurement. It's just shy of 1/4 cup; use that instead, and give your measuring hand a rest.
It's a scaled up recipe; that's why the weird measurements. The original recipe is 2 cups of flour and 4 tsp of oil. I used 5 cups of flour and 10 tsp of oil. I know 3 tsp is 1tbsp, so I could just use 1 tsp and 2 tbsp as measurements. Of course, I do have cups too, so I could use them. BTW, are you sure 10tsp is around 1/4 cups? AFAIK 10 tsp is 47ml and 1/4cup is 60ml.
3 tsp to a tbsp, 4 tbsp to 1/4 cup. 12 tsp would be exactly 1/4 cup.
You are right; I am going to use a pan for the pizza. Is the classic "pressing with fingers" technique usable here? I'll put the ball in the pan, then use pressing to spread it out.
"12 tsp would be exactly 1/4 cup". Right. But olive oil is expensive here, so I don't want to use too much of it.
Yep, should work fine. grease and lightly flour the pan beforehand. Do try to form a good, thick rim.
About the refined flour, I'm using maida(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maida_(flour)), and I doubt it's bread flour; might consider it all-purpose. I want to keep the whole-wheat component of the flour, as it'll impart a bit of color and taste to the dough instead of just being sticky white dough.
I've done doughs with whole wheat in them. Once I had done a dough with 2 cups of flour with a third(i.e. 2/3 cups) wheat flour. It was almost this recipe, but with no milk. Maybe that's my fault here: I shouldn't have put in milk.
@cst1992 per your wikipedia link, I suspect the maida is part of your problem. It seems to have a low protein content ("resembles cake flour", "heat generated during the milling process results in denaturing of the protein, limiting its use in the preparation of leavened breads") and that in combination with the bran from the whole wheat flour as described above would make forming a gluten structure very difficult. If possible, you might try to use a flour with a higher protein content which would make gluten more readily.
@senschen I still have three balls in the fridge, and it's been 24 hours. Anything I could do about them?
I have used maida a number of times and would agree that it behaves like a low-protein flour despite often being listed in recipes as an all purpose flour. I think it might be a translation issue. If you are getting your ingredients from an Indian grocery look for "atta" instead.
@Air I know atta, but we don't use store-bought atta for our home cooking; rather we buy wheat and have it ground in a mill for later use. This recipe is 1/4 atta and 3/4 maida. I'm thinking there's definitely something wrong with this maida batch - there's a pizza I made from all-maida and it rose; however the end result was harder than what I'd expect for an all-maida pizza.
I would say that you simply didn't knead enough, and modeled your expectations on siding that are not similar enough.
As Sneftel noted, the whole wheat flour is part of the difference. I'm not sure it has less gluten overall, but it is more difficult to develop, first because of the cutting effect mentioned and second because the bran soaks up a lot of liquid, leaving less available for gluten development. 66% is lowish hydration for a bread with significant amounts of whole wheat.
The main problem is, in my opinion, insufficient mechanical action. Kneading dough is hard work, literally. Modern home bakers accustomed to small batches of rich white doughs might not be as aware of it, but actually dough needs quite some pounding. The batch size absolutely matters - if you sink the same amount of mechanical energy as usual into a batch of doubled weight, you will need to knead twice as long to get the same results. Add to your doubled batch the fact that you are working with a dry whole wheat dough - not only is there less chance for gluten formation due to the missing water, but the firmer dough means your physical punching and pulling doesn't transmit effectively through the dough.
In general, if you are working a mixture of water and wheat and it is not yet forming gluten, the answer is pretty much always that you haven't worked it enough, no matter what the clock says. Dough has to be kneaded until it is properly developed, and you only need to give up and suspect foul play if it turns into overkneaded state without noticeably passing "proper dough territory" on the way.
24-hour update: I made one of the four pizzas, and the dough result is what you'd expect: instead of looking like a smooth big ball, the dough is looking more rough and a bit like a back scrub(https://www.flipkart.com/betrending-betrendig-loofah-pack-5-multicolor/p/itm13d70fd43f2b5). It's risen a bit. Do you think I could knead the risen dough again? The prepared pizza was thinner than what I'd want and a bit tough instead of soft and fluffy. Not totally flat, though.
I did suspect 66% hydration didn't quite cut it when I saw the raw dough; it should have been wet and sticking to my hands, but it formed a lump right from the start with almost no sticking. Breaking, though.
Also, I have read that when left for long enough(say, 18 hours outside) the yeast gets enough time to break down the gluten structure without having to knead the bread. Could I get the same effect if I left the dough for a couple more days in the fridge?
After a few days of retrospection making the pizza from this flour and also making a fresh dough, I think I have an answer to my question. There are a few points that come to mind:
As I said in the question, the dough wasn't sticky. I repeated this recipe minus the whole wheat and milk(this time I used 1.25 cups of only refined flour with ~120 ml of water and no milk) and even this time it wasn't sticky. Upping the water content to 150 ml helped the issue. Adding more water made the dough easier to knead and also caused it to break less when stretched.
When I actually made pizza from the bread, I found that it had bubbles in the dough, but it was more of a cakey than bready texture. I guess this was because of the milk. Adding milk is something I'd avoid going forward, even though it helped the crust brown a bit. It made the dough sweet(a contradiction to the sour flavor of the sauce and cheese) and it made the dough more like a cake than a bread.
One point that I realized when making a fresh dough ball is atmospheric temperature and humidity. Temperatures during daytime range between 25 and 30C and humidity is low, which might've contributed in making the dough even drier than it already was. Might need to compensate for that in summers as compared to winters by adding a bit more water.
To summarize, this is what I'd do next time:
Only tweak one thing in the recipe at once. I tweaked multiple things(multiply the recipe by 2.5, add half milk instead of water, use part whole wheat flour instead of all refined flour).
Add water according to the recipe, but if isn't sticky(above 60% hydration ratio), then add water till it is.
Adjust recipe according to atmospheric temperature and humidity.
I don't think you are necessarily on the right track here. Especially based on the revelation that you have been using maida as an all purpose flour. It's definitely wise not to tweak too many parts of a dough recipe at once, unless you REALLY know your baking, but I would recommend that you wait until you have confidently solved the problem by making a dough that works perfectly, before posting an answer.
@Air Once I've used up this maida(I still have half a kilo of it) I'm going to try proper store-bought bread flour. This maida I've been using is sold loose by weight.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.647334
| 2021-03-02T06:22:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114550",
"authors": [
"Air",
"CobaltHex",
"GdD",
"Gigili",
"Sneftel",
"The Defiant Writer",
"cst1992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91293",
"rumtscho",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114618
|
What cut of beef to use for Indian curries?
I am wondering what part/cut of the animal is best to make Indian/Pakistani dishes like curries, Biryani, fry etc.
This post says Chuck steak. But wanted to get more opinions.
Which cut of beef should I use in a curry?
Edit: I come from India and I know for a fact that any meat dish (even fish sometimes) is cooked atleast for 30 mins unless pressure cooked. There are very few exceptions. The problem arises because the wide variety of cuts available in the westerm parlance is simply not used in those countries, you just go to the butcher and ask for meat. So the question is more about buying beef in the western context, where you can only buy a specific cut and what you choose might affect how the curry turns out. Also its a misconception that beef is not preferred in these countries, especially Pakistan, Bangladesh, and many parts/cultures of India(ex:southern, eastern states) etc. I updated my wording in the above question to make it more clear. Thanks!
Hi, welcome. This is a HUGELY broad and subjective question. Not only are you talking about a large area with many, many cuisines represented, you are talking about every dish at once? Also there is the complication that a great many people in that part of the world do not prefer to eat beef at all. A lot of the time authentic curries with so called "red meat" are based on some form of mutton (meat from goats and sheep). I am afraid there is no way to answer within the scope of this site.
In general, use whatever meat that is good for braising that you can find at your local butcher.
Similar to other parts of the world, different dishes will use different cuts of meat. You'll need to be more specific to have an answerable question that doesn't generalize nearly all Indian & Pakistani food to use a single cut of meat (in addition to what Air mentions regarding mutton/goat being more common)
"There are very few exceptions" - so there are more than zero exceptions? So it's not the case that "any meat dish (even fish) is cooked atleast for 30 mins unless pressure cooked" ? "I come from India" doesn't automatically give you insight into all the culinary habits of 1.4 billion people...
You mean Indians go to the butcher and ask for 'chuck steak'? Comeon man you can draw educated inferences about culinary trends based on your familiarity with the place where you grow up and where you are from, moreso since there is so much online content now. Its true Indians do 'curry' type cooking that takes time and not quick grilled steaks etc. Ofc thr is room for exceptions and it proves the general rule. I am not sure why my familiarity with my own culture's cusuine should offend you. If there is an inconsistency, I don't mind correcting it. Thats what these forums are for anyway. Peace
I am also interested in this question re: Japanese curries, which are also not cooked very long (30 mins maybe?), si the typical braising beef doesn't have enough time. Also similar, is that the cuts and process of buying meat are totally different here in the US
Supermarkets often just quote braising or stewing steak without detailing which cut. Any of those will work. Don't bother to trim the fat, it will disappear during the cooking.
The idea is to start with the opposite end of the scale from what you would consider a good quick-fry steak. You want the 'stringy' stuff, lots of collagen, something that will improve over 4 hours or so of gentle simmering [or 10 hours in a slow cooker]. Any meat that is good for a quick fry will be like dry bullets, tough as old boots after so long at a simmer. A coarse stewing meat will be just coming to its best. Don't let it bother you that these are the cheapest cuts you can get, it's what works best for any long-cook dish. By the same token you'd use chicken thighs not breast for a long cook.
See also What is the best cut of beef to use for stews? - which comes to the same conclusions.
This answer seems to assume that the beef will be stewed for a long time, which I don't think is necessarily true for the (extremely wide) range of dishes the OP is asking about.
Find me an authentic quick-cook meat curry recipe & I'll agree with you ;)
Thanks @Tetsujin for the answer and also understanding my question correctly. My cooktime might be 30mins-1hr at most, or about 20 mins in high pressure cooker. What cuts would qualify as ''stringy' stuff, lots of collagen"?(sorry I am only familiar with some steak cuts, but not various other cuts)
An hour isn't long enough, any stewing cut will still be tough. tbh, I don't know what cut, i don't look for it by 'cut' I just buy stewing or braising steak. i'm also a Brit, our cut names are totally different to the US. We don't have 'chuck'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_of_beef
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.648261
| 2021-03-05T23:58:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114618",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"AakashM",
"Air",
"Gadam",
"Max",
"Tetsujin",
"briantist",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91736"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128343
|
Is there an easy way to store yogurt and have it maintain its consistency?
I have recently got into making low fat, high protein and low effort yogurt. My procedure uses a single 4 pint dish for the whole process, starting with "cooking" the milk in the microwave, through the fermentation stage in a yogurt maker, to the storage stage between helpings. I add quite a lot of milk powder to skimmed milk, producing a thick low fat yogurt.
This is almost perfect, in that it only requires one item to be cleaned in the whole process. The first helping of yogurt is perfect for my palate.
The only issue is that after I take my first helping and there is space around the main lump of yogurt it separates in a matter of hours, with a liquid whey collecting in the spaces as seen below. I have dealt with this in three ways, none awful but none exactly optimal:
Pour off the whey
The simple answer is just to live with it, pour of the whey and eat the solids that remain. The main issue with this is that the yogurt changes substantially. By the last serving it is more like eating soft cheese than yogurt. There is also the issue that one is throwing away food in the form of the whey.
Serve out all servings at once
Currently I take one large serving from the serving dish and leave the rest until I want another helping. I could serve out 4-6 bowls when I now serve one, and ensure they are each level enough not to lose too much whey. The problem with this is the extra washing up, and storage space in the fridge.
Mix the whey back in
One can mix the whey back in and eat it all. This results in a slightly lumpy texture and is not so nice to my palate, I prefer the soft cheese like final helpings to this.
Is there a simple thing I can do so subsequent servings are more like the initial one, without decanting into separate containers and creating more washing up?
I would argue that you save nothing over using individual pots, as you have to wash whatever dish you serve it out to, while if you use individual pots you can scald the milk in them, cool to inoculate, put in the yogurt maker, and eat straight out of them, while not having "the texture problem" that the one pot (and many dishes to wash you're choosing not to count) gives you.
@Ecnerwal I very much disagree. The yogurt maker I have is a 7 pot machine and I started with individual pots. Changing to the single vessel above reduced the work by a factor 4-10 for nearly twice as much yogurt, mostly as cleaning one small pot was harder than cleaning the whole pan. If you scald the milk in the pots you need to add the milk powder and culture to them individually and if you want to add stuff to the yogurt you want to put it in something else to eat anyway.
This is not a storage problem, and can't be corrected by changes in storage. You have to look into other options.
First, it would be helpful to change how you conceptualize the process. Yogurt is not "done" when it's out of the yogurt maker; it's done after it has done some hours of setting in the fridge. You seem to start eating the yogurt directly out of the maker. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that, you should just be aware that you have kicked off a process that you can't stop midway, so what you call a "storage" stage is an active stage in which the yogurt proceeds towards its final texture.
The problem is that your recipe is designed to produce exactly what you're getting, a very firm yogurt. If you want it soft, you should use a high-fat milk, and not add any milk powder or other sources of protein. You can try changing your fermentation conditions though, and see how far this gets you. Generally, if you use a low temperature relative to your culture's optimum, and shorten the fermentation time somewhat, you'll get less firm yogurt. For example, the instructions for my preferred culture say to ferment at 45°C for 8-10 hours; if I wanted a soft yogurt, I'd try 42°C for 6 hours and continue tweaking from there.
You could also try out other cultures; a bifidus yogurt tends to be softer than a bulgaricus yogurt, for example. If you look into a large producer with a palette of different cultures, they may have a description of the final texture of the different yogurts they offer. Make sure to adjust your temperature and time relative to the culture you have.
Aside from changing the fermentation, you have already discovered one good solution: stirring. The yogurt in Western supermarkets frequently comes pre-stirred. At home, it's not practical to do it during fermentation, unless you rig up some kind of complicated setup. But stirring after fermentation is perfectly feasible, and generally results in very good results. You say that with your extra-rubbery yogurt, the results are "lumpy" - there's a very good chance that a blender can take care of that, or at least reduce the lumpiness considerably. It should be sufficient to blend the whole batch once after it has set*, and then store it for consumption over several days; it won't re-solidify. It may precipitate a bit with your recipe, but a stir with the ladle before taking out a portion should take care of that.
And if you decide that all of this is too much work for you and you'll continue eating it as-is: you don't have to pour off the whey. Certainly continue storing it together with the whey; you can then either ladle out both and serve a lump of firm yogurt sitting in the whey, or separate them during serving, and drink the whey on its own. No need to waste it.
* as noted above, that's after some hours in the fridge, not directly out of fermentation
"You seem to start eating the yogurt directly out of the maker" Just to clarify, I certainly let it cool before eating, first in a bath of water then the fridge. I though I left it enough time to set, at least 2 hours, but perhaps not.
Our current, mostly foolproof milk powder uses full fat milk powder dissolved extra thick... something like half a cup or so to 3 cups of water
From your photo your yogurt looks pretty firm, almost like soft fresh cheese. That could be part of the problem, perhaps make the yogurt a little less set on the next batch.
Besides that, I noticed a similar problem with store bought greek yogurt. The 10% fat version seems to hold better than the 0% one, I suppose the fat helps emulsify all that water better. So one solution could be to add some semi-skimmed milk to the recipe.
One solution I apply in my case (and that will fit your problem as well) is to flatten the yogurt back down or to scoop from the top only - when you "carve" it from the side as it looks like you're doing, you create a column of yogurt and gravity will drain the whey out from the side in exposed to the air. By having it flat at all times, there's no yogurt wall for the whey to drain from and it separates less.
Yup. Having opted not to use single serving sized containers (which would, of course, also solve the problem) peeling each serving off the top is the way to do this. I don't think thickness is a problem and I would not "re-level" after serving some other way - just peel a layer off the top without disturbing what's below and without creating a hole for whey to drain in to.
I'm partial to French-style 'set' yoghurt (which is surprisingly difficult to obtain in the UK), and have had the same problem with the 450g containers of it - so it's not limited to home-made yoghurt.
starting with "cooking" the milk in the microwave
It sounds like you might not be managing heat very well. Get a good thermometer. A study by Rani1 cites "the degree of denaturation of whey proteins [as] a major factor affecting syneresis". They then cite Grigorov2 for the optimal heat treatment for the milk used to make yogurt: 85°C for 30 minutes.
through the fermentation stage in a yogurt maker
Similarly, you should check that your yogurt maker is holding an appropriate temperature for the right amount of time. Depending on your cultures, one of the following strategies might yield firmer/less-weepy results:
Hot and fast: 42-43°C for 5-6 hours
Low and slow: 30°C for 10-18 hours.
In either case, you're aiming for a pH (acidity) close to 5.3.
Finally, if all else fails and you simply will not tolerate any weeping, you can consider experimenting with some gelling agents. I haven't tried this myself, but I would start with carrageenan (Druid's Grove Vegan Gelatin might work well). LM Pectin or even xanthan gum could work, too.
1. Rani, Rekha & Unnikrishnan, & Dharaiya, Chetan & Singh, Bhopal. (2012). Factors Affecting Syneresis in Yoghurt: a Review. 23. 2012.
2. Grigorov, H. (1966a-c) Processing of XVI
International Dairy Congress.
International Dairy Federation, Brussels,
F: 5. Pp. 643,649,655.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.648677
| 2024-05-14T17:51:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128343",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Kate Bunting",
"User65535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115719
|
Can you create brown butter directly from heavy cream?
The other day I made cookies with homemade brown butter.
I first churned the butter from heavy cream, separating the butterfat from buttermilk. Then I took the remaining butter and melted it in a pan then browned the milk solids to make brown butter. Then I cool it in a glass container and let reform as a solid.
I am wondering if you could directly make brown butter by skipping the churning process for the heavy cream. Is there a way to heat heavy cream such that the water / buttermilk / etc. evaporates and leaves melted butterfat and milk solids?
I would think that the water would evaporate and leave only the butterfat + milk solids but I am not sure.
I had a pint of heavy cream so I went ahead and tried it to see what happens. I left in a small saucepan over medium / medium-low heat for a while with minor agitation (stirring every few minutes). It looked about the same for the first 45 minutes. Then I could actually start to see what I assume is the butterfat. However I also saw a large amount of milk solids (I assume), much larger than typical churned butter.
See oil + solids:
Then I waited a little longer and it seems they separated further:
A little longer and it smelled toasty like the usual smell from brown butter when I make it. I took it off the heat because it also ruined my pan pretty nicely. I poured it in a glass container and here's what it looks like after separating:
So my follow-up questions would be: Is this brown butter? Are the solids just milk solids or are they something else? Is the oil actually butterfat? Is this safe to incorporate into cookies as butter?
I enjoy the taste that toasted milk solids add to cookies but this is so much more milk solid than I was expecting (if it is milk solids).
Another update now that it's solidified. It looks and smells just like how my normal brown butter smells except it has way more milk solids (if that's what they are). I would estimate about 1/2 cup of clarified butter + slightly less than a half cup of toasted solids.
It doesn't look like 1/2 cup clarified butter but keep in mind that the butter also settled into the gaps between the solids while it was still liquid.
It smells delicious. I'm tempted to soften it and mix it into a batch of cookies but I'm also not sure if the solids will be over powering in the taste.
Thinking about it a bit further, perhaps if I had stopped cooking just before the oil and solids separated, I think that would be evaporated milk? I don't know if it's often made with heavy cream but I think logically it would be evaporated milk. This also makes me think that you could go from evporated milk directly to brown butter but I'm not sure either.
recommended reading: Ideas in food on toasting milk solids, Chefsteps on browning butter solids, Seriouseats on toasting cream.
Yes, this is a brown butter. You can use it in pretty much all applications which call for standard-made brown butter.
In the traditional process, first almost all of the water is removed from the cream, along with a large part of the nonfat milk solids. This gives you butter, in which the butterfat is emulsified with a small amount of water, and the remaining milk solids are dispersed. When you heat it, the water evaporates, and the solids undergo browning processes (caramelization, probably some Maillard for the proteins).
In your case, you are simply skipping the mechanical removal of the water. Instead, you are evaporating all water by heat. No milk solids are removed - from my point of view, this is an advantage, as you now have more stuff that goes tasty while browning.
You can certainly use this in cookies. As for the question of the taste being "overpowering", this is up to your subjective taste. If you don't like it, you can switch back to more standard browned butter, or mix this one with normal butter, ghee, or some other solid fat.
Interesting that most of the nonfat milk solids get removed with the buttermilk in the standard churning process. I assumed that the buttermilk did not contain a lot of milk solids.
I made a small batch of cookies with it and they were delicious. Hard to tell if they're better than standard brown butter because I didn't have a side-by-side comparison. If I ever get the time to do that I'll update here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.649377
| 2021-05-19T04:42:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115719",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93976",
"ryan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
134
|
What makes fleur de sel different from regular salt?
Fleur de sel is the salt from the top of the pot when you heat salted water.
But what makes it different from the rest of the salt in the pot?
I'm not 100% sure but I found this site that explains what fleur de sel is. It says that
Like other sea salts, fleur de sel is harvested by evaporating sea water. However, to harvest fleur de sel, workers gently skim the top layer of the sea salt from partially evaporated pools, before it sinks to the bottom again. These salt crystals are very fine, light, and delicate, and must be handled with care and exposed to minimal moisture, or they will clump again.
It looks like you are reproducing how fleur de sel is made, through boiling the water which is the equivalent to "evaporating sea water".
It is harvested manually
It is a small portion of the evaporated sea-salt produced.
It is a lot more expensive
It has finer salt-flakes as normal evaporated sea salt.
Unless you can distinguish it from other salts in a double blind randomized controlled trial I do not think that it is worth the trouble.
Setting a trail up with a few friends is a lot of fun :)
AFAIK, the mineral content of the salt is the major difference. Also, the smaller crystals of Fleur de sel dissolve very quickly.
There is an incorrect assumption in your question. Fleur de sel (flower of salt) is not salt collected from the top of a boiling pot of salted water. It's salt collected from evaporated ocean water. This is important and contributes to the following differences:
The mineral content of the ocean is different than the contents of a pot with water and table salt. So the final salt is composed of more than just sodium chloride. Fleur de sel also includes calcium, magnesium, potassium, and iron.
By virtue of the collection method and the fact that it is not agitated by boiling but evaporated by the sun, the structure of the flake is very specific. Delicate "flowers" of salt that are texturally distinct from grains of table salt or flakes of flaked salt.
Fleur de sel is formed in open air ponds. The resulting salt contains biological material as a natural side effect of it being made outside.
It's a specialty product. It's harvested by hand on nature's schedule. The sun is the heat source. Winds can disrupt the formation of the flowers. It's expensive.
Most importantly, I just tasted Maldon flaked salt, kosher salt, and fleur de sel back-to-back while writing this answer. They taste different. That's probably the most important thing to note.
Fleur de sel also has a special texture that other types of salt (especially coarse / flaked) salt don't have. It should not be used for anything that requires the salt to be dissolved.
Since the salt crystallizes in a manner that produces large flat flakes it makes it ideal for finishing a dish since it offers a small textural contrast while providing good salt coverage. Compared to coarse kosher salt it provides a small crunch and adds texture to the dish without being overwhelming it. It's also visible versus something like a fine grained table salt. It's a finishing salt though, so get some nice cheap fine grain salt for your regular day-to-day needs, and keep your fleur-de-sel in a small pinch pot to throw on finished dishes immediately before serving.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.649743
| 2010-07-09T19:59:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/134",
"authors": [
"Jesse Dorsey",
"Jon Sagara",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Kate Gregory",
"Public Profile",
"TonyB",
"andyortlieb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7094"
],
"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
}
|
83832
|
Is anything made less safe by cooking?
Reading this question: Emulsifier: is it safe to cook mayonnaise?
Is anything made less safe by cooking? (I'm not asking if cooking makes something worse-tasting, have bad texture, is culturally or religiously taboo, etc. just from a food safety perspective).
Please interpret cooking as loosely as you'd like. I would probably define cooking as "applying heat to raw food", but considering techniques like curing/pickling or freeze-drying, I'd be curious about those as well. What I'm not too curious about is failing to "cook" something adequately (not enough heat, time, salt, etc.), since the consequences of that are more straightforward.
The current discussion has shown that the question is really unclear The comments are now moved to chat. I also opened a Meta question to discuss if the question is defined well enough to be answerable: https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3400. Please give your opinion there!
There are a few cases were a closer look is warranted and which may be seen as "less safe after cooking":
Yes, if reduced shelf life counts as less safe.
If you take dried food - anything that has a nearly unlimited shelf life - and (re-)hydrate it, the shelf life goes down to mere days. The same goes for fruit and vegetables (from often weeks or even months, e. g. pumpkins, down to days).
If your definition of "cooking" doesn't require a heating step, food preparation can cause cross-contamination when germs from the outside/surface are transferred to the formerly safe inside. Example: cutting fruit that wasn't washed well enough.
A third case of "less safe" would be "cooking" with insufficient heat: there is a fine line between "kills pathogens over time" and "creates a cozy environment where pathogens thrive and multiply happily". Note that this is discussed in detail in our generic posts on the topic.
A border case in a "food safety" discussion would be creating byproducts that might have negative long-term effects like acrylamide or residue from char grilling. But that's pretty much a grey area with a lot of uncertainties in the equation. (And we don't discuss health here on the site partly because of that.)
In short, if cooking for you includes "bacteria-killing heat" and eating reasonably quickly after cooking and ignoring byproducts then no, cooking does not make food less safe. Within these parameters we typically use the cooking process to make food safer.
Would "some non-homogenous ingredient could be dehydrated/melted, and thus hardened enough to cause injury - eg broken teeth, or something sharp and not water soluble inside you" be a valid food safety issue?
Cooking apples or cherries with the seeds can extract the cyanide precursor (amygdalin) into the fruit pulp.
That was one of the examples I thought about, but wasn't sure if it is really the case. Sure, the seeds contain the amygdalin, but does it really get into the pulp after cooking? Also, people eat amygdalin now and then, what circumstances are needed for it to exceed safe limits in this case?
Cooking mostly makes food safer to consume. However, canning is a classic example of how "cooking" food can go wrong. That is why there are strict guidelines around the process.
Let's say you take some raw fruit, rich in sugar, wild yeasts and lactobacillus. Oh, and some naturally occurring botulism and ecoli for good measure. Let's say you macerate this fruit and place it in a couple of different jars.
Jar 1, raw: This jar gets capped and put in the fridge overnight. You have toast with preserves the next day and paint the walls brown because you didn't kill the ecoli by cooking it.
Jar 2, raw but fermented: This jar gets capped and placed in a warm window where over many months it ferments into a tart, alcoholic beverage. The sugar content, alcohol and acidity have effectively preserved the fruit and killed the small amount of botulism and ecoli present, making it safe to consume (note that fermentation has it's risks too, but that's not the point here).
Jar 3, "cooked" / canned: This jar gets capped and placed in a boiling water bath for 15 minutes. From the perspective of immediate consumption, the ecoli is dead and the botulism hasn't been given enough time to form toxin. You eat this on toast two days later, and everybody is happy. Now let's imagine that you left this jar unopened on the shelf for two years. Your fruit preserves were not cooked long/hot/acidic enough to prevent the botulism spores from growing and forming botulism toxin. Now you have toast with jam and within a day you are laying paralyzed on the kitchen floor.
I'm confused... jar 1 doesn't seem to involve any "cooking" (assuming that "cooking" means "heating). You would have had the same exact result (painting the walls brown) if you'd eaten the fruit in hand rather than mascerating it.
Right, jar 1 is the reference sample. It is supposed to be raw. Given that diarrhea is the baseline, the idea is to demonstrate that proper preparation (both raw and cooked) could prevent such, or an improper cooked preparation could be much worse (lethal).
Downvoted, because it is both not answering the question and contains some dangerous misunderstandings. The raw fruit has contamination which is either below or above the safety limits. If it is below the limit, you can eat from Jar 1 and 2, no problem. In this case, the food was safe and stays safe after cooking, and in jar 3, it is still safe after cooking, it is the improper storage (you created food with a shelf life of 3 days and stored it for 2 years) that caused the problem. If it is above the limit from the beginning, then it is not the cooking that turned it unsafe, it was (cont.)
(cont.) unsafe to begin with. So not answering the question. And in case it was above the limit, fermentation won't make it safe, so your description that Jar 1 will make you sick but Jar 2 will not is dangeroulsy wrong.
Your assertion that jar 2 is automatically unsafe to eat if the raw food is unsafe is false. Alcohol and acidity are absolutely capable of killing Ecoli even after it has grown to a harmful population. Like most preservation techniques, there are thresholds such as ABV/pH and time that determine the safety of the final product. That is why I noted below jar 2 that fermentation had risks. Read the article if you don't believe me. http://www.milkthefunk.com/wiki/Wild_Yeast_Isolation#Safety
One of the important things on SE is to cite sources for your information. It's great to have the answer but we really love to see links that corroborate your assertions so that we're not being asked to take your answer on faith. Please, add your supporting links and quote specific text that tells us that you're correct in what you're saying.
I think the intent is: A faulty canning process could conceivably make the result less safe than its raw state. Conceivably possible, since you are going through temperature zones that accelerate spoilage, AND because there is an assumption of non-perishability with a preserve that isn't there with a raw mixture...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.650055
| 2017-08-22T16:36:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83832",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Derpy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53804
|
What's the point of roasting a whole chicken?
Recently I tried to butterfly a chicken before roasting it (in the oven) and I totally liked it. It cooks faster, browns more evenly and is easier to carve. It's slightly more difficult to move the chicken from the pan and I can't put aromatics (like lemon) inside it. These are the only disadvantages I can imagine and they don't look as very important.
So my question is: why mess with a whole chicken if you can butterfly it? What advantages (and disadvantages of butterflying) am I missing?
And second question, related to the first: why even stop at butterflying if I can separate a chicken into parts before roasting? No need to carve at all and it solves the problem when breasts cooks faster than other parts (I can remove them earlier). What are the cons here?
The only benefit of roasting the bird whole is in the presentation. You can place your aromatics and other flavorants under the butterflied bird if you wish. There are many methods to avoid overcooked breast meat (most involve par cooking the legs on the stove top first or elaborate foil tenting rituals.)
... because you'd have a whole chicken to eat!
Or you can just cook it upside down and it cooks perfectly without any faffing around.
The reasons people still roast whole birds are:
Roasting a whole chicken is easier than butterflying it. While it's not tough to butterfly a chicken many people don't know how, or don't want the cleanup
It's less prep time to roast a whole chicken. If you are busy you can have it from the fridge to the oven in less than a minute, while butterflying or jointing it isn't super-quick
Aesthetics: some people like the look of a whole chicken on the table
Also it keeps in the juices and stops it from going dry.
I would disagree with that @JamesRyan, the reason that chicken gets dry is overcooking, plain and simple. Butterflying a chicken generally helps to cook a chicken more evenly, therefore is better for moist chicken.
It makes it easier not to cook it badly however it doesn't cook it better than the whole chicken method done well. Otherwise it would just be the standard way of cooking chicken, which it isn't.
If your goal is to cook your chicken relatively quickly, the only reason to keep it whole is for presentation/appearance and to avoid cutting it up. (For example, I know some people who simply hate handling raw meat, and I imagine for them that the task of butterflying is not only laborious but distressing.) From my perspective, you can save so much roasting time by investing a couple minutes in cutting it up -- and it really only takes a couple minutes once you know how -- and get better evenness and get better crispness. Why not butterfly or cut directly into quarters or pieces?
However, sometimes the goal is not saving the greatest amount of time. The question mentions aromatics and elements placed inside the cavity: those will have greater impact when roasting for a longer time at lower heat. But the even greater advantages for the whole bird come when you lower the temp even more and take a "low and slow" approach, as some people do. While the USDA doesn't approve this, many people roast their chickens (and other birds) at 250F or 225F or even 200F, for anywhere from a few hours to 8 hours or more. With extended roasting time, the meat and connective tissue softens, the fat renders beautifully, and you get an extremely tender and succulent texture, while any aromatics have time to be absorbed more fully.
If you cut up your chicken into parts or butterflied it before such a long roast, it could dry out, and you wouldn't have the moderating influence of the large structure to keep the interior relatively balanced. It's like the difference between cooking a steak and large roast of beef. Use the same logic for large hunks of poultry: If cooking fast and quick, cut up is better. If cooking low and slow, there are flavor, texture, and moisture benefits to keeping it whole.
It's quite commonplace to cook a whole chicken in a slow cooker here in the UK - and that not going to be above 100°C. I'm not sure why the USDA don't like it - I doubt it can be salmonella (though we have a lot less of that over here) as it's killed well below boiling point. The only downside is no browning.
@ChrisH - The USDA and FDA have a bunch of relatively inconsistent food safety recommendations. Slow cookers (properly functioning) are generally okay for them, as is smoking for long times at a low temperature. But for whatever reason, in a standard oven they generally recommend 325-350F (about 160-175C) as a minimum roasting temperature for poultry (and most meats, actually), regardless of the size of the bird. Since we seem duty-bound to convey recommendations of official food safety organizations on this site, I included that disclaimer.
@ChrisH It is worth keeping in mind that food safety advice may not be cross-border compatible. There are many different approaches to food safety. In general, Europe focuses more on keeping the live poultry salmonella free (with occasional contamination), whereas America takes the line that contamination should be assumed and shifts the safety burden onto the food handler. Both approaches have merit. The European approach is generally safer, but encourages potentially unsafe practices. The American approach is initially less safe, encouraging safer practices. c.f. refrigerating eggs.
@imsotiredicantsleep re: eggs, this isn't just a different practice. In the US the natural protective coating is washed off during processing so they MUST be refrigerated, in Europe it is not so refrigeration is not required.
@imsotiredicantsleep The eggs are a particularly strong example as JamesRyan said, but in the case of chicken the system in the UK is more "minimise contamination and assume it's contaminated" (campylobacter figures are ridiculously high). On the plus side here, combined with different practices in similar countries, questions attract a wider range of answers
Additionally to the other answers, you cannot rotisserie a flat bird, which to me, is a great way to cook chicken.
You could, but you'd need a special rack. (see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7pihZB9Iiw)
OK not without special equipment
A rotisserie would fall under "special equipment" for me regardless.
One word.
Stuffing.
You can make stuffing balls, or cook it in a ramekin - but it picks up the meat juice from the bird, and can also flavor the meat from the inside.
Stuffing is good, it tends to dry the bird out though.
You can also still make "stuffing" without the well um... "stuffing". Just put a layer down at the bottom of the pan and place your butterflied chicken on top. tada!
@talon8, that's my favorite way for stuffing! Cook's Illustrated has a good recipe for this, and it cooks a bit faster and has less chance of undercooking the stuffing.
I could care less about stuffing, but I have inlaws who love it. I'm more concerned that to get the stuffing to a safe temperature, you absolutely MUST overcook your poultry.
@talon8 - no, you don't. Unless you have very delicate hands, lack spoons, etc., entirely, or are otherwise unable to stuff the bird with hot dressing.
I was talking about stuffing it at the beginning of the cooking process, in which case you'd need to bring the stuffing at the centreup to 165. If you're stuffing it in post cooking, then I guess that'd be a reason to keep your bird whole.
Cooking meats whole and on the bone gives a deeper flavour and thus I would rather cook poultry whole, including chicken.
Obviously it depends on the exact recipe you are using the meat in, but if you plan to serve the meat as-is, accompanied by side dishes and a sauce, you will definitely get a better flavour by roasting the bird whole and then carving off the meat. If you use the meat as filling for a pasta sauce or curry, don't bother and just use carved up fillets.
As for the cooking time argument: I find that things taste better when cooked for a longer time, slowly. Your meat becomes more infused with your spicing and due to thickness retains its moisture better.
The problem with the breasts cooking before the legs on a roast chicken has been solved a long time ago and does not require a lot of extra effort. I'm sure the process is described somewhere on this site, but have not yet looked for it.
I didn't -1, but it could be that the bone=flavour link is widely considered a myth, see http://www.seriouseats.com/2013/03/ask-the-food-lab-do-bones-add-flavor-to-meat-beef.html
Interesting read. I was quite convinced that this was different for the bones of birds. Obviously our dear voters can't bothered to actually provide any feedback :)
Butterflying the chicken still leaves it cooking on the bone while cooking, so this isn't an advantage to either way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.650742
| 2015-01-20T14:26:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53804",
"authors": [
"Alan Shutko",
"Athanasius",
"Bobbie Vulich",
"Car Park Lining ContractorsLTD",
"Celebrity Dermatologist",
"Chiller Rooms Ltd",
"Chris H",
"Christina Wood",
"Denis Daniels",
"DeveloperInDevelopment",
"GdD",
"Gurneet Grewal",
"JamesRyan",
"March Ho",
"Max",
"Modern Kitchen Remodeling Inc",
"Modular Staging LTD",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Neil Meyer",
"Nick Thompson",
"Percival D'Souza",
"Richard ten Brink",
"SaturnsEye",
"Stan Rogers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32952",
"logophobe",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29744
|
Cracking almonds without a nutcracker?
I got a bunch of (dried) almonds in their shell today. I wasn't aware of how hard their shells were and I have no nutcracker. Is there any way to open them without one?
Use pliers--preferably flatnose--as a nutcracker, if you have a pair.
Do you have pliers? Clamps? Vice grips? A hammer with a hard surface?
Actually none of the above at the moment. Not even a heavy cast iron pan. I tried to crack them between two cutting boards, but I couldn't keep the nut whole.
Rocks are hammers and anvils if you look at them right. Wash carefully before use. Smashed nutmeat may be a risk. Also, avoid squirrels.
I've spent countless afternoons cracking almonds with rocks (or a hammer, when one was around). We use to do almond milk with them, yummy!
If the goal is to keep the nut meat whole, then you'll probably need to bite the bullet and get the right tool - either a nutcracker or pliers. Borrow from a neighbor, friend or colleague?
also try squeezing the nuts against each other. Often one will crack.
If you have kitchen shears with the bottle opening indents behing the bladethat may work
To summarize the comments:
Use common household tools (such as pliers) as improvised nutcrackers
Try using the bottle gripper/opener on kitchen shears as an improvised nutcracker
Use impact tools, such as a hammer, a heavy pan, or even cleaned rocks as nut smashers, but you may not get whole nutmeats with this method
Bite the bullet and buy or borrow a nutcracker
(This is part of my little quest to get answers to some of the non-answered questions....)
Note another drawback of impact tools - the shell will fly in small pieces all around you at high speeds. Difficult to clean, and can scratch sensitive surfaces (shouldn't have enough power to hurt a person even with a very unlucky hit).
Easy you just chuck it on any floor i just did 5 now
Presumably not any floor will do. Possibly a tiled, stone or concrete floor. I also wonder how much time you spent looking for the freed nut and cleaning the floor post-shelling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.651786
| 2013-01-05T02:06:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29744",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Emily Anne",
"Jacob G",
"JayBod",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kristina Lopez",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Velda",
"bibangamba",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"kexonplastic",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"user179335"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27757
|
Can bright green avocados be ripe?
I very rarely buy avocado, but now I happen to have two of them in my kitchen.
I'm used to ripe avocado having this colour:
Now, mine are more brightly green, like this:
They aren't very soft, so I guess they aren't ripe yet, but I'm wondering if the colour will change or if this is just a matter of which variety of avocado it is?
Most avocado's are the Hass variety, which will go very dark when ripe
It look like you have bought a Reed or maybe Gwen variety. They are perfectly fine. Their skin colour will not significantly change as they ripen, so to check, gently squeeze near the point, and if it is soft it is ripe. If not a few days by the window at room temperature will fix it
The skin color of avocado comes from the variety, not ripeness. The only way to tell if one is ripe is how soft it is.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.652009
| 2012-10-12T08:43:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27757",
"authors": [
"David",
"Jeff",
"Jim Cox",
"Sven van den Boogaart",
"everyone",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62745",
"the perfect screwup"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116308
|
How do egg whites help to keep fats inside a cake?
Recently I tried to bake a cake (Caprese) from:
ground almonds
butter
dark chocolate
sugar
eggs
I melted chocolate and butter, mixed all of this with whipped sugar yolks, and then... totally screwed the whipped egg whites, and decided (for science!) to skip folding the egg whites as part of the recipe and just add almonds. As a result, when the cake has actually started to bake, most of the incorporated butter rose to the surface as one slimy puddle.
Why and how egg whites help keep fats inside of cake? I'm mostly interested in chemical or physical explanations of the effect.
Egg whites are mostly protein. Long chain polymers like proteins typically have regions that are both hydrophilic (binding to water) and hydrophobic (preferring to bind to fats), so are great at forming emulsions and stable gels. When cooked (or even beaten long enough) the long chains unwind and the proteins denature, making it easier for these emulsions to form.
In your cake, the role of the egg whites is to form a stable emulsion trapping fats from the butter and chocolate, as well as air. As you found, the egg whites are a structural essential.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.652123
| 2021-07-04T21:16:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116308",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110432
|
How can my breadmaker made wholemeal bread taste less salty?
My wife makes my wholemeal bread as she insists. She says every recipe lists 5 grams of salt otherwise the bread will end up having missing patches in baked form- it has happened with early loaves. We live in Japan and the loaves here are rather small. The bread tastes salty. What are my options to reduce the salty taste while maintaining the result of a decent loaf of wholemeal bread? I have heard that soy sauce can reduce salty taste in other foods. This recipe includes 50% wholemeal flour and 50% self-raising flour.
Can you clarify on what you/your wife means with "incomplete"? It will taste less salty, but I don't see what other effect using less salt should have.
Salt is an important part of the baking process, as your breadmaker instructions will probably state. Most/All bread makers will come with Recipes and probably tips or guidance on baking.
I did experiment with low salt recipes, but have not kept my notes on that. From memory I had the best results with about half the standard amount of salt, but usually disappointing results if I tried to go salt free. Basically the salt tends to inhibit the yeast, so if you just reduce the salt content the uninhibited yeast activity causes it to over-rise, and then collapse to result in a loaf with a convex instead of concave top.
You need to counteract this by reducing the amount of yeast, or otherwise juggling with the recipe. Also consider the amount of sugar and the initial temperature of the ingredients to get consistent results it is best to watch all of these factors and record your results. Also note what oil/fat/butter is used and whether if butter it is salted or unsalted.
Here are some internet links I found
Davids Blog Salt-Free Breadmaker Bread. That has a wholemeal and a brown bread recipe both with no added salt.
http://www.bloodpressureuk.org/BloodPressureandyou/Yourlifestyle/Eatingwell/Yourfood/Salt-freebread another set of recipes, including wholemeal bread with no salt and suitable for a breadmaker machine.
This one is more of an explanation and discussion of the purpose of salt in bread-making https://www.weekendbakery.com/posts/salt-in-bread-baking-how-much-and-why/ Note in the UK there are recommendations to reduce salt content.
https://breadmachinerecipe.net/low-salt-bread-machine-recipe/ although I wonder if the yeast quantities should be teaspoons not tablespoons
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.652250
| 2020-08-26T14:54:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110432",
"authors": [
"Matthias Brandl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122293
|
What is the best way to carry milk to work?
I live in Japan and milk is sold only in cartons here. I take milk to the fridge at work. I currently put it in a black plastic bottle with black cover but it stinks like it is off after only a few days. The milk is fine as far as I can tell. I doubt there is food safe plastic bottles here. I carry by bicycle and the bar fridge is small and at times very crowded as it shared so spillage is a great risk. What is the best solution? I use the milk for adding coffee and cocoa- I may have one drink or many drinks- depends on how sleepy I am that day. I buy 1 litre cartons as I am poor but I couldn't drink 1 litre at work in a week even. The main milk is always fine.
Just for clarification: you are cleaning your container after each use, at minimum emptying it out and washing it every second or third day? Or are you storing the milk longer?
The grocery store might not sell small containers of milk, but do any of the convenience stores sell single serving bottles? (Although those might have a lid that’s torn off so you can’t re-seal it)
Please clarify the question. It seems to me that the solution is to just buy milk near work and store it in the fridge in the same container you bought it in, rather than buy milk near home, change the container, transport by bicycle and store it at work. I suspect that I misunderstood the question though.
@Joe I've never seen a single-serving bottle of milk in Japan, only single-serving cartons.
Bottles are only sold in special stores.
What's wrong with just keeping it in the carton you bought it in? (Whether you bring it from home or buy it near work.)
Temperature has a huge effect on how long milk keeps, IME. Make sure the fridge is getting cold enough and make you're putting the bottle in the coldest part of the fridge that won't freeze. Someplace convenient like the door may be the worst (warmest) place.
The milk liquid is good condition after a couple of days- bubbly and fine smell.
Er, milk shouldn't be bubbly...
There is an old joke... How does a cow carry her milk to work?
I'm assuming it's ESL milk? Would switching to UHT milk be an option?
The key thing is that you empty and wash the container regularly (ideally daily, but at least every few days). If there is a bad smell that is a sign that something is wrong; most likely some milk remained somewhere like a screw top or drops on the lid, which has gone off in some way.
Any bottle sold for drinking water should be food safe in terms of its material, so I would be very surprised if you cannot find anything. However, I would try to find a bottle which:
is easy to clean completely, so no complicated closing mechanism or built-in drinking straw.
will provide reasonable insulation while the bottle is out of the fridge, for example a thermos bottle (which uses vacuum in the walls to insulate the contents).
Anything suitable for carrying hot coffee is likely to work well for your needs, in case that's a useful way to search.
Good advice. Also, just the process of pouring from one container to another exposes it to air for a while. I wonder if there is something in the air where the transfer is occurring that could be contaminating it, if the bottle is being cleaned each time.
I'd be tempted to use a "disposable" drinking water bottle; it could be replaced fairly frequently (and washed every time it's emptied which should be every few days at the longest). But if that takes up too much fridge space, a tip from my parents is to use a small glass jar, with just 1 day's worth in it. I wouldn't buy an insulated bottle, but if the commute is long use an insulated sleeve or pouch. It can be hard to check insulated bottles are completely clean.
Also, be sure to give the screw threads for and in the cap a good clean, probably with a brush. If the contents taste fine but it smells bad, there's a good chance that's where old milk is lingering and going off
wash the container regularly in a dishwasher with a heating element that gets the water up to 200f. - Don't hand wash with 125f water and wonder why....
They don't have a standard for bottle in Japan for consumers. I was considering a travel bottle but it is not dark plastic.
@Mazura does anyone still have near-boiling dishwashers? It's very rare to see over 70°C (260°F) as the hottest program these days on European models, and typical programs are 50-60°C (120-140°F), which do a very good job of getting things clean and fresh
@user2617804 why do you want dark plastic? You sounds as if that's a requirement but milk is usually packaged in translucent containers in most countries, even under bright lights - light doesn't do any harm
@Mazura Different materials have different appropriate cleaning temperatures, so there isn't really a blanket rule. 200f, for example, is going to melt most types of plastic.
"Any bottle sold for drinking water should be food safe" - any bottle sold for drinking water should be food safe ONCE. Reusing the plastic bottles that drinking water and sodas typically come in carries some risk of harbor harmful bacteria and (depending on the type of plastic) chemical leaching. Bottles that are sold empty, specifically for repeated use, should be more trustable.
@NotThatGuy That article's conclusion is that chemical leaching "isn’t normally a concern", and bacterial growth can be mitigated by washing thoroughly (as has been suggested).
The FDA says, "4- 501.112 gives the requirements for the temperature range of the hot water sanitizing rinse. This sets a ceiling of 194°F and lists different lower ends at 165°F and 180°F depending on machine type." https://paperthermometer.com/blogs/posts/what-does-section-4-7-of-the-fda-food-code-mean - If that melts your bottle then it's not the right bottle.
I changed to an American brand of outdoor water bottle.
Sterilized shelf stable milk in small cartons.
https://www.morinagamilk.co.jp/english/products/jp/
Order a bunch and bring the unopened cartons to work. Or ask the store where you shop to start stocking it.
I thought there was a tradition of drinking milk after onsen (hot spring baths), so I’d be surprised if there wasn’t milk available in smaller sized containers. But those might not be designed to re-seal, or flavored (fruit milk, coffee milk, etc)
Maybe not as common, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't any in the US. Isn't the one here from Walmart's US site one of them? It's in a carton and says "refrigerate after opening" on the side. It even says "Made in the USA".
You can get it in the UK, but it's not particularly popular. This is probably because it tastes nothing at all like milk. it is entirely its own flavour & many people, including me, think it's revolting ;))
That is going to spill in the fridge due to shaking.
In the US, Parmalat shelf-stable milk is available in most supermarkets (I'm on the East coast) and from Amazon. As @unlisted mentions above, it has a different taste than fresh milk, but it can stay on the shelf for quite a long time.
@user, no an open carton won't randomly spill in a fridge unless someone knocks it. That might be an issue in a crowded shared fridge, especially if full
I must object to the rascally statement that "every other country has it". In fact my only experience with the stuff is that scene from Speed 3.
@Daron - Assuming that wasn't a laugh track about how crappy it tastes, the stuff is horrible?
@user, no an open carton won't randomly spill in a fridge unless someone knocks it. That might be an issue in a crowded shared fridge, especially if full –
Chris H
It is a crowded shared bar fridge- just opening the door would cause some spray.
@Mazura I am told it is horrible. But I cannot say myself because it is not on the shelves where I live.
Your question is not entirely clear, so I will answer for both possible options.
If you are trying to keep the milk for multiple days in the fridge
It will become unsafe after 3-5 days, there is no way around that. If you switch to UHT milk, it will still be unsafe 3-5 days after opening the container, but it won't taste bad, so some people prefer to do it that way.
So the solution here would be to reduce the amount you are bringing to your work.
If you are bringing new milk daily, but the bottle stinks
You are probably cleaning the bottle improperly, as the dbmag9's answer and some comments mentioned. Here, you have several options, ordered by my personal preference:
Stop using a (typical) bottle.
As ChrisH said, you can start using a jar, just test first if it leaks when you shake it vigorously. You can specifically search for buying a "leakproof jar" if you find that all random jars you have happen to be leaky.
Other alternatives would be Weck bottles with a wide mouth and a flat lid held by metal brackets (I don't think they come in single-day-sizes though),
or a gasketed clip-lid container, there are baby-food-sized ones that hold 200 ml (downside: they aren't convenient for pouring).
Or get creative and use a baby milk bottle - nowadays, you can get bottles with a sealing cap to exchange the nipple during transport.
Many people nowadays use an insulated travel mug with a leakproof lid.
Whichever container you choose, aim for a transparent one, so you can see if it has been washed properly or if it still has a milky layer sticking to it.
Start washing your bottle properly. Many people try to get away with filling the bottle and sloshing it a bit. That never works, especially for fatty contents like milk. You need a spongy brush on a long thin stem, it is sold especially for bottle cleaning (don't use the bristle ones for milk, they are for stuck-on pieces as in fruit juice bottles). You have to stick the brush in and make sure you scrub intensively the whole inner surface with soapy water, and then clean the threads of both bottle and cap. Afterwards, do 3-5 rinses by half-filling it with clean water and sloshing it thoroughly.
If you want to use a dishwasher, note that it only works with a wide-mouthed bottle (50 mm or more) and not too tall. Make sure that it stays vertically during the cycle, it is best to stick it on a spike and have other tall-ish items surrounding it.
As mentioned in comments, single-use bottles can also be used. My environmentalist hairs stand on end when I hear it :( but it would work. It would also be the most expensive solution.
If you only use tiny amounts of milk daily (e.g. to add to coffee or tea) consider buying single-serving milk or creamer instead, like the ones you get in coffee shops. In Europe, they are available in large supermarkets, and I assume that in Japan, you can at least find them online. Alternatively, there is also powdered creamer available.
Baby bottles are perfect - they seal well and are designed to be not just cleaned (formula is worse than milk) but also sanitized. And usually come in different sizes.
@Stephie that's exactly why I suggested them - it is possible to find other bottles of a comparable size, but baby bottles were designed to work exceptionally well with milk. It may still not be optimal, if it becomes the grounds for mobbing ("did our baby bring his bottle to work again"), or hurts the OP's reputation at work (I believe that Japanese companies have an extremely low bar for what counts as an inexcusable eccentricity, but I don't know what's their view of food containers specifically).
Baby bottles with alternate lids to seal them aren't anything new. My parents used them for my younger siblings 35+ years ago. (Presumably they used them 40+ years ago as well, but I don't remember that far back.)
Using a baby bottle has the additional happy benefit of lessening the odds that a co-worker will "borrow" milk when OP isn't looking.
USDA says milk can be kept (refrigerated) for a week (7 days) after it's opened: https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/How-long-can-you-keep-dairy-products-like-yogurt-milk-and-cheese-in-the-refrigerator If the OP is having milk go off only a couple of days after being opened then something else is wrong besides it just being milk. (Source: I live in the US, we only buy groceries once a week so the milk has to last at least a week!)
Baby bottles - you know, those vessels made out of a plastic specifically for milk, +1. And you're supposed to have a bottle brush. @user3067860 Unless you're transferring it in a clean room, even if the bottle is immaculate, it induces contamination. Presumably it's the milk they transfer into another uncovered container, take it to a fridge that gets opened and loaded with new stuff 1000x a day, which is going bad. milk can be kept (refrigerated) for a week provided it is still in its uncontaminated original container and not unduly exposed to pathogens, especially a mouth.
@user3067860 Almost certainly that information is for dairy products sold in the USA. Possibly, but not necessarily for other places where other manufacturing methods are used.
"It will become unsafe after 3-5 days" what sort of milk or fridge do you have? Milk stays good for way longer (source: a bottle of milk in my fridge opened 10 days ago)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.652499
| 2022-11-10T09:19:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122293",
"authors": [
"Amazon Dies In Darkness",
"AndreKR",
"Chris H",
"Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight",
"Daron",
"IconDaemon",
"JS.",
"JoL",
"Joe",
"Mazura",
"N. Virgo",
"NotThatGuy",
"Pablo H",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Spehro 'speff' Pefhany",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9036",
"njzk2",
"rumtscho",
"user2617804",
"user3067860",
"user985366"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115762
|
Why is my bread dough rising this quickly?
I've been making Jim Lahey's no-knead bread pretty much since the recipe first appeared in the New York Times. In the last year or so, I've noticed a strange phenomenon: the recipe says to let the dough rise for 12-18 hrs., but the dough looks ready after 10 hrs, and sometimes as little as 8. Here's today's dough after 10 hrs:
Lahey's advice is: "Dough is ready when it's dotted with small bubbles," and there they are. And that's fine, but I'm wondering why my dough is rising so much more quickly than the recipe specifies. My kitchen isn't unusually warm, so that can't be it, and I'm not using too much yeast. I'm also using active dry yeast, not instant. Here's the recipe for reference:
420g flour
345g water
8g salt
1g yeast
Combine ingredients and mix to form a soft dough. Cover and let rise
12-18 hrs. Turn out onto a floured surface, fold over on itself, and
let rest 15 mins. Shape into ball, cover, and let rise 2 hrs. Preheat
oven to 450F/220C with cast iron Dutch oven inside. Bake dough in
Dutch oven, covered, for 30 mins, then uncover and bake another 15
mins.
Different brand of yeast? Different flour?
@Stephie No to both.
Hm. Are you using a flour from a specific mill or some “standardized” grocery store flour? With my local mill, each year’s harvest will behave a bit differently and it may take a while to “dial in” my recipes.
Reduce the yeast if it's going too fast.
What is the temperature of the location where you let it rise? Has it been stable through all your trials?
How are you measuring your yeast? That’s a very small amount, maybe your scale is off?
"In the past year or so." There's your answer. In the past year or so, time has ceased having meaning. Once herd immunity is achieved, your bread recipe should gradually start returning to normal. (Whatever normal is anyway.)
a 5F difference in kitchen temperature could easily make a 2 hour difference in rising time.
My kitchen isn't unusually warm, so that can't be it
That may be so, but what is the environment of your kitchen like in comparison with Jim Lahey's when he originally produced/tested the recipe? Two major variables in fermentation are temperature and humidity (https://www.polygongroup.com/en-US/blog/the-importance-of-humidity-control-in-bakeries). All other things being equal (e.g. ingredients, technique etc.) these would appear to be the most obvious culprits.
The YouTube baker Bake with Jack (https://youtube.com/c/BakewithjackUk) stresses this point in his training videos to the extent that he states the temperature in his kitchen for all of his recipes, so that people may compensate accordingly. I don't recall any else going as far as actually stating that, but it has certainly helped me achieve more consistent results as a result.
That's certainly one of the variables, yes. What makes me hesitate to think it's the major contributor: 1) i think you need 10 C difference to have the growth time (may have to check that number) and 2) the way i read the question, the bread was riding slower in the same kitchen for a long time, the change happened a year ago.
I noticed that too, but if the core ingredients and process are the same, it has got to be the environment that @crmdgn is working under. Installation or settings of the air conditioning system possibly? Another factor is the water used - has the hardness or chlorine levels changed? I'd have thought though, that these would be fairly obvious.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.653638
| 2021-05-22T16:08:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115762",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Greybeard",
"Stephie",
"crmdgn",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89356
|
How much "buffer" or margin of error is in food safety guidelines?
When I read food safety guidelines, I always get the sense that I should run for the decon shower if I even look at a piece of raw meat. I have to fight the urge to sprint home with my groceries lest the eggs become poisonous on the way. If I thaw meat from the freezer, I worry that one misstep will kill me.
But rationally, I know none of that is true. Aside from the fact that I've been cooking for myself for decades, and I'm still here, we simply wouldn't be here as a species if it were that hard to cook safely. And then there's this thread from a couple of years ago, which seems to say that there's a fair amount of subjectivity in food safety procedures. (But this thread takes a stricter line.)
So: how much difference is there between official food safety doctrine and actual danger? Are there rules that are just oversimplifications in order to minimize human error?
Update
This is not a duplicate of this question. More specifically, the question is similar, but the accepted answer on the other thread doesn't actually address the question of fault tolerance.
A lot of the "time out of fridge" and similar guidelines must have quite a lot of buffer in a cool domestic kitchen compared to a hot commercial kitchen for which they're written. This is because the temperature of the food is what matters and that will change much more slowly if the ambient temperature is closer to fridge temperature. There's less margin for error in the temperature something must reach to be safe, and even less in things like hand washing and not preparing salad with the same tools as raw chicken. A lot of the commercial rules are about proving it's safe as well, even if shifts change.
Much of the advice given here quotes US FDA rules, which go further than many other countries. Recently we had a discussion about Australian guidelines on cooling hot food, which allowed considerably longer. The US still has a higher incidence of food poisoning and especially botulism than many other developed countries, even though it had some of the strictest rules.
Impossible to guess how much buffer is built into the guidelines. But the guidelines are to lower the probability of you contaminating the food. As many food contamination problems show, it is possible for the food to be contaminated before it gets to you. (For instance the recent problem with Romain lettuce from Arizona in US.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.653954
| 2018-04-23T01:41:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89356",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129672
|
Does heat render starfruit safe?
Starfruit or Carambole was shown in 2013 to contain caramboxin, a poison to kidneys and nerves. In people with kidney damage it can cause intoxication, seizures, and death due to insufficient excretion. Even the healthy may sustain kidney damage upon consuming large amounts. Starfruit is also high in oxalic acid, like a number of foodstuffs, which is a main contributor to stones.
Now I know that oxalic acid content is reduced by blanching or cooking that leaches it out into the water, to be discarded. But I cannot find anything specifically about reducing caramboxin. Some mitigation is simple as it too is water-soluble (being dialyzable) and is also said to concentrate in the seeds and surrounding flesh. But what about baking for example? What would this amino acid's decomposition temperature and duration be?
So it's large amounts of star fruit ingestion, or smaller amounts on an empty stomach, that can cause issues. I believe moderate amounts should be fine (unless you're an end-stage renal disease patient on hemodialysis, then avoid at all costs). I didn't know any of that until now.
Looks like the vast majority of the effects are due to oxalate rather than caramboxin, as the oxalate damages the kidneys which results in accumulation of the caramboxin in the body, where it causes neurotoxicity, your question implies that the nephrotoxicity is caused by caramboxin.
There has been an enantioselective total synthesis of caramboxin published in April 2024; I would hope to see more research done on it now. Looking at its chemical structure, I would expect its pyrolytic chemistry to differ significantly from its endogenous agonist analogue, phenylalanine (with a pyrolytic half-life of about 2hr at 180°C, and 0.5-1hr at 200°C)
Many toxins, especially small organic molecules like caramboxin, may degrade at elevated temperatures. Heat can break chemical bonds, rendering the molecule less toxic. Soaking and boiling are the most accessible and practical at home, though they are not guaranteed to eliminate all traces of caramboxin - I didn't find any study with enough information to conclude it's a safe method.
Baking should be less effective than boiling or pressure cooking, since there’s no leaching of the water-soluble toxin.
For individuals with normal kidney function, moderate consumption is generally safe, but for vulnerable populations, processed star fruit products (industrially treated) may be safer options.
I couldn't find any foolproof method to fully deactivate this toxin. It's possible that long lacto-fermentation or enzymatic/chemical neutralization could work, but there are also no known studies. So far there's no effective method to render starfruit free (or down to safe levels) of the caramboxin toxin.
So are you saying that boiling temperatures are capable of partially deactivating caramboxin? Or are you speaking in generalities?
@Sneftel toxins in general, including caramboxin. But there is no info on what temperature / how much can be eliminated, so I didn't add any to the answer.
So if someone is trying to avoid caramboxin for safety reasons, should they feel comfortable using the suggestions you've given?
Thanks for looking into it. I leave the question open in case more becomes known in future. Do you have references with specifics about ferementation's effect on toxins?
@Sneftel I didn't find any info on safety, I edited my answer to include that. I wouldn't recommend anyone to gamble with it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.654170
| 2024-11-28T12:07:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129672",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"Michaelyus",
"Sneftel",
"ariola",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75297"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99820
|
How to get a good fragrance from burnt rosemary?
There's a particular cocktail I'm trying to produce which has a garnish of burnt fresh rosemary. Properly done, the rosemary is burnt with a torch to release some very fragrant, herbal smoke.
However when trying to do this at home, I get smoke that smells like...just smoke. Very little rosemary fragrance.
What's the trick to getting the rosemary aroma to come through?
What's your source of rosemary? Adding that to the question may help folks help you.
Is the rosemary dried or fresh?
What's the source of the recipe?
@FuzzyChef Why? Is very freshly picked rosemary essential? Sounds like an answer to me.
@Erica fresh rosemary
I suspect that you're burning it too much. It's just a guess (so not an answer), and I'd test it only I'm currently damaged and in no fit state for experiments
Phil: because I wasn't sure how fresh it was. If it's dried out, I can see it burning before it gives off any scent. I wasn't going to post that as an answer, though, because I haven't tried it myself.
You need fresh rosemary and give it a quick char and not allow it to burn. That's sort of the same technique of using a blowtorch for crème brulée and the same "doneness" of charred vegetables - caramelized but not burnt
If you're smelling smoke, it is already too burnt to use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.654444
| 2019-06-28T02:46:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99820",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Erica",
"FuzzyChef",
"Phil Frost",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"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
}
|
119579
|
Why did my colored doughnut change colors?
Some time ago, I made a doughnut recipe, I only made yeast doughnut once a few years ago, I don't have experience with yeasted bakery products. I baked the doughnuts instead of frying. I also added some food coloring I made from beetroot and the color was light pink. The coloring was made by cooking beetroot juice with sugar and adding some lemon juice (if I remember right, it turned out a bit too candy like and thick, so I used more lemon juice and water to thin it), the doughnuts turned out light pink. If I remember right, there weren't any problems when they came out of the oven, some time after they were made, they started to loose color unevenly, some of them lost it much earlier and also in different places, they looked like they weren't colored at all. And I found the amount of flour in the recipe to be no were near sufficient, I kneaded and kneaded but it didn't work so I had to use much more flour (probably double the amount in the recipe), but the food coloring couldn't have added that much water. I suspect yeast might have done it, it also tasted a bit too yeasty so that might have accelerated it. What do you think caused it and how can I prevent it from happening the next time?
You may find good pointers here - we are talking about beet in the dough, right?
Welcome to SA! Given that this is something you prepared years ago, and you don't seem to remember exactly how you did it, maybe instead ask about how to color well in the recipe you're about to try?
Thank you for the comment and advice. The first one was the one I made years ago, this one was my second, it has been three weeks at most. I just wanted to emphasize that I don't have experience so I could have missed something. Stephie's comment is great, it's really similar to what happened to my dougnuts.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.654583
| 2022-01-20T16:46:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119579",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Nur",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97439"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34906
|
What makes the 'Cat poo' coffee (Kopi Luwak) flavour worth drinking?
I'm actually on the hunt for this coffee in Melbourne, being it's such a coffee-oriented city:
Where can I buy a cup of 'cat poo' coffee (Kopi Luwak) in Melbourne?, but while discussing it in the travel.SE chat room, we were wondering what it is that makes it worth drinking?
From Wiki and other sources there's some talk about cherries with some beans cause certain enzymes to be produced, but they seem to insist that this wouldn't happen with the same ingredients in another beast? So is it the beans + food, or the animal itself, and what is the resultant flavour - more bitter / sweet than regular coffee, or what?
Bragging rights.
a recent article on the topic : http://narrative.ly/caffeinated-city/from-the-bowels-of-a-beast/
"coffee-oriented city" - is that its reputation within Australia? (From outside) hadn't heard that before.
@hunter2 it competes well with Vancouver, except instead of Starbucks, it's more like Vienna with all the local little coffee shops. And less burnt coffee than Vancouver. Aus/NZ make great coffee (from beans from elsewhere)
Note also that kopi-luwak nearly always results from animal abuse these days (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/19/civet-coffee-abuse-campaigners). Originally the natural droppings of civets were sorted through. Now, many companies cashing in on the fad are keeping the poor things captive, feeding them nothing but coffee cherries (nutritionally deficient), and in general treating them horribly. And despite the modern factory farming methods, we aren't seeing a lower price tag to even venture a justification towards the treatment of the animals.
I've never drunk it (can't stand coffee myself), but the general theory is:
A wet ferment. Some coffee producers have attempted to duplicate some of the processes with enzymes, as you've mentioned.
More likely to be picked closer to peak ripeness. The animals have the advantage that they're picking berries to eat, and will pass over unripe ones to eat later -- unlike human processing which might just look to strip the whole bush.
In talking to one of my co-workers (also not a coffee drinker), and she said that she's had coffee right after it's been processed, and it was dramatically different from the stuff that was available in Europe or North America ... which leads me think that freshness might be a more important quality than some of the other aspects of the highly expensive coffee. (unless you're talking about psychological effects)
You mean that your co-worker tried this specific coffee fresh, right? Eg, that she was in Indonesia (or Vietnam, I guess), near a farm/facility. (I ask) Because normal coffee is certainly best right after processing, but is of course widely available in much of EU and NA.
@hunter2: fresh, but not this particular type. And I know she's a tea person typically, so I don't know how much fresh roasted coffee in the US. (she said that she'd drink coffee if it was a good as the stuff she had in .... somewhere in asia, can't remember where she was exactly)
The second point unfortunately doesn't apply to intensively farmed kopi luwak, where the coffee is simply fed to civets in captivity. (And of course, this is all assuming it's not counterfeit... the Wikipedia article is a bit of a depressing read.)
prices mentioned on wikipedia seem high. Saw it for sale at the airport of Jakarta, Indonesia for about $75-$100 per pound (and that's at inflated airport prices, can probably get it cheaper in the country, especially outside the major cities, but didn't look, am no coffee drinker either).
@hunter2 : a recent article on civet coffee mentions that they roasting at higher altitudes might be a difference ... so it might not just be a matter of freshness.
Interesting, thanks for the link. Yup, there's a lot of possible factors. It's an interesting idea that altitude of roast could have some effect, although I can only imagine it would be a fairly subtle one - and maybe not something that would stand out so much to your coworker (compared to other factors). Now I'm trying to think about altitudes of coffees .. pretty sure some S.American coffee regions are high-ish ...
@hunter2 : I'm going to assume that altitute would be a factor in terroir ... as would temperature, what side of the mountain it's on (morning sun vs. evening sun), how much rain it gets and when (early in the season vs. closer to harvest), etc.
Kopi luwak is supposed to be smooth, earthy and less bitter compared to regular coffee. According to this blog the enzymes in the civet cat's stomach break down the protein in the coffee that is supposed to be responsible for the bitterness in the coffee. Though some coffee drinkers suggest that it tastes like instant coffee!!
As someone who has had the coffee, the main feature is that the coffee is far less bitter. As mentioned, when the beans are digested whole they go through a sort of fermentation while in the digestion tract. The Vietnamese coffee brand, Trung Nguyen, claims to have duplicated this process chemically, without the use of civets. I am not a super connoisseur of coffee but I would say to try that before you decide to dedicate some serious money towards it and see if it's worth it to you.
Suffering
'Nothing'.
Personally, I wasn't really attracted by the description, but when I was offered some (on somebody else's dishes, and the alternative was instant), I gave it a try. My vote is squarely in the 'cachet' pile - that it's just something exotic and expensive for its own sake, or a 'placebo' kind of situation. The stuff I had was fine, but really didn't taste special. Would not pay extra for it.
But that's just IM-NS-HO. I realize this is a subjective answer, but if you've already read up about it a bit ... the Wikipedia page lists the supposed pros and cons, so you're here mostly for opinions, right? Or something beyond what's listed on Wiki?
Edit: Removed 'joke answer', because SE is no place for jokes. Also, it may have been offensive ... and not that funny.
Edit: Oh yeah - as for specific characteristics, my impression was that it was low in acidity, and a little 'thin'. At the time, I assumed that the latter was my fault / bad preparation - although I used the same method and apparatus for other coffees with good result, and tried a few times with the Luwak (or 'Luwak', as it may be)(trying to brew it a little stronger, etc). I believe both are characteristics noted elsewhere (eg, Wiki).
This answer would be a little easier to take seriously if you'd written it in a less sensationalist way. Some parts of it are probably true (and are indeed in the Wikipedia article); there's no need to go on to make things up and insult the OP.
Yeah, I was being silly. The part from "Seriously" is a real answer, though. So, OK, I'll edit. I wasn't trying to insult the OP, sorry if it came off that way.
@Joe, seems I can't comment on your answer anymore. If I'm understanding you right, though, it sounds like your coworkers experience isn't especially relevant. There could be a lot of reasons to explain her preference - type of bean, roast level, grind, freshness since roast & grind (as opposed to harvest), preparation method, etc. If "somewhere in asia" means 'Vietnamese-style' coffee .. well, search for it - it's good and you can probably find some near you (and it would be different enough to appeal to a non-coffee person, although not strictly about freshness).
and given the high percentage of "fake" kopi luak for sale worldwide, how can you be sure you got the real stuff?
Short answer: I can't. Slightly longer: How certain can you ever be about this kind of thing? Unless you personally oversee the process, you trust people. In this case, I was given a whole package (by someone who isn't a coffee drinker, who had in turn received it as a gift), so I had the label and such. I searched and found the manufacturer's site. The package I had looks like the one on the mfg's page, and they look like a fairly professional operation (I think I searched a little further on the company name). Far from 'proof', but I'd call it fairly plausible.
Uhh .. would whoever downvoted me care to leave an explanatory comment? (As is standard/good practice ... And as Jefromi did for the earlier, less appropriate version of this answer - after which I edited)
@Joe, yeah, I agree, that absolutely sounds reasonable. (I happen to know that some Thai beans are identified as 'rainy season harvest', and depending on where you buy, you can get beans from a specific mountain - not sure if it gets mountain-face specific.) But again, I'd think that would usually be pretty subtle. ( Responding down here because I've been pushed down below comment-worthiness again - that'll teach me to post, I guess ...)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.654770
| 2013-06-24T14:28:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34906",
"authors": [
"Brenda Fields",
"Cambria Dooley",
"Cascabel",
"David Fitts Sr",
"Dot to dot",
"Dynoking",
"Joe",
"Lina Sormin",
"Mark Mayo",
"Matthew",
"Pete Becker",
"Power Player9",
"Toby Mak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"hunter2",
"jwenting",
"wataash"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
118185
|
How to clean caked on stains from juicing vegetables?
I've got a "Green Star" twin gear juicer which I have used to juice a variety of vegetables, but mostly carrots and celery. I always juice the celery last, as that seems to minimize the amount of direct orange staining from the carrots. But over time I have noticed a buildup or "caking" of stains on various surfaces that the juice touches despite cleaning after each use with warm soapy water. The stains are brownish in color and form a "film" that seems to increase in thickness over time.
In the past I have found that once the stain gets "thick" enough I can scrape it off if I have the appropriate plastic tool or even my fingernails, however only on certain surfaces (some are hard to reach or I don't have a suitable edge for the shape of the surface). This has also worn the tip of my plastic cleaning device that came with the unit down to where it's not much good for cleaning any more anyway.
I have recently tried a cleaner that contains oxalic acid, and while this seems to help, the directions say to not leave it on the surface for more than a minute but even 5-10 minutes applied directly to part of the stain doesn't break it down. I have tried soaking the strainer in vinegar for half an hour, but this also was insufficient.
Here are some pictures showing the staining:
This picture is of the end piece which controls pulp ejection. I did a test where I left a blob of cleaning with oxalic acid for 10 minutes. As you can see it helped somewhat but did not remove the stain:
Update:
I have tried soaking in water and after around 36 hours it still isn't loosening up any.
As a note, I also have a similar problem with the glass bottles I store the juice in until I drink it. In this case it's a much thinner film, but it does not completely rinse off and also builds up over time. I used to use a plastic bristle cleaner and it worked presumably because the film doesn't stick to glass as well as it does plastic, but I kept breaking the bottles trying to pull out the cleaner - the mouth is very narrow and it was very difficult to get something that would both fit into the opening and be wide enough to reach all the insides. I'm using a thinner scrubber now but it can't reach everywhere. I tried soaking a patch overnight in lime juice as well as an hour with oxalic acid and neither really made a noticable difference.
Soak in vinegar. CLR solution on the metal bits.
@mcalex "I have tried soaking the strainer in vinegar for half an hour, but this also was insufficient." This was before taking the picture. How long would you recommend?
I'd try overnight, But if there is no difference at all after 1/2 an hour, then maybe try soaking in CLR. There's a caveat about using it with plastics, but IIRC instructions say to mix with water in a plastic bowl so should be ok.
This doesn't look like a stain, it is more of a buildup. It seems to consist of fruit pulp which has dried onto the juicer parts.
Getting rid of the buildup
Luckily, fruit pulp can be softened by water, even though it may take some time if it is very ancient. It will be indeed better to add something to the water, but as you note, the stronger acids like oxalic acid may be too aggressive to the plastic itself. The weak culinary acids like citric acid or ascorbic acid are usually made from fruit itself, so they are not only rather weak, there is also good reason why fruit matter will be quite resistant to them.
So, my suggestion for the buildup is to soak all parts for maybe 2-3 days in water with some dishwasher detergent in it. The water itself will already soften quite a bit of it, and the detergent is your best bet for attacking dried-on food. If you are afraid of damaging the plastic because it is exposed for such a long time, you can also leave it for only a short time in a detergent bath, maybe as short as 3-4 hours, and then pour out and continue with clean water.
Once the whole thing has softened, you should be able to get it off by diligently working with a brush. If you have lost or used up the small brush that comes with the juicer, use a toothbrush. Then rinse and let dry.
Once you have got rid of anything that is caked on, you can again use the juicer. It may have gotten actual stains - that is, the plastic may have gotten a different color - but that is only a cosmetic problem.
Regular maintenance
These juicers are intended to be taken apart and washed after each use, or once daily if you are using them throughout the day. When you switch to a daily washing, you won't get such a buildup any more. The juicer parts will only have some wet fruit pulp on the surface, which can be handwashed in a basin easily, just like you would with a bowl that held fruit salad, except that it's a bit of a chore to get all the nooks and crannies. The exception is the screen, where the pulp clogs the holes, and lodges itself in the place where the perforated metal meets the plastic frame. There, you have to spend some minutes with a small brush (again, the original one or a toothbrush) to get it clean. The body of the juicer can also be wiped easily with a damp cloth, but not dripping wet, because the casing is not waterproof.
If you only make your juice in the morning and don't have time to wash everything before you leave, it is sufficient to take it apart and dump the parts in a basin of clean water, they will still be very easy to clean in the evening.
If you happen to get to a point where you have dried-on juice and pulp which wasn't cleaned in the first couple of days (but not hardened to the state you are showing in your pictures, more a fruit-leather state), then a handheld steam cleaner works much better than any firm tools. It is especially good for getting the gunk out of the front rings where the casing meets the removable parts.
Just to note, I have always taken the juicer apart and cleaned out each piece after each use with the brush, so I don't think it can be pulp per se. As I don't use it every day (I make batches which tend to last no longer than about 3 days with special airtight bottles in the fridge) it will be perfect timing to let me do a soak test for 2-3 days. Thanks!
Well it's been close to 36 hours and it does seem any looser than it started. I have been taking it out every 8 hours or so to check and try scrubbing it. I also updated the question to note I have similar problems with the glass bottles that store the juice.
I'd try a soak with home brewing cleaner/steriliser (example is just the brand I have). It's pretty good on fruit stains as well as tea etc. You may need to scrub as well, and make it up a little stronger than it says.
I doubt you'll ever get it looking as good as new, but this should help quite a bit.
Looks like the active ingredients are Sodium Carbonate and Troclosene Sodium Disodium Metasilicate. Thanks!
Harsh ways: acid (you tried), alkalies (sodium carbonate), boiling water, oxidizing agents (peroxide or chlorine)
You might consider an enzymatic cleaner. These are available as dishwashing detergents and laundry detergents. Example:
https://spoilerfoiler.com/enzyme-based-dishwasher-detergent/
Rather than harsh chemicals these use various enzymes to digest the molecules responsible for stains. Supposedly they are good for grass stains. Enzymes will not digest the plastic or corrode the metal. I am not sure what is available where you are but these products have been on the shelves in the US for some years.
I'm going to start a test with peroxide as I have that handy, thanks!
Well, household strength hydrogen peroxide seemed to do a little bit, but it's hard to say. I now trying something with sodium carbonate peroxide, and it seems to at least loosen the heavier bits up and make it easier to scrape off some of what's left, but it's still slow going.
For this i would recommend you find a lactic acid kitchen appliance descaler. Failing that, i would then suggest dilute sodium hypochlorite.
For either of those two chemicals you will need to follow the instructions and MSDS precautions.
After cleaning the buildup, I use to soak the parts in warm water with bleach. This removes all the tinting from carrots or other vegetables. After the soak (I use overnight, +- 8h), make sure to wash all parts carefully to get rid of the bleach.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.655572
| 2021-12-13T17:21:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/118185",
"authors": [
"Michael",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41675",
"mcalex"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117282
|
Will dry ice damage kitchen equipment?
I have been reading an article on using dry ice to make ice cream. Aside from the usual safety precautions for dealing with a material that sublimates at -109.3F, I am concerned about what effects it might have on kitchen equipment. On my first attempt I used a hammer to break up the dry ice in the bag, but it took an excessive amount of time to powderize it sufficiently. It occurred to me that it would have been much quicker to break the dry ice into manageable pieces and then put them in the (electric) blender to finish the job. However, I am unsure what effect this will have and don't want to have to replace an expensive piece of equipment because the cold ruined the blades, cracked the glass of the container, or caused other issues.
Will powderizing dry ice in an electric blender damage it, cause excessive wear, or noticeably reduce its service life? Since dry ice sublimates, should I remove the rubber seal so it isn't damaged? Would I be better off getting a cheap "disposable" blender for this purpose or it is fine to use the one I have?
Update: Per the question in the comments, the specific model is Oster Pro 1200.
I have occasionally pulverized chunks of dry ice in my high speed blender with no ill effects.
@moscafj what material was the blender housing made of?
@ChrisH Vitamix with plastic carafe. Not sure what type they use.
@moscafj it looks like polycarbonate - that would make sense as you can use it for all realistic water-based food temperatures, and it's tough and transparent. PC should be good down to -40°C (or F) according to Wikipedia, and that's by no means a hard cutoff, just approximately where it becomes brittle. Dry ice is considerably colder of course. I wouldn't leave it sitting around in there, or drop the jug after use, but if the dry ice is kept moving it should be fine. You may see a little surface crazing appear if you make a habit of it as I've seen with PC at high temp.
@ChrisH agree...as I said, "occasional"....where I am, dry ice is rather pricey. In addition,I don't like the effort to reward ratio in using it for ice-cream. So, it is not a regular practice for me. I think your answer below is a comprehensive and helpful response.
@moscafj I don't even know how I'd get hold of some at all (short of making it with CO2 and liquid nitrogen). But LN ice cream is a staple food in research departments
Is it actually glass, and not plastic? What's the make and model
@ChrisH Yes, the jar is glass. I have updated the question with the model info.
I haven't tried dry ice in kitchen equipment, but have destroyed a plastic measuring jug with liquid nitrogen (the scale had become illegible so I took it into work where it would be handy, then abused it). The failure mode could be expected to be relevant to plastic and glass used with dry ice.
Many plastics become brittle at low temperatures - this can even be seen when using some plastic food storage boxes in a domestic freezer. Cooling also causes thermal contraction, and most of this will happen by the time you get down to dry ice temperatures. Because of the low thermal conductivity of plastics (and glass) the inside shrinks but the outside doesn't because it doesn't cool much. In the case of my jug, the strengthening/supporting ring on the bottom stayed at room temperature when the rest cooled, and the bottom dropped clean out of it. While dry ice is far warmer than LN, it's still cold enough for embrittlement and a lot of thermal contraction.
That's not to say it will fail, only that it might. Dry ice doesn't make such good contact with the container as LN, but localised cracking could still be an issue with plastic parts. A glass jug would likely fail completely even with localised thermal cracking. Borosilicate (some Pyrex, either old or European - I don;t know if it's used in blenders but it's possible for ones that are mean to take heat) or metal should be fine (careful handling the metal).
I'd research the cost of a replacement part, but probably risk it, taking a few steps to reduce the risk:
precool if possible, in a freezer (for even contraction; this will also reduce the amount of dry ice you lose)
add the other ingredients first if possible (though you sound like your recipe breaks it up before mixing it in). When making LN ice cream, drizzling it into the ingredients while stirring is the usual method (this is me holding the bowl while one person stirs and another pours).
add the dry ice through a feeder cap if your blender has one (mine does) with it running
An experiment
Many blenders use polycarbonate jugs. This is a tough plastic that can handle hot liquids, so is a good choice if you're putting soup in there.
I had an offcut of polycarbonate (Lexan) at home, and while I don't have access to dry ice, I can get liquid nitrogen, which gets even colder. The first thing I tried was cooling a piece of aluminium to -100°C (a little cooler than dry ice) and resting it on the polycarbonate for a few minutes. There was no cracking . Even immersing the polycarbonate in liquid nitrogen for several minutes didn't make it brittle. So a polycarbonate jug (not all plastic blender jugs are polycarbonate, but many are) should be absolutely fine with dry ice.
Applicability to glass
The specific model in question here uses a glass jug. I can't find anything definitive on the type of glass. If it's borosilicate (as suggested by some branding, according to a review, but I'd be very wary of sharing that assumption) I'd expect it to be fine. If it's normal soda-lime glass, there's a small risk it could fail suddenly.
Not unique to dry ice, any kind of ice apparently dulls sharp blender blades over time. If you're going to crush any kind of ice, you should get dull square heavy blades or even specific "ice blades" for that purpose.
However, if you're just experimenting, that shouldn't be a problem just doing it once or twice.
That link doesn't refer to "any kind of ice". It's specifically about water ice. The same may well be true about dry ice, I don't know.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.656180
| 2021-09-21T16:00:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117282",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Michael",
"bdsl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33062",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117294
|
Salmon slicer vs Brisket slicer? I can only afford one
At this time I can only afford to buy one slicer - a salmon slicer or a brisket slicer. I regularly cure and smoke fish (Salmon, tuna, etc) and love cutting it very thin. I also regularly cook large cuts of meat (roasts, brisket, etc), some of which I also like to cut very thin, and certainly nice thick slices for some too. I'm imagining that each knife will excel at doing the job that's in its name and maybe do pretty good at the other task, but I've never owned either of them so I don't really know.
In searching the internet, and watching videos on YouTube no one describes the characteristics of these two types of knives in a way that is useful to draw any conclusion.
Which of these two knives do you think would be the more effective at both tasks?
As examples, the two knives I was Oogling were the Wusthoff Ikon 12" salmon slicer, and the Dalstrong 14" Shogun slicer.
Probably doesn't matter much either can work, but do you have specific knives you are comparing? Linking them to your question would help.
Thanks, I just edited my post to include an example of each
You're asking about two "types" of knife that are almost indistinguishable from each other, and in fact some manufacturers don't bother to distinguish at all, just calling their knife a "slicer". When I look at Bob Vila's recommendations for brisket knives, for example, most of his picks are these general "slicers" and do in fact look identical to knives being sold as "salmon slicers".
So, based on not owning either type (I just use a general 11" utility knife), I'd suggest that simply getting a highly-rated slicer will suit both purposes admirably.
I don't know about Bob Vila's culinary skills, but based on the number of home renovation mistakes he made on his show (about home renovation), I'd recommend looking for a second opinion. (one that comes to mind was a brick layer explaining why they did a complete row before stacking up (to give the mortar time to cure), and he asked if he could try ... and he started stacking up)
Yeah, but there aren't very many recommendations for either brisket or salmon knives that are independent of the manufacturers, and whatever Bob's other qualities are, he's at least a definite third party. Which honestly suggests to me that one doesn't need either, but then I'm not the OP.
Fair enough. I'd personally look for what qualities make a good salmon slicer vs. a brisket slicer, and look to see if there are any conflicting issues, or if there are any "must have" features in one of them. (I saw a site that mentioned that salmon slicers had to go through scales & bones, whereas a brisket slicer seems more generic)
I think the OP is just asking for a slicer for making thin slices from fileted or cured salmon, not a fileting knife.
I'm completely on board with you on this one @FuzzyChef, there's really no difference between the two. I smoke salmon and brisket and I've never even looked at one of these, I find I do just fine with my long carving knife.
Quite possibly someone who owns one of those knives will have an opinion. I posted my answer just in case no such person is answering on SA.
I have that exact victorinox slicer and I can confirm that it cuts brisket just fine and will also cut cold smoked cured salmon as thin as 1mm thick with zero tearing. Just need to sharpen the edge every 5-10 times using it.
Seroki: that sounds like an answer, post it!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.656645
| 2021-09-22T22:15:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117294",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Wolf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95673",
"moscafj",
"seroki"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117607
|
How safe is the patina layer on seasoned cast iron or carbon steel cookingware?
How safe are iron and carbonsteel pans? Or can they be misused making them unsafe?
For instance, have food safety authorities already reviewed this? Is there a regulation or at least a published opinion from an official body? For example, something like this opinion the European Food Safety Authority has published on PTFE (like Teflon) and PTFE coated cooking ware.
In order to have iron pans and carbonsteel to be non-stick one creates a patina layer on them by seasoning it. That is, burning fats and oils in thin layers onto the surface of the pan, creating a black layer of pyrolised and oxydized hydrocarbons (and probably all sorts of chemicals). (And it also changes the metal structure of the surface)
How is it with this 'burnt' patina layer? Is that layer safe? Or is it typically safe, but can it be unsafe when not properly done?
The specific section in the EFSA article is
"3.1.3.1. Migration from food contact materials, including non-stick coatings used on cookware"
The article is EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM), et al. "Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and perfluorooctanoic acid in food." EFSA journal 16.12 (2018): e05194.
The close reason is not spot on. This is not a question about nutrition or medical advice. It is a question about food safety.
A very shorthand way of determine if it is a safety or a health question: if you are asking about the danger of landing in hospital within 2-3 days of eating, and the hospital could potentially trace your condition back to the portion of food that caused it, that's food safety. It usually applies to things like getting an e.coli infection from improperly stored food, but could also include things like "I ate lead paint". Agencies like the USDA publish exact guidelines to determine the difference between "safe" and "not safe" and we can tell you what they include. But if you are asking...
... about possibly getting some kind of long-term health problem down the road, as in "did studies show that this might eventually be connected to more cancer", then we consider it a health question and it is a major closing reason for us. As far as I can tell, you are asking the second type of question. But if it is the first, you can reword so it is clear that you are asking if the USDA has issued a warning that cast iron pans are not considered food-safe and has forbidden their use.
@rumtscho I would strongly disagree that food safety is just microbial safety, physical safety, acute toxicity or things that get you directly in the hospital within 2 to 3 days after consuming the unsafe food. But fair enough, I would accept if food safety issues like chronic toxicity, carcinogeneity, mutagenicity (which are risks associated with foods and not about nutrition or good health) are considered a part of food safety that is off-topic.
@SextusEmpiricus and they are off-topic. This community has decided that we will not venture into that area, for various reasons.
@rumtscho I have edited the question to relate it more strongly with descriptions of food safety as reported before by the EFSA when dealing with Teflon pans. (And my question is whether there is similar information/research/knowledge for iron pans. I did not make the question like you suggested 'whether the EFSA/USDA have issued warnings', because I know that this question has not been dealt with yet by EFSA or USDA, but that doesn't say if and why it is safe). But I have started to doubt whether, even when on the edge of being on topic, this question might be answered here.
Thank you for making the effort to edit the question. I removed the last parts which are problematic for our scope, and I am reopening. We will still have to follow our usual policy and remove answers which are not within our very restrictive scope of food safety. Especially any answers which are not based on an official statement of a regulatory authority are removed from questions with this tag.
As an aside, I looked into the contents of our food safety tag info, to see if we have a definition. We don't, but we have linked the Wikipedia article, which gives a pretty good feel for what falls under food safety and what doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_safety.
@rumtscho but that wiki sketches a view of food safety that includes risks due to chronic exposure and not just acute risks.
@rumtscho I have changed "Have food safety authorities already reviewed this?" into "For instance, have food safety authorities already reviewed this?". There is not much research on this topic, such that food safety authorities have not published information about this in some official form. In this strict form the question is easily answered with 'no, there are no official regulations or opinions published by food safety authorities'....
... But if food safety authorities had already something published about this, then I would not have needed to ask this question. The problem is that it is difficult to find anything on this topic. There is information about Teflon pans and the coatings, but there is no information about the seasoning coating on the iron pans. I have looked for it but did not find anything and that's why I ask the community. An answer like 'it is safe', or 'it is unknown', with the argument 'because authorities have nothing written about it' would be unsatisfying....
I understand that this is very unsatisfying for you, but we stick indeed only to what has been reviewed and resulted in some kind of official statement. If they have not, then the question will have to remain unanswered.
.... Looking into your meta-pages I have found that there is a bit of reluctance to have questions about health or safety that can not be answered without resources from official food safety authorities. That might mean that it is not 'off-topic' but instead something like 'too broad' or 'unfit for the platform'. I am not sure whether there are close reasons like that on this platform, but I would not mind if this question get's closed for such reason. (rather that 'it is difficult to be answered here' than an unsatisfying answer)
Interestingly, while I can find papers on seasoned cast iron and microbial safety, I don't see any on the toxicity or lack thereof for the seasoning itself. Arguably it's just burnt oil and its therefore no more unhealthful than any other burnt oil, but I can't find a reliable source for that.
@FuzzyChef I believe there is also a little research on the leaking of iron into the food. But indeed, nothing about the patina layer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.656959
| 2021-10-24T12:43:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117607",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Sextus Empiricus",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96134",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117613
|
Are there stoves with automatic shutoff burners?
It's so easy to burn food; all it takes is one distraction. And oil fires are no fun (do not use water). I am looking for a stove (either gas and electric) where the burners can be set on a timer and automatically shut themselves off, much like microwaves. It would be better still if heat profiles such as "high for 5 min, then simmer for 20 min" could be programmed and then reused. Is such a stove on the market?
A closely related question was asked back in 2013 but the answer has a broken link and is very out of date.
There might be some appliances that work like this. The instant pot will switch out of ‘sauté’ mode after 30 minutes or so.
Does this answer your question? Are they're any ovens that have Programmable Stove top element features like an OVEN start stop feature?
Unfortunately the answer is very out of date with a broken link.
I want this! I want a normal full-size smart range and oven, both with ability to automate the times and temperatures via script or remote. Probe thermometer support would be sweet! Imagine these scenarios: 1. Rice: Bring pot to a boil, then simmer for 20 min, then turn off. 2. Bread preheat: At 5am, set oven to 550°F and set alarm timer notification for 1 hour. 3. Roast: Bake until prob thermometer reaches 120°F then turn off the oven. 4. Season cast iron: Heat to 550°F for 30 min, then turn off. So many possibilities!
@Beausmith: A raspberry PI that can turn the burner dials with drive belts? Safety first: if the temperature (thermal IR camera and/or computer vision of visible burning) gets too high sound an alarm and then the human turns things off. In addition to a fire blanket which should be in all kitchens (multiple safety features!). It can also remind the human when it's time to stir or flip.
I would also love a stove top that beeped every X minutes to warn me that it is still on. Maybe I can piggy back a "is there anything like that?" question here.
@beausmith At least for ovens both timer and temperature probe driven controls is well established in the market. I used to program mine with sequences like “turn on to at , cook for , turn off”. Bought it in 2005, iirc. A Bosch/Siemens/Neff Model. Covering use cases 2-4 in your comment.
Hi Kevin, I am afraid we follow the no-shopping-recommendations rule of most of the Stack Exchange network. This means that the "are there" part of the question is already answered in the old one. If you meant to ask "who sells such ovens", this is off-topic, so it cannot be the factor which separates the new question from the old one. If you meant something else by outdated, and were not asking about current models, you can edit accordingly.
don't think you'll find anything for gas, but many induction stoves offer timers, and will also auto-shutoff if the pan/pot/etc is removed
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.657468
| 2021-10-24T23:57:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117613",
"authors": [
"CobaltHex",
"Joe",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Kevin Kostlan",
"Rick",
"Stephie",
"beausmith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96141",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119770
|
What does this "France only" symbol mean on a coffee package?
This is a common pack of Lavazza ground coffee:
but at the bottom there is this symbol:
What does it mean? And what is specific about France here?
I find it ironic that the "France Only" sign is in English.
@GdD it's ironic, but my answer explains why ("France only" == "Ignore outside France")
@GdD And that it apparently comes from Italy? Or is this a common brand over there? I neither drink coffee nor live in the EU, so I've never heard of it.
Lavazza is a common brand of coffee on this side of the pond, and you can find it in the US as well @DarrelHoffman.
I think it's a recycling vs. trash thing.
If I understand the imagery, the coffee bag should go in the trash in France and it should go in the recycling bin in other EU (mostly) countries.
ah, yes, I didn't realize the bag was a trash bag. My mind was still focused on coffee so I was wondering if it was some kind of weird French filter, or something like that :)
My understanding is slightly different. It can't be recycled in France, but the symbol only applies in France. In other countries it's inapplicable and should be ignored
In (most if not all of) the UK, for example, it won;t go in kerbside recycling, but there are a few possibilities to recycle coffee packaging. Now I think of it, that should be an answer
The Grüner Punkt on the left is a European symbol that confirm the manufacturer pays a tax. In France, this symbol is no more mandatory because it is ambiguous and can be misleading. Clearer symbols like the one on the right are becoming mandatory. They better help people to figure out what to do with their trash. In Germany, the Grüner Punkt tells the item must go to the recycling bin.
@jlliagre it does mean it goes in the same bin as recyclables, but not that it's recycled: "The Green Dot logo merely indicates that a company has joined the Green Dot scheme, and not necessarily that the package is fully recyclable." (quote from Wikpiedia)
@ChrisH In Germany, yes. The policy is country dependent. Whether something collected in the recycling bin will actually be recycled or not can only be a best-effort scenario. Technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness are the limiting factors.
Even in France, this symbol isn’t particularly useful — its accuracy depends on the capabilities of the recycling centre your recycling bin gets taken to! The recycling centres where I live have been greatly improved over the last few years and many packages with “trash-only” symbols can be processed there (albeit not coffee packages AFAIK).
It is recycling vs rubbish.
The symbol says put it in the general rubbish bag. But the symbol only applies to France. In most places (e.g. the UK, hence the labelling in English) you'd do the same, though there are a few recycling schemes that take these bags. But only France requires that label.
You could interpret the text, combined with the use of English as "ignore the symbol above if not in France.
@J... NO: t's really rather different. See my comments under Max's answer. LDPE may be recyclable in the UK, but that's irrelevant when there's a layer of foil. UK-specific coffee packaging says "not currently recyclable"
This is the correct answer. It says "the above indication applies only if you are in France; please refer to your local laws/recommendations".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.658123
| 2022-02-07T12:50:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119770",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Clockwork",
"Darrel Hoffman",
"GdD",
"Stephen Kitt",
"Thomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97828",
"jlliagre"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107478
|
My stock made from leftover rotisserie chicken is very gelatinous. I thought only uncooked chicken bones made stock gelatinous. Any explanation?
Everything I read about making stock indicates that using raw chicken will create a gelatinous stock. I used leftover rotisserie chicken and it is delicious but very gelatinous. I let it simmer a LONG time, at least 6 hours. I did not skim as it was simmering. After straining, I poured it into jars, let it cool before putting in the refrigerator. I believe there had to be a good deal of fat because there was some skin on the carcass but there was not a layer of white fat on top after refrigerating.
My question is: why was there no fat layer? Gelatinous is good but if I wanted less, what would I do different? Did I make mistakes not skimming, letting it cool to room temperature before refrigerating?
Fat will thicken a stock, but will not make it gelatinous. Gelling comes from collagen which comes from the bones or — in my opinion — even better from the joints.
My experience is that this is easier to achieve from a cooked bird than a raw one rather than the other way around. The gelling may have locked up some of the fats, but you also may not have had as much as you expected even with the added skin just because rotisserie chicken tends to have some cooked out or rendered.
My anecdotal experience is that the longer you simmer with bones and cartilage, the more collagen is released and cooking down concentrates it more giving more gelling to the stock. I tend to call mine consomme, but that is really only correct if it has been clarified.
If you really want a rich, well gelled one, get some chicken feet and include it in your stock pot! For the opposite, if you want no gelling, my practice is to increase the amount of meat, limit the bones and cartilage and do not simmer long, and I myself would normally do that with raw poultry rather than cooked, simmering for minutes, not hours.
Cooked bones work fine, but depending on how they were cooked and for how long it may change how long you need to boil them to derive the maximum thickness. The ideal length of time for extracting gelatin from raw bones is about four hours. After that the gelatin starts to break down and loses its thickening power.
Also, the more you can cut up the bones, etc. the faster you extract the flavor (grind them in a food processor for the ultimate. You should be able to derive most of the flavor in 45-60 minutes this way. Also, if you grind up your bones, etc. then it will make its own raft if you want to make consommé).
Because I butcher chickens a lot but also cook them whole sometimes I end up with a combination of cooked and uncooked parts; and because I'm lazy I often just throw them all into a stock pot to make broth. But when I want to be a purist and make broth or consommé to store for other recipes I only use the raw parts so there are no extra seasonings, etc. in the stock. Probably unnecessary, but there you go.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.658527
| 2020-04-11T19:03:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107478",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109628
|
How does cutting a pork shoulder affect cooking time?
I have an approx. 10 pound pork shoulder that I would like to smoke on a charcoal grill. Recipes commonly list that you should smoke a shoulder for about 60 to 90 minutes per pound (depending on cooking temperature and other factors).
How would cutting this 10lb shoulder in half into two 5lb shoulders affect cook time?
Would it simply divide the time needed by half or is there a sort of "curve" that decreases cook time based on size? Any tips for how to properly divide the shoulder?
edit I do have a nice, digital meat thermometer that I'll be using to determine when the cut is actually finished. Cooking time is still important though, so I can get a rough estimate about when it'll be finished and ready to serve (give or take a half hour or so, hopefully).
As moscafj pointed out, the old minutes-per-unit-weight guides were flawed, largely due to the fact that the rate at which the center of a piece of meat heats up is more related to how far it is from the surface than the mass of the whole piece of meat, and those two factors depend a lot on the shape of the meat; consider a long, flat hanger steak cut from the diaphragm, relative to a much thicker piece of round roast from the back leg; it's easy to see that even if both weigh a pound, the long, flat one will cook through more quickly than the roughly-spherical chunk.
What moscafj's answer missed, however, is that pork shoulder is a hard-working piece of meat, responsible with holding the pig off the ground and as such, has a lot of connective tissue that takes time at temperature to break down. moscafj's advice would be very sensible and indeed outright correct for a relatively tender, fast-cooking cut like a loin or rib roast (though these are not often smoked, simply because a smoker isn't optimised for said fast cooking).
For a slow-cooking cut like shoulder, however, both the time it takes to hit minimum temperature and the time it spends afterwards breaking down collagen and becoming tender are important. One can approximate this by designating a higher temperature to finish cooking at, reasoning that the time it took to get from the minimum temperature to that one is about as long as it takes for the collagen to break down, but this is still equating a change in temperature with an amount of time, which can be unreliable as described in my first paragraph.
The thing to check for with a cut like shoulder is tenderness. Kenji Lopez-Alt's recipe for slow-roasted pork shoulder calls for an 8-12 pound bone-in, skin-on shoulder to roast at 250 degrees Fahrenheit/ 120 degrees Celsius 'until a knife or fork inserted into the side of the shoulder shows very little resistance when twisted, about 8 hours'. Using a smoker instead of an oven shouldn't affect that timing.
Regarding your actual bolded question
Apologies for spending three paragraphs pontificating; I wanted to make sure we had a solid grounding in the reasoning behind my answer, rather than just providing a recommendation.
Cutting your roast in half will reduce the time it takes to hit the minimum temperature to start breaking down collagen, but it won't affect how long the collagen itself takes to break down once it has hit that temperature. I would estimate that somewhere around five to six hours, assuming the 250F/120C cooking temperature, would be a good time to start testing for tenderness with a fork.
In terms of tips on how to physically split the shoulder, I imagine that a 10lb shoulder includes the bone, unless you're dealing with a very, very large pig, and such a bone presents challenges; the bones in a pork shoulder are large, run more or less through the entire cut, and are oddly shaped. Unless you've got a butcher's bandsaw, I'd recommend against trying to cut it in half yourself - though if you've not bought it yet, and you're buying from somewhere with an actual butcher's counter, there's a solid chance your butcher will cut it in half for you if you ask.
Answer accepted because you addressed both my main question and also my sub-question about splitting the shoulder. Very good point on the bone potentially causing issues. The shoulder in question was picked up on a sale, so I've got what I've got. I'll have to either cook it on a weekend so I can watch the grill or potentially pop it into the slow cooker and forget about it for a while.
I don't know your circumstances, but working from home due to the pandemic has let me do the eight-hour shoulder roast i mentioned a couple of times, haha. Best of luck to you.
Cooking by minutes per pound is far less accurate than using a thermometer. The challenge with a pork shoulder is that it is made of of different muscles. So, timing could certainly depend on which you are cooking...and, when using the charcoal grill, obviously the cooker temperature is going to be a factor. So, get a good thermometer and rely on that. Use the shorter end of the time estimate for an indication of when to check the temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.658833
| 2020-07-13T02:28:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109628",
"authors": [
"Blargant",
"TypewriterKermit",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85600"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112170
|
How to do icing swirl effect (a bit like marbling)?
The cake above is from this website and I was wondering how the swirl effect is done on top of the cake? At first, I thought it may be done using a similar method to latte art, but am really unsure. Is it just a cocktail stick pulled through the icing in a curve? The bit that confused me most was how there was milk chocolate in the white chocolate half and white chocolate in the milk chocolate half for the same swirl.
The cake in the image below (which is from the same website) seems to have used a similar technique:
I can't be sure, but it looks like there are two different things going on here.
For the ice cream cake, notice that there is no white chocolate in the bottom swirl (the white there is a reflection of the light). So I expect they are using an implement (quite possibly the tip of a spoon) and swirling it from the dark side to the light side. Then they lift the spoon and let it trail across and then smear from dark to light again, leaving behind some of the white on each successive row.
For the rectangular cake, I think they've iced the entire thing in the light color, then added a thin layer of dark to half of the cake. Using a two pronged tool, they can then smear from dark to light and reveal the lighter color on the dark side before trailing the dark across the white side.
The white-on-dark on the ice cream cake looks like it’s the ice cream showing through the dark icing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.659269
| 2020-10-17T22:58:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112170",
"authors": [
"Lawrence",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85456"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123837
|
Chai Latte With Extra "Chai" Flavor
I'm currently using the following recipe to make Chai lattes:
12 oz vanilla soy milk
6 oz water
1+ tbsp chai mix (2.5 parts cinnamon, 1 part each of cardamom, cloves, nutmeg, allspice, and ginger)
2 bags English Breakfast black tea
Using the following instructions:
Enclose Chai mix in paper coffee filter and tie with baking twine. Let soak in milk in fridge overnight.
Let tea soak in water overnight.
Bring tea to boil and simmer for a few minutes, then remove tea bag.
Add milk + Chai, bring to boil and gently simmer for 10-20 min.
When finished, serve with 1 tbsp maple syrup or as the heart guides, depending on how crummy the day is
Set aside tea bag and Chai bag to reuse once the next day
I'd like to bring the Chai flavor out more. I've had limited success by simmering for longer with the lid over the mixture, but I'd like to go further. What adjustments can I use to make the Chai flavor stronger?
Edit:
By "Chai flavor" I mean the flavor of the spices of the chai mix; cinnamon, cardamom, cloves, nutmeg, allspice, and ginger. I want to make these taste stronger.
Step 1 and 2 are used in an attempt to let the tea and spices steep, and so extract flavor, in addition to when I boil them. This is intended to add extra flavor.
A subcomponent of my question might be phrased as: "are the spices in the Chai mix more water soluble or more fat soluble?" I've gotten conflicting information on past searches.
That may be a stupid question, but: Can you just use more spices? Are they reasonably fresh?
@Stephie I've tried 2x and 2.5x the amount of spices with minimal result. At present, I'm using pre-ground spices from the grocery store. Would grinding whole spices evoke more flavor?
For pre-ground, you’ll notice a decline in flavor within just a few months, especially if the package is exposed to light, air or warm temperatures. Just compare a dash of ground black pepper from a pack and a few turns of a pepper mill. I would absolutely make sure that the spices are at least fresh and ideally grind before use. In other words, once the essential oils are gone, there’s not much you can still extract.
What part of 'chai' are you actually trying to bring out?
Comments now say 'the spices'… which isn't the bit I'd have thought of.
Bear in mind 'chai' means 'tea', the rest is just like adding flavours to coffee - you make the coffee first, then add milk/sugar/syrup etc. You're probably doing it no favours by soaking it first.
Tea goes into boiling water to make it the 'indian way', it doesn't sit in milk for hours first.
Don't re-use tea. It gives everything in one go, just about.
Same as for a tea bag dunked in hot water, the longer you leave it the stronger it will get - to a point. Once it passes that point your only way to gain strength is use more tea.
Methodology - there seems to be no agreed method, but the one I've had thrust at me by people actually from Asia is…
Boil water.
Add spices.
Add tea.
Add milk & sweeteners.
I've edited my original question for clarity. Let me know if I should add more.
My goal isn't to make Chai "the Indian way", nor is it to follow a traditional recipe. I want to know how to get more flavor from the Chai spices, that's it.
Are you suggesting that "cold brewing" the spices and tea is a detriment to the flavor?
@Kronimiciad even if you aren’t specifically interested in making chai “the Indian way” perhaps that’s a good place to start? They are in fact known for doing a good job of it.
@Sneftel I already started there. I settled this recipe after modifying a more traditional recipe to my tastes. The recipe I used did not bring out the flavor of the spices any more than the one I posted. I don't want a recipe with no context, I want to know what about a given recipe brings out the flavor of the spices, and how to replicate that.
I've already done that. I removed the soaking, the influence [unknown] of non-dairy milk & promoted the spices to boiling on their own long before anything else goes in. You hadn't, in your initial question, actually told us which part of the flavour you meant. As I pointed out, 'chai' means 'tea' quite literally, so I initially went with the 'tea' aspect.
“Bear in mind 'chai' means 'tea'” — while that's strictly true, in English many people have come to associate the word with masala chai (‘spiced tea’), specifically with the spices (hence terms such as ‘chai latte’ and ‘chai tea’). So OP's usage is at least understandable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.659458
| 2023-04-07T18:44:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123837",
"authors": [
"Kronimiciad",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87021"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110364
|
Using proofed (?) yeast in a recipe (confused about amounts)
I'm following a recipe that begins with "process 3.25 cups flour and 1/8 tsp instant or rapid-rise yeast in food processor until combined, then slowly add 1.25 cup ice water"
On the instant yeast packaging, it says to mix 2.25 tsp yeast with 1/4 cup warm water and 1 tsp sugar, let stand for 10 min, then follow recipe.
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to
Ignore the packaging directions and stick 1/8 tsp dry instant yeast pellets into the recipe
Use the ratio of water:yeast from the packaging with 1/8 tsp yeast, i.e. mix 0.125/2.25 (tsp yeast) = x/.25 (water) = mix .125 tsp yeast with 1/72 cups of water
2a. If so do I use 1 cup ice water in the recipe, or 1.25cup minus .0138 ice water?
Mix the yeast/water/sugar together, let stand for 10 min, then use 1/8tsp of the resultant mixture for the recipe
Also how to reconcile the warm vs ice cold water directions?
Edit: Full recipe and context as requested
It's from a recipe for lahmajun, Turkish pizza (although the author contends that pizza should be called Italian lahmajun :)). It's Cooks Illustrated, so helpfully the author describes what they want to achieve and some of the science behind it (I highly recommend the magazine!): https://www.cooksillustrated.com/articles/2457-my-best-lahmajun "On a Roll" section I think this explanation (which I reread after getting my answers--thanks guys!) probably makes it clear to most readers to ignore the yeast packaging instructions, but I'd never made dough before and wasn't sure.
Ingredients
3.25 cups (16.25 oz) King Arthur All-Purpose flour
1/8 tsp instant or rapid-rise yeast
1.25 cups (10oz) ice water
1 tbsp vegetable oil
1.5 tsp table salt
vegetable oil spray
Directions
Process flour and yeast in food processor until combined, about 2 seconds. With processor running, slowly add ice water, process until dough is just combined and no dry flour remains, about 10 seconds. Let dough rest for 10 min.
Add oil and salt and process until dough forms shaggy ball, 30-60 sec. Transfer dough to lightly oiled counter and knead until uniform, 1 min (texture will remain slightly rough). Divide dough into 4 equal pieces, about 6.66 oz each. Shape dough pieces into tight balls and transfer, seam side down, to rimmed backing sheet coated with oil spray. Cover tightly with plastic wrap and refrigerate for at least 16 hours or up to 2 days.
Make topping (combine lamb, spices, and veggies in food processor)
One hour before baking lahmajun, remove dough from fridge and let stand at room temperature until slightly puffy and no longer cool to touch. Meanwhile, adjust oven rack to upper-middle position (rack should be 4-5" from broiler element), set baking stone on rack, and heat oven to 500 degrees.
Place 1 dough ball on unfloured counter and dust top lightly with flour. Using heel of your hand, press dough ball into 5" disk. Using rolling pin, gently roll into 12" round of even thickness. (Use tackiness of dough on counter to aid with rolling; if dough becomes misshapen, periodically peel round from counter, reposition, and continue to roll.) Dust top of round lightly but evenly with flour and, starting at 1 edge, peel dough off counter and flip, floured side down, onto floured baking peel (dough will spring back to about 11" in diameter). Please 1/4 of topping (about 1/2 cup) in center of dough. Cover dough with 12 by 12" sheet of plastic and, using your fingertips and knuckles, gently spread filling evenly across dough, leaving 1/8" border. Starting at 1 edge, peel away plastic, leaving topping in place.
Carefully slide lahmajun onto stove and bake until bottom crust is browned, edges are lightly browned, and topping is steaming, 4-6min. While lahmajun bakes, begin rolling next dough ball.
Transfer baked lahmajun to wire rack. Repeat rolling, topping, and baking remaining 3 dough balls.
PS If you've read this far, would you be kind enough to tell me what a baking peel is (step 5)?
Since you asked, a baking peel is something like this which allows you to move just the food into/out of the preheated oven. You may have seen these used in pizzerias, though those usually have a longer handle.
The recipe you're using sounds nontraditional (the full recipe may be helpful to describe the "why"), but it is almost certainly looking for you to use 1/8 tsp of instant yeast granules directly into the flour.
The small amount and use of ice water, rather than warm water are not traditional for bread, but also not unheard of. The method for your recipe may include other non traditional details as well--perhaps a longer proof time, or a less fluffy outcome.
(If you edit your question to include the full recipe & method as well as what you're making, it may be easier to answer that part)
The recipe is nontraditional and the goal is for it not to be puffy :) I haven't made bread before so it was intimidating for the packaging to be so sure I should follow its instructions and then follow the recipe lol. I reread the author's explanation after your answer and now I understand I should add the yeast granules directly (and ice water) and why. Thanks!
The required amount of yeast depends primarily on two factors: The duration of the leavening time and the temperature during this time. So both of your directions are most likely not wrong, they are just making different assumptions on the leavening conditions. Without knowing your recipe and leavening time/temperature it´s impossible to recommend one of them over the other.
The usage of ice water for yeast dough is something I have heard so far only from professional bakerey settings where they are preparing much larger batch sizes than in home cooking. During the kneading of this large batches a so significant part of the mechanical energy is transformed from friction to thermal energy that it is affecting the temperature and leavening time of the dough. If you are dealing with an amount of dough created from 3 cups of flour it should be pretty safe to just ignore this.
Since it is typically not possible to create a laboratory like environment in a kitchen with always the exact same temperature and there also other factors affecting the yeast growth like the salt content of the dough it is also not advisable in general to stick to each single letter of your recipe but to check the properties of your dough during its preparation. When it has roughly doubled in size during the leavening it should be ready for the next step (bake it or store it in the fridge for later usage). Experience will come with time.
As a last point I would like to recommend to drop the measuring by volume and always measure by weight instead, as it is much more precise and allows reproducable results more reliably.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.659859
| 2020-08-23T14:34:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110364",
"authors": [
"Simone",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76228",
"mbjb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57874
|
How to find/substitute dry corn with shell removed for stews?
In Cape Verde, this kind of corn is easy to find: dry yellow or white corn kernels. Years ago people had to pound it themselves to remove the shell; nowadays you can buy it at the store without any pounding necessary. It's definitely not the same as sweet corn.
This corn is used to make cachupa, a stew that's often considered the "national dish".
How can I find this in the northeast U.S.? What's it called? Or, if it's truly difficult to find here, what would be a good substitute?
When it's imported into Cape Verde, it usually comes from Brazil. Yoki is the brand I've seen most often, but their site doesn't list it. Sinhá does list it, as for "canjica" (according to Wikipedia, that's canjica a.k.a. mugunzá, not canjica a.k.a. curau.)
Wikipedia's article for cachupa says it's made with hominy, but I think someone was confused... hominy seems to be strictly from Central and North America, from what I've researched. There's "hominy" at my local store, but it's in a can, reinforcing my idea that this is not the same thing.
The closest thing you are likely to find in the US is posole which may also be labeled as "nixtamal" or "mote pelado". Posole can be found dried, canned, or frozen in most latin grocery stores or online. Look specifically for ones that say they contain corn processed with some alkali such as lime, cal (sodium hydroxide), lye, or sodium carbonate.
The problem in the US is that the term hominy has many meanings, as the Anson Mills website explains:
In America we know hominy as dried whole kernel corn that has been first steeped and then cooked in a culinary lime solution to remove the outer clear coating of the corn kernel, or pericarp, and also to work a miraculous nutrition and flavor transformation within the kernel in a process called nixtamalization. Fresh hominy can be used as is for stews (posole in Spanish), or it can be ground, still wet, to masa or chopped into fresh hominy grits (an extinct foodway). Or it can be dried to make whole hominy (also known as posole or hominy). Dried hominy can then be milled to grits or cornmeal (both are extinct in the United States), or to flour (called “instant masa”). This next definition of hominy is arcane: hominy grist (not “grits”) is any fresh-milled corn grits that comes out of a stone mill. The last statement about hominy is a classic Southern take on confusing terms: the popular Southern term for a dish of freshly prepared coarse grits is “hominy.” In New Orleans and now fading in other Southern ports, whole hominy is called “big hominy” and freshly prepared coarse grits is called “little hominy.”
Additionally, many canned hominy product's available in the US, such as Manning's (and even some claiming to be "Mexican Style" like Juanita's) are steam peeled rather than by soaking in an alkali solution like most traditional hominy and posole. These will often try to turn this into a positive by claiming "never processed with lye".
Could you explain better why I should look for alkali processed corn? I'm not understanding from your answer, and I had thought what I was looking for was the opposite.
I may have misunderstood when you said you had tried hominy, but that it wasn't the same. Looking at more sites and images about the Yoki brand you reference, it seems they are all steam-peeled. What type of hominy did you try and how did it fail to meet your expectations?
sorry, I had confused things. The hominy worked fine. I'll roll back my question to the earlier version, which matches your answer better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.660351
| 2015-05-30T21:19:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57874",
"authors": [
"Dan Getz",
"Didgeridrew",
"Karen King",
"Linda Pelletier",
"Michael Brown",
"Sasha Heindel",
"Tarunika",
"Zizo Joher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29744"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128767
|
Temperature for chicken (any sort)
I recently got a temperature meter to make sure meat is cooked, I am still confused of how much temperature should it be for chicken tikka or chicken burgers. What should be the best internal temperature of cooked chicken tikka on skewers and what should I measure the temperature?
Edit: here is a picture of them, the big problem I have is to know how to check temperature in one go. Having to insert the pin of temperature thing is very redundant.
There's no practical way of knowing the temperature of all the pieces of meat, in one go. If you want to check the temperature, there's simply no way around inserting the probe into each piece of meat. Which is why a reliable, accurate, and fast reading thermometer is worth the investment IMO. It might not be necessary to check every piece though. For example, I'd skip checking a smaller piece if I'd just check and confirmed that a larger piece right next to it is up to temperature. With practice, you'll also be able to better judge by eye and touch, whether something is cooked.
@HollisHurlbut some remain uncooked. what is recommeded distance between coal and chicken?
The following information is all based on information from an article written by J. Kenji Lopez Alt on the Serious Eats website. All the information from his article was based on data from the USDA.
https://www.seriouseats.com/how-to-take-the-temperature-of-your-turkey-video
This is sort of a question of two parts. The temperature at which chicken is safe to eat, and the temperature at which it's most pleasurable to eat. I mention the later because in your original question, you didn't specify what type of chicken meat that your skewers are made of.
Whilst breast meat and leg meat are both made safe to eat at the same temperature*, like many people, I find that the darker, fattier meat of the leg and the wings, is more pleasurable to eat when it is cooked to a higher temperature.
*According to the USDA that Kenji used, poultry meat is instantly pasteurised and thus safe to eat (assuming it is fresh and disease free) when the meat has reached an internal temperature of 74°C (165°F). For dark meat, I prefer it to be cooked to around 75°C to 80°C. Cooking to that temperature helps render some of the excess fat out of the meat, which makes the texture a little less slimy, and a little more pleasant to my tastes.
If you cook chicken breasts to 74°C though, you'll probably find them a little bit dry. Thankfully there's another component to cooking / pasteurising meat so that it is safe to eat... time.
Whilst 74°C is the temperature at which poultry is "instantly" pasteurised. As long as you're able to keep the meat at a certain temperature for a given amount of time, it will still be pasteurised even if it never reaches 74°C. Perhaps the most widely used version of this is poaching a chicken breast, where the water might not reach 74°C but the meat is submerged and cooking for long enough that it is safe.
Another common way that meat is held at a certain temperature is when it is rested, as you would rest a steak or roast. This is sometimes called "carry over" cooking. When a food continues to cook from the heat that has built up inside it. It's important to note though, that the temperature of the meat can fall below safe levels when it is rested. So you can necessarily rely on it as a method of "holding" the meat.
Which is why a reliable, accurate thermometer, used correctly, is so important if you're going to start playing around with temperature levels and hold times.
If you cook the breast to a more pleasant to eat, juicer temperature of 66°C (150°F) and hold it that temp for 3.7 minutes, then the meat will be just as safe to eat as if it were cooked to 74°C. If you drop the temperature to 63°C, you have to hold the meat at that temperature for 10.8 minutes for it to be pasteurised.
If you were to take it to the extreme, you could heat the chicken to just 58°C (136°F) and as long as you hold that internal temperature for 65.3 minutes, the meat should be safe to eat... the texture on the other hand wouldn't suit most tastes.
One other thing to bare in mind about hold times is that the the higher the temperature and the shorter the hold time, the less opportunity there is to the mistake of not maintaining the correct temperature for long enough. The last thing you want to do is end up making yourself or someone else ill.
So to answer your question of, what temperature you should cook your chicken skewers to. My personal recommendation, based on the experience several years of using Kenji's article as a guide to my poultry cooking. Is that to begin with, you should aim for an internal temperature of around 68°C for breasts, and 76°C for dark meat. These temperatures factor in some lag between the meat reaching the desired temperature, and you actually taking a temperature reading, as well as some carry over cooking, and some resting time as you serve the meat... Unless you just hold the skewer above your head, and just scrape the meat directly into your mouth which, as I keep telling my wife, is a totally normal thing to do at the company barbecue.
As you get more familiar with the cook, hold, measure process, and you trust that you can do it safely. You can start to play with lowering the internal temperature and increasing the hold time.
One last thing to note, is that all of the above is based upon the assumption that your thermometer is accurate and that you use it correctly (i.e. measure the correct part of the meat, for the correct amount of time).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.660769
| 2024-07-07T16:50:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128767",
"authors": [
"Hollis Hurlbut",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63671",
"localhost"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124114
|
How to prevent airlocks to get soaked out when vegetables soak up water
Fermenting the vegetables in 2,5L glases I always face the problem that the vegetables soak up a lot of water and then dispense a lot and then towards the end soak up even more.
The problem is, that the airlocks get soaked out when the volume in the glass diminishes. They are just too short. I use the standard one.
I consider airlock as important.
What I did so far is to wait 2-3 days until I fill in the water in the airlocks, but it didn't help a lot. Often the airlock breaks and it soaks in the water from it.
I wonder, whether there is a point in time, when it can't happen anymore, or anything else to know about the stages of fermentation?
Another way I found is to build something like this:
In the lid I glued a ball valve and used a silicon gasket between lid and glass. So far, I haven't found a thin enough gasket to lock the lid. I guess, it would also be possible to use a duck-tape. A further idea is to insert an overpressure valve.
There are fancy connectors between the tube coming from the pump and the glass, but the way I did it here is fine for me.
Here are the parts I used:
As glue, I used epoxy.
What's really important to notice is that you will need a vacuum pump that is suitable for humid air. They are called oil-free or dry-running vacuum pumps, and are actually the only ones suitable for food. On the picture, you see an oil-containing vacuum pump, however. It seems to work if you pump out all air right after preparing the jar. If the fermentation process has started once, there will be released many bubbles when pumping, releasing too much humidity and the oil gets mixed with water and salt, which is very bad for the machine.
As it is not well-engineered, feel free to improve and let us know
Use an S-shaped (aka one piece) airlock instead. Harder to clean, but doesn’t siphon out at negative pressure.
That easy, awesome! Did you notice any point in time when it starts to only flow out?
Changing temperature can always set up a pressure differential; the larger the headspace, the more air moving in/out. Airlocks in lactofermentation are more about keeping oxygen levels down than keeping things sterilised, so it doesn’t much matter.
Hm. I had much too less overhead space and kept it in a styroporbox that is digitally heat controlled. I doubt it's changing temperature. What I read is that vegetables in the brian release water due to the salt content and that there are different stages, just not sure sure about when they soak up.
What came to my mind as well, is that this type of airlock isn't a rel air-lock as it lets in air. I would think of the type of air-lock that I am using currently but with a longer pipe, so that it can balance out fluctuations without letting in air.
The point is, everyone uses this type without a problem apparently and there are even manufactures who sell fermentation vessels with these air-locks.
There must be a way how they keep locked. Any idea?
I think you might not realize exactly what an airlock does for lactic fermentation. The goal is not to keep the contents under vacuum, but to keep the oxygen level down by limiting air circulation. It’s not a problem if a bit of air gets in at some point— after all, plenty got in when you started.
Right there got in a lot, but as far as I understod it, the gas that is produced pushes out all air and an anerobic medium remains. Anyways, you made a good point that it for sure helps reduces contact with air
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.661228
| 2023-05-07T08:10:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124114",
"authors": [
"Sebastian",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96223"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124656
|
Why doesn't my rice-flour cake rise with fruit?
MY rice flour cakes always rise nicely, resulting in a fluffy cake. When I add pieces of fruit (mostly fresh) like cherries in a chocolate cake, apples in an apple cake or shredded sweet potato, the cake rises just a little bit. There are some microscopic air bubbles, but it is basically one thick clump of (nevertheless soft) dough. It isn't fluffy or has air bubbles at all. Why is this, how can I improve it?
This is the basic recipe I use: rice flour, eggs, and baking powder (bicarb + acid). Then there are some varying things regarding taste, like salt, sugar, chocolate etc. Note that there isn't any milk.
Have you tried this with dried fruit, or always with fresh fruit?
Only once with dried, might be that it was a bit more fluffy
You don't list your process and ratios, but this looks like something in the middle between a cake and a souffle, or maybe something close to a gluten-free genoise.
The structure you get in this kind of sponge is incredibly delicate. It's mostly all egg-based, both for the leavening action and for the structural integrity. Consequently, throwing in a bunch of wet fruit is no better than throwing wet fruit into whipped egg whites - the liquid disrupts the foam. It's also sensitive to simple weight - I have made a gluten-free genoise with different flours, and when a flour is ground to a larger particle size, it basically falls down to the bottom during baking, creating a thick inedible layer. I don't think that the exact same mechanism is happening with dried fruit, but this is probably part of it.
In the end, gluten-free recipes are simply not robust to changes. If you want a gluten-free recipe with fruit, search for an existing recipe with fruit, instead of changing the one you have.
Probably that's it! I will try it with a lot of starch to give it structural integrity and try some recipes. Thank you
I can think of three things that might be going on here.
First, if your baking powder is "double-acting" (i.e. with a heat-activated acid) the acid from the fruit may be neutralizing the sodium bicarbonate in the baking powder. That means that during baking when the baking powder's acid is activated there's not enough bicarbonate to react with. If this is the case, adding some baking soda with the baking powder should help. If the fruit is just pieces of fruit and doesn't significantly suffuse the batter with juice, though, it's probably not the case.
Secondly, it could just be the fruit weighing down the batter, ripping open the foam as it forms. Gluten-free crumb is quite delicate during baking. I would only suspect this if, after baking, the surface of the cake was cratered by the fruit (or if there were a LOT of fruit and the surface was uneven).
Thirdly, the fruit could be a red herring and other "things regarding taste" you'd also changed were the real cause. Salt, sugar, and chocolate all affect the texture and behavior of batter.
Fruit is also wet, so will act as a thermal sink and prevent the batter around it from getting the same amount of heat.
That's a very good answer and plausible possibilities. First and second aren't the case for sure. The third one might be the case but apple cakes are normally fluffy, so it can't be the apple per se. Probably Joe is close to truth. I am just guessing but I think it must be a combination of the weight plus different heat plus no gluten maybe. I also always have cake with fruit longer in the oven, in order that the fruit bakes through. Do you have any guess how to work arround?
Some time later, I found out that the missing piece was psyllium husk flour. With starch, it actually just gets worse. But with psyllium husk flour it rises and keeps risen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.661541
| 2023-07-06T09:49:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124656",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Sebastian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96223",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121282
|
Solubility of chocolate in water and fat
do you have any idea about the solubility of chocolate? I experimented a bit and I can't make sense of what I've found. It isn't 1+1=2. It's rather like 1+1=8,3543 or so.
Here is what I found:
Chocolate mixes with water, milk, and coconut cream, and gives a homogenous liquid
Cacao butter does mix with chocolate the same way
But coconut oil doesn't mix with chocolate, and instead segregates and repeals, giving liquid chocolate with oil swimming on top.
Yet, cacao butter and coconut oil mix together well, giving a homogenous liquid
When chocolate is already quite diluted in water / milk, cacao butter doesn't mix in anymore
Whether water mixes when chocolate is enriched with a lot of cacao butter, I didn't try
Now, I used a chocolate that consists of cacao mass, cacao butter, cacao powder, and a non-caloric sweetener.
Why doesn't coconut oil mix with it when cacao butter does? Making chocolate at home from cacao powder and coconut oil and assumingly cacao butter works well.
I think you are using the word 'dissolve', which has a technical meaning, in a more general way, which is likely to cause confusion when people try to answer you (I suspect you are going to get answers that just say 'no it doesn't'). It would help if you explained your process and what you observed (e.g. 'when I mix chocolate with hot water, eventually I get a smooth liquid' or whatever).
To address your more general intention to make chocolate: if that's your goal I think you should look specifically into guides to making chocolate (which I believe is very difficult to do without specialised equipment) – chocolate is chemically complicated and not at all as simple as just combining the constituent parts in the right proportions.
Yep. Just for instance, from a chemical point of view, chocolate doesn’t dissolve in anything. If there’s weird things you’re trying to do, which you think nobody else has ever tried to do or given advice about doing, you should clarify that.
Also quick note to hopefully save some pain/expensive ingredients - coconut oil directly interferes with the crystallization of cocoa butter. So making chocolate with cocoa butter and coconut oil together is actually very delicate. Chocolate Alchemy has several articles on the subject.
Thanks for the info, that is what I was looking for - the alchemy with crystallization and this chemical point of view how chocolate is processed. Can you guys go more in detail on these points?
I am not trying to do chocolate myself at home, I rather want to know how to extend it, with what I can mix it and just how the physics of it are.
Yes, with dissolving I actually mean to form a uniform homogenous liquid vs when not dissolving to have the liquid chocolate with oil swimming on top that doesn't mix.
I opened the question again and saw your last comment. I'm a bit confused about your goals, but you probably can do better than this question. 1) If you intend to make "real" chocolate bars at home, forget it - you won't get close. 2) if you want to eat something that is not perfect chocolate, but cheaper, just buy cheap chocolate brands. They may not be great, but still tastier and cheaper than what you can do at home. 3) if you want to do chocolaterie at home (e.g. create truffles, Belgian chocolates, decoration), there are excellent books to learn from, no need to reinvent the wheel. (cont)
(cont) They can be culinary school textbooks or the ones oriented for the hobbyist. They will explain just enough theory that you can work with the chocolate, instead of throwing all its physics at you for deriving it from first principles. 4) if you want to eat a variety of chocolate-flavored foods which are not strictly "a chocolate", such as eiskonfekt, varieties of hot chocolate, chocolate mousses, brownies, etc., get a good chocolate-based baking book. My favorite go-tos are Death by chocolate and the one by David Lebovitz, but there are other quality ones.
FWIW, I think it's perfectly reasonable to describe your food experiments, observations, and ask for help understanding their results. Regardless of what OP intends to do with the information, it doesn't change the facts behind why chocolate acts like it does. I think the question would have benefitted from further research as well - but they aren't asking "How do I do x with chocolate", rather "Why is my chocolate doing this?"
You know, you can spend 5 hours digging into something or talk with someone 2 minutes and learned the same amount, because he knows the words and where to search for what.
And, I ask because I am interested in it without intention to achieve this or that @rumtscho
@Sebastian OK, then I am glad to hear that you got what you wanted. Maybe I just read too much into your question. Enjoy your chocolate!
So I think there are two big players in your experiments. Chocolate is complicated, and I won't pretend to know it all though. Chocolate has two big, arguably essential components: cocoa butter and cocoa solids. (White chocolate lacks cocoa solids, and is therefore a point of contention.) Melted fats are a liquid, water is a very different liquid.
As far as the liquid fat stuff goes, I'm paraphrasing Chocolate Alchemist to the extreme: Cocoa butter is actually a collection of fatty acids. Three are dominant and of particular interest: Oleic, Palmitic, and Stearic acids. These three collectively provide the crystalline structure of chocolate by connecting to each other, forming the cocoa butter crystal, and giving chocolate shine and snappy qualities. When chocolate melts, that structure is lost, the three go wild, and the reason tempering as a process is such a big deal is because those three acids will try to settle down at different temperatures. As a result, they won't return to the desired crystalline state without some kind of tempering process. (Which involves heating and cooling chocolate in a particular sequence, or agitating chocolate while it cools to prevent crystals from forming at all until all three acids are ready to cooperate, or using cocoa butter "seed" crystals that will encourage the other acids floating around to fall in line, into the proper crystalline structure... It's a terrifying process for a lot of baby chocolate geeks.)
So a lot is happening when you melt or cool cocoa butter chocolate, and similarly, adding any other fat will throw off the fairly delicate balance of fatty acids and drastically change the effectiveness of tempering and the texture of the final product. You should consider the melting temperature of any fat you decide to add at the very least - Coconut oil melts around 78F - so even without all the chemistry, it makes sense that if you add coconut oil to a fat solution that melts at 93F, you'll get something that melts at a temperature between 78F and 93F. When you dig into the chemistry of it, you find that you're adding a bunch of lauric acid and other shorter chain fatty acids that want to hook up with the cocoa butter and won't let the crystals form properly at all. Practically speaking, it won't set up and form a solid.
I once attempted to make a white chocolate ganache with coconut milk and...yeah, it never set up. It was velvety smooth, impossible to whip, never stopped dripping, and therefore completely useless to me. (It was a tasty sauce though). That was what led me to the Chocolate Alchemist once upon a time, and since real white chocolate was very expensive to me back then, I was sad. Hence my warning in the comment above. You can make something tasty with chocolate and coconut stuff, but it will be softer. It might not be what you'd call chocolate at all.
If you want to extend solid chocolate, you should look into paramount crystals - easy to use and give you a hard chocolate. Paramount crystals, or partially hydrogenated palm kernel oil, lecithin, and citric acid, are easy to use, raise the melting point of your chocolate, and contain an emulsifier to prevent separation issues. They're the main component of compound chocolate made with cocoa butter. Unfortunately, while they can be very helpful, they also don't contribute much to the aroma or taste of the chocolate, so I'd recommend using them sparingly. Some people absolutely despise the stuff lol. You could also look into edible waxes, but... again, use them sparingly. Wax has a very... waxy texture. Hard to describe any other way and extremely recognizable, and not generally desirable.
As for why you witnessed complete separation, my guess would simply be proportions, a resulting loss of emulsion, and the cocoa powder settling, even in your liquid fat.
Which brings us to the other feature you should consider in your experiments - the cocoa solids. These become more significant when you start adding water. The cocoa solids, not to mention the milk and sugar as applicable, are not liquefied in the chocolate, they are just extremely finely ground particles suspended in that cocoa butter crystal matrix. So when you melt and solidify chocolate carelessly, you may notice sugar or fat bloom on the chocolate. You may notice areas of dense, grainy chocolate next to smooth creamy bits. That's the result of cocoa solids and the other components settling out unevenly. My though is that by adding enough fat you saw this happen in an exaggerated sort of way, real time. It wasn't just the coconut oil refusing to mix, but the entire chocolatey emulsion breaking down.
As soon as you introduce water to the mix, as in some of your experiments, either in your mouth or in a cup of liquid, you dissolve any sugar and start to hydrate the cocoa solids and any milk. That hydrated chocolate mixture might remain thick and emulsified at first, especially if the solids aren't fully hydrated yet. At this point, you can add more fat and easily mix the two substances because those cocoa solids are holding onto the liquid for you. But the more liquid you add, the less dense the solution becomes, the less your cocoa powder can keep it locked up, and the harder it is to keep emulsified without additives like lecithin, and ultimately the cocoa powder will in fact sink to the bottom. Even if you thicken the liquid with corn starch for a drinking chocolate, the cocoa powder will settle out with a little time. And since you're dealing with a mixture that's mostly water at this point rather than fat/particulate, any added fat will act like... well oil to water. Even with added emulsifiers, it's not truly dissolved into a new solution. The liquid and fat never really become one, they're just held in suspension with each other, forming an often uneasy peace.
To summarize a bit, if you want to extend and dilute some solid chocolate, paramount crystals are your best, easiest option. You can use other fats with a higher melting point than chocolate, but even then, by doing so you'll interfere with the cocoa butter crystal structure and get something that while firm, likely lacks any snappiness. Cocoa butter is a fat that a lot of people think will work great in this application, but due to its chemical composition is arguably the worst lol. And many of us learn this the hard way.
When you add water in any form to chocolate, you've created a whole new liquid emulsion to which different rules apply. While you can make a partially hydrated kind of ganache that sets up firm, the particulate can only absorb so much liquid, and you can only add so much fat to any emulsion before it breaks down.
Great, thank you for all the insights! The reason you described why it separated probably hit it. The mixture was really uneven with hard and soft parts. Learned a lot and I will also have a look at the alchemist. Yes, that's what one could think, chocolate is made with cacao butter, so it's the best option. Paramount crystals aren't an option for me. Only saturated fats melt at higher temperatures, so I think butter, lard, and coconut oil are the best bets. Maybe I will try some pure lecithin if I add more water once.
A big component of extending it properly is by constantly mixing, right?
To some extent, yes. Mixing or agitation will help with the emulsion of a water/fat hybrid, or could be used to try and temper a cocoa butter/other fat hybrid. I just really can't guess how it might go. Hopefully, the Alchemist can provide dome more insight
Whoops - @Sebastian There will be limits to what you can physically do regardless of what you add, and some of those are surprising as you know. That said, you might have more luck with another firm/edible plant butter if you can't stick to cocoa butter. I've never tried lard, but you may want to heat it thoroughly first as it tends to have a bit of water in it. Butter does too, and never firms up all the way again once cooked... Good luck!
I even thought about butter, lard, (and coconut oil) since it's the one with the highest melting point you can easily get. The alchemist mentioned Shea butter. If I find something interesting, I will share it here. And right, you never know until you didn't try.
So then, I will keep having it mixed and in movement all the time. Thanks
Before answering, to clarify a confusion already pointed out in comments: Chocolate does not dissolve in anything. What you probably mean is that you weren't able to make a homogenous mixture out of chocolate and the other ingredients listed.
Why doesn't coconut oil dissolve when cacao butter does
You must have done something funny there. There are mixtures of coconut fat and chocolate, commonly eaten in Germany as Eiskonfekt. If you cannot improve your technique to the point where you can just mix chocolate and coconut fat, consider adding some cream to the chocolate first, that's another variation. In fact, if you speak German, your best bet is to find a recipe and follow it faithfully.
As for all your other observations - I don't know if you are questioning them in some way, so I will just note that all of them (including that your volume is not preserved) are absolutely normal and aligned with what chemistry would predict and patissiers observe every day in working with chocolate.
That's a great idea, thanks. Luckily I speak german
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.661872
| 2022-08-07T18:44:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121282",
"authors": [
"Sebastian",
"Sneftel",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96223",
"kitukwfyer",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51718
|
What is the best way to store fruit in bulk to make smoothies?
Next year for university I'm moving into a new house with a large chest freezer (a big upgrade from my current freezer drawer). I've always been a fan of making fruit smoothies with banana, milk, yoghurts, berries and what not however the biggest problem with this is that since I've moved out I can't afford to keep buying fruit for it to go off. So I have essentially 2 questions
Firstly is it realistic to buy fruit from the market where its cheapest, I'm thinking all fruits from apples to bananas and from berries to mangoes and then just throw them straight in the freezer, will this preserve them ?? Then the next day get them out and throw them straight into a smoothie.
Secondly and more preferably would I be able to buy a lot of fruit make it all into smoothies then put these into containers and freeze them, then get them out the night before so they will defrost and I can drink them for breakfast in the morning.
Thanks in advance
In professional smoothie/frozen youghurt/fruit shake shops, you'll usually see the fruit frozen in small pieces for easy portioning.
So raspberrys and blueberrys are fine, but you'd wnat to quarter strawberrys and cube mangoes or apples or kiwis or whatever before freezing them.
The freezing process itself is important to the strucutral integrity of the fruit, and will affect its texture. However, if you only want them for smoothies/blended drinks, that isn't very important.
As a usage note, remember that a home freezer compartment is usually at -4 degrees Celsius, whereas a chest freezer (deep freeze) would more commonly be at -18 degrees. A good blender won't mind either way, but your lips might find it a bit cold.
Also, you might find you can buy the fruit pre-frozen from the same vendors the shops get them, in which case it will be prepared for you, and all you need is to defrost and blend. Aside from saving you the work of peeling and chopping, their freezing process may be better, and it'll probably end up being cheaper too.
If your blender is strong enough to work through the frozen fruit, its friction heats up the liquid enough to not be unpleasant for drinking. And +1 for frozen fruit, it's very convenient and frequently better quality from fresh, as fresh is transported somewhat unripe to prevent squishing.
Do you have a source for freezer compartments only being at -4C? Everything I can see online about freezers says, basically, "A freezer should be at -18C", without differentiating between different types of freezer. For example, the US FDA says "The freezer temperature should be 0°F (-18°C)." It would be very strange if governments were giving that kind of advice when anyone using a freezer compartment in a fridge would be so far from being able to follow it.
If your blender is powerful enough, it should have no problem dealing with frozen fruit.
I've seen quite a few recipes that call for frozen blueberries, peaches, bananas, etc, in smoothies. Typically, you want to prepare them so that you don't have to deal with trying to cut up frozen things when you want to use them ... so hull strawberries, core and cut up apples, peel and segment oranges, etc.
The only concern would be if it's too cold for you to drink once you make it. Extra time in the blender might help to warm it up some, or just let it sit out for a little bit before serving. (you might want to leave it in the blender, then give it another whiz just before serving).
I´ve once frozen a banana, after a few days it came out all brown and slushy. Any specific method on how to freeze those?
@BartArondson : Mine do, too, but I freeze 'em in their skin after they've already gotten dark, as I use them for banana bread. I've heard they don't get that way if you peel & bag them before freezing, but I've never tried it myself. It might be worth asking this as a separate question so it gets more visibility.
@Joe Definitely worth asking as a separate question. Questions should be questions, not comments.
When I buy large amounts of fruit for smoothies, I take an afternoon to break them down: peel, core, and/or stem the fruits (depending on the type), cut into slices or small chunks, measure out single servings of a blend I'll enjoy, and portion it into baggies. The baggies get labelled with the mixture and put straight into the freezer. That way you can just dump a baggie into the blender, add liquid and yogurt to taste, and blend.
I've found freezing fruit works fantastic. The main reason I started freezing fruit is to save money and to have quality fruit even off season. For example, when cherries are in season, the price is lowest and the quantity and quality is usually highest. So I buy a bunch of cherries, take out the seeds, then bag and freeze them.
The same applies to just about any fruit. However, some fruits, such as bananas, are available cheaply year round, so I never freeze those. The main fruits I freeze are cherries, berries, and mangoes. Basically any fruit where the price fluctuates a lot in the off season I freeze.
I always clean and dry the fruit before freezing. For strawberries, I cut off the green leafy tops. For other berries, you can just freeze them straight. Basically, I do it so that when they come out of the freezer, they are ready to be thawed and blended.
Mangoes are so large that I cut them in chunks. I also peel and take out the seed first. For most other fruits I do not cut in pieces. My blender is a commercial vita-mix and has no problems with anything. I can throw in a whole apple and it obliterates it. Although I have never tried a whole frozen apple:)
I freeze in 1-2 pound bags. I use a simple plastic bag and tie the top in a knot. Then I bag it again. I'm not sure if double bagging helps, but I like to think it does. The longer its frozen the more sealed you want it to be. A vacuum sealer would probably be the better way to go but I have never bothered with it.
I thaw out the frozen bags in the refrigerator when I run out of fruit. When blending, you can use frozen fruit instead of thawing it out, but you typically need to add a lot more juice (or milk) if you do this. I use less juice and more thawed out fruit from the fridge, and then mix in room temperature fruits such as bananas and apples.
As for freezing the smoothie instead of the fruit, I suppose you could do this but it might effect taste and quality more. I suppose it has to do with keeping the fruit as whole as reasonably possible while frozen. After blending its broken down and may not retain its taste as much when frozen. Although I could be wrong but thats my hunch.
If you freeze a fresh fruit, then thaw it out a month later, its still very high quality. I have frozen fresh strawberries for a year and when thawed they still smelled and tasted fantastic.
Also because I mix in non-frozen fruit and juice, I feel its best to freeze the fruit and not the smoothie. I do however, make large smoothies in the morning, then refrigerate in a sealed container and drink half of it for lunch.
Smoothies are great with frozen fruit. Don't throw fruit in the freezer whole, if it is going to need peeling or coring -- that's much easier to do fresh. For me, the most important thing is not to grind up the fruit before it is frozen. It will immediately start to oxidize and lose flavour and freshness. Fruit frozen whole or in chunks has enough structure to prevent large ice crystals from forming, just as it does in nature if there is a hard frost. That makes it easy to blend into a "smooth" smoothie. I wouldn't try to make bulk smoothies and freeze them, because it takes way more freezer space; large gritty ice crystals will form; the milk/yoghurt will pick up off-flavours in the freezer; you need to time the defrosting; you might change your mind in the morning. I've tried making a fresh double-batch and having some-now-some-later. The some-later is never as good!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.663040
| 2014-12-18T15:00:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51718",
"authors": [
"Barbara Schmidt",
"David Richerby",
"Ethel Le Campbell",
"Holger",
"Joanne Razey",
"Joe",
"Kathy Pine",
"Leann White",
"Legionella Risk AssessmentsLTD",
"Rob Mortaden",
"Saaru Lindestøkke",
"Susan Campion",
"Toni Bruegmann",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kevin stephens",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19729
|
How should I reheat beef tenderloin?
Possible Duplicate:
How to Reheat Beef Tenderloin?
At what temperature should I reheat my smoked beef tenderloin and for how long? It was smoked to rare and I do not want to heat past medium rare.
Don't. Slice thinly and use on sandwiches for lunch instead.
Depends on the method by which you plan to reheat the meat. The end result should be that the meat is slightly warmer than mouth temperature.
The most precise method is to heat a large pot of water to 90-100F/32-37C, and hold the temperature strictly in that range. Put your meat in an air-tight bag and suck out the air. Submerge the meat in the water and leave it there, stirring occasionally, until the meat reaches 90F/32C -- the more meat, the longer it stays (a steak would probably take about 20 minutes, while a big, solid hunk of the tenderloin may take an hour). Of course, you have to mind your water carefully, to keep it at the right temperature, so this method is a pain unless you have some specialized and expensive equipment.
If you are reheating your meat by oven or microwave, don't rely so much on the settings on the equipment as on the readings of a good thermometer taken from the center of your meat. Still, you want gentle heat only, to avoid overcooking the outside while the inside comes up to temperature.
For me, however, I simply allow my leftover tenderloin to lose its refrigerator chill, then "heat" it by dipping each bite in very hot sauce or gravy.
Sous vide by any other name...
@rfusca - indeed, but some names are less intimidating than others. Sous vide isn't hard, it's just a pain to do without the nifty toys...er, tools.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.663721
| 2011-12-17T17:34:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19729",
"authors": [
"Ayman",
"Bruce Goldstein",
"John B",
"forste",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8158",
"justkt",
"rfusca",
"user5743829"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19305
|
Does the cooking time, adding more water and using high quality and expensive rice help to produce soft and non-stick rice?
Most of my friends told me that to prevent the rice from sticking at the bottom of the rice cooker pot (as shown in the picture below) and to prevent the rice from becoming very hard at the bottom of the rice cooker port, I have to do the following:
Decrease the cooking time
Adding more water and
Using high quality and expensive rice (e.g. Paw San Fragrance rice)
Currently, for each cup of rice that I added, I add two cup of water. The current cooking time is about 1 hour for two cup of rice and the rice use is the normal plain rice.
Would appreciate if anyone can confirm that I should decrease my cooking time to 30 minutes and add 4 cup of water for each cup of rice and the use of high quality and expensive rice?
Soaking and rinsing rice is often the key part most people miss. BTW a rice cooker is a pointless gadget, just use a pot on the stove
@TFD, Actually, I rinse my rice depending on how many cup of rice that I put into the pot - basically, 2 rinse per cup of rice. So, if I put 3 cup of rice, I will rinse it 6 times.
@TFD, I think it is the soaking step that I miss. Next time, I will soak the rice depending on the number of cup of rice that I put into the pot - basically, soak for 20 minutes for each cup of rice. So, if I put 3 cup of rice, I will soak them for 1 hour.
@AndersonKaru No, there is no need to soak 3 cups of rice for one hour. I don't think that makes sense. Soaking time is 20 minutes. Rice quantity shouldn't matter since if you increase the rice quantity, the water quantity will also be increased. IMO 20 minutes is enough.
For plain white rice, I never soak my rice. It also usually never takes more than 20-30 minutes. I rinse until the water isn't murky and then add enough water that it'll all get absorbed no more. I've never had a rice cooker that didn't provide markings on the inside. I add 2 cups of water, add up to the 2 cup line. Rice cooker done in 20 minutes. shrug
This is what I do for cooking ONE cup rice:
Soak one cup rice in one and a half cup water for 20 minutes. This should be done after rinsing the rice properly since, the water used for soaking is NOT to be thrown away.
After 20 minutes put the vessel with the existing water on the gas stove (with a loose lid on) on a high heat.
When the water reaches the boiling point (indicator: water starts to pour out of the top of the vessel), reduce the gas to a minimum.
After 4-5 minutes check whether the rice is done by taking the lid off sightly. Keep it on the minimum gas till the water bubbles on the top of the rice vanish completely.
Switch off the gas.
Let the rice vessel (with the lid on) be on that switched off gas for 15 minutes. The inherent heat of the gas helps in setting the rice properly and reduces the chances of the rice getting stuck at the bottom.
Also, using a thick bottomed vessel for cooking rice is a must. In a thin bottomed vessel, the food is more likely to get burnt if less water is used.
Thanks Anisha. I believe that the method you use when there is no rice cooker devices is around or no electrical outlet was available. I am also quite enlighten that I can also cook rice on a gas stove. I have to upvote this interesting method. I will mark your answer as correct if there are no better answer to make the rice soft and non-stick. Thanks.
@AndersonKaru Actually, I had the rice cooker too previously, perhaps since it was a different model, there was no facility in it to control timing and temperature, and the resultant rice always used to be somewhat hard and sticky, and it took quite an amount of time too. I hated it. :)
Wow, now I am amaze that you actually come out with a solution by not using a rice cooker. That's good cause I am going to use this method.
@AndersonKaru If you do, then make sure you use a heavy/thick bottomed vessel, and also it is very important to simmer the gas to the minimum once it reached the boiling point (otherwise the water will evaporate and rice will remain uncooked). It will be done within minutes, so if you don't pay much attention, the rice will get burnt.
OK. I will pay all my attention to prevent the rice from getting burnt, hard and gummy.
I'm sure Anisha's method works quite well for cooking rice in a pot. However, your question was specifically in regard to a rice cooker. So:
The answer to your problem (hard, gummy rice at the bottom of the pot) can be simple and inexpensive:
Use the rice cooker's standard time for white rice
You don't need fancy rice, but don't use cheapest-you-can-find either.
Rinse and drain the rice twice.
Then add an equal amount of water as the amount of rice in the cooker (i.e. 1 cup for 1 cup)
Reasons for the above:
I've never seen a rice cooker whose standard time for white rice was an hour. Are you sure you're using it right? It should be more like 20-30 minutes.
Really cheap rice tends to have a lot of broken and abraded grains which release their starch and turn to a gummy mush on the bottom of the pot.
In the bag, rice will have a lot of "dust" from processing. This is actually loose starch; if you don't rinse it off, it makes the rice at least sticky and at worst gummy.
Rice cookers require very little water for their rice since it's all absorbed. The amount of water you are using is too much even for rice cooked in an open pot.
Hi FuzzyChef, thanks for the many useful tips. To answer your question on my rice cooker - yes, I did use right - the rice cooker had only one button - cook and when it cook, it will cook for 1 hour. I think it is time to change a new rice cooker. I like the word hard & gummy that you use to describe my current state of rice.
For me, the whole point of a rice cooker is that it's easy and forgiving to use. It probably helps that we have rice almost every day, so we get lots of practice.
As others have mentioned, you have to rince your rice - for white rice I rinse it at least twice, more if I don't think the water is clear enough. Additional rinsing does make the rice less sticky, but it takes longer.
For adding water, I'm a bit less accurate than the other people who've answered. We rarely make "a cup of rice," we just pour in as thick a layer in the cooker as we think we'll need. If we want leftover to fry the next day or if we have a dish with a lot of sauce, we'll do more. "A small amount" is a layer about a cm deep in the cooker, a "larger amount" is a bit more than 2 cm, and "a lot" is probably 4 or 5 cm deep. After rinsing and draining most of the rinse water, fill the cooker until the water is a bit less than twice as deep as the rice. i.e. if you put in a cm of rice, the water should be a 2cm deep. Once you get to about an inch of rice, the water can be a bit less, so not quite 2 inches.
For brown rice, I put in about an extra cm of water.
If it were me, and my rice cooker didn't just work, I'd assume it was busted and get a new one. We have one that just has a single button that you push down to start the cooking cycle, and it takes about 1/2 hour to cook an inch of white rice. We also have a newer cooker than has both a Normal and a Fast setting, the Fast setting would take about 20 minutes to do the same amount.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.663915
| 2011-12-02T02:15:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19305",
"authors": [
"Anderson Karu",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Feral Fern",
"Geremia",
"Michael Schmidt",
"TFD",
"dcow",
"dragonsen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8129",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19942
|
safe to sear beef tenderloin the night before?
Possible Duplicate:
Can I Brown Beef For Slow Cooking the Night Before
I would like to prep my Beef Wellington the night before. I would sear, cover with mushrooms, prosciutto the night before, refrigerate overnight then wrap in pastry the next day before cooking. Is this safe?
See duplicate - the USDA recommends not to partially-cook beef, so just treat the browned beef as raw, sear it quickly, refrigerate immediately after searing, and cook it thoroughly the next day.
Yes, should be safe, provided your beef was fresh before preperation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.664532
| 2011-12-24T00:30:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19942",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Barracoder",
"Gyro Gearloose",
"Randy L",
"Takuma",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43541",
"papafe",
"schmendrich"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20134
|
How can I create a drinkable ice slurry?
Based on the idea behind this question on the physics sister site to this site, how can I process ice to create a drinkable ice slurry? When I stick ice cubes and water in the blender, the ice shards re-solidify into a block that makes it impossible to get into my mouth, let alone swallow.
Is there some sort of additive that I can put in my ice slurry to prevent the ice from re-solidifying? Preferably low calorie or healthy? Perhaps something that lowers the freezing point of water, but doesn't do it so aggressively that it causes the average temperature of the water to drop too low.
Do you consider a tiny amount of alcohol 'healthy'?
Interesting idea.
When you mix it, you're bringing everything to the same temperature, and if the amount of heat in your mixture isn't enough to bring all the ice up to 0C before all the water freezes, you're going to get a block of ice.
You could be careful about it, and figure out the temperature of your ice and your water, and get the right amounts, and perhaps even use warmer water (or warmer ice). But you can also just use less ice per water, and that's easy. Simply start with water and add ice, blending as you go, until you have the amount of ice and water that you want, stopping before you add so much that you just get solid ice. Once you've done it once, you'll have an idea how much ice and liquid to start with.
I don't really see why you'd bother lowering the freezing point. 0C is plenty cold for human consumption, and you can just as easily just use more water and less ice. If you do add things for flavor like alcohol, sugar, or anything with fat (e.g. dairy) then you will end up lowering the freezing point, and possibly making it softer when it's almost frozen, but this doesn't really affect the fact that you want to get it to the ideal temperature by controlling the temperature as you create it.
(Note that a smoothie is basically an ice slurry, with a lot of other stuff in it, and they're made just like this - blended with an amount of ice that can't freeze the whole mixture.)
I was just commenting that I don't want a solute that would lower the freezing point too much. Adding salt to create the salinity of the ocean will lower the mixture to a temperature of ~28F because some of the ice will become water which sucks up a ton of energy during the dynamic equilibrium chemical process.
@RossRogers: Yes, I understand freezing point lowering. I'm just saying I don't think it gets you any benefit in this context. It may be that some ingredients you add for flavor happen to lower the freezing point, in which case you'll want them in before you do your temperature balancing, but I don't think you'd add them just for the sake of lowering the freezing point.
This is more 'technique' than additive, but using an electric ice cream maker like this will churn your drink into a nice 'slurry'. The action of the paddles will cause your liquid to form into small crystals. The addition of alcohol (as @rfusca suggests) will help with this.
Along the same lines there are more high end versions like this drink maker that can be rented economically.
Good ideas! I'm experimenting with my blender more, but I'll give this a go if I see an icecream maker at a garage sale. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.664635
| 2012-01-03T03:34:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20134",
"authors": [
"Alex R - NYC",
"Cascabel",
"John B",
"Patrick",
"Ross Rogers",
"echristopherson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8548",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20217
|
Sloppy joe mix cooked with hamburger and was left on the counter for 2 hours.....should i throw it away?
Possible Duplicate:
How long can cooked food be safely stored at room/warm temperature?
I made a large pot of sloppy joe mix with hamburger in it and after it was cooked put it in my crockpot on low for my boys to eat when they got home because i was leaving,i was gone a little over 2 hours and the boys had put the sauce into another pan to put it away and forgot to do so it sat on the counter for over 2 hours....should i throw it away?
Was it hot when they put it into the pan? How much more than two hours are we talking about here?
This question isn't an exact duplicate of the one I linked, but it's pretty darn close, and Aaronut's answer there completely covers you: two hours is the limit. It's a conservative one, but if you go past it, there's risk.
Meat is meat... it's a dupe. I wouldn't bat an eye over 2 hours, personally, unless the boys are infants.
@Aaronut: I was more referring to the fact that the other question was asking about slow cookers, i.e. not exactly the same temperature range. But yes, close enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.665196
| 2012-01-06T09:54:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20217",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"John",
"Mariah Adeboboye",
"NOBrien",
"Sean Hart",
"Søren Mortensen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44278"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18137
|
Does a sharpening steel ever need to be replaced?
Possible Duplicate:
Do honing steels wear out?
I've been using my sharpening steel for several years. The tiny little ridges that run along its length seem to be somewhat worn, although they're still visible. I'm wondering if I'd get a better job from a new one, but they are rather expensive so I thought I'd ask first. Is there a way to tell when a steel needs replaced, other than just by the performance of the knives that are honed with it? I don't have a way to compare with a different sharpening steel, or a new one. Or are they the type of thing that you can buy one time and use forever?
Standard grooved metal steels don't ever really become unusable. The ridges will get dinged up over time with abuse, especially with cheap steels that are not of good quality; however, I've seen some seriously (ab)used steels and they are still quite usable despite looking like Rocky at the end of a fight. In the worst case, the steel will become smooth... which doesn't hinder its ability do its job and align the blade edge.
Smooth (ungroved) metal steels cannot ever wear out, since they're just a smooth piece of metal.
Ceramic sharpening "steels" will never wear out, but the surface can get clogged with removed metal particles. This can be cleaned out with a scouring pad to render them as good as new. If banged against things, the brittle ceramic can chip permanently, but that is not part of normal use.
Diamond sharpening "steels" are the only ones which ABSOLUTELY WILL wear out over time; the abrasive is made of tiny diamonds embedded in the surface, which will be dislodged by normal use. Eventually enough diamonds will be scraped off that the tool ceases to sharpen.
I'd just add that the point of the steel is not to sharpen, but just to straighten up the thinnest part of your knife's blade. That's why you can have a ridgeless steel and why steels don't really wear out. The ceramic and diamond steel help remove some minor burrs that can appear in the metal of your knife, but once you get too many of those, it is time to really SHARPEN your knife, which requires removing some real metal. Steels do not do that.
@Doug Johnson-Cookloose: I'm editing this to make it slightly clearer that the goal of a metal steel is to ALIGN the edge. Ceramic and diamond steels are, of course, just the same as the equivalent fine-grit whetstones; they're good for touching up most edges, as long as the're not badly worn or deeply chipped. Burrs don't have anything to do with it, it's simply a matter of how slowly they remove metal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.665326
| 2011-10-02T03:11:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18137",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Dennis",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Gstestso",
"MotoX",
"bourneGeek",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"yakuza"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123622
|
Mousse au Chocolat without cacao - resembling the taste of cacao / cocoa
How to make Mousse au Chocolat (normally consisting of eggs, cream, cacao powder, sugar, possibly some butter and vanilla) without any cacao or cocoa powder.
It should still taste like cacao and a nutty or caramel-like flavor is welcome too
I don’t know if there’s anything that might help to modify carob better (maybe espresso powder? Lots of recipes says it enhances chocolate flavors). Foodsubs recommends reducing the temperature when baking it: https://foodsubs.com/ingredients/cocoa
Hey, it's pretty hard to take questions on SA that ask for a listing of "everything", becuase there's never any way to know that the list is complete, and you end up with multiple, overlapping, but not identical, lists in the answers. Can you change this question to ask for -- for example -- cacao substitutions for a particular purpose? or ones that can be combined?
Thats a great idea. Thanks @Joe
Got it, that's true. I just wanted to point out that everything that may come to your mind, is what I am looking for. Not that I want to know everything in existence. Hope now it is clear.
Hi Sebastian, I think you misunderstood FuzzyChef. The problem is not with the single word "anything", the problem is what an answer could be. We don't take questions which produce an answer that is a list of things. A substitution question we can take would look like "I have this recipe that contains cocoa powder (here you give the recipe). Which possible substitute would fit into this recipe while producing a taste and texture as close as possible to the original."
Hm. Well then, I don't get it. It's silly to ask this way. I am interested in what ingredients might taste like cacao, not how to redesign one specific recipe.
I see the difficulty, though, in that you couldn't choose one right answer at the end. Probably I would write an answer at the end, summarizing all options.
Asking for a specific recipe is simply wrong. You should change the rules. Anyway, I will just do it.
@Sebastian please don't write such a summarizing answer - the rules were made specifically to prevent this kind of "all options" answers from being written. I get that what you want to have is a list; this kind of answer breaks our system in different ways and so is not allowed, neither are questions leading to it. So your current question would also have to be edited such that your question for "different things" is removed. Seeing that the new question won't produce what you wanted to know, do you want us to do the editing and reopen, or do you want it to stay closed?
Yah, I was about to vote to reopen, but if the question as written isn't what the OP actually wants to know, why bother?
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I Appreciate your help in reopening it. It is indeed what I want to know. Knowing it for one recipe, sure helps in all others too. Just thought it was clearer when keeping it generell. Please have a look at whether the question is okay now
@Sebastian yes, it looks OK now - that was implied in the reopening :) Thank you for working with us and editing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.665678
| 2023-03-14T12:41:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123622",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Sebastian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96223",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124120
|
Lactofermenting fruits successfully
Always when I tried lactofermentation of fruits like pears, plums, or citrus fruits, they always turned bad. When letting them ferment less time, they were still not fermented at all or already gone bad. I tried up to 8% salt solution but they just turn bad and produce some form of alcohol. To be more specific, on top of the liquid appeared white blueish mold (possibly in some cases the white one that is not optimal but okay), but some parts of the fruits had some white mold on themselves, and they tasted repulsively like alcohol.
Can you ferment fruits at all, if yes how, what can I improve, what did you do?
Can you be more specific about what you mean by "they just turned bad?" What did you observe?
Now it's specified. Thanks
How are you storing them during fermentation? I saw Brad from Bon Appétit make fermented citrus fruit and he vaccuum sealed the salted fruit in a plastic bag. If you just leave them in a jar or similar, the air might be what's causing your problems.
That's a good point. I had them in a maison jar with air locks. But surely, in the beginning there is aire. Maybe I will try to cover it with oil, so that it is anerobic. Plastic is no option, it poisons food
In the book "the Noma guide to fermentation" they vacuum-seal everything in plastic bags, hence I thought to successfully ferment fruits, one has to create a vacuum.
Therefore, I built vacuum-sealed fermentation jars, as I describe it as answer on this page: link to vacuum sealed fermentation jar
A vacuum is not necessary for fermentation but it does help fermentation in other ways. 1. Preventing oxygen coming into contact with the ferment (which is part of why brines are used). 2. It provides an obvious indicator that fermentation is taking place, as the C02 released by the fermentation, causes the back to inflate. 3. You have to make sure that the salt / brine, and any resulting acidic juice, is in contact with the ferment. As it prevents spoilage. Again, this is another reason liquid brines are used.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.665954
| 2023-05-07T15:07:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124120",
"authors": [
"Hollis Hurlbut",
"Sebastian",
"andrewb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96223",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122589
|
Thickening agents that work as emulsifier
the idea is to add a thickening agent to a fruity liquid to emulsify it well with oil. Basically an emulsified smoothie. The goal is a fruity fatty thick dip or salsa with the texture of mayonnaise. Since you can't emulsify just water/fruit juice with oil, I thought to make the liquid thicker to emulsify it then. This is because I often read "is used as thickening agent and emulsifier". Thus, I wonder whether there are thickening agents that work especially well for emulsification? Options are arrowroot, guar gum, tapioca and other starches. With which thickening agent would it work best?
Can someone confirm that it would work this way, or has some experience with a thickening agent for emulsification?
Any other ideas how to achieve this are appreciated as well!
Edit: with an emulsifier like lecithin it's no problem for sure, but the goal is to emulsify with a thickening agent.
After your edit, I am quite confused. In the old question, you say that you want to emulsify a clear liquid with oil. In the edit, it seems that you want to create a thickened liquid and mix that with oil. Which one do you want to make? And also, what is it that you want to know about making it?
I hope this resolves the confusion. My goal is to have a really thick fatty fruit salsa/dip. A mayonnaise that tastes like a fruit. Since you can't emulsify just water/fruit juice with oil, I thought (and because I read it) to make the liquid thicker and to emulsify it then. Thus, I wonder whether there are thickening agents that work especially well for emulsification. This is because I often read "is used as thickening agent and emulsifier".
"X is used as a thickening agent and emulsifier" doesn't mean that it does both in the same recipe, or that a random mixture of X, fruit juice and oil will be anything mayonnaise-like. You would first need to think through the general type of recipe you are making, and why it would work, and how you are going to achieve the desired consistency. Only then would you pick whatever additives you need for it to work. From what you have written so far, it seems that you only have a very vague idea, and as far as it exists, it would probably need an emulsifier and not a thickener.
I will experiment and report it here
Answering my own question some time later after I have experimented a bit and came to the conclusion that
thickening agents do indeed work as emulsifiers, although not 100% perfect like real emulsifiers. Yet in scientific papers they are listed under emulsifiers.
What happens is, that only approx. 2% of the oil separates again after emulsion
albeit they do work, the texture doesn't become as stiff as with emulsifiers. The problem is that the thickening agent made it already thick and creamy, adding oil makes it first a bit more liquid because there's simply more liquid in total. Adding more oil compensates a bit, but then it stays there. (The oil keeps emulsified to 98%)
In short, thickening agents do work as emulsifiers but are useless for emulsion, mainly because the liquid is already thick anyway and secondly the textures just doesn't become as delicious as it does in mayonnaise.
I had the feeling that starch did work a bit better than fibers like guar gum.
Thickening agents (stabilizers) and emulsifiers (e.g. lecithine) are two different things. The first ones turn a liquid into a yelly or even a gum, while the second creates connections between watery solution and fat globules so they do not separate from each other.
For your goal you will need an emulsifier in each case and optionally a stabilizer depending on what grade of liquidity you have in mind. Using different agents or even combinations of them for both purposes will provide you the benefit to easily adjust their proportions to fit your recipe. Also there is no general recommendation possible on which agents to use as this is also dependent of the intended result. Starches will give you another texture than gelantin or carrageenan. As a starting point you could try to investigate the ingredients lists of products that are similar to the result you try to achieve.
For a deep dive on this topic have a look into Martin Lersch: Texture - A hydrocolloid recipe collection
My question wasn't clear enough. I edited it now.
Sure I know what's the difference between them but I want to do it with a thickening agent. I have several times that stuff like guar gum was a thickening agent and I think it makes some sense, that the oil and water emulsifies better, when it is a thick liquid. Nevertheless, I was curious whether someone did try it or has a reliable knowledge about whether thickening agents do work as emulsifiers to some degree. Should I written the question more clear
The goal is a mayonnaise-like fruity fatty thick dip or salsa.
You will follow a recipe for mayonnaise.
https://recipes.howstuffworks.com/food-facts/question617.
Mayonnaise is made by combining lemon juice or vinegar with egg yolks.
Eggs (containing the emulsifier lecithin) bind the ingredients
together and prevent separation. Then, oil is added drop by drop as
the mixture is rapidly whisked. Adding oil too quickly (or
insufficient, rapid whisking) will keep the two liquids from combining
(emulsifying). But, as the sauce begins to thicken, oil can be added
more rapidly. Seasonings are whisked in after all of the oil has been
added. Blenders, mixers and food processors make it easy to make
homemade mayonnaise, which many gourmets feel is far superior in taste
and consistency to commercial mayonnaise.
Mayo is delicious. You could use an oil with some flavor - not coconut but maybe a good olive oil. I have been going thru a lot of pecan oil lately. Sunflower oil is nice too, and cheap. You could use a vinegar with the fruity flavors you want. Make a batch as a base then experiment with the fruit additives you envision.
You can find lots of good mayo recipes. And when your guests ask what this dip is you can say "Homemade mayo!"
Thanks Willk, I tried it already but it only becomes thick and creamy when the fruit flavor is almost gone. Just think about how little water there is in mayo
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.666140
| 2022-12-08T15:50:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122589",
"authors": [
"Sebastian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96223",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129736
|
How to increase shelf-life of homemade bean (legumes) paste
Most vegan dips and creams are legume-based. Legumes, however, turn bad pretty quickly.
I know that sodium bicarb helps to slow down the process, but it also makes the taste worse. What other options are there to have the cream/paste last longer?
Add-on: Naturally, I only use clean utensils and cool it down asap.
I mean store-bought hummus for e.g. is good for a week at least after opening. What ingredients or treatments that I could do at home, would achieve something similar?
Are you actually asking about shelf life (i.e. unrefrigerated storage), or do you just want the stuff to last longer in the refrigerator?
The second one. I want it last longer. Thank you
It's possible that the store bought stuff has been pasteurized in some way. I don't know if getting a sous vide setup and doing a low temperature multi-hour cook might achieve what you're asking
Pasteurizing is an idea. Couldn't I do it in a pressure cooker?
An ice cube tray, and your freezer. After freezing in the ice cube tray, remove and bag the cubes and put back in freezer (vacuum-bagging optional.)
I strongly suggest having a dedicated tray or trays for this purpose, as even dishwasher safe ones typically retain some staining that you might not want your regular ice cubes exposed to.
If you know you'll want a large amount at once, you can simply freeze in a larger bag or container; the cubes are handier to portion out as much or as little as you want at a given point.
I prefer small lidded plastic storage containers - enough for 1 or 2 days' worth depending on your schedule - as they transport better to work for lunch and store better in the work fridge (using my case as an illustrative example). But the principle is the same. And yes, don't use the same tray for ice, especially if it's a silicone one and you like your hummus garlicky. The flavour is hard to get out.
Sanitize your utensils and storage containers, and cool the paste down quickly to fridge temps after you cook it. Use clean utensils every time you want to take some of the dip and lid it soon after.
It may also be better to use multiple smaller containers... they can be cooled down faster, and you don't has as long between dipping a utensil into it until it's used up.
That's what I am doing already. It still turns bad much too fast. Store-bought hummus for e.g. is good for at least a week after opening. What ingredients or treatments that I could do at home, would achieve something similar?
@Sebastian I don't have any at the moment, and it might be different to yours anyway, but does yours state a time after opening within which it should be used? I think I'm used to it saying 2 days, and me pushing that to 3 or 4. That suggests either packing in a way that prevents contamination, packing under a protective atmosphere, or both. Neither of these is readily doable at home
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.666593
| 2024-12-09T12:05:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129736",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Sebastian",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96223"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29151
|
Home-make yogurt: add sugar / something else with the starter?
I've read some recipes in the internet and this question about how to make my own yogurt.
Some recipes say to add a little sugar with the starter, so that "bacteria would have something to eat".
So, I've tried adding some sugar, in variable amounts, but I couldn't find a relation: sometimes my yogurt gets thicker, sometimes not.
Does someone knows if adding sugar (or something else) with the starter leads to a better (more thicker, less acid) yogurt? How much should I add? Is there a recommended kind of sugar for that?
The statement "so that bacterias would have something to eat" is incorrect on several levels- including grammatically.
Bacteria already have plenty to eat. There is a lot of sugar in milk. Cow's milk is 4-5% sugar. Additionally, giving the bacteria more to eat would allow them to create more acid and make the product more sour not less.
The bacteria used in yogurt making are lactobacilli and prefer munching on lactose anyway.
That said; Lactose tastes less sweet than the sucrose in table sugar. Adding sucrose will make the yogurt sweeter if that is your taste.
Making the yogurt thicker is done by
accurately controlling the fermentation temperature,
using higher fat milk,
adding protein in the form of dry milk powder,
or removing water after fermentation.
When I have added sugar to my yogurt it has not had a noticeable effect on the texture.
So why didn't you edit and correct his post then (his first language obviously isn't English) instead of just telling him so?
@spiceyokooko- because he was quoting someone else with poor grammar? I thought it was intentional to seem casual or to convey the inexperience of the person he was quoting.
My understanding is that you may need to add the sugar if you are making yogurt from alternative milk, such as soy, rice, almond or coconut, because they don't have the lactose sugar that the culture needs to "feed" on (for lack of a better term). You will probably not get the thicker consistency you want unless you add an actual thickener such as natural gelatin. You can get a vegan version if you need to. Mine has always come out more like kefir; thinner but having a nice yogurt taste.
A better way I have found to make thicker yogurt is to do a longer pasteurization before I cool it down and add the culture.
Not sure what your recipe has you doing, a few strong raw milk advocates just go straight to 110F, but almost all that I have seen have you reach 185F and then cool it down to 110F. If you stay at 185F for about 30 minutes (maybe longer but 30 minutes gives me exactly what I want) and then cool it down you will have a thicker consistency when you are done.
I have tried adding more culture, but that didn't change my consistency. Happy fermenting!
FYI- Heating to 185+ makes the yogurt thicker because it denatures the albumin that would otherwise wash out in the whey.
Bring whole milk to a boil. Wait till temp is 140, enough for it to be hot but not scald. Add yogurt culture ( I use a blend of kefir and Greek yogurt) to a small sauce pot at room temp. Add milk, keep in a warm dry place in your kitchen ( I live at high altitude) so I wrap it in a dish towel and place it in the oven and take it out a day later. Works for me
I read that bacteria feed themselves on fiber in your gut. That makes me wonder if you could not add some fiber as prebiotic to help them proliferate..
Raymond, welcome to the site! Actually, there are so many different bacteria in your intestines that they feed on different things. The bacteria in yoghurt are from the lactobacillus family, eating lactose (= milk sugar).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.666840
| 2012-12-13T16:41:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29151",
"authors": [
"Alberto Fabbri",
"Chris",
"DSVitale",
"Hans",
"Moe Epo",
"Nanci McDaniel",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"Steve Montgomery",
"T. Albert",
"a.o.d",
"admin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97514",
"spiceyokooko",
"user67658"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18280
|
Why can food be left out to cool (140F to 40F in < 6h) but not to defrost?
Local government food safety guidelines for storing foods (p26) which have already been cooked stipulate food internal temperature must be brought from above 140F (serving temperature) to 70F in less than 2 hours and from 70F to 40F in less than four hours.
Why then do the rules for defrosting (p23) (the reverse) say food should be at room temperature "for very short periods during preparation" and foods can only be defrosted in one of three ways: in refrigerator, under running water, or in the microwave provided there is no interruption in the cooking process (ie. partially in the microwave then cooked or all in microwave). If its just time and temperature, why is the cook trusted to watch the clock for cooling and not defrosting?
Previous posts have asked for guidelines and best practices; however, my question accepts the practical advise and hopes to discover the political (creating effective guidelines) and biological (does warming from 40F generate more/more harmful bacteria than cooling from >140F?) reasons. I have my own theories but what are yours?
Cooked foods are starting with a very low bacterial count, because the cooking process killed everything. Defrosting foods are starting from an unknown count, because they picked up some during the cooling process before they were frozen. Bacteria multiplies exponentially, so the starting point matters greatly.
I'm glad you asked for theories because I don't have anything to back this up.
I was focused on the fact cooking does not kill all the bacteria. Your's is an interesting position. How quickly we need empirical evidence! Yet the cooling process seems to be the worse for me. When a product cools through the danger zone to refrigeration temperature, the bacteria are not killed. Instead they enter a dormant state. Whereas a food thawed through the danger zone to cooking is entering a state where bacteria is killed. In the latter the concern is for when bac count is too great to be made safe. While the former hopes to slow the bac count only.
The very document you link to clearly explains the reason:
It is important to use methods that will allow the entire mass to thaw evenly. Any method that allows one part, for example, the outside surface, to defrost before the inner portion is not acceptable, because the portion that thaws out first will be in the danger zone before the other portion is thawed.
Bacteria grow and produce toxins while in the danger zone. If you thaw on the counter then the exterior will be crawling with them long before the interior is thawed.
The other methods are acceptable because:
Keeping the food refrigerated never permits any part of the food to enter the danger zone.
Very cold water keeps the exterior cold, which is close enough to refrigeration as long as the food will be cooked immediately.
Microwaves partially penetrate the interior and cook the entire portion very quickly; the food will be in the danger zone but for too short a time period to matter.
It's also very important to note that the cooling rules are not about simply "watching the clock". If it were that simple, they wouldn't bother with rules, because room temperature is in a pretty consistent range no matter where you are. Cooling hot, potentially-dangerous food on a countertop is every bit as inappropriate as defrosting it there. Food service professionals will hold the food above 140° F until it is ready to serve or store, and if storing, they'll cool it very quickly by dividing into smaller portions and/or using an ice water bath or even specialized equipment (e.g. flash freezing).
There's really no practical difference here. The extra 1 hour permitted to cool from 140° F to 70° F is really only because you've just cooked it, so (a) it's been pasteurized and (b) temperatures very close to 140° F are not very hospitable for bacteria should the food become contaminated again. When defrosting from frozen, it's assumed that the food (cooked or raw) is already contaminated either from factory handling or from prior cooling in the danger zone, so you need to strictly follow the 2-hour rule.
I want to accept this answer; however, these rules are about time and temperature. Again this is not a practical question (see below) about why or how. That said if you want to elaborate on the last paragraph about bacteria counts after pasteurization versus bacteria counts in raw food I will accept that as the best answer. (I'm not sure what the "extra hour" is about. Both cooling from 140-70 and defrosting to room temperature using running water are allotted 2h.)
@xtian: Your question asked why those are the rules, not about bacteria counts, and this post answers the "why". Discussion of bacterial counts would probably be better suited to a forum of microbiologists, if there is such a thing. At a conceptual level it's clearly obvious that pasteurized food will have (much) fewer bacteria than raw food, so I really don't think that bears elaboration.
That's a blatant misrepresentation of my question. And, its not "clearly obvious" as you suggest given: 1) misunderstanding here, 2) fact, pasteurization does not kill all bacteria only reduces the count to acceptable levels, 3) fact, waste product toxins created by bacteria are not destroyed by cooking. The question is very much about food and bacteria. If you will allow me to suggest, your confusion about the question may originate not in the question but the domain. These rules are easy to remember for all food service workers as a matter of public policy, not science or logic.
@xtian: You're repeating points I've already made myself several times on this site. None of those in fact have anything to do with your question. Pasteurization doesn't have to kill all bacteria in order to be effective and protein toxins are a non-issue as long as the bacteria are kept in check. You certainly don't have to accept my answer but please note the section of our [FAQ] where it says "...practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face." We're here to answer questions about food and cooking, not speculate on political motives or microbiology.
I'm not suggesting Public Health guidelines are "political". You have again missed the point of my inquiry. Ultimately, the quesion is asking users who know the food-biology facts to enlighten me on the reasoning for the rules (Are there more bacteria in raw foods then toxins in cooked foods? Presumably since I eat rare beef and sushi and vegetables its not at all guarnateed). This is a factual inquiry. You can't bully me to accepting your answer. I don't know the answer. I'm fine with that.
When defrosting there could be a big difference in temperature between the outside and middle of the item. The middle could still be rock hard when the outside is warmed into the danger zone on a summer's day. Thus the recommendation is to defrost within a refrigerator as the max temperature any part gets to will be controlled. Defrosting in running water or microwave are also acceptable as they are fast and so little has time to grow and go bad.
Strangely, it seems you are suggesting the interior would have less bacteria than the interior, when in either case (defrosting or cooling) the time and temperature are the important controls (ie. cooling: 140-70F @ <2h, 70F-40F @ <4h). Thus, your point goes toward the concern of exceeding time & temperature limits and still not be defrosted. The question is not practical, but theoretical... (>_<)
I think it's a combination of this, and the higher initial bacterial count. This especially applies to frozen raw meat. The surface of the meat, where the bacteria count will usually be higher, reaches the danger zone fairly quickly and stays there for the majority of the defrosting time.
There is still a guideline. Different bac counts on surface and interior are irrelevant. Concern for the rapid growth is not voiced the same for cooling and thawing in guidelines. I'm sorry to dog the topic. I still hear only one point; initial bacteria counts may be greater.
@xtian: I think another point might that the amount of time to wait for the centre to completely thaw could be long enough for the outer regions (which have been thawed for a while) to collect new bacteria (even if the object was bacteria-free when first taken out of the freezer) which then start to multiply.
@FWFD, Then what you're suggesting is bacteria growth in defrosting foods is higher in the period of 6 hours at room temerature than for cooling foods over same period because defroting foods have a temperature difference that cooling foods do not?
We do seem to be missing an important point here... cooling is not allowed to happen at "room temperature" at product temperatures below 140 F; only until reaching 140 F from some higher temp. In fact, no food that supports bacterial growth is allowed to be kept at "room temperature", or any temperature inside the danger zone (40 - 140 F) for any period of time except in preparation for chilling, cooking, or service, and that only very carefully under sanitary conditions. Check the USDA guidelines (I just did, courtesy of NDSU: http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/foods/fn572-1.htm#Safe )
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.667181
| 2011-10-10T00:50:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18280",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ambidextrous",
"Bob",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"Jaysheel Utekar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7542",
"xtian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60077
|
How do I know when my sauce is reduced enough?
I followed this recipe over the weekend to try out something new:
Eric Ripert's Red Snapper and Morels in Port Reduction
My biggest issue was the sauce. It was very liquidy. I don't think it reduced properly and perhaps not enough butter? But I'm really not sure.
All the recipe says is:
Bring Port to a boil in a small heavy saucepan over medium-high heat. Lower heat and simmer until reduced by half (if using a gas stove, make sure flames don’t lick the side of the pan; if they do, the Port will burn and the sauce will be bitter). Add vinegar and simmer, lowering heat as needed to keep liquid from burning around the edges, until reduced to an almost syrupy consistency, 8–10 minutes. Remove from heat.
Bring Port reduction to a boil in a small saucepan over high heat. Cut remaining 3 Tbsp. butter into small pieces. Remove pan from heat and gradually add butter, swirling reduction in pan until emulsified, about 3 minutes. It should look shiny, not greasy.
But in my pot its pretty hard to tell if its been reduced by half. Are there any tips for knowing when this is done? A consistency or something I could look for?
I also wasn't sure and it doesn't specify during which, if any, of the steps should the lid be off vs lid on?
Don't have time for a full answer right now, but one thing you'll notice is the bubbles in the sauce will start getting bigger (less water, more sugar).
The whole thing should've been done with the lid off. Any time you're reducing a sauce, you want the steam (moisture) to escape.
As for 'how thick', the standard test is 'coats the back of a spoon'. If you stir with a spoon, you should be able to lift the spoon out vertically, and the sauce doesn't immediately drip off of it.
This test also lets you judge just how thick the sauce is, as you can look at how much is coating the spoon. If it's too opaque to be sure, you can run your finger across the back, and judge the clean strip vs. the coated part.
This is really down to both personal preference and experience. You know roughly how long you simmered this sauce for and that the consistency was too thin, so next time you know to simmer it for longer. It's impossible to give a more exact answer because there are too many variables: pan size and temperature, amount of liquid etc.
The lid should always be off when reducing a sauce, otherwise the liquid will just condense on the lid and drip back in; you'll be there all day.
We do a lot of sauces and never use a lid through any part of the process. No need for it at all. Thickness desired is pretty much up to you. Start the process at higher heat so the ingredient's are all blended well then slowly turn down the heat until you get a consistent low simmer. This usually takes about 1/2 hour of standing close by and stirring constantly. We just did 8 quarts and the total time from start to finish was about 6 hours not counting time to can.
stirring frequently also helps reduce the sauce by releasing more steam.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.667989
| 2015-08-20T12:49:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60077",
"authors": [
"Alta van de Venter",
"Bernie Lynch",
"Debs",
"Julia Wheeler",
"Linda Feehan",
"Myakell Jackson xWF",
"NKY Homesteading",
"User1000547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
111083
|
Boiled chicken breast skin tastes like soap
I often buy full chicken in supermarkets and boil it. I noticed that its outermost breast skin part (only skin, and only that part where you would expect nipples) tastes like soap. At first I thought that maybe I didn't clean the dish-washing liquid from the fork completely or something, but then I realized that this happens with ALL chickens I bought... They were from different sources, of different sizes and complexity. Does any body know the reason? Thanks
Chickens don’t have nipples... but to be more serious, are you boiling them in plain water? I mean you aren’t boiling then in lye water?
Maybe it's not soap that you taste. At least here in the US, most chicken bound for the supermarket is sprayed or dipped in a bleach solution. It could be you are picking up on that, but it is not a taste I've ever noticed.
Not an uncommon problem apparently.
https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2671284
https://ask.metafilter.com/83528/Wash-your-mouth-out
that last link is someone cooking it in a pan. But there is some logic going on in those discussions. Soap is - animal fat + other ingredients. Some of the discussion is suggesting that perhaps your water is contributing the 'other' ingredients. Or perhaps the phosphates used by butchers is the 'other' ingredients.
Solutions? try washing your raw chook just in water, paper towel dry. Also maybe do an experiment and use bottled water. Do those two actions separately, as it might be your water is the problem. (loner term solution being install a water filter on your tap).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.668281
| 2020-10-10T12:17:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/111083",
"authors": [
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98801
|
Why does blending blueberries, milk, banana and vanilla extract cause the mixture to have a yogurty consistency?
A cup of milk
A cup of blueberries
A banana
Three shakes of vanilla extract liquid
The original plan was to have a milkshake, but the result is quite a nice desert! Like a no cook yogurt.
Looking more closely, the milk has curdled, but not like when mixing it with orange juice. Sort of reminds me of the cheese making process too
Is any yogurt a cooked yogurt?
@tox123 ok, heated, not cooked:-)
The pectin from the blueberries jelled in the presence of the calcium in the milk. The texture might be unexpected, but it is perfectly safe and tasty. It is the same process that thickens blueberry jam.
It shouldn't be curdled, that is the clumping of milk proteins in the presence of acid. Here, the milk proteins stay suspended in the milk as usual, it is the pectin that builds the "mesh" of the creamy consistency.
are there any more well known recipies that combine milk and pectin to make mousse type foods?
Can you elaborate a bit more? Does this always happen when blueberries are blended with milk? Do any of the other ingredients help start this process or help maintain the consistency? Does the ratio of of milk to blueberry make any difference?
@AntKutschera yes, there are such recipes. I have no idea how "well known" they are, but I have made some of them.
@JJJ these are interesting additional questions. You could ask them separately. I don't know which conditions are needed, exactly, I have had it happen both on purpose and by accident. I think the ratio of sugar to pectin will be more important.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.668446
| 2019-05-04T10:11:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98801",
"authors": [
"Ant Kutschera",
"JJJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75393",
"rumtscho",
"tox123"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6174
|
Are there certain kinds of salts that work best for baking (cakes, bread, etc)?
As there are different kinds of salts which contain different minerals, is there a kind of salt that is better to use when baking?
Does the kind of salt depend on what I am baking?
See: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2242/why-do-some-recipes-recommend-kosher-salt
Salt that is used for food consumption is always meant to be sodium chloride (and may or may not contain other things such as iodine). Other "salts" (to use the term in the chemistry sense) such as potassium chloride are not generally used by themselves for human consumption or specified in food preparation, even though they are potentially safe to eat.
Sea salt is still 85% sodium chloride but because it has additional chemicals/elements/compounds in it, does have a different taste.
For best results when baking, use plain table salt, sodium chloride, with or without iodine (which is added to provide a necessary nutrient for those not living near a salt-water source of fish or not eating enough salt-water fish). Note from the link that sea salt does not contain enough iodine to supply a nutritionally adequate amount.
When baking, kosher salt is ideal. Kosher salt has no additives, so you are getting nearly pure, unadulterated sodium chloride.
There is one issue with using kosher salt, its grains are corser than average table salt, so it is less likely to dissolve in recipes with little water and there is less mass per a unit volume. To accommodate for this, one can grind the salt finer or use a greater volume (1.5 to 2 times more is common).
Table salt can be used but it usually contains sodium iodine and anti-clumping agents that can have undesirable effects on baked goods.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.668606
| 2010-08-27T15:15:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6174",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58914
|
Has there been some change in the varieties of broccoli sold in US supermarkets in the last few years?
Having eaten broccoli all my life, in the last year or two I have noticed some differences in most any broccoli, either fresh or frozen. The primary differences I notice:
1) There are many small leaves near the top of the broccoli stalks.
2) Often there are stringy parts of the stalk, even just below the florets. Even when cooked they can't be chewed. Seems to be worse on frozen broccoli.
3) Stalks are waxy looking (kind of shiny).
Also I have noticed that it has become quite difficult to find really fresh broccoli. Usually most of what is available is gray on top and the stalk cutting is turning brown.
For reference I am in the western US (Northwest California). The supermarket I shop at is a large national supermarket chain, so the produce could be coming from anywhere. That is why I am wondering if there is another variety out there, especially on the low end side. I have not checked local health food stores (they tend to be pricey) or farmers markets yet.
Could anyone say what might have changed? With all the news about new varieties, imports and GMO's, I am curious if there is something to this.
How many different stores are you looking in? What you describe doesn't really sound like what I've seen in any of the stores I shop at. (I'm in California too.)
Um... not sure. I know that the sale of "broccoli crowns" (without stems) has increased... I don't remember ever seeing them when I was a kid... but I've always remembered having to peel the stems. Specialty grocers may offer "Chinese broccoli" but that's a pretty different plant.
I've been getting broccoli from the local farmer's market, and I'm 100% sure it's a different variety than what's sold in most stores. The stem is quite pale and the branches come off at 90 degrees then slowly curve upwards, rather than coming off near 30-45 degrees but going straight.
@Jefromi Safeway supermarket, though being a large chain supermarket the produce could be coming from anywhere. I haven't compared to health food or farmers market produce yet though.
In Southern California there is broccoli rabe, and people of Italian decent, I believe use it a lot. It's tall, long stems, not too much of the "tree" part" and can, if I remember correctly, be brown on the top and on the stem. Why... well people don't always buy what they don't know so it gets old and sometimes the markets don't keep up getting rid of the old stuff. It has been a bit tuff when I have cooked it, but I may have cooked it too little and it's usually tossed in olive oil. It is usually nice green. The regular broccoli near me is fine and I have also seen a broccoli cabbage combo
First, there can be a difference in varieties that are sold in supermarkets. Calabrese, which is a member of the broccoli family, is what is most often sold in grocery stores. The other variety that may be found is 'Italian Green Sprouting'. (Note that I am not referring to other types such as broccoli rabe, broccolini, etc., but just what we think of as 'regular' green broccoli.)
From seedaholic.com :
Calabrese & Broccoli is a confusing series of plants:
Supermarkets have helped to confuse the issue of what is broccoli and what is a calabrese by calling both by either name. Most ‘Broccoli’ sold in the supermarkets is actually Calabrese not broccoli.
Broccoli has small heads (mainly purple, sometimes white or green) which mature slowly and can occupy the ground for almost a year. (The word broccoli means 'little sprouts' in Italian). Calabrese are smaller plants that produce larger crowns.
Keep in mind is that broccoli is an over wintered crop but calabrese produces its crop the same year before winter. Sprouting broccoli can be harvested from late winter to late spring. Calabrese can be harvested from mid-summer to mid-autumn. If you grow both calabrese and sprouting broccoli, your kitchen will be kept in broccoli for most of the year.
To add to the confusion, this variety, called "Italian Green Sprouting" is a "heading" broccoli. The name refers to the multitude of sprouts it produces once the main head is harvested.
Next, and what may be an even larger factor, is how it is stored on its way to market or production and in the store. I would suspect that this may well be the source of your issue. From farmtotable.colostate.edu :
Safe Storage and Handling
Broccoli should be stored unwashed, in loose perforated bags in the refrigerator. Broccoli left unrefrigerated will quickly become woody and fibrous. Wet broccoli can become limp and soggy as well as support the growth of microorganisms, so wait to rinse it until just before eating.
And...
Why is my broccoli so tough and chewy?
At room temperature, harvested broccoli will convert its sugar into a fiber called lignin. The more time spent at room temperature, the more lignin is produced and the more fibrous your broccoli becomes! Keep your broccoli refrigerated to extend the shelf life.
I checked some photos and I think you are right. Especially the leaves and how the stalks look. I live in a rural area so the length/conditions of storage are probably a factor. Regarding the heads, I thought they should be normally green to blue green on top (based on my recollection over time). But what I usually see here is that the look gray to dark gray, and the individual buds don't seem distinct, like they might be wilting. Is this also a sign of poor/lengthy storage?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.668769
| 2015-07-08T20:33:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58914",
"authors": [
"Blaine Sadler",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Charlene Whitcomb",
"Ernest Perevoski",
"Joe",
"Kolleen Jachim",
"William T",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"junaid awan",
"user3169",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57649
|
What can I use as a manual hard cheese slicer?
I used to have an electric deli slicer (with the motorized rotary cutter) like they have in the supermarkets, though not so fancy for home use. But not any more, and now I do not have the counter space or budget to justify getting another one. Also cleaning given infrequent use does not make a lot of sense.
Where I usually have a problem is thin slicing hard cheeses (like a block of cheddar cheese) with a knife. Because of the force required to slice the cheese, the slice usually ends up too thick or only a partial slice.
I have tried using generic band type cheese slicers that are fine for soft cheese but would seem to break for hard cheeses.
So I would like to know what kind of utensil I could use. Ideally I would like to keep it in the realm of a manual-operation utensil that is easy to clean and store.
--EDIT--
After doing some more searching, I came across these two that seem like possibilities:
Norpro 330 Heavy Duty Adjustable Cheese Slicer
Norpro 349 Marble Cheese Slicer-MARBLE CHEESE SLICER
The 330 has replaceable wire which seems like a good feature. I would appreciate any comment regarding whether these might be suitable.
Chef's knife bolted to the end of a block of wood, so it swivels. Be sure to blunt the tip of the blade, beyond the swivel point, with a bench grinder so as not to poke yourself while cutting.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/14542
I've broken a device pretty much like your second link, the 349, while slicing cheddar. They're also a bit of pain to clean.
A Scandinavian cheese slicer, like this one should do the trick. It's small, cheap, machine washable, and they last basically forever.
How wide would you say the cutting blade is? I need something at least 3 1/2" wide. Also, can you vary the slice thickness with the cutting angle?
I think for that width you might be better off getting a wire based slicer.
@user3169 They're only about 2" wide, but that's what I would use. Just cut your cheese in half so it fits. You don't have that much control of the thickness. You could try a mandolin instead but I don't know how well they work with with cheese.
They also function as a vegetable peeler when you're desperate. You can use them on a wider block, as the blade digs in a little past flat part. You can then alternate back and forth on either side of a larger block.
Cheddar is generally not a problem for a wire to slice - not sure if that's what you mean by "band-type slicer" as I've never heard the term. Most images that come up for it seem to be of the rolling hand-held sort many of which would probably be too wimpy.
What I use when I don't use a knife is a board with a wire supported on a frame and a lever arm attached to a base/board. I've never gone after parmesan or other "seriously hard" cheeses with mine, but cheddar certainly poses no problem for it. An alternate version uses a board with slot to hold a more traditional cheese wire with handles.
Sorry I meant a wire slicer something like this one but maybe I just need to get a better one. I found a couple of other options. I'll add them to my question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.669237
| 2015-05-20T22:28:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57649",
"authors": [
"Franita Delk",
"Gerald Burton",
"Joe",
"Karen Scott",
"Pauline Geraghty",
"Ross Ridge",
"Tania Fortuin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"religdeb",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6525
|
What is the cranberries/sugar ratio used in the American cranberry sauce?
I once tried to make a cranberry sauce like the one I tasted on Long Island, but the one I made tasted differently (it was more sour). I guess I used less sugar that I should have done.
Do I wrongly recall, or do you use also lemon juice to prepare the American version of the cranberry sauce?
For 12 ounces of cranberries, use about 1 cup of sugar. You may like to use part brown sugar. Lemon juice, orange juice, or zest of either are welcome additions. There is no absolutely standard American version; like anything else, every cook has their own variation.
I like to add brown sugar, orange zest, and a few seived raspberries (to remove seeds) to mine.
Just thought I'd link to the Oceanspray recipe in a comment. I always reduce the sugar and just use lemon zest, no juice, personally, but I always considered the recipe on the back of the bag "standard" https://www.oceanspray.com/en/Recipes/By-Course/Sauces-Sides-and-Salads/Fresh-Cranberry-Sauce
All fruits, including cranberries, will vary in sweet/tartness from crop to crop. Many variables will affect a crop, for instance, a drought will usually make smaller, sweeter fruits.
When cooking with fruits, always taste, then adjust the sugar to the sweetness you like.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.669526
| 2010-09-01T19:34:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6525",
"authors": [
"Juju",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"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
}
|
39464
|
Why are non-orange coloured carrots so uncommon?
Carrots come in a great variety of colours, from almost white to dark purple. However, the most ubiquitous colour variety is orange, and often the only to be found in regular supermarkets. Why is this?
Good question. Wegmans has a frozen veggie blend that includes yellow carrots, but the only kind they carry in the fresh vegetable section is orange.
related: yellow corns
According to the History of Carrots page from the World Carrot Museum:
The current yellow/orange varieties (containing carotene) through
gradual selection in Europe, now form the basis of the commercial
cultivars around the world, mainly through their superior taste,
versatility, nutritional value and cultural acceptance.
It is clear that until as recently as 1500 or so, carrots were cultivated in a variety of colors such as purple, yellow, and white, but orange was not among them. Dutch carrot growers, who were among the most prolific, created the orange hybrid:
The orange colour did not become popular until the 1500's when Dutch
growers developed the mutant vegetable by selective breeding to make
it less bitter than the yellow varieties, and then it was said to be
adopted it as the Royal vegetable in honour of the House of Orange,
the Dutch Royal Family, although there is no documentary evidence for
this latter "fact". The first carrots were grown for medicinal
purposes, perhaps the medicine tasted good! The main reason why cooks
and housewives preferred orange carrots was because they kept their
colour after cooking and did not leave cookware with an unpleasant
colour. — Carrot Museum's Carrot Color page
There are actually many orange cultivars (in addition to the many other colors), which come in a variety of shapes from long and skinny (the Japanese carrot) to shorter and stubbier (more like a radish).
I've also read that the orange carrot is a Dutch cultivation, even explained with orange being the national colour of the Netherlands. However, even the "Vienna Dioscurides" dating from appr. 515 AD has a picture of an orange carrot, making it obvious that orange carrots were at least bred and probably quite common much earlier: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gemeine_Möhre_(Wiener_Dioskurides).png
The carrot museum website does mention that (http://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/history2.html#byzantine) but evidently they were not common or cultivated at that time, according to their other pages... since this is the most authoritative site I found, I went with their analysis. Still, the Dutch hybridizers must have had some base stock from which to work, so this makes sense.
I was under the impression that most carrots were originally more purple and that it was essentially bred out to be replaced with todays more common orange carrot. After having sourced some purple carrots recently I would guess that the reason they remain uncommon today is that, as with many other purple foods (beetroot for example), they have a tendency to dye everything else on the plate purple, and as such are not ideal for presenting nice looking food, and are therefore less popular.
For the same reason, purple carrot extract makes for a nice food coloring - quite popular where the resulting product is marketed as "natural".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.669670
| 2013-11-15T12:55:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39464",
"authors": [
"Angela",
"Elliot Fiske",
"GGHank",
"Kalyn Lee",
"Lie Ryan",
"Marti",
"Piskvor left the building",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"Zombie Chibi XD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91668",
"mary",
"user91621"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34502
|
What is tamur (ingredients)?
My mate brought some sweets from UAE, it's something like Turkish delight, I think. It says it contains tamur, among other things. I believe tamur is the main thing it's made of, but I couldn't google out what it actually is. Does it contain gluten or milk (allergy)?
Also, is Tahina Tahini?
It's dates, تمر - see Google translate (click to have it spoken - and note the primary translation is wrong, but the right alternate translations are beneath). I do not speak Arabic, but MandoMando confirms this in the comments, and this would be consistent with desserts in that general category.
That said, it's also surprising - given the bright colors, I'd have expected there to be plenty of sugar-starch gel like in Turkish delight; it's hard for food coloring to cover up the darker color of dates if they're providing the bulk of the volume. Given that the food coloring isn't listed, it sounds like starch was left off the ingredient list; I would've guessed it'd be corn starch, but MandoMando suggests it may be something else - but still probably gluten-free. (Not a guarantee, of course.)
And tahina is tahini, yes - it's even mentioned as an alternate name on Wikipedia.
Well, not sure. That link you supplied doesn't sound much like it. But going from Tamur->Turkish->Arabic, it's something like datamur (which is dates). Thanks for help, anyway :)
@DavidL Did you toggle to the other translation, تمر, below the big box, where it says dates, dried date, date?
@Jefromi the google translate link you've provided is misinterpreting dates as in calendars. if you make it singular you get date (fruit). Tamur is the plural of Tamr. I'm almost sure you're right in your translation. For a second I thought it could be Tamarind, but then made the connection that Tamarind is Tamr of India (Indian date). Neat! The OP should be safe re-gluten/milk even though the package says "contains", not ingredients (hence missing color/starch). Note: Corn is not big in that part of the world and it could be an other starch.
@MandoMando Thanks - but for singular "date" I also don't get the right thing; it's the entity described as "history, date, story, chronicles, chronicle, pedigree". In any case, if you'd like to write a more canonical answer, that'd be great; it's how the site's supposed to work.
Alright, thanks for help guys. I'll wait a bit if someone has anything to say about this, then accept.
@Jefromi can't provide canonical, kosher, or other authorities for that matter ;) only can confirm that google translate maps 'dried dates' to 'التمور المجففة', and individually 'التمور' to dates and 'المجففة' to dried (no special knowledge required for this). I can also confirm that 'التمور' is pronounced 'al tamour' in English with the 'al' article being similar to El in Spanish (e.g. El mariachi). Anymore and I'd be straining my languages skills.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.669992
| 2013-06-04T17:56:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34502",
"authors": [
"Ben Smith",
"Cascabel",
"Christel",
"Etienne Jézéquel",
"Isabelle Spohn",
"MandoMando",
"MomLife",
"blabla",
"dwelle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80429",
"kinar",
"tbhartman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35650
|
Help Identifying a pale green, spherical squash-y like vegetable
Got it from the local co-op, no idea what it is! I assume it's some sort of squash.
It's about the size of a medium-large orange.
That looks an awful lot like a honeydew melon, though it could be some sort of hybrid. It's hard to definitively identify without seeing the flesh, as the skin is basically identical to a honeydew.
How does it look on the inside ... and what are the taste and texture like? It could be a very young squash/pumpkin of many varieties ... but it is hard to say from the picture.
Looks like some kind of heirloom zucchini.
Sorry guys, was trying to figure out what it was before I cut it up so I could plan out recipes. Heirloom zucchini seems to be it -- it did come side by side with another zucchini.
That's a cue ball zucchini.
It's similar to a one ball zucchini (yellow), and an eight ball zucchini (dark green, almost black). All of them are round and great squashes to stuff and roast. Hope you enjoyed it!
The fruit from the Cucurbit family (pumpkins, squash, zucchini, melons, gourds etc) are all very good at cross pollinating. This will create some very strange fruits.
I have accidentally grown all kinds of odd things. I would imagine that they are more common at markets & places where people sell produce grown on smaller (than commercial scale production) plots or gardens. This is because proximity is a contributing factor with wind & insect pollination.
I don't recognise this particular one but it could easily be hybrid. Was it the only one of its type or was there a whole crate of them?
There was only one in the crate. I've of course long cut it up and cooked it, but thanks for the response!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.670363
| 2013-07-29T00:18:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35650",
"authors": [
"Chappy Jim",
"Diane Pyndykowski",
"Isaac Bragg-Gardiner",
"James McLeod",
"Martin Turjak",
"Mary",
"Mohammad Yusuf",
"OmniaFaciat",
"Sherwin Yu",
"fluidj",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87211"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41436
|
How does soaking liver in milk work?
Soaking liver in milk is said to be a common technique that supposedly helps to remove impurities, softens flavour, and tenderises the liver.
I tried it, and the liver turned out alright, but it got me wondering: how does this work? What's the chemistry behind it? Exactly what's happening between the milk and the liver?
Is it the acid in the milk tenderising the liver? That would mean I could soak liver in a marinade based on lemon juice or vinegar? (It doesn't seem like a terrific idea)
Or is there something else involved? I searched around, but nothing I found seemed terribly exact.
The book "Nourishing Traditions" states that "All liver recipes will be greatly improved if the liver slices are first soaked in lemon juice for several hours. This draws out impurities and gives a nicer texture." -- p307
My knowledge about the phenomenon itself is limited but I did see it mentioned in "Modernist Cuisine" (Nathan Myhrvold, p. 147)
Many recipes for foie gras, liver, sweetbreads, and other offal include a soaking step before cooking. For kidneys,
this step serves a very simple purpose: to remove any trace of the animal's bodily fluids. Recipes often call for
soaking foie gras, liver, and sweetbreads in milk. It is often said that milk improves the taste, purges blood, lightens
the color, or affects some other property of the meat. We were skeptical, so we tried several experiments. With
a mild-flavored organ meat like foie gras, we could taste a difference, but, frankly, in our tests, we prefer the taste
of water-soaked to milk-soaked foie gras. With stronger-flavored organ meats, there is even less of a difference than
with foie gras. So our suggestion is to simply soak the meat in water.
So, there you have it.
The milk has caeisin wich pulls out blood and impurties as well as some metallic elements. Same stands for tapia as it pulls out some of the muddy and overpowering stony elements. I have put in 12 years in kitchens and have seen milk used in many soaking applications mostly for cleansing methods.
Milk is very close to neutral pH, hardly worth calling acidic, but it does contain lots of calcium, and is a buffering agent, meaning it will tend to pull strong acids or bases closer to it's own pH.
Any time you soak meat in fluid with different salt content, it is going to cause fluid to flow in and out of the meat, this is the same way brining a turkey makes it more juicy, but the fluids can end up flowing in both directions, diluting whatever water soluble compounds are in the meat.
I'm not so sure that the milk actually neutralizes the liver taste so much as dilutes it, and then you throw the milk, with its portion of the flavor, away. If the milk was neutralizing rather than diluting, I'm sure at least half of the old recipes would tell you to do something useful with that leftover milk, like make a white gravy...
I have done the milk thing and never noticed any real difference in either the texture or the flavor.
Maybe its just me.
What I did notice is "how" you cook the liver. A Hot pan so when the liver hits it it shrinks right now. Flip it and cook the other side a short time then out and into an already prepared bacon and onion mix to simmer for awhile followed by beef gravy and serve. Mashed potatoes and a vegetable go great and boy is that ever good. While I was a prisoner (NOT a convict) in a South American lock up my cell mate made this our Sunday night special. The Two cane Kid
As a child my mother would soak liver in a bowl of milk for a day and a half regularly replacing the milk and washing the liver before cooking it. What I noticed is that the blood from the liver would seep out into the milk and the liver would have absorbed some of the milk. I can't remember what she said about the milk treatment but it had something to do with the acids in the milk detoxifying the organ and helping remove the acidic bitterness of the liver. I think the acids break down the toxins and the absorption of the milk into the organ helps it retain moisture whilst at the same time flushes out the bitter tasting blood with all the toxins.
My mother said the milk helps neutralize the liver. Blood (liver) being slight basic and milk being slightly acidic together become neutral.
But since it has properties of buffer solution, it can be used to bring pH of other solutions (e.g. that in our stomach) closer to neutral even when strong acids or bases are present. I am curious in this case which is the desired reaction?
Why would we want that? We don't neutralize other meats. I don't know if the assumption that meat and blood have the same pH is true, but if it were, why does it have to be neutralized?
Milk contains calcium, and that will bind with iron ... and make it less bioavailable possibly. We are warned not to take iron supplements at the same time as dairy products. Also, milk contains sugar - in combination, the binding and sweetening may make the liver more mild-tasting than it would be otherwise. The liver is not the organ that produces urine, those are the kidneys which should be well washed also.
I edited out the final line of this as it was a question put where we put answers. It's a good question though - I encourage you to ask it using the Ask Question link at the top of the page.
You shouldn't soak a liver in milk as that would make the iron in the liver essentially useless to your body, soak it in water.
This doesn't answer the question-- OP is asking how and why it works, not whether they should of shouldn't soak the liver in milk or anything else. Also, why would soaking in milk make iron useless to my body? If I have a glass of milk with my steak that doesn't render my steak nutritionally valueless.
My mother and grandmother soaked liver in milk prior to cooking. When I moved out on my own I ignored that step and stopped eating liver. I can't explain the chemical process but I can say it does work, by soaking the liver (chicken or beef) in milk for an hour or two prior to cooking makes the dish less bitter. I have also learned adding some cream at after cooking the liver and letting that simmer I have a nice thickened sauce. I think, at least most of the time, cooking techniques learned through generations may be the best.
I could be wrong but my reasoning is that heme iron - the type of iron in chicken liver - is not destroyed by milk. Milk is virtually pH neutral when liver is soaked in it it softens the texture and neutralizes any residual urine. All water does is wet your liver making one use more paper towels to pat the liver down and absorb the excess water.
Um, how does it neutralize residual urine and how does it soften the texture if it's pH neutral?
Milk is VIRTUALLY... operative word being virtually.
The liver in a healthy animal (or even most unhealthy ones) doesn't contain urine. You seem to be confusing it with the kidneys, which do.
Reading these explanations, debunkings it seems to me, in large part, and taken as a whole, I'm led wonder if there's another answer entirely.
Calf liver is considered better than more mature beef liver, more tender, milder flavor, etc., and it is lighter in color. What if the milk soaking technique originated as a way to 'improve' the color of the liver? Then as the technique was handed down, it would be a natural process for people to make assumptions as to the reasons the technique was beneficial.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.670567
| 2014-01-25T01:03:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41436",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Alex Czarto",
"Brandis Lee",
"Jolenealaska",
"LIONEL CULLEN",
"Mark",
"Mims",
"Queen Eun",
"Spammer",
"SáT",
"Wendi Paster",
"andré junior guy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97058",
"martin stockdale",
"rumtscho",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112302
|
What is this hinged tool with a box full of wicked grooves and teeth?
Recently, while cleaning out my mother's kitchen, we came across this tool:
When closed, it is about 8 inches long (the box at the end is maybe 2 inches by 2 inches by an inch or so). The two sides come apart very easily. The tool is quite light-weight, and seems to be made of aluminum. Other than that, I have idea what it could be, and there seemed to be no identifying marks or branding.
Honestly, I would not be surprised to learn that it is not even a kitchen tool (my money is on Medieval torture device), but it came from one of the kitchen cabinets, so maybe it belongs there?
What’s the size of the compartment? And are there holes in it? (I don’t know what it is, but it might work as a citrus juicer)
Yeah, I'd say juicer if it has holes, nutcracker if it doesn't.
Incidentally, the idea of medieval torture devices was largely propaganda by people in the Victorian era as a way of making themselves look good. IIRC most of them were actually from the Early Modern period, if they existed at all.
@nick012000 Oh, indeed. But "Medieval" torture device sounds much better in a sentence than "Early modern" or "Bush era" torture device. And when making a joke, how it sounds in the ear matters, I think.
This is an ice crusher.
You put some cubes (or use your ice pick to cut a hunk off from a large block), put it in the compartment, and squeeze it closed. Those gnarly bumps and teeth will crush the ice.
I would personally consider it more "home bar equipment" for crushing ice for cocktails, though that's certainly not the only use. As mentioned in the comments, it probably doubles as a decent nutcracker, though that's not it's intended purpose.
Yup. I grew up with this exact model.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.671186
| 2020-10-26T01:50:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112302",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"James McLeod",
"Joe",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70950
|
Problem with "No Bake Cookies"
We have made the standard type of these for years, using a recipe similar to this one 3-Minute No-Bake Cookies.
A problem we have sometimes is that the sugar will not set (I think). The cookie should be slightly crumbly and have a granular(?) texture.
However sometimes the cookies will not set properly. The cookies remain gooey and will not harden even after a day or two.
As far as I can tell, the same recipe is followed each time. Possible variables might be boiling temperature (by eyeball, not using a thermometer), the timing of removing the heat and adding the oats, or the humidity (we are in a high (70%) RH area, so some ingredients might be affected).
Also we use Nestle Nesquik instead of cocoa. Also margarine instead of butter.
I would appreciate any insight as to why this may be happening.
ADDITIONAL INFO.
There is one additional difference from the recipe. We mix the boiled mixture with the oats in a separate bowl, rather than adding the oats to the boiled mixture in that pot. Possibly the cooling time is an issue.
UPDATE
After further experimentation, the best result was obtained by using a Dark Chocolate cocoa powder (which I presume has a higher cacao content, although the products I used did not state any percentage).
Even the result of other milk chocolate cocoa powders was not as good.
UPDATE 12/19/22
Finally got around to making another batch. This time they came out almost perfect.
Only two changes from the previous method.
Heat sugar/milk combo really slowly. Maybe 4 (where 5 is Medium), and leave there until the margarine cube on the top is melted. Then raise the temp. just enough to keep it boiling. (cherylee50 mentioned this, thks). In my recipe, then boil for 6 min.
Use a full 8 oz. marshmallow creme per the recipe. I was using only 7 oz. as that is the jar size these days.
I don't know if this is your problem, but Nesquik isn't even close to a substitute for cocoa.
The margarine could be a lot softer than the butter as well. Try it I've with the proper ingredients (I assume there's no allergy or similar reason to make these substitutions) and see what happens
The recipe calls for "butter or margarine"
@Jolenealaska The Nestle Quik seemed like a possibility as it has many ingredients, but regarding this problem it is random about 75% OK/25% NG. So over time not consistent unless their ingredients have changed. The Nesquik we don't use for anything else, so it can sit in the cupboard for months, which is why I wonder if the humidity is getting to it.
Hi! Just to clarify, do you use the Nesquik instead of cocoa every time? If so, that may not be causing the problem, since it only happens sometimes. I just want to make sure I'm reading your question correctly. Thanks!
@Sue Yes you are correct. This is why I was concerned about some other factor like boiling temp/time or humidity effect on ingredients or something else that keeps the sugar from crystallizing. They will remain gooey for hours sometimes, but at other times the sugar will crystallize in less than 1 hour. Also I added one additional point to the question.
I can't believe somebody stil uses margarine these days.
This is what I found to work every time. I always use real butter, not margarine, and real cocoa, and I only add just enough milk to make a thick "mud". Just follow your regular recipe as usual , but only put enough milk in to be able to stir your mixture. Bring to a slow boil, stirring constantly to ensure your sugar melts evenly so it won’t be grainy. Bring to a full rolling boil for one minute and you should have perfect no-bake every time.
"Bring to a slow boil" turned out to be a great idea and helped as I mentioned in my edit to my question above. Thanks.
I have had thsee problems too. Here is what I found. Margarine has changed over the years. Do not use it for no bakes, use butter. Cocoa is prefer for no bakes. As far as the gritty, or crystallized taste, do not scrape sides of pan when stirring and cooking. Crystals on the edge of the pan start a crystallization in the whole batch when stired inot the pot. It's an old fudge making tip, and no bakes are similar to fudge.
No matter how careful I am about not over boiling the sugar mixture I always seem to do it, causing a very dry no-bake cookie. My solution is to scrape all the cookies back in the pan and add enough milk to be able to stir it over low heat. When the liquid is all incorporated I re-scoop the cookies onto the cookie sheets. This always does the trick. I harden them in the fridge and they are nice and moist and creamy.
Margarine should be fine - as noted by James, it's called for in the recipe (and the recipe says margarine or butter, not vice versa.)
The huge difference between the recipe and what you are doing (as pointed out by Jolene) is using Nesquick (which is mostly sugar and a little cocoa and a long string of other ingredients) for baking cocoa.
The recipe difference from the "standard recipe" I grew up on is no peanut butter.
Boiling temperature is not critical - "boiling for 3 minutes" is called for, not a particular temperature. Essentially, make sure everything is dissolved/liquified, rather than any "candy-making" transformations.
We never used peanut butter so I don't know what impact it makes. While the cocoa/Nesquick is a big difference, I am not sure if that is causing my problem.
I notice that some peanut butter or butter have slightly higher fat contents, which in return affects the consistency of the cookies: I found a layer of oil seeping through my wax paper after having used a cheaper peanut butter. And those cookies were soft and "less set". I also appreciate Beez' comment above about scraping the side of the pan, which I would take note next time.
Finally, the main improvement points were scraping the side of the pot and using better chocolate powder, and not using powdered chocolate drink mixes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.671688
| 2016-06-26T03:57:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70950",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"James McLeod",
"JohnEye",
"Jolenealaska",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117440
|
Is there a difference between pork shoulder and pork ribs when used in stews?
In the local chain supermarket (western US) they sell both "pork country-style ribs" and "country-style pork shoulder". Both are cut into 2-4" strips, bone-in or no bone.
In recent times the pork shoulder we have been using has been hard to find and expensive. The pork ribs have been plentiful and much lower cost.
We cut these into 1" squares to use in stew dishes. Is there any significant differences in how these will come out in stews?
Or maybe it's just a naming convention to confuse people?
EDIT: These are regular oven baked stews, maybe 1 hour, not slow cooking. Either pork and vegetables in broth, or in barbecue sauce.
My main concern is whether there would be any significant difference in texture or taste, fat content, or how well the cubes hold together.
They aren't trying to confuse people, the cuts are from completely different parts of the animal, so they are being accurate.
There is a difference, one comes from the shoulder of the pig, the other from the ribcase.
And where shoulder bought whole can have a bone in, when sold in smaller portions or as on your case strips, the chances on bone are slim. Ribs will mostly have bone in but can be sold without.
Cooking times between various parts of the ribcase can vary, shoulder times are, as far as I know, within the same range.
If you cook your stew slow till the meat is almost falling apart there should not be a huge difference.
What makes more difference is how much fat is included in the cuts and that is up to the butcher.
I added some detail to my question which might be helpful to understand my issue. Primarily, whether there would be any significant difference in the finished dishes.
As I wrote, the fat content depends on the choices the butcher makes, both parts of the pig can come with or without fat, you might be able to select on that when buying.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.672150
| 2021-10-07T04:27:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117440",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54320
|
What are 'boiling potatoes'?
If a recipe calls for 'boiling potatoes', what variety(ies) is it referring to, and why?
Example Recipes:
Punjabi-Style Cauliflower and Potatoes with Ginger (Aloo Gobi)
Potato and Cauliflower Curry
Roasted Portobello Burgers with Rosemary Garlic Oven Fries
Chorizo-Cod-Potato Stew
How recent is the recipe? (sometimes older terminology isn't used any longer) What is the recipe for? I generally pick my potato type based on the end product.
I'm guessing it means white potatoes, though, as they usually do best when boiled.
@Catija Waxy potatoes in general, not just white; see for example http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6561/how-do-i-pick-the-best-potatoes-at-the-supermarket
@Catija I've updated my question with examples. The latter two are Rachael Ray recipes, and I've noticed a lot of unconventional or quirky terminology from her.
@Jefromi Thanks! That's what I was thinking, too but for some reason the listing I was looking at didn't list red potatoes as good for boiling so I left them off, despite them being the ones I usually use.
This most likely means waxy potatoes, typically white or red. In some contexts it might also mean you want small ones so that you can boil and serve them whole, but it doesn't look like that's the case here.
There are two main kinds of potatoes, starchy and waxy. Starchy ones (like russets) cook up fluffy and dry, desirable for things like baked potatoes and fluffy mashed potatoes, but are prone to disintegrating when boiled or mixed into potato salad, and can get waterlogged from over-boiling. Waxy ones (like most red and white potatoes) on the other hand stay relatively firm, making them good for boiling.
So "boiling potatoes" meaning "potatoes for boiling" would indicate waxy potatoes, and that's consistent with the recipes you linked to. For aloo gobi, you want firm ones so they don't fall apart when you mix it all up. For curries and stews, you don't want them to get waterlogged or fall apart. Fries are much easier to handle if they're not falling apart! And two of the recipes even mentioned red and white potatoes.
I've typically seen waxy white's referred to as gold.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.672344
| 2015-02-02T22:46:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54320",
"authors": [
"Belva Corley",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"George Bartlett",
"Perry Ryals",
"Rosa Meijering",
"Spammer",
"agweber",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"muad-dweeb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123327
|
Can I ferment black bananas like black garlic?
Can the black garlic process 70°C, 85% humidity, 30+ days, apply to bananas? Will alkaline PH help?
You cannot make up your own fermentation recipes.
If you hold your bananas at these conditions, you won't get the same bacteria to grow on them that grow on garlic. And as you don't know which bacteria have grown, you don't know if they are pathogenic or not. One thing is for sure - the amount of bacteria you ingest will be sufficient to give you severe food poisoning, if they turn out to be pathogenic.
Bottom line, when doing fermentation, stick to proven recipes, and don't change them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.672545
| 2023-02-08T11:04:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123327",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122722
|
What are the chances that vegan cocoa butter is adulterated with cow butter?
I have a severe intolerance to lactose. I took years to learn what kind of food to avoid, but in the past few years I did relatively well. Recently I had a sequence of severe reactions. I am still trying to identify the cause. I suspect that a cocoa butter labelled as vegan and organic that I recently started using is adulterated with cow milk. Is it possible? What are the chances?
It is branded Dragon Super foods.
There are other far more likely candidates for cross contamination with dairy. Cocoa powder, as one related example, may be packed on the same production line as drinking chocolate, which contains milk powder. Cocoa butter, on the other hand, has no need to go near dairy.
You might try cutting it out for a while. If your reactions disappear, you will have a pretty good idea that it was the sole contributor.
"Cow butter" already only contains miniscule amounts of lactose. Even if your cocoa butter were adulterated with it the likelihood of it triggering lactose intolerance effects is almost non-existent.
That would be a weird thing for them to do. Various processed vegetable oils are available with properties more similar to cocoa butter than cow butter’s, and they are cheaper.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.672633
| 2022-12-20T12:17:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122722",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Obie 2.0",
"brhans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47377"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123518
|
Can you save pancake batter for one day?
I only need a few pancakes at a time. I would rather cook fresh than freeze cooked pancakes.
Does this answer your question? Storing cake batter. Pancake batter or cake batter it's the same thing with the same answer.
What type of pancake? There’s an older question about British pancakes
American pancakes: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/13287/67 ; British pancakes : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/12933/67 ; when it’s probably too long : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/52153/67
You will lose leavening and the batter will make tough pancakes after a day. A better option is to cook a bunch and refrigerate them, they'll keep for several days and they microwave well. Freezing makes them tough.
You could mix the dry ingredients and mix the wet ingredients, but store the mixes separately. When you want to cook some pancakes, take (e.g.) 1/3 of each of the mixes, mix them together, and then cook them. This means you don't lose the leavening power and your main time constraint is how long an egg-milk mixture will last in the fridge.
The question @GdG linked to has an answer suggesting something similar for cakes, but it doesn't work for many cakes since there isn't a clear wet-dry separation up to the last step.
Also storing wet and dry separately helps avoid gluten development in the batter, which can make pancakes tough.
As long as you refrigerate, it will be fine for 3 or 4 days, though the leavening power will likely reduce over time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.672762
| 2023-03-01T15:57:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123518",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"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
}
|
120160
|
24-hour homemade yogurt: cheesy smell and whey, is it safe?
I’m on a SIBO diet which allows only yogurt that’s been fermented for 24 hours or more. I read plenty of articles about how to make this (and I’ve made standard 8-10 hour yogurt before). They all say it should smell sweet and fresh. Well mine turned out with quite a strong somewhat cheesy smell and a lot of whey separation.
I used lactose-free milk and powdered cultures (and the cultures were quite old), so I thought one of these two things must have spoiled it. I threw it out and got new cultures as well as standard 3.3% A2 milk. I left it only for 14 hours this time and… same.
Is this how it’s meant to be, or otherwise is it safe to eat? It doesn’t smell rotten and there’s no mold, but quite sour.
I sterilized all pots and utensils in boiling water, I used a thermometer for precise temperature reading and I used a yogurt pot that kept it at 42°C the whole time, so I know that’s not the problem.
Perhaps the amount of bacteria was too much for this long period of time and it ran out of lactose to feed on? I used the appropriate amount that the packaging stated for 8 hour fermentation period.
Here’s a photo of the second attempt at 14 hours (the bubbles on the surface are from the whey liquid on top, and it probably looks more yellowish than it actually is due to the lighting):
Usually when making yoghurt you heat the milk to around 85C, essentially pasteurizing it, before letting it cool to 46C before adding the culture. If you don't do this, then the yoghurt may go off since there may be undesirable bacteria in the milk. Sterilizing the pots alone won't prevent this. TBH, I wouldn't eat anything that doesn't smell right. That's your nose giving you a warning!
Hi, I did do this of course. Sorry I should have mentioned it in my post. I heated it to 89 deg and kept it there for 10 mins to help thicken the yogurt.
Yes, it is safe. This is just the normal smell of yogurt, or rather, its cultures. We are accustomed to consuming yogurt which has been carefully fermented to get the least possible culture smell, but this is a modern invention. Decades ago, yogurt was supposed to be smelly, and some people still prefer it that way.
This is not to say that yogurt cannot get undesirable (I don't know if pathogenic) cultures when overfermented, but this usually happens if you keep it for days outside of the fridge. The bacteria will make a yellowish film, a bit hard to distinguish against the yogurt surface (especially if you have a fat cover on the yogurt), with its own distinctive smell. But I don't think 24 hours in the fridge is enough for that to happen.
You could set a small bowl of yogurt outside of the fridge and observe how it goes bad, just to have seen it once and be able to judge what actual spoiled yogurt looks like. Then you'll know when it is time to toss an actual batch, should it go bad.
Hi, I kept it fermenting at 42°C for 24 hours. Not in the fridge for 24 hours. But thanks for clarifying about the traditional smell.
ah, sorry if I wasn't clear. My point was that you have to keep it in the fridge after fermenting, the fermentation itself always happens in the range you mention.
Ah yes, I did transfer it to the fridge immediately afterwards :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.673006
| 2022-03-26T17:27:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120160",
"authors": [
"Aayla Secura",
"Billy Kerr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98506",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120412
|
How do pastry shops get away with displaying cream filled pastries without a display fridge?
I see many French and Italian pastry shops displaying and serving pastries that are filled with creams and custards, but these were not stored in a display fridge.
Don't all these need fridges because of the dairy in them? Why is this practice so common and how come health inspectors allow this?
My guess would be that they display them only for a single day. The pastries are baked at some point in the morning, displayed and then sold on the same day. For that time frame room temperature storage is perfectly adequate.
Maybe they should be using fridges, but the health department hasn't taken any action against them yet because nobody's gotten sick yet.
Sorry, we cannot answer why people (bakers or food inspectors) act in a certain way. A question you did not ask but may be answerable could be to ask what legal requirements apply to the cooling of a given food for commercial sellers. In that case, you would also have to say which jurisdiction is relevant to your question - and I cannot promise you that anybody on our site would have the knowledge to answer that.
The recipes for these creams/custards may be quite different from what you expect, in order to make them safe to keep for the day without refridgeration. In particular, e.g. using starch instead of eggs to thicken the custard. (Don't know about these bakeries for sure, but a professional cook once told me when preparing "mousse au chocolate" for a buffet that no raw egg goes in there for food safety reasons)
Roughly speaking, these confections will spoil more slowly than a glass of milk because they're not as wet.
Somewhat more specifically, most creams and custards contain a lot of sugar and/or butter, both of which will slow down spoilage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.673292
| 2022-04-22T15:35:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120412",
"authors": [
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"nick012000",
"quarague",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120452
|
Suggestions for binding together popcorn into large, edible structures?
So far we have tried using a hard ball syrup as a glue, but it is challenging to evenly coat the popcorn and get consistent results. We have tried drizzling the hot syrup over warmed popcorn and then mixing by hand in a large bowl but the syrup just does not spread out enough.
We'd love to be able to replicate the process they use to make Popcorn cakes where they seem to be breaking down the starch and then solidifying it.
Any and all suggestions welcome!
How large are you aiming? Most recipes for candied popcorn recommend using hard-crack stage (~300 F/150C).
We ended up using straight corn syrup heated to soft ball stage. Two critical factors were (1) use the right proportions and (2) do the mixing/coating inside a big wok to keep it from cooling before adding to the mold.
Getting the right proportions takes trial and error. Too little corn syrup will not hold the popcorn together well and too much will make the mixture too sticky to press into the mold. We ended up using about 1/4 cup per batch of air-popped corn.
The biggest wok we could find was 18" but even bigger would have probably have been even better.
Very impressive, thanks for returning with your end result!
Wow! Edible furniture?!
As @rumtscho wrote, you likely can't make puffed corn the way your popcorn cakes are made. You might want to look into recipes for popcorn balls or similar recipes for different kinds of candy-covered popcorn, which can help you achieve a "glue" that actually holds your popcorn together. The recipe here has baking soda, added at the end, that causes the entire pot of sugar to foam up and become less rock-hard once it cools. I've made recipes like that one before; they taste pretty good and the popcorn does hold together.
These cakes are made by expanding the grains in a mold under vacuum. You won't be able to replicate the process, unless you have the machine for it. I have not done research on that, but I suspect they are only produced for industrial purposes - so too expensive, too large, and too high capacity for a home kitchen.
A description from http://www.madehow.com/Volume-4/Rice-Cake.html of what the machine does, in the case of rice cakes (AFAIK, the maize process is the same):
The rice is gravity-fed from the hopper into the cast-iron mold or cooking head in the popping machine. The mold is heated to hundreds of degrees, and a slide plate opens to impose a vacuum on the moist rice mass. After 8 to 10 seconds of exposure to heat at this pressure, the lid of the mold expands, creating an even greater vacuum on the contents. In the last few seconds of heating, the mixture explodes to fill the given space.
You can of course continue gluing your popcorn with different substances and see what comes out. Probably the most effective way would be to take existing recipes for granola bars, use popcorn in the place of rice kernels, and see how well you like the result. The caveat is that it won't be very similar to the commercially made puffed grain cakes, you will always taste the glue. You will be making a different product, even if it is tasty on its own right.
Update If what you wanted was to have a kind of "edible styrofoam" to use as a sculpting material, this is commonly done with puffed rice and molten marshmallows, and should be similarly doable with popcorn, unless the oil interferes. There are lots of tutorials for how to do it, a top search result for me was https://chelsweets.com/cake-decorating-rice-krispies/.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.673469
| 2022-04-27T23:50:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120452",
"authors": [
"bob1",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
223
|
Best meat replacements for a vegetarian/vegan?
Let's compile a list of vegetarian/vegan meat replacements.
Generic replacements:
Seitan
Tofu
Tempeh
Quorn
Quorn Vegan Alternatives
Paneer
TVP
Commercial fake meats:
Tofurky (Roasts, Sausages, Deli Slices)
Lightlife
Morningstar
Worthington Foods
Boca
Simple Truth (not exclusively vegetarian/vegan brand)
Similar products (nutrition):
Beans
Mushrooms (Portobello, oyster, trumpet, so many more…)
I suggest community wiki for this. (Edit the post and check community wiki box.)
Are you asking about replacing meats in specific dishes, or in general/nutritionally?
Tag discussion: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21/vegan-vegetarian-meat-tags
There is no "meat replacement." I think you mean "meat analogs" or vegetarian protein sources.
I added a "kosher" tag -- Us kosher eaters gotta have our bacon cheeseburgers!
Why is Quorn not a commercial product?
This would be a great question for the Veganism & vegetarianism proposal: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/94068/veganism-vegetarianism please commit!!
One thing I would look out for is the amount of salt and processed ingredients used in some of these. One popular fake burger brand around here is just loaded with sodium and has a huge ingredient list that doesn't look at all natural or healthy. I am sure plenty products are careful about that, but far from all.
Pardon my rampant vegerianism, but the trick is not to substitue meat at all.
I generally get my nutrition from other sources, without using meat substitutes at all.
Unless I really feel like a certain recipe that I used to like back in my meat-eating days.
Use beans, lentils and whole grains for protein.
Use nuts, seeds and avocadoes (or any other fatty fruits and vegetables) for B-vitamins.
Use beans (again) and leafy greens for iron and calcium.
So, it turns out my answer is a bit Zen. Sorry.
I agree; you may want to look at this discussion: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/904/vegetarians-and-nutrition/1307#1307
I actually commented there before I came here. I seem to be on a bit of a soapbox today.
Preach it, Carmi!
I'm not a vegetarian, but I really agree here. The best part about vegetarian food is that it's vegetarian.
It is still good to have some "meat" based dishes for company. It used to be the family norm to have holiday meals at my house but it stopped when I turned Vegan, since introducing more "meats" my family will eat at my house again.
Many dishes rely on there being some dense protein for balance, and many of the recommended alternatives fill that slot very well.
For many dishes mushrooms are a great meat replacement.
Mushrooms don't have proteins and calories... From a nutritional point of view they aren't a replacement.
Ah, but from a deliciousness point of view...
for my umami addiction, mushrooms come close.
Garbanzo beans (chickpeas) make for a delicious veggie burger. Grilled eggplant is also quite lovely.
Garbanzo beans are also great in curry.
Quorn based products are quite good meat substitutes. As a hardcore carnivore with a vegetarian partner I was pleasantly surprised at how edible her dishes such as stir fry and bolognese sauce are.
The texture isn't at all strange, sludgy or bouncy and it's the closest thing to a meat texture (probably chicken more like) I've ever had that wasn't actually meat.
Quorn is also high in protein and not much else so if you're after your balance of carbs and fats you need to make sure your other ingredients are supplying them. Also quorn on its own doesn't have much of a taste so you need to season your dish accordingly.
It's worth noting that Quorn contains eggs, so it may not be suitable for all brands of vegetarian.
yes, I would love to know some vegan alternatives to Quorn: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/440/a-vegan-alternative-to-quorn
Generic replacements:
Seitan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_gluten_(food)
Tofu
Tempeh
Commercial fake meats:
Tofurkey (Roasts, Sausages, Deli Slices)
Lightlife
I would vote this up because it's a good list, but you have no description at all. You could at least link to Wikipedia for each.
If you go to an Indian store you can find 'Nutrela.' It is dried soy protein. Very popular in India. They have chunks and mince. They are both nice, but I have only tried them Indian style.
Baking shiitake mushrooms lightly tossed in olive oil and salt for an hour on a baking sheet at 350F leads to a quite decent flavor and texture substitute for crispy bacon.
I'm partial to Boca fake chicken. They also have spicy chicken patties that are great (although hard to find in our area).
Fake chicken nuggets are great with hummus and a glass of milk.
These don't really taste like meat, but burgers made from marinated tofu are nice. If you freeze the tofu first it gets a chewier texture.
Also, fresh paneer (indian cheese) is a nice addition to vegtable dishes, or can be fried on its own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paneer
I've never had meat so I don't know on a taste basis how they compare but I like the Morningstar foods. I also grew up eating Worthington and Loma Linda brands of fake meat but they are hard to find in most areas. Due to cost and a desire to eat healthier, I don't eat fake meat that much anymore but I still sometimes indulge in Fri-Chik or Morningstar veggie-burgers.
I generally agree with the top-voted answer that fake meats should just be avoided by and large (I feel like much of the perceived ickiness factor that omnis have of veg foods comes from these (often poorly-done) substitutions), but, for personal consumption, when you've got a hankering and anything that even asymptotically approaches the real thing, I suppose they do.
That said, I like using TVP (textured vegetable protein) to make quick taco filling and in spagehtti sauce, chili etc. I get it super-cheap from the bulk section of a local natural food store, and it makes for really quick recipes. e.g. dump a cup of TVP in a tupperware container with some taco seasoning; pour a cup of boiling water over top; mix, put lid on tupperware; wait 5-10 mins. You've got taco filling.
Similarly, one can reconstitute TVP and then mix into spaghetti sauce for a faux bolognease.
These tend to be things I eat a lot of when I'm cooking just for myself and am on a budget (I can get a pound of (dried) TVP for ~$2, which, since TVP is super light, makes a ton!)
Yves has a good line of meat alternative products, including the best vegan hot dogs I've seen anywhere. (I'm not 100% sure that all of their products are vegan, so be sure to check before you buy.)
If you're in the southeast United States, Publix carries vegan tofu crumbles under their Greenwise brand name in the freezer section near the Boca products. I've used them on several occasions to make chili.
My favorite meat replacement product out is Neat. It is 100% vegetarian, soy free, guilt free, and gluten free. Most other replacements I did like the taste or texture, but Neat was different..because I really like it. I have friends who are not vegetarians and love Neat because of how healthy it is and how it tastes just like meat. Check it out! http://eatneat.com
Easy to make and all you need is an egg, water and the mix they provide in there package. Healthy and fast food!
I think "guilt free" is pretty subjective. I have yet to feel guilty about anything I've eaten (but I haven't tried cannibalism yet).
The Beyond Meat burgers that are coming out are pretty close to meat-tasting. If you weren't paying attention, you might miss the difference.
Not sure how many stores carry them, but the A&W fast food chain carries them in Canada as Impossible Burgers.
(note: my comment about sodium content probably still stands with these so I would not make a frequent treat out of them).
Simple Truth has some very good frozen meatless options. They are a natural food brand, not a vegetarian/vegan brand, so a lot of their products are not vegan friendly but their meatless options are good enough I have had to reassert to my relatives (and prove with packaging) that I do not eat meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.673817
| 2010-07-09T21:04:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/223",
"authors": [
"Aaron Burke",
"Alexander Livingstone",
"Attilio",
"Bala Clark",
"Boris Terzic",
"Brendan Long",
"Carmi",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Dave",
"EJC",
"Eric Goodwin",
"FordBuchanan",
"GRA",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Italian Philosopher",
"JustRightMenus",
"Mike Eng",
"Nick Lewis",
"OpenID-test2",
"OregonGhost",
"Peter",
"Phil Applegate",
"Piers Myers",
"Rebekah",
"Shog9",
"SourDoh",
"Stefano",
"Till Lange",
"Walter Mundt",
"Wayne",
"Wizard79",
"forefinger",
"goblinbox",
"grprado",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9824",
"jon mulder",
"kdgregory",
"lemonlime",
"mckinneykev",
"nevernotmove",
"rackandboneman",
"stelisz",
"sverrejoh",
"wrosecrans",
"zzzbbx"
],
"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
}
|
33916
|
How to shape the perfect bao dough
I made char siu bao for the first time last night and followed this recipe to make the dough. It came out great tasting but bad looking- I couldn't find advice on how to shape the bao correctly. Are there any instructions or tips I can follow so that it looks a bit nicer?
Below is a picture of one tier before steaming. I just folded up the sides and tried to spin the center. (Next time I'll definitely make the bao smaller and put in less filling, since some of these started leaking while they were steaming.) I put each bao in a paper baking cup, but when they were done, most of the bao were stuck to the cups and the bottom just broke open.
Thanks for any help!
Update: Here's my second batch- came out much much better by following the tips below:
any more specifics on what it went wrong? Specifically what did it look like?
yes, I edited my question with more info and a pic!
Those don't look all that bad to me, especially for a first try. The two in the back row are actually pretty credible. I suspect you will get a lot better just with practice!
See this recipe, with tips and pictures on forming the bao: http://blog.junbelen.com/2010/02/15/how-to-make-char-siu-bao-siopao-steamed-pork-buns-at-home/
Thanks for all the info. I learned a lot while making the second batch of bao. Here are some tips that I found helpful: 1. Start off by making small buns (and make sure to use a rolling pin to even out the dough). 2. Add a heaping teaspoon of filling to the center. 3. Gather up all 5 sides (not 4!!) and pinch the middle instead of twirling. 4. Generously spray some oil on the baking cups before adding the buns in the steamer, to avoid the buns sticking and tearing apart.
@mdegges Since you've discovered some good techniques, you can answer your own question. You don't have to accept it, you can still hope for other more experienced answers too, but you may as well put your answer in its proper place!
Some tips I found useful while making the second batch of bao:
Start out by making small buns
Use a rolling pin to even out the dough (should be about 3-4 inches in diameter)
Add just a small amount of filling to the center
Gather up all 5 sides (not 4!!) and pinch them together in the middle
Generously spray oil in baking cups, and place buns in cups (this way the buns won't stick to the steamer or to the baking cups)
Steam for 15 mins, or freeze and steam at a later date for 20 mins
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.674531
| 2013-05-02T18:44:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33916",
"authors": [
"Andrea Hughes",
"Cascabel",
"Drea Lewis",
"Grollo",
"Matheus L Rocha Pitta",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stefan Teunissen",
"Thomas Rushton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79091",
"mdegges",
"talon8",
"user79091"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54359
|
How do I prepare fresh clams for clam chowder?
I regularly prepare New England-style clam chowder with all fresh ingredients except for canned clams which I use out of convenience. I have been feeling guilty of trying to pass my recipe off as "fresh clam chowder" and I want to make it better. I would like to pick up a bag of fresh clams at the grocery store and use them as an ingredient.
I basically want to know should I shuck the clams and add them to my soup raw, or should I steam them and pry the cooked clam meat out?
Cook them first. I consulted few recipes including this very representative 5 star recipe from Anne Burrell, she uses one dozen little neck or cherry stone clams per serving.
Scrub the clams and put them over high heat with one cup of water, covered, for 6-7 minutes. Remove open clams (careful, don't waste any juice). Continue cooking unopened clams for another 2-3 minutes. Toss clams that haven't opened. Remove shells and coarsely chop meat, again, careful with the juice. Strain the clam juice from the clams themselves and from the pan through a coffee filter.
The clams are added to the soup as the very last step, so you won't overcook them this way.
As always with a Food Network recipe, it's worthwhile to read the reviews, but take them with a grain of salt. Some people are idiots. Have fun!
I thought the "don't eat shellfish that don't open" thing was a myth. Seems like a waste.
@Catija Hopefully they will all open. It's not a myth, you can't know how long a dead clam has been dead. I suppose you could pry open any that didn't open, sniff, and taste a bit if it smells OK, but I wouldn't. The extra 2-3 minutes is to give the clams an extra chance to open; you could certainly try 2-3 minutes one more time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040100567.html
Bah, who in the right mind would struggle to open a closed muscle/clam. They seal shut like nothing else. To me, its natures way of saying please don't eat this one I'll try and kill you. "Seems like a waste", seems like a waste of energy trying to open it...
A clam with a closed shell before cooking is not dead. The muscle has to be alive to pull it shut; hence "you don't know how long a dead clam has been dead" doesn't apply to a bivalve that's tightly shut after cooking. See How do I determine if my mussels are fresh? on this very site and http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/10/29/2404364.htm
Chop them raw and put in soup, simmer only like 10 minutes, remove from heat & let sit 20 minutes. If you steam prior, they will be tough
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.674767
| 2015-02-03T20:07:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54359",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Clínica Dental De Sousa Santac",
"Doug",
"Flight King",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mark Vasquez",
"Peter Shibuya",
"Rick Justus",
"Ronald Flaten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"jscs",
"user3821763"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55187
|
Is there a name for the mushy sludge that forms around/beneath meat as it cooks?
I've found the terms "aspic" and of course "drippings" and "gravy", but I don't think any of those quite describe what I'm asking about — for example, we just baked some meatballs and between each one there was a mix of both liquid fat and a grey-ish/pink-ish sludge. With chicken meat it tends to be whiter. It has a texture somewhere between cooked liver and jello.
Is there a proper name for this "sludge"? Are there any particularly traditional uses for it?
UPDATE: another question calls this same thing "scum", and the answers deal with what it is: What's that scum at the sides of my home-made burger when I cook it?
I'm wondering here what it's called, i.e. if there's a more generous term for it than "sludge" or "scum".
Aspic definitely isn't the right term (it's a gelatin dish that's made on purpose), but I have never heard a consistent name for the protein sludge. "Goop" might be more generous, but it's certainly not official :)
There is no "more generous" term. Scum is the right cooking term for it, and is originally neutral. People have made it a curse word in other contexts, derived from the cooking use.
@rumtscho That sounds like it's my answer, then?
@natevw indeed. I didn't think of posting it as an answer since it felt like part of the question, but taking a step back, I think it should be one. I'll write it. If you wanted to self answer, ping me when you have written it and I can self delete.
Scum is the correct answer here, even though it sounds strange to modern ears. Originally, it is a cooking term, which denotes the stuff which floats on something you cook (protein in stock, the foamy stuff in jam) and can be gathered and removed with a skimming spoon if one wants to.
The derogatory use is more common in general conversation, and it is related, it probably arose as a metaphor. But in cooking jargon, it clearly has this meaning. It does have a little bit of a negative association, in the sense that you want to remove that scum, but I think there is no purely neutral word for it, since people who care about this kind of detail usually prefer it gone.
+1, but I disagree on the origin of scum. It is derived from words meaning froth, or foam, and is simply a 'layer of unpleasant or unwanted material that has formed on the top of a liquid'. The derogatory use comes from algae growing on stagnant water which would be the most common definition of scum to the non culinary.
As you wrote, scum refers to the froth floating on liquid. The stuff that collects around meat is obviously not that. Scum can now be used to describe any undesirable residue but I can't believe it would be an official culinary term for this and would be no better than stuff, junk, gook, etc. The only official word I can think of would be fond if it were deglazed.
The sludge you speak of is actually proteins called myosin (denatures at 120f) and actin (denatures at 150f) going through the stages of denaturing, coagulation and ultimately gelantization. Protein coagulates when it is denatured, that is destroyed. Gelatization is a follow on the process of breakdown in connective tissue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.675025
| 2015-02-27T02:11:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55187",
"authors": [
"Eric Rose",
"Erica",
"Greg Jarvis",
"Jason Ng",
"Jesse rai",
"Simon Robertshaw",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"mcalex",
"natevw",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.