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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
103778
|
Do fresh chilli peppers have properties that ground chilli peppers do not?
Usually when something is ground it can lose some properties, e.g. a lot of seeds can lose their oil.
Does fresh chilli contain anything such as oils or anything else which a store bought powder may not have due to the processing?
The main property that is different is that fresh chili peppers contain water. That means a significant difference in the kinds of flavors that are perceived when you consume them. Probably, most specifically, that fresh, "green" flavor and aroma that you perceive when using fresh. There are probably volatile aromatic properties that lost during dehydration. You can confirm and choose the variety of pepper when using fresh. Ground, dried peppers are more difficult to identify, unless the variety is indicated on the package. It also looks like dehydration decreases ascorbic acid and carotenoids, which would impact the nutritional contents, and likely, how the flavor is perceived.
Personally, I think of them as two different products.
Fresh chillis also have substance. They can be bitten into, or picked around. The heat and flavour is less evenly distributed in the dish.
I've dried home-grown chillies. The volatiles given off during drying are sufficient in quantity and pungency that I recommend drying them outdoors with the wind blowing away from your neighbours
Fresh chili contains vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in very large quantities; this is very fragile and destroyed by cooking and storage, so dried chili will contain much less.
That raises the question whether there's any difference between fresh and dried chilies after cooking them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.675427
| 2019-11-28T22:41:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103778",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"OrangeDog",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48482",
"leftaroundabout"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100802
|
What kind of mortar and pestle is most food safe?
Even after conditioning/seasoning one can expect microscopic chips from using a mortar and pestle.
Intuitively it seems that a metallic M&P would be more inclined to shed not so healthy chips, in contrast to a combination of a hard mortar (granite) and a (food safe) soft pestle (wood) whose chips are non toxic.
... except for the fact that a steel M&P does a terrible job of grinding anything.
A granite mortar and granite pestle; this combination will do everything.
The granite is hard and dense and will not chip under regular usage.
You need to remember that the mortar and pestle must be harder than what you need to grind.
Serious Eats Mortars and Pestles is a good read.
I use Coors ceramic mortar and pestles. I bought my last one on the mid 1980's. It's never given me any trouble. The company got renamed at some point. It's now CoorsTek out of Golden Colorado, USA. Easy to find online.
They have a sturdy, tough construction, and are used in laboratories worldwide.
The key feature I like about these sets is that the pestle curve matches the mortar curve through a wide range of angles. That increases the efficiency of grinding. I've looked at Marble, granite and lava units over the years, and have seldom come across a pestle that's a decent fit for the mortar. That flaw causes frustration and an irregular grind.
Maybe some day I'll find a better pair, but it's been over 30 years now.
I have used one for 15 years to grind medications, works perfectly. I believe they are "tabular alumina" ( a ceramic).
Generally they're just very high-temp white porcelain. I also have one, and can recommend them if you can find one.
er, correction, sometimes they're porcelain. The Coors ones are a special high-alumina clay.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.675577
| 2019-08-18T22:19:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100802",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"blacksmith37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"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
}
|
59527
|
How to prevent Italian style rice pasta from sticking to the pot?
Every time I cook Italian style rice pasta the whole pot becomes "starchy" and some of the pasta always gets stuck to the pot. Is there a way to prevent this from happening?
Are you referring to Asian rice noodles or Italian style pasta made of rice (as in to make it gluten free)? Or something else entirely?
@Jolenealaska, I've updated the question.
Does this advice help at all? Gluten Free on a Shoestring Or here, from Serious Eats?
Many of the Italian style gluten-free pastas are made of rice, most of the rest are made of corn or a combination of both. America's Test Kitchen did a taste testing of gluten-free pastas and a brown rice version was the clear winner:
So, my first piece of advice is to choose the pasta carefully, if you don't like a brand try another brand next time. For what it is worth, ATK disliked all of the corn-based pastas.
I looked at a few articles about cooking gluten-free pasta, a few points were repeated in every article. First, start with a big pot of generously salted water. Bring the water to a hard boil before you add the pasta, stir the pasta frequently as it boils, and absolutely do not overcook. You should taste the pasta frequently; it will turn to mush on a dime.
More articles say to not rinse the pasta than call for rinsing the pasta assuming that it is to be served hot. The same goes for regular pasta, you shouldn't rinse pasta except for use cold as in for salads. While I don't have a citation that specifies finishing gluten-free pasta in the sauce, it absolutely makes sense to me to put the not-quite-done pasta in the sauce to finish cooking. Again, taste often, gluten-free pasta overcooks very easily. Reserve some of the cooking water, just like as is recommended for regular pasta, in case you need to loosen the sauce.
Don't be tempted to add oil to the water. It doesn't work to keep regular pasta from sticking, nor does it work for gluten-free pasta.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.675748
| 2015-08-02T02:02:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59527",
"authors": [
"Christine Muirhead",
"Deborah Johnson",
"Jolenealaska",
"Julia Robb",
"Melodie Smith",
"Mendy Baroni",
"Mohammed Riza",
"Sparkler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33679"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63602
|
Is there a reason for storing ground spices separately (unmixed)?
I always use the same spice mix for dal. Instead of taking 1-2 tsp of each, I would rather keep a special container for the dal of the ready made mix in the proportions I want.
Is there any reason not to do so? Shelf-life, aggregation, ..?
Assuming you're using spices which are all dried and ground, there should be no problem.
In the middle-east, there are always several spice mixtures available in shops. The most famous of which are Ras-al-Hanout and Baharat. These are spice mixtures sold as pre-mixed combinations by the shopkeeper, who is usually the one who grinds the spices.
Spice mixes for sale are common, I suspect, pretty much the world over.
I'm aware of three reasons that you might not want to do so:
You tie up spices that you might want to use in other dishes individually
You don't always want to add the spices at the same time.
You can't always keep spices well-blended.
If you only tend to cook one dish or you leave some of each spice in reserve, the first one isn't really a problem.
The second one is a function of the dish being prepared, which I'll assume isn't the case here.
The last one is less of a problem with ground spices, but can be significant for whole seeds -- as you jostle the container with use, some spices will tend to float to the top, while others sink to the bottom. The end result is that when you go take your measure of mixed spices, it might not have the same proportion as what you had expected.
You can partially mitigate the issue by taking your container and rolling it around on its side for a bit before righting the container and taking your measurement. It's not perfect, but it will help in re-distributing the spices.
If there are certain spices that would be a major problem if they weren't help in balance (eg, ground hot peppers), you can blend everything else and leave that one item separate.
You may want to keep them separate for shelf-life reasons. If you combine them, the shelf life of the mixture will be limited by the freshness of the least-fresh spice you mixed into it. Different spices' flavors also degrade at different rates, though generally you don't have to worry about the flavor of dried, ground spices degrading for at least 6 months. Depending on how much of this mixture you use, these things may not be a factor.
For some here there might be two other reasons: Practice, and variation. Mixing spices as part of the prep trains your memory, and sometimes helps you understand the mixtures, and there is a learning effect both from getting the balance slightly wrong and from getting it right in a subtly different way. This can also prevent a dish from getting boring if you make it a lot.
That's actually a very good point.
You can combine them and make your own spice mix, but keep in mind, there may be some separation and you may need to shake or roll your space shaker to keep things mixed.
The coarser spices will end up on top while the finely ground will end up on the bottom if you don't mix up before use.
To cook a dish properly the meat should be cooked sequentially in different mixes of the spices. Bunging the lot in together is a modern practice.
Dal doesn't have meat -- its lentils.
Why do you think spice mixes have been around only since "modern times" (whatever that means)?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.675947
| 2015-11-18T18:37:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63602",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Bob Kildare",
"Christine Chambers",
"Cynthia Bennett",
"Gwen Orfield",
"Judy Evans",
"KRyan",
"Kathi Bartle",
"Michelle Bacon",
"Nevena Peychinova",
"Peter Appleton",
"Robert",
"Sparkler",
"Stella Jerry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40502",
"ralph martin",
"tc johnson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55584
|
How does the order of mixing ingredients affect the resulting cake?
I wanted to bake a Devil's cake yesterday. I got my recipe from a trusted book and I was surprised to see that the order of mixing was as follows: sift together flour, sugar, baking powder and salt, then mix eggs one by one. Then butter, then other ingredients.
This is contrary to the process I was used to i.e. butter & sugar, then eggs etc.
I was suprised to see that the eggs mixed very good and that, in the end, there was no sugar granules had remained. I was not suprised to see that the resulting cake was dense.
But it still baffles me. I guess there are different ways to mix a cake, depending on how you want your cake to be. Like, flour first -> dense cake, eggs first -> light cake, butter first -> standard cake.
While I can understand that beating the eggs first traps air, what the other methods do is not clear to me.
So, what result do the different mixing strategies give?
I'll try to break this down into components to make it simpler.
If a recipe starts by combining sugar and a solid fat (creaming), this incorporates small air bubbles into the batter which will be seed bubbles for the carbon dioxide produced by chemical leavening. Occasionally, this creaming is used alone for leavening (as in traditional poundcakes).
If the flour is added straight to this, it can help prevent the batter from curdling later if a colder ingredient is added. This also coats the flour with fat, preventing gluten development and making a very fine, tender crumb since the flour is "waterproofed" before other liquids are added.
If eggs are added to the fat and sugar, you can make an emulsified cake but the presence of water when the flour is added can make it slightly tougher.
Some recipes (usually with oil) require all the liquids to be mixed together, and then added to all the dry ingredients which have already been mixed. Again, this can sometimes lead to a tougher cake since the flour is exposed to water.
Another method is to mix all the dry ingredients, then incorporate the solid fat into that, then add liquids. This will usually lead to tender cakes as the flour has been coated with fat before liquids are added.
If a cake is leavened with whipped egg whites (or whole eggs), those will be added last to prevent the bubbles from being knocked out by excess stirring.
You pretty much always want the fat to be present when the flour is added though. As you saw in your recipe, adding liquid to the flour without the fat will allow too much gluten development and make your cake tough and dense.
The biggest difference that I know about is that mixing all the dry ingredients means that all you have to do is mix in the wet ingredients into the already homogenous mixture, this allows you to blend less to develop a nice and solid gluten matrix.
If you add eggs after flour, all the other ingredients then have to be worked into what is already a dough and never really becomes homogenous, may never fully dissolve (in the case of sugar) and may to be beaten to death and still may not get fully mixed. However, this may be desirous depending on what you are trying to accomplish. This combined with folding and kn will produce a gluten webbing that will allow big pockets of air to develop
Baking powder and baking soda work by reacting with other ingredients in your batter and releasing carbon dioxide. When this happens in the oven, these carbon dioxide bubbles become trapped in the batter, giving your cake its lightness and softness.
The problem is that if you mix in the baking powder with your liquids and leave it to stand for a while, or worse keep mixing, these carbon dioxide bubbles will escape your batter. By the time you put your batter in the oven much of the potential carbon dioxide is already gone. Your cake will come out dense.
The strategy to avoid this is to add your dry ingredients at the very last stage of making your batter. You fold in the dry ingredients and stop mixing just when everything is combined. "Don't overmix" is a common recipe instruction. Generally, being able to see little specks of flour in the batter is fine; getting rid of these at the expense of mixing the batter more is not worth it. Then you transfer the batter to a prepared baking tin and put in the oven - as quickly as you can.
That's how baking powder and baking soda factor into the problem; I don't know how the eggs-butter combination affects things. :)
Mixing ingredients in a different order can cause the cake to be dense, light, or standard depending on what you add first. If eggs are added first it will be light, if flour is added first it will be dense, and if butter is added first it will be a standard cake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.676268
| 2015-03-10T11:58:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55584",
"authors": [
"Andrew Numa",
"Brenda Guiton",
"Doug",
"Jennie Smith",
"Leonie",
"Michelle Toohey",
"Sandra Warren",
"Susan Shafiian",
"William Butler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133503"
],
"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
}
|
110221
|
Why boiling water, then cold water for this shaobing recipe?
I'm trying to make this Chinese pastry called Shaobing. Some recipes I've found call for first adding boiling water then adding cold water. There's no yeast, just some salt and flour. FYI, these recipes are from pretty old cookbooks.
My question is, what does adding boiling water first, then cold water do to the flour?
Adding boiling water to flour causes the starch granules to swell and gelatinise, allowing the dough to absorb more water, resulting in a softer and/or fluffier finished product. However, a dough made entirely with boiling water lacks extensibility (i.e. can't be stretched) because some of the precursor proteins to gluten are denatured at such a high temperature. This may be desirable as less gluten means the dough is easier to roll out thin.
On the other hand, dough made entirely with cold water has high extensibility, especially when gluten is allowed to develop through time and kneading, giving the finished product more chewiness.
Your recipe uses a combination of both types of dough, balancing between both extremes so that the finished product is not too soft but not too chewy.
For more context, the method of cooking some of the dough to gelatinize the stach is called tangzhong or water roux.
It sounds like the OP's recipe calls for adding all of the flour to boiling water, and then all of it to cold water, though; wouldn't that denature the proteins in all the flour, something the later addition of cold water would not be able to reverse?
When you add boiling water to room temperature flour, it cools down rapidly, and really only denatures the proteins that come in relatively close contact to the boiling water. Even dough where all the water is hot can be stretched a little bit, not all of the proteins can be denatured.
@Vikki-formerlySean Usually you do not do that, so I doubt that's what the recipe calls for. If you do that, your dough turns translucent and extremely soft; this technique is used only in Cantonese dim sum for dishes like haar gow, where this is the intended effect. For shaobing, you generally mix two types of dough.
By the way, the much more common term for this technique is tang mian 烫面, literally "hot flour/dough".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.676651
| 2020-08-16T00:24:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110221",
"authors": [
"Jacob Bundgaard",
"Vikki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76228",
"mbjb",
"xuq01"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120256
|
How does one thoroughly clean the silicone seal from a multicooker's lid?
We've got a Redmond RMC-P350 multicooker with pressure-cooking capabilities. While we're very satisfied so far, one thing that bothers me is that the silicone (?) seal ring on the lid now has the distinct lasting smell of some of the former culinary wonders we've produced, as well as a general yellow-ish tinge, as opposed to its original pristine opaque whiteness.
The instruction manual instructs the user to clean the seal using warm water and soap (not the dishwasher!), which we've done after every use. I've also tried to soak it in baking soda for a bit, to no effect.
Is there anything else I can do to restore the seal to its original state?
Other silicone seals survive my dishwasher fine, and it removes smells, but they can actually pick up stains in there (e.g. if a lot of oily tomatoey stuff is being ashed at the same time). Depending on your priorities it might be worth a shot.
@ChrisH I'll give it a shot next time we start the dishwasher, thanks. We usually use the slightly colder program, so I think it should be safe. Still, I'll give the vinegar solution a go first
@ChrisH silicone is certainly dishwasher-stable, and a soak in dishwasher detergent is better than putting the seal in the dishwasher (it is designed to be best at cleaning firm items). It isn't enough to remove that much of the smell though, and the discoloration stays too, at least for my seal. In fact, that's why they sell extra seals, and in different colors - when you use one for stews, another for yogurt fermentation and a third for sweets, you don't transfer the smells.
Baking soda isn't going to do that much for you, try soaking the seal in distilled vinegar for 30-60 minutes, then rinsing it thoroughly. I wouldn't try anything harsher than that, if the vinegar doesn't work you're better off living with it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.676863
| 2022-04-06T16:38:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120256",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Gallifreyan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55024",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88909
|
How can I remove blood from snow goose breasts within a few hours?
I am not a hunter. My friend has given me several pounds of snow goose breast meat, hunted and cleaned today. He wants me to slow cook them tonight so we can eat them tomorrow.
Since I cannot contact him right now, do you have any suggestions on how to rapidly remove all the blood from the meat before I toss it in the slow cooker? I have already soaked the pieces in cold water for an hour, as he suggested. However, I can still squeeze some blood out of the meat.
If you wanted to make certain of getting all of the blood out of the the meat, then I would suggest going with the process used by Jewish people to make meat kosher as they are forbidden from eating meat with blood in it for religious reasons.
That process is basically to soak, dry, salt and then rinsed three times to remove the salt. For a longer description see the sources below.
Jewish law prohibits the consumption of the lifeblood of the animal. All kosher meat and poultry must undergo a special process to remove it. The meat or poultry is soaked in clean water for thirty minutes, then removed to drip dry. After a few minutes of dripping, the meat is salted and left to hang for sixty minutes to further draw out any remaining blood. After sixty minutes of salting, the meat is washed three times in cold, clean water to remove any remaining salt.
Source
A bird should be placed with its open cavity downward so that the liquid drains off as it is koshering, and similarly, a piece of meat with a cavity, such as an unboned brisket, should be placed with its cavity draining downward. One may stack meat that one is koshering as high as one wants, as long as the liquid can drain off the meat properly. After the salting is complete, the meat is rinsed thoroughly in order to wash away all the blood and salt. The poskim instruct that one should rinse the meat three times
Source
On the other I have eaten lots of elk meat where we soaked the meat and washed it to get almost all of the blood out and remove more during the cutting and packaging process, and having some blood still in it really isn't a problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.677040
| 2018-03-20T03:02:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88909",
"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
}
|
36398
|
Diagrammatic Notations for Recipes
Are there any interesting diagrammatic recipe notations out there?
I have found Nassi-Shneiderman diagrams:
used here at Cooking for Engineers.
An activity diagram from here:
Is there anything interesting in use by anyone?
I mean 'interesting' in two senses
The diagram conveys the structure of the recipe. The user should be able to browse through a recipe book and get an impression what is being done. Similar recipes should have similar diagrams or parts
The diagram uses some fancy mathematical notation that in some way reflects some properties of the recipe (that's why I show the Penrose diagram).
Penrose notation
Actually I like neither of the two diagrams. The Nassi-Shneiderman is more of a nice tabular form than a diagram, and the activity diagram does not show much of the structure of the recipe.
For example it does not convey any idea of time, and if you could not read the text, you had no idea what the recipe is about. The sub-recipes (like making the dough) are not very visible, either.
This might answer your question? http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14912/new-takes-on-recipe-format?rq=1
This is an interesting question, I think, but the word "interesting" makes it too subjective. What would make a recipe diagramatic notation interesting to you?
@Flimzy The activity diagram isn't actually meant to usefully convey a recipe - that example is from an AI textbook, it appears. And Penrose notation has a specific mathematical meaning; once you turn it into a recipe it's just going to be a flowchart ("activity diagram", sorry) with fancy symbols. So given the examples, it seems like "interesting" means chosen for the sake of the diagram, not for the sake of usefully conveying a recipe...
I mean 'interesting' in two senses a) the diagram conveys the structure of the recipe. The user should be able to browse through a recipe book and get an impression what is being done. Similar recipes should have similar diagrams or parts b) the diagram uses some fancy mathematical notation that in some way reflects some properties of the recipe (that's why I took the Penrose diagram). I don't like the two examples that I showed, they don't convey much extra information beyond a textual recipe.
You might consider editing your question, then, to include what you said in that comment, and perhaps omit the examples, if you don't think they're actually examples of what you want.
Some baking formulas with multiple steps might fall qualify?
I'm not at all sure there's a question in there.
It's not exactly a diagram, but it does convey the structure of the recipe and use 'fancy' (baker's) math... This is the formatting guide for formulas used by the Bread Baker's Guild of America. It includes a section for the total recipe, and each step of the recipe has a subsection.
BBGA Formatting Guideline
Sometimes, when planning a new kitchen, you'd want a motion diagram.
With bigger (restaurant/hotel) kitchens, we might pick some of the more complex recipes, and map how the staff would go about making them.
It's basically a diagram of the kitchen with who needs to go where and how often, derived from the recipe. Note that where maps clearly to what the person is doing at the time, so it goes "get stuff from fridge, go to mixing machine, use counter space (to lay out dough), move to ovens etc.
You could add diagrammatic notation for the activity fairly easily, but probably not for the foods themselves. If you do decide to draw up that many diagrammatic icons for foods and cooking activities, let me know and I'll happily use them.
This is something I did not even think about, thank you for the answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.677241
| 2013-08-29T04:57:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36398",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dan",
"Dan D.",
"Flimzy",
"Gianluca",
"Hippalectryon",
"Linda Cohen",
"Marti",
"Orly1",
"Reni Raj N R",
"Simsons",
"SourDoh",
"gdawgrancid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85534"
],
"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
}
|
117751
|
How long does polenta take to cook and how to reheat it?
How long does polenta take to cook? I never made one before. Chefs on YouTube always make it in like 10 minute tops. But people online have written that it takes like 40 minutes with constant stirring. Which one is correct? Also, once the polenta has gotten cold, how can I heat it again?
Hi. Does the packet not have any cooking instructions? There are different kinds I believe. Some are instant (I presume pre-cooked or processed), and others that aren't.
Welcome to SA! You have two different questions here, and not a lot of detail, which makes it hard for us to help you -- one is about cooking time, and the other one is about reheating. Can you ask those as two separate questions, please? Also, please explain what result you're looking for with the polenta: is it going to be eaten soft, or chilled into a cake and sliced?
The time for cooking polenta is in the range between 2 minutes and 2.5 hours. It depends on the technique you have chosen, the starting material, and to some degree also on batch size and a few environmental variables, although those will rarely make a noticeable difference.
Since the range is too wide for planning, many recipes will give you an estimate. If you have picked a recipe which doesn't, you can look for other recipes which use the same technique as yours, and see their estimates.
If for some reason you need high precision, the only way forward is to measure it yourself. Make your preferred recipe a few times, stop the time, and average the results. It is probably more trouble than it's worth though, since polenta is rarely a critical dish when computing complex menu timings.
A side note on TV chefs - they have a vested interest in claiming unrealistically short preparation times. Their timings are "for show", just like the food photography in recipe books is "for show". Don't assume it will be the same under real conditions in your own kitchen.
While I agree with "follow the recipe" in general, as Mark Wildon alluded to, it's pretty common for recipes to not mention whether they use quick-cooking polenta, leading to the risk of that squishy sand texture if they were and you're not.
@Sneftel The world is full of misinformation, yes, including bad cooking recipes :( We just have to learn to vet our sources, and to accept that there will be duds along the way to building a collection of trusted recipes.
Instant polenta is partly cooked and can be cooked completely in a few minutes. It's possible to buy it without even realising that there is another version.
Polenta is just a pretentious version of mielie pap. A staple food in much of sub-Saharan Africa. Polenta is made with geelmielies or as it is known in the West yellow corn. South African pap as it is made is made from witmielies or white maize meal.
Polenta as the Italians make is made to an porridge-like consistency. It is what is known in South Africa as stywepap or firm porridge. If you stir it constantly you will give it a crumbly texture and it will become krimmelpap. If you add butter, sugar and a spot of milk to it you can eat as porridge. It then becomes a mieliepap ontbyt (breakfast)
I would say the indications of 45 minutes would be a better estimate. It is quite a chore making it. You have to constantly stir it or it will burn and you want to use as little water as possible. Polenta flour seems to be a very fine refine maize meal which probably makes it easier to make but it still should be a fair amount of stirring.
Polenta is far from a pretentious dish... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polenta And it's not always eaten as porridge. Besides, there is an instant version as mentioned on the other answer which will cook much faster.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.677665
| 2021-11-06T15:54:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117751",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"FuzzyChef",
"Luciano",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
118047
|
What's a good lactose-free substitute for heavy cream when baking?
I've got a friend who's lactose intolerant but loves making bread. I want to give her one of my favorite bread recipes (a milk bread recipe that I use as a base for a lot of things), but it uses heavy cream, and I'm not sure what to replace it with.
The one thing I can think of that might work that we have decent access to is coconut cream (which they sell by the can here). I've thought about aquafaba but it seems like a lot of trouble to get to ingredients for and make, particularly if I don't want it to taste like canned chickpeas.
Does anyone here have any suggestions they can bring to the table?
There are dairy-free cream replacements you can buy in supermarkets here in the UK and I assume elsewhere too; that would be my first choice for baking purposes. I would try to match the fat content of the cream you normally use, and definitely make an experimental batch first.
Two questions: first, can’t your friend get lactose-free cream? Most dairy products are available as lactose-free versions. Second, would you like to share the recipe, the community may have a few more creative ideas for substitutes.
If your friend likes baking bread then give her a recipe that doesn't contain milk or cream, there are many of them.
@dbmag9 they exist, but are more uncommon at supermarkets, usually you will only see dairy free milk and half and half. That said you can order them online easy enough, or try a plant based alternative like the silk (soy) brand. If they actually will do a good job in a bread recipe, who knows. aquafaba would almost certainly be a bad choice, that's an egg sub.
What is the fat content of the cream you use for the recipe?
In a bread recipe, the cream is just a convenient way to add fat. You can just as well add the water and the fat separately - so change the recipe such that 30% of the weight of the cream is replaced by a fat your friend likes, and 70% by water. If the fat has its own water content (e.g. a margarine), adjust accordingly.
Aquafaba is not at all a substitute for heavy cream. Coconut cream can be used, possibly adjusted for fat content - try picking a brand which is has no additional ingredients such as thickeners. It will give you a coconuty taste and a shorter texture than cream, but this can happen with other substitute fats too.
So there are multiple things you can add (I’m lactose intolerant and bake bread all the time). For recipes that use liquid heavy cream I would use the product on the left which is a nondairy heavy cream equivalent which has both almond milk and coconut cream in it and because of the almond milk that’s added it doesn’t taste quite as coconut-y. The product on the right is an oat milk powder that I use in my bread maker for recipes that call for dry milk powder and is a one-to-one equivalent, I got it on Amazon! Hope this helps ☺️
Don’t use coconut cream. It’s a very thick product, completely unlike real cream. “Cream of coconut” is even worse, as it’s heavily sweetened, too.
I use canned coconut milk as a replacement for cream in many dishes, but I haven’t baked with it, so it might have quirks that I don’t know about.
For milk, you can either thin the canned coconut milk, or look for ‘coconut milk beverage’, which is typically sold in aseptic packaging (ie, coated cardboard boxes). It might be in with health foods (with soy milk and similar), but it’s sometimes in the refrigerator section near real milk. It often has gums or other thickeners in it, but I haven’t noticed any problems when cooking or baking with it.
Delactose the cream?
I thought this was pretty slick: add lactose splitting enzyme to cream. Maybe a trick to use for other applications too if it works for your friend. Note you have to scroll down a ways in the link.
https://www.fodmapeveryday.com/diy-lactose-free-dairy/
... in the northeast where we are located, we do not have access to
lactose-free heavy cream. Now, Monash University has lab tested heavy
cream and it is allowed in 1/2-cup (60 g) portions when whipped and
they say 2 Australian tablespoons (40 g) as a liquid, but heavy cream
is such a common ingredient in baking and cooking that I wanted to
learn how to make my own lactose-free heavy cream, knowing that I
could then extend the technique to milk, half-and-half, light(er)
creams etc.
This writer added an enzyme called lacteeze to the cream. There are photos with test strips showing pre enzyme, no glucose, post enzyme yes glucose so the enzyme worked. They could not tell if all lactose disappeared.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.678005
| 2021-11-29T05:59:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/118047",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Stephie",
"dbmag9",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121207
|
Why must fermenting meat be kept cold, but not vegetables?
This is a somewhat unique question, so I'll start by stating my assumptions that I understand to be "widely known" among food preservation enthusiasts. If any of these are not accurate, please let me know!
Assumptions:
Improperly handled food kept at low oxygen (e.g. submerged in liquid) carries a risk of causing deadly botulism.
The bacteria that create botulism toxin require certain conditions: low oxygen, low acidity, low salt, low sugar, sufficient protein content, correct temperature range.
Lacto-fermenting vegetables in a salt brine carries little to no risk of botulism, and no case of botulism has ever been reported from lacto-fermenting vegetables.
Lacto-fermenting meats and dairy products must be done in a cold environment like a refrigerator to prevent the risk of botulism.
Lacto-fermenting protein-rich vegetables (e.g peas, beans) can be safely done at room temperature.
So my question is: what's so special about meat and dairy that it carries a high risk of botulism? Botulism can occur from improperly canned beans, yet fermenting beans at room temperature is okay. Why is it not okay to lacto-ferment meat at room temperature? What's different about meat vs. high-protein vegetables?
And a follow up question: could there be any substitute safety measures other than refrigeration to make room temperature meat fermentation safe? E.g. Extra salt, acid, finely shredding the meat (to ensure brine penetration), etc.?
Edit:
My main motive for this question is determining whether room temperature preservation of cooked meet is possible using a salt brine + other vegetables / ingredients in a process similar to lacto-fermentation; I'm not concerned with the technicality of whether the bacteria feed off the meat or if the meat truly "ferments"; I'm only concerned with preservation. Example: if adding freshly cooked (i.e. mostly sterile) meat to a jar of fermenting vegetables (at any stage of fermentation) effectively prevents spoilage of the meat, I would consider that an answer to my question. If not, the reason why not would also be a good answer.
It is a good thing that you wrote up your assumptions, this helps greatly with explanations. To look at each:
Assumptions 1,2 and 3 are true.
Assumption 4 is false. You can't lacto ferment meat. There is only the edge case of cured sausages, and their fermentation process is very far from the lactofermentation of vegetables. Lacto fermenting dairy is done at high temperatures - from about 20ish celsius for Kefir, to up to 45 for some strains of yogurt culture.
I can't comment on Assumption 5, since I have never looked into lacto-fermentation of legumes.
Looking at these assumptions, it looks as if you are equating the absence of botulism bacteria with food safety. This is certainly not the case! There are dozens of different kinds of bacteria which can cause food poisoning, most of which are more difficult to guard against than botulism bacteria.
Whenever you leave some food sitting out, you create a new microenvironment which gets colonized by its own ecosystem of microorganisms. Which type of organism will grow and displace all others is dependent on the conditions you offer it, just like in your assumption 2. It just so happens that, if you leave out vegetables at room temperature with the right amount of salt, it is the benign lactobacilii which proliferate best and occupy all the ecological niches in your fermentation jar. By the way, your fermentation can go wrong and create the wrong microorganisms, but they will not be c.b., that is usually seen under much stricter anaerobic conditions, such as in canned food and sometimes under oil.
But meat is not a vegetable; it is a different source of food, on which lactobacilii cannot thrive. Instead, you get other types of bacteria on meat, usually ones which cause food poisoning. To prevent that, you have to preserve meat by making it inedible for any kind of bacteria, before they have overtaken it. This creates different curing methods for it, which require very tight control and multiple bacteria-controlling methods at once (e.g. cold temperature plus the right amount of salt) to get a safe cured meat.
If you were to just leave your meat out in the conditions for a vegetable lacto-fermentation, you would get neither a lacto-fermentation, nor botulism, but just a crock full of spoiled meat, ready to give you some kind of non-botulinic food poisoning.
Update To the point in your edit: It is absolutely not safe to just add meat to properly fermenting vegetables. Actually food safety is much more cautious than that, and any kind of self-experimented recipe is not safe by definition, but this is one of the rare cases which are not just unsafe, but decidedly dangerous. Probably not because of botulism, but the other types of food poisoning are no joke either.
"You can't lacto ferment meat"; I found several articles, recipes, and how-tos around the web for "lacto fermenting meat", but none cite official sources. Are they all simply wrong / dangerous? Or are they improperly using the word "fermenting" here but still outlining a safe procedure? Example: https://culturesforhealth.com/blogs/learn/lacto-fermenting-meat-fish
Traditional salami is lacto fermented. However, the bacteria that produce the lactic acid feed on the added sugars in the recipe, not on the meat. So the meat is preserved by the lacto fermentation of other ingredients within the casing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami#Fermentation
You can ferment fish. See "Surströmming" (fermented herring).
Edit for your edit:
Fermenting the meats for long-term preservation in a moist, ambient temperature lactic acid bacteria (LAB) environment as you described would theoretically be safe in terms of pathogen growth as long as:
the pH both before and after adding the meats is maintained at safe levels,
the lactic acid properly penetrates the pieces for acidification, and
an isolated culture of LAB with known performance, not wild strains on vegetables, is used.
The difficulty in predicting and measuring the first two makes this highly difficult in a commercial environment before even considering a home environment. Without a thermal lethality / cook step to stop fermentation, you'd also have uncontrolled bacterial digestion leading to issues with texture and off-tastes. This is why typical meat fermentation for shelf stability today is almost exclusively done for dry-cured sausages.
What you may want to try for room temperature storage would be pickling the meats with a controlled amount of vinegar or other acid, like for pickled eggs. You could add lacto-fermented vegetables, after pasteurising them to stop fermentation, for the milder acidity and flavour - though you would need a method to measure the pH for safety.
Lacto-fermentation was a major means of preserving meats prior to the widespread use of refrigeration, and almost every cultural cuisine has a fermented meat or seafood product. Our modern understanding of food safety and food-borne pathogens incorporates refrigeration to further reduce the risk from fermented meats and seafood.
The concern for temperature control in these kinds of fermentations are due to Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, found naturally on the skin of 1/5 to 1/4 of the human population, contaminating and multiplying enough in the foods to produce heat-stable toxins before before the lactic acid bacteria acidifies the food to a pH of 5.3 where S. aureus is inhibited. Both the US and Canada have meat fermentation temperature guidelines, aimed toward commercial operations, limiting the total time meat can be at temperatures above 15C prior to achieving a pH of 5.3 (Canada) / 4.6 (US) or lower.
Clostridium botulinum is typically inhibited with the use of added nitrate/nitrite in curing salt.
Following on from @rumtscho's statement that meats can't be lacto-fermented - meats generally do not contain enough glucose for lactic acid bacteria (LAB) to produce lactic acid, and recipes usually require added sugar for this to occur. They do produce various enzymes that break down lipids and proteins into products that give added flavours to the food as fermentation by-products. These products are still considered 'fermented meats' by most American and European food safety authorities.
Some resources for further technical information:
Handbook of Fermented Meat and Poultry on Google Scholar
Application of lactic acid bacteria for the biopreservation of meat products: A systematic review - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108661
Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Preventive control recommendations for manufacturing fermented and dried meat products
US FDA: FDA Food Code 2017 - page 692 for smoked and cured meats, including fermented meats
Edit: there's a Korean patent for kimchi-ripened/fermented raw meat:
https://patents.google.com/patent/KR20080042640A/en
Regional variations of kimchi might include raw fresh oysters or squid, in some areas meats, though this isn't common commercially - dried seafood or seafood sauces are more common. The patent describes fermenting pork belly, beef sirloin, or chuck rolls as part of the kimchi lacto-fermentation process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.678636
| 2022-08-01T04:54:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121207",
"authors": [
"Ben Hershey",
"MTA",
"Martin Bonner supports Monica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99824"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121845
|
Frying olive oil is bad for your health, but cooking with it in an oven?
Always heard that olive oil is bad for frying food (mostly for health reason), so it's better to use other type of oil to cook, but what about of using olive oil to cook in an oven? it would be the same as frying?
Hey, Progs! Per our Help center, we don't answer questions about the health value of foods on SA. Sorry.
The root cause for the question is thermal degradation and unwanted compounds due to olive oil having a low smoke point, which has also been answered here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25469/why-does-my-olive-oil-smoke-burn-when-i-fry-with-it?rq=1 and here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6148/is-cooking-with-olive-oil-bad-or-toxic
Does this answer your question? Is cooking with olive oil bad or toxic?
@FuzzyChef this question was incorrectly flagged as off-topic. The author cited health concerns as context for the question, but specifically asked a technical question to prevent that context scenario; the answer to which has been provided in multiple historical questions. This was better flagged as duplicate.
No, it's really not. The core of the question is "if olive oil is unhealthy for frying, is it unhealthy to use it in the oven". And that's not a question we can answer, because we can't answer questions about olive oil being "unhealthy". Thanks for flagging those old questions, though, I'll flag them for closure as well.
Particularly, we cannot answer it because we cannot determine why the OP thinks olive oil is "unhealthy".
The concern for frying with olive oil is heating it past its smoke point, causing it to break down. Olive oil in the oven does not have the same issue if it is heated below the smoke point - like with olive oil cake recipes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.679296
| 2022-09-30T21:56:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121845",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"borkymcfood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99917"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128880
|
What is the slightly slimy stuff on on the white parts of bok-choy and Chinese cabbage?
This in the USA, I buy bok-choy and Chinese cabbage just from a typical "better" supermarket (for what it's worth, not organic or such, just typical "good quality" supermarket produce).
I typically wash in plain cold water bok-choy and similar, fill up the sink and rub-down each frond by hand then soak it for awhile too.
There's definitely a slimy substance on, I believe, mainly the white parts. Even if the veg is seemingly very fresh, or at any rate, straight off the truck.
You can't really "see" this slight slime, its' something you plainly feel; I'll try to take some sort of photo or video though.
After plenty of fresh water it does (seem?) to come off, once dry the slightly slimy feel is gone.
What is this ?
Am I actually foolishly throwing away a nutrient rich coating or something? Is it natural? Some treatment?
I have seen that the store in question does have tiny signs in the produce area "we sometimes wax produce", but I haven't looked into that, and, it is likely irrelevant to this issue, but, who knows.
You sure this thing is fresh? Is it every time you buy it - how many times have you bought from this shop? Does it have a smell? Is the slime visible in the shop? Can you add a photo of the vegetable with the slime?
cheers @Luciano ; 100s of times; no smell; seems incredibly fresh otherwise (excellent supplier, and I only buy veg when they are literally off the truck that morning, I am tight with all the staff); the slime is not really visible, you feel it clearly - will try to photograph
Very strange. Usually slime in raw cabbage is a sign of spoilage, and I have never seen either bok choy or chinese cabbage with slime (from the shop or even during fermentation). If you could ask someone at the shop or the supplier they would probably know.
@Luciano good information, clearly it's not "something everyone knows about but me" (fortunately!) I happened to get a super-fresh bokchoy this AM and indeed "no slime". I'm now wondering if it's just how they get when they are say a day old, or .. who knows
You know what, the Publix has those annoying water-mist sprayers over the veg. I wonder if it's that simple? A few hours under a water mister may do it? IDK.
We grow our own bok choy and buy it regularly (out of season). I've never noticed anything like this.
a mystery. i reckon it relates to the misters
Another thought: Whenever I cut apart e.g. a leek, spring onion or onion, they feel a bit 'slimy' too. Most of it is just plant sap, I guess, which goes away when drying a bit (not necessarily when washing). I wonder if you're not just feeling plant sap... ever noticed a similar same feeling with an onion or leek, perhaps?
@Tinkeringbell YES< THAT IS EXACTLY IT - precisely the same in a leek. So you're saying it is "plant sap" ? Surely this should be an answer?!
I'll first do some research to see if what I'm calling 'plant sap' is actually that then ;)
@Tinkeringbell magnificent. I have added the biggest bounty I have the money for!
I think what you're noticing is just 'vegetable/fruit juice', for lack of a better word. It's mostly water + whatever else there can be in vegetable/fruit juice.
As you confirmed in the comments, you also notice this when cutting up leeks or onions. The 'slimy' in my experience is then just a combination of smooth surface + vegetable/fruit juice and/or plain water. It will indeed disappear after drying: It either becomes sticky or disappears entirely. You may not notice it on the 'leafy' parts of vegetables like cabbage and bok choy much, because those aren't as smooth on the outside as the 'white' parts that connect to a stalk/each other. And the 'white part' is also the part where you make a first cut/break to separate leaves, so that would be the point where any 'juice' in the vegetable comes out and can be smeared onto the rest of it.
Huh! In short that all sounds about right to me. Pretty logical !
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.679464
| 2024-07-27T18:59:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128880",
"authors": [
"Fattie",
"Hilmar",
"Luciano",
"Tinkeringbell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65126"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126141
|
How can I thicken this icing/glaze?
I made the following icing/glaze with the following recipe:
2 pints frozen blueberries
large bunch of fresh basil
1/2 cup bourbon
6 cups of confectionary sugar
Blend berries, basil, and bourbon until smooth. Incorporate sugar and then whisk until smooth.
I made this to use on a cake instead of donuts, but it came out very watery. I would like to thicken this by either just reducing it or whipping it with some butter. Reducing seems straight forward, but is there anything I should watch out for? I know the flavors might degrade some.
Alternatively, would it be feasible to whip this up with some butter to create more of a frosting?
The basic icing recipe I use is a lot of powdered (confectionary) sugar, and just enough milk to make it run (I typically play it by ear, but I would guess it is 2–4 tablespoons of milk for every cup of sugar). I usually start with the liquid in a bowl, and add sugar until it gets to the desired consistency.
The point of an icing or glaze is that it is thin. It is supposed to run or pour, and create a thin layer of sugar over the donut or cake or whatever. Pour it on, wait a bit, and most of the liquid either evaporates out or is absorbed by the thing it is poured over. What you describe sounds about right to me.
That being said, some things to try (and not try):
Add more sugar. Again, I generally make icing by adding powdered sugar to milk (and vanilla) until the consistency is right. You can keep adding more sugar until it is what you want.
Add less bourbon.
I would not try to reduce this icing. Adding heat is going to change its character quite a lot—a lot of the bourbon is going to cook off (which will reduce the "boozy" flavor of the icing), and cooked fruit tastes quite different from fresh (or frozen) fruit. Sugars also decompose in heat, which is likely to change the flavor quite a bit.
You could try to make a buttercream frosting from this basic recipe. Usually, buttercream frosting is made by whipping butter and sugar together until it is light and fluffy, then mixing in a small amount of some flavor (vanilla extract, fruit, whatever). The general goal is to get an emulsion of butter, sugar, and whatever minimal amount of liquid is added as part of the extra flavoring.
Since you have already mixed the sugar with other liquid ingredients, it may be harder to get the ingredients to emulsify properly. However, if I were to try, I would maybe start with around 2 cups of room temperature butter (that's around 4 sticks). Whip it up with the whisk attachment of a stand mixer (or a hand mixer, or just a whisk if you don't have a power tool), slowly adding your icing as you go. You ought to be able to get something pipe-able. Maybe.
I wonder whether there is a good way to reduce the water content of bourbon and use some kind of concentrated bourbon. Just heating it beforehand will mostly boil of the alcohol which is not quite what is desired.
Depending on the need for delicacy, like if you're using a specific fancy bourbon, if you need to replace missing alcohol content, neutral grain alcohol may do the trick. But if this is a one-off for a recipe you're making, the advice in this answer is much more relevant.
@quarague They do sell "Bourbon Extract" (like vanilla extract and orange extract), if you're just looking for generic bourbon flavoring rather than a particular bourbon. You could potentially replace some or all of the actual bourbon with that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.679791
| 2023-12-18T14:05:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126141",
"authors": [
"R.M.",
"Stephan Samuel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128854
|
How to I prevent my sugar coating from melting on gummy worms
Recipe:
180 Grams of fresh fruit blended
2 Tbsp of Honey
2 Tbsp of Lemon Juice
2 Packs of unflavored
2 gelatin packs (14g total)
Put gelatin powder in lemon juice mix and set for 5 minutes.
Combine honey and blended fruit to low heat until combined.
add gelatin lemon mix until incorporated and cool for 5 minutes.
Put into molds in refrigerator for 1 Hr 30 min
Remove from molds and let sit for 8 hours to 24 hours.
Coat in sugar.
I did all this step by step and they turned out more jello like instead of gummy bear texture and once sugar was added as a coating the coating melted and turned into a pool of sugar water. Sugar used was normal sugar.
Was the liquid in the lemon juice sufficient to dissolve the gelatine or did you add more water there? Too much water from the fruit could also be an issue.
Gelatin tends to break up in high acidic solutions and tropical fruit enzymes (pineapple for example).
Try to bloom gelatin in the water, mix with sugar fruit pure and then add citric acid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.680167
| 2024-07-24T01:16:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128854",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110492
|
"tomato sauce" vs. "tomato paste"
amazon returns almost 50 hits for "tomato sauce" and just 3 for "tomato paste"
Do "tomato sauce" and "tomato paste" mean the same thing?
Does this answer your question? What is the difference between tomato puree, paste and sauce?
Also see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/784/translating-cooking-terms-between-us-uk-au-ca-nz because processed tomato products have hauegly different names in different countries, so you will probably need to start by finding out the country the recipe you are following was written in.
Tomato sauce and paste are not the same thing.
Tomato paste is essentially a concentrated tomato with some water removed that is then preserved. It is generally only used as an ingredient.
Tomato sauce is immensely variable and usually has a variety of other ingredients added resulting in something to actually eat.
Tomato sauce tends to have a lot of sugar specifically, whereas tomato paste has none. That affects the taste significantly.
Only the cheaper sauces have added sugar. It's also worth noting that tomato sauce is a "mother sauce", forming the base of other numerous (perhaps innumerable) other sauces
The most immediately apparent difference is that paste is much thicker.
@MikeTheLiar - Yes, but not near as fun to say as the other mother sauces, "Béchamel, Velouté, Espagnole, and Hollandaise"
Tomato paste is basically mashed up tomato pulp (no seeds or skins) baked to form a paste with some citric acid. When sold in a store it usually comes in 6-8 oz cans. Look at the ingredients:
Tomato Paste, Citric Acid.
Tomato sauce is basically hydrated tomato paste with a small amount of added seasonings. It usually comes in 15-16 oz cans. Look at the ingredients
Tomato Puree (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Less Than 2% Of: Salt, Onion Powder, Garlic Powder, Citric Acid, Natural Flavors, Dehydrated Bell Pepper.
The seasonings are fairly mild. I've seen recipes that will take either and tell you to just add water if using the paste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.680283
| 2020-08-31T01:53:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110492",
"authors": [
"Acccumulation",
"Criggie",
"Glen Yates",
"Rob",
"Tetsujin",
"User1000547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97265
|
Why is my tomato sauce getting pink?
I was trying to make regular tomato sauce for on my pizza. And I didn't want to buy any processed goods. So I bought tomatoes:
I put them into a blender and just blended them until it became smooth. For some reason, it turned pink, and it had a really bad flavour. It didn't taste like 'normal' tomato sauce.
How can I make it red, and thicker and taste more like tomato sauce?
Did you actually cook this tomato sauce?
No these were the exact tomatos, 'trostomaten'. In the netherlands at the jumbo supermarkett
I think the seeds when crushed by the blender can give a bitter taste.
The picture looks like cherry tomatoes (unsure what that would be in Dutch), which are small and generally used for garnish or in salads. Different tomato varieties can make very different purees, which is why knowing the specific type you used is important :)
Specifically why it turned a pink color, this is a duplicate of an earlier question. Why your pureed tomato doesn't taste good is a separate question.
Erica, they likely are what would be referred to as hothouse tomatoes when sold in clusters like that, often smaller than slicing tomatoes but larger than cherry or grape. It is not however that unusual to use cherry tomatoes in sauces particularly early in season when other tomatoes are bland and not sweet.
@dlb I was looking at the size of leaves and stem in proportion to the tomato -- but really, just wanted to make the point that it's really difficult to tell from this picture what variety they are, and that knowing the variety can be important. I don't doubt cherry tomatoes could make very tasty sauce if properly cooked, they're one of my favorite varieties!
Agreed, hare to tell without seeing the tomato in person, but it is definitely not paste tomato. Many good sauces are made without them, but it takes more work. It was funny to see a show once where Mario Batali was making his staff oven dry thousands of cherry tomatoes for his restaurant because it was early season and they were the only tomatoes sweet enough and he insisted on fresh. Not something I would think of a restaurant doing, but they were.
Possible duplicate of what makes red tomato sauce turn orange in colour?
These on the photo are not cherry tomatoes, they are a slightly larger variety. But also in NL "trostomaten" can be tomatoes of any size, it just means "tomatoes on a vine".
@Erica : the flavor part is answered in https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/46019/67 . (its about salsa, but still the issue w/ bitter flavors after putting tomatoes through a blender)
Sauces can be made with non-paste tomatoes, and sometimes are, but in general specialty tomatoes are used for most pastes. These tomatoes include a long list of varieties, but often are pear or teardrop shape, have fewer seeds and a dryer texture with less juice in them and a salad or slicing tomato. Personally, when I make a sauce from scratch, I tend to mix slicing, and even cherry tomatoes in to up the flavor, but one of the costs of doing this is more juice so more cooking down to get to a thicker sauce as that extra water needs removed. Often, dried tomatoes will be used to overcome this.
The seed issue is real, and will affect both taste and color. But, the truth is, some people prefer to use seeds. I do not as I do not care for the bitterness I taste with them in.
However, even when using paste type tomatoes, at the puree stage the product will normally be far lighter, more of a tomato soup color than the rich red sauce you were picturing. This changes in the cooking down process. As you remove water, not only will the taste intensify, but so will the color. Additionally, as food cooks, the chemical and physical reactions that occur, such are carmelization will cause color changes. In this case those changes tend to deepen the color. Other ingredients will also tend to alter the color, either just by being added, say carrot in come recipes, or though reactions while cooking.
Note also, many fresh sauces will be lighter, more pink or orange, than processed, simply because many commercial sauces just like other products have added color. That is, they simply add red dye. OK, "food coloring."
Boiling a liquid will not cause caramelization since it requires temperatures of at least 110C for fructose and much higher for all other sugars. I have used plenty of deep red tomato sauce products none of which contained any dye, so that isn't it either. The pink color is likely because of high water concentration and the extra air the blender incorporates.
Tomato sauce is not made by just pureeing tomatoes.
This is not a recipe site, but searching online will find you many recipes for a simple tomato sauce suitable for putting on a pizza. They will generally include other ingredients (such as salt, sugar, and onions) and include some cooking time.
Okey, that's somewhat of an answer. But I want to know why it doesn't do as I expected.
Have you done this before successfully? If so (and these particular tomatoes turned out differently) then edit your question, although the answer will probably just be that you had a particularly flavourless bunch of tomatoes.
If not, then it turn out as you expected because you had unrealistic expectations.
@user2879055 there is no real way to answer that question. There is no reason for blended tomatoes to behave like pizza sauce. So all we can do is to tell you that your expectations were wrong, and that if you want pizza sauce, you should follow a recipe for pizza sauce.
The seeds are the problem flavor-wise, the skin also but less of a problem. Tomato seeds have tannins and other compounds that aren't particularly pleasant inside, when they get cracked open they release these flavors into your puree. The skins can be bitter as well, especially when you puree them, some varieties more than others.
Next time scoop the seeds out and think about peeling the tomatoes before you puree them.
A useful reference of why you peel and deseed is this answer.
Yes removing the seeds themselves is important to avoid bitterness. However the jelly they are embedded in is a good source of umami. When you scoop out the seeds you can put them in a sieve over a bowl along with the tougher pulp and add a little coarse salt for 20 minutes, and then add the strained juice to the dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.680475
| 2019-04-04T09:42:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97265",
"authors": [
"ElectronicToothpick",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Pieter B",
"Richard",
"dbmag9",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73868",
"rumtscho",
"user2879055"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76955
|
What does it mean when a dish or product is described as "(insert culture/tradition) style"?
For example, if I have fried eggs and toast, it's just fried eggs. But if I add chorizo on the side, suddenly it transforms into "Spanish style" fried eggs.
There are many examples. When is a food product described as "__________ style?"
I really don't think this is a rule, and it's also pretty opinion based (hard to answer definitively) - "style" can mean different things, and cultural references can be tricky. Generally speaking, I would expect the answer is "no" - "spanish style" might mean "how things are done in Spain" or else "using Spain-specific ingredients" - using chorizo might be one way, using manchego cheese another, adding potatoes to your eggs ("spanish tortilla") a third, depending on dish and style and culture (both originating and imitating) and a bunch of other possible factors.
Adding the word "style" to a dish or food item is a way of giving a nod to a particular culture or tradition when the end product is not authentic. While we can debate the idea of "authentic" in another space, generally the term "style" might mean that a technique was employed, or an ingredient was used, but that the final product is not of the culture or tradition being referenced. This sort of labeling is generally done for marketing purposes, be it at home for your family, in a restaurant, or in a retail situation.
The Italians also have spicy Chorizo style sausages, so perhaps you couldn't get away with calling that a Spanish style pizza. However, I believe that you have a good point, and anything that adds a bit of flair and ingenuity to something is great. Spanish eggs - why not?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.680998
| 2016-12-31T02:31:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76955",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108695
|
Does there exist a conversion between a sourdough and preferments recipes?
I tried asking a similar question: From regular fresh yeast to sourdough
and didn't exactly get real answers, so here I am asking something easier.
Is there a formula to convert a sourdough recipe to a preferment recipe using either biga or poolish and vice versa?
I would say no, because to me, it doesn't make sense for such a conversion to exist. You get conversion formulas when you can achieve the same result with different ingredients. Since you have no well-defined "same" here, you can't give a conversion either.
One function of sourdough is to leaven. You don't leaven with a preferment, so here you cannot have a conversion. Instead, you have to use yeast in the proper amount for your amount of flour and rising process. It doesn't matter that some of your flour will arrive as dry flour and some of it will be included in a preferment.
The other function of sourdough is to give you a specific taste (I am combining both flavor and texture in that word). For that, there is no specific amount of sourdough you have to add to the recipe - you can use more or less of it, depending on your taste (at least within a wide range, until you run into structural problems with the loaf). There is also no specific amount of preferment you have to add - you use as much or as little as you like, again such that you get a dough and not a glutenless paste or slurry.
You could say that you want an amount of preferment that makes your bread taste exactly the way it tasted with X percent sourdough, but that's not practicable. There are differences between one sourdough and the next, and between one preferment and the next, and if you are very exact, you can't achieve the same taste with a preferment that you can achieve with a sourdough anyway. Even for achieving something "similar", the variability is too high and you have to recreate the recipe for every specific case, there is no simple "plug it in" formula.
If all you want is a rough starting point, you can simply use the same baker's percentage of preferment as you used of sourdough and see how you like the result. I am suggesting this as a rule of thumb because it is the easiest to deal with, not because it is likely to produce the same taste though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.681146
| 2020-05-28T18:06:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108695",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79482
|
What kind of bread lasts long?
My aunt lives in Venezuela. They don't have basics like bread or meat. I have been mailing her food like crackers and canned meat. I want to mail her some type of bread. I don't know what kind would last the longest.
Have you considered German pumpernickel? Whether you make it yourself, or purchase it in a grocery, it can last for months.
I had a store-bought "sandwich wheat" loaf that was fine and mold free 5 or 6 weeks after I bought it, but I found that to be more than a little frightening, potential chemical preservative-wise.
Well, consider a automatic bread machine?
The classic "long-lasting bread" is rather like a very hard cracker - ship's bread or pilot bread. Otherwise flour and yeast (add water and bake after it arrives) would be more suitable.
At some point when I had been reading too much old sailing tales I made some ship's bread - it's about as awful as the tales tell, once aged a bit (it was fairly edible, though fairly dense, when fresh, actually.) The commercially produced "pilot bread" is a bit more friendly for eating.
" flour and yeast (add water and bake after it arrives)" I would even go further and ship dry ingredients, already mixed, in zip-lock bags. Include instructions (a video link would be great if she is online). +1
Long lasting bread - what sailors these days know.
With over 100,000 ocean miles in a small sail boat, and one eye permanently on how much gas we have this is something that we have now got down to a fine art. So, for a 3-4 week passage, wanting bread, but not wanting to bake our own (not wanting to use a lot of gas) we set out to discover what if any 'long-life' bread was available (that does not need chilling or freezing and is to be considered 'warm storage').
Firstly there is the part-baked vacuum packed bread, normally available as either baguettes or rolls. This should have a shelf life of up to 3 months, and takes between 5-10 minutes to bake in the oven. Depends upon where you live, but we can buy this in any supermarket in the bread section, or sometimes in the health food department.
Secondly, we discovered that cheap sliced brown bread, in it's original plastic bag/wrapper lasts for at least a month. It is usable for both sandwiches or toast. I would suggest buying some and leaving it un-opened for a while, then tasting/testing it yourself to ascertain if this works for you.
However it may depend upon where you are based as to what type of bread you can purchase. You should also be aware of customs protocols for exporting/importing food stuffs to ensure that you are not breaking any laws.
This is one type that will last.
In the uk you can purchace long life bread products with an extended shelf life. The longest I've seen is 7 months.
http://www.carrsfoods.co.uk/brands/baker-street/baker-street-soft-rolls/
They tend to have a dryer concistency than regular bread rolls, and don't toast well. But the flavour is good. I tend to take them if going camping for a few weeks with limited access to replenishment stops.
If real long-term storage (months) is intended, and an oven (or a dutch oven and a fire) is available at the receiving location, the best solution would be to create a pre-mix that just needs to be mixed with water (maybe adding oil too, which you could send along), kneaded and baked. Package it in truly air and insect tight containers (vacuum sealing, or bail lock jars or good quality clip lock plastic containers).
There are techniques that can keep breads from staling quickly (high oil/low moisture, using partially cooked flour and less gluten structure, maybe using trehalose...), but they will still eventually lose to mold with anything that's isn't very hard and dry in the first place...
You have two options here:
You go with an industrial bread with a lot of preservative. It will last a long time but I am not sure of the nutritional value.
You go with a sourdough bread which was proofed at low temperatures and which was put in a cold oven. The cold temperatures during proofing and the start of the baking process ensure that the bread will last longer.
Personally, I'll go with the second option for the natural ingredients and the flavor. But I know some people do not like the taste of sourdough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.681342
| 2017-03-29T00:38:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79482",
"authors": [
"Giorgio",
"Jolenealaska",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129263
|
Can I empty my canned pickles and add sugar to syrup?
I’ve been making sweet pickles for about 40 years now. They have won best of show at the county fair and lots of blue ribbons in the past. My issue is this year. They are just not sweet enough. Can I empty these jars? Separate the pickles from the syrup, add more sugar to the syrup, and process these pickles again?
Sandy - You clearly have a lot of experience with pickles. Please conduct an experiment and try this with a handful of jars and reply here to let us know how it went!
I have absolutely no canning experience, but based on what I know from cooking and safe food handling in general:
If a food has already absorbed one flavor, it can sometimes be difficult to get it to absorb a new one. In your specific case, Chef Saito in an episodes of NHK's Dining With The Chef mentioned in a recipe that they added the sugar before the salt when simmering, because the salt was smaller and easier to absorb but would then block the sugar from absorbing. (I have no idea if this is anecdotal or scientifically proven).
As such, I suspect that you may need to use a higher concentration of sugar than you would have used originally to get the same flavor (if you were trying to deal with a case of forgetting the sugar or the wrong amount)... but it's possibly affected by time as well, so there might be some storage time when this wouldn't be necessary.
For food safety, you're going to need to repeat the canning process... boiling liquid into sterilized jars. If you skip this, the pickles are at risk of fermenting in the jars, especially with the extra sugar (and reduced salt, which has been absorbed by the pickels)
But because you're cooking the pickles a a second time (in the hot brine and canning bath), this may affect the texture. I have no idea how pickle crisp or similar might work if used the second time if it wasn't added the first time around.
I too have a feeling that the pickles texture will change, but I haven't been canning pickles for 40 years...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.681678
| 2024-09-23T10:49:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129263",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"beausmith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121387
|
What are the black little seeds in my chia?
Regardless of where I procure my chia seeds, I always find, mixed with them, some quantity of smaller and darker seeds which don't seem to be chia.
These seeds are black (noticeably darker than the dark-gray chia seeds) and lentil-shaped, about 1mm in diameter. They don't gel in water like the chia seeds do.
What are these seeds? How safe are they? Should I make an effort to get them out?
Here's a sample, the 3 little seeds on the top right are the kind in question, the rest are chia:
You could grow a plant from the seed and find out.
Exactly which species they are I don't know, but it will probably depend on where the chia seeds are sourced from in the world. For a possible ID you would need to provide more close-up photos of the seeds, showing them opened out and showing the bit that attaches to the seed pod. They could well be one of the many common Brassica species that are weeds and/or crops of many places, given their small round shape, but this is by no means certain.
What they are is contaminant species that have either been planted in the same fields as the chia previously (i.e. crop rotation), or have grown adventitiously as a weed species - either already present in the fields or transported and incidentally planted with the chia.
The reason they are in your chia is that the sorting and cleaning process can't sort them out from the chia seeds in any meaningful, cost-effective manner.
As to safety - Without an ID it is almost impossible to say. However, if the producer hasn't gone to great lengths to remove them, they probably aren't likely to cause you harm, at least at the level at which you find them in the chia.
The black seed looks like a kalonji or nigella seed to me.
Certainly not nigella. Nigella looks like little black “potato wedges” with clear edges.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.681868
| 2022-08-17T12:05:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121387",
"authors": [
"Enivid",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96379
|
Can frozen egg whites be used in a macaron recipe?
I put a few egg whites in the freezer a few couple months ago (frozen in an ice cube tray, then transferred to a freezer bag). Would they be viable for using in a macaron recipe (either French or Italian)? Or do I really need fresh ones that have been aged?
I've seen a few sources that claim it will probably work fine, while another source claims they will be too watery to work (for a French recipe, anyway).
Yes, you can, but the results may not be the best, when it comes to tenderness and aeration of the finished (baked) product. Coagulated egg products are mainly used for omelettes, scrambled eggs and souffles especially for mass production, or great quantities.
In cooking, but especially in confectionery making, fresh eggs are usually used, especially for preparations that are very delicate, like macarons.
Given that I'm just getting started at macaron making, I was afraid it would be a point of failure rather than affecting the texture. Since I didn't want to risk wasting the almonds, I used the defrosted whites in meringue cookies. They turned out OK, but since I've never had one before, I don't know if that's what they're supposed to taste like.
It is better to use them for - creams, meringues, meringues and even pasta with.freezing Method tested by me for a long time, never failed. Well whipped, just recently used frozen whites when baking a sponge cake.
I tried all possible options and came to the conclusion that it is enough a day before cooking to separate the proteins from the yolks and leave the proteins on the kitchen table, covered with a film in which to make a few cuts with a knife. The second option, which also came to me: hold the whites in the fridge for 2-3 days and 3-4 hours prior to cooking remove from refrigerator. It's enough for the proteins to reach room temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.682047
| 2019-02-16T16:12:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96379",
"authors": [
"cimmanon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72897"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117842
|
Homemade Marshmallows Makes Soggy Rice Krispies Treats
I use a no-corn syrup, eggless marshmallow recipe and have had terrible results using them to make Rice Krispies Treats.
Marshmallow Recipe
1/2 cup water, divided
2 tablespoons gelatin powder
1/2 cup water
2 cups (400g) granulated sugar
1/2 teaspoon table salt
Half the water is used to bloom the gelatin, the other half is used to make a sugar syrup. Bring the sugar syrup to the soft ball stage. Let it cool to 212F before adding it to the gelatin and whip to soft peaks. Pour into a pan dusted with a combination of icing sugar and corn starch. Allow the finished marshmallow cure overnight. Slice and coat with more icing sugar and/or cornstarch to prevent sticking.
The marshmallows are great in hot chocolate, but terrible for Rice Krispies Treats.
Rice Krispies Treats Recipe
Kellogg's Recipe:
3 tablespoons butter
1 package (10 oz., about 40) JET-PUFFED Marshmallows OR 4 cups JET-PUFFED Miniature Marshmallows
6 cups Kellogg's® Rice Krispies® cereal
Melt the butter and marshmallows together. Stir in the cereal to coat. Press into a greased pan and let it set (30 minutes).
Result
I've tried different ratios of marshmallow to cereal with the same result. As soon as I add the cereal to the melted marshmallow and butter, it starts snap-crackle-popping so you know it's come in contact with water. They completely lose their crunch, making a very sad treat.
My most recent attempt, I brought the sugar syrup to the hard ball stage, hoping that less water would do the trick. After letting the treats set for 30 minutes, they were crunchier than my previous attempts, but had definitely lost the crunch of plain cereal. However, the next morning, they were completely soft and had a white, chalky film on top.
Recipe Comparisons
I've seen multiple recipes that call for using homemade marshmallows, and none of them mention that soggy cereal is even a problem. Gluten Free on a Shoestring uses an identical recipe to mine and doesn't even let the marshmallows set: dump melted butter and cereal straight into the mixing bowl where the marshmallow was whipped.
This recipe uses corn syrup and includes a warning that not letting the marshmallows cure first will make soggy treats.
1/2 cup water
2 1/2 tablespoons unflavored gelatin (about 3 packets)
1/2 cup water
1 1/2 cups granulated sugar
1 cup light corn syrup
pinch salt
I started collecting recipes from other sites to see how they compare in terms of water content.
base_hydration = (weight of the water used to bloom the gelatin) / (weight of all ingredients excluding water content (including the water in corn syrup))
softball_hydration = base_hydration + (weight of water that should be in a sugar syrup brought to the softball stage)
hardball_hydration = base_hydration + (weight of water that should be in a sugar syrup brought to the hardball stage)
Bigger Bolder Baking and Joy of Baking had the lowest water content of all of the recipes I looked at. The recipe I followed has the highest water content, but bringing it to the hardball stage would have brought the water content inline with the Serious Eats recipe (intended for use in a sweet potato casserole).
This leaves me with 2 questions:
How low can I go in terms of water content and still get a functioning marshmallow?
Will this even solve my soggy cereal problem or is there some other magic going on at the Jet-Puffed marshmallow factory?
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77744/how-do-i-stop-my-crispie-crispy-cake-from-going-stale
Possibly relevant: https://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/faqs/how-are-marshmallows-made/
According to the link, the setting process for marshmallows is thermoreversable, so have you tried adding the butter and puffed rice directly into the hot marshmallow mixture rather than allowing it to set? It sounds like the industrial marshmallow machines skip the multi hour setting stage somehow.
Another point from @nick012000's link is that marshmallows have cornstarch as an ingredient for the product itself - starch gelatinization is NOT thermoreversible, so they'll keep a good part of the water bound when the gelatin reverses.
@JulianaKarasawaSouza That is an interesting point. I'm certain I came across this article in my research, but I overlooked that part. I'd be willing to give that a try, got any ideas on how much cornstarch I should use as a starting point?
@cimmanon I haven't found any homemade recipes that use cornstarch as an ingredient for the marshmallows per se - the article also mentions it being MODIFIED cornstarch, I'm assuming pre-gelatinized, to make mixing easier. My best guesstimate would be 2 tbsp of cornstarch, gelatinize in hot water and mix with your gelatin
After further research, it looks like modified cornstarch is commonly used in candy because it can withstand high heats better (this source claims it makes it behave more like "gums", so it could be a little of A and a little of B). ClearJel is a highly accessible modified cornstarch specifically made for withstanding high temperatures while canning. If regular cornstarch doesn't do the trick, I'll give ClearJel a try.
The missing ingredient is starch. Thanks to hints from nick012000 and Juliana Karasawa Souza, I was able to produce a marshmallow that did not get the cereal wet when it melted.
From what I understand, heating gelatin causes it to release the moisture it has locked inside but starches don't.
Process
I made a small batch here. Ended up with about 400g of marshmallow after it cured.
Gelatin Stage
1/4c cold water
1T gelatin powder
1T (7g) cornstarch
Let the gelatin bloom in the water for about 5 minutes. Add the cornstarch and mix well. Let it come to a boil over medium heat, boiling and stirring vigorously for at least 1 minute. I tried to time this so the gelatin came to a boil about the same time as the sugar syrup was ready.
Sugar Syrup
1/4-1/2c water, didn't really measure it
325g granulated sugar
1/4t table salt
1/4t cream of tartar (probably didn't need this since it's going to come in contact with sugar crystals later anyway)
Mix everything together and bring it to a boil over medium heat. Cook until it gets to the soft-ball stage. Transfer to a mixing bowl and start whipping until it cools to about 212F. Add the gelatin/starch mixture and whip on high until it triples in volume. Pour into a prepared pan (lined with parchment paper is popular, but I greased it with lard and dusted it with straight cornstarch). Smooth it as best you can before it starts setting. Dust with some combination of cornstarch & icing sugar. Let it sit overnight uncovered to cure (I draped a clean towel over it to keep bugs and pet hair out). In the morning, cut into cubes and toss with cornstarch/icing sugar.
Result
I sampled the fluff that was stuck to my whisk and Laffy Taffy immediately came to mind. It was plastic-like, definitely not as good as the non-cornstarch batches. I crossed my fingers and hoped for the best when it finished curing. The finished marshmallows still had that Laffy Taffy taste and texture. I was a little disappointed.
I put a handful into a pot with a bit of butter and let it melt over medium heat. I stirred in a handful of cereal... and it was quiet! I gave it a sample and it was still crispy, definitely more consistent with using store bought marshmallows. Added more cereal until I got the consistency I wanted. I turned it out onto a greased surface and let it set for about an hour. The texture was pretty much perfect, just not crazy about the flavor of the marshmallow.
I also gave this batch the hot chocolate test. They melted much slower than non-cornstarch batches and still had the Laffy Taffy texture. I could live with it if I had to, but I'd rather have the non-cornstarch marshmallows.
Conclusion
I'm not crazy about the taste or texture of this batch, but I think it's possible to tune the recipe to have it taste good and make it work for Rice Krispies Treats.
It is possible that the reason commercial marshmallows use modified cornstarch is because it tastes better than native (ie. unmodified) cornstarch. It's also possible that I used too much cornstarch. In the future, I plan on trying less cornstarch as well as ClearJel, which is a highly accessible modified cornstarch used in canning.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.682214
| 2021-11-13T12:25:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117842",
"authors": [
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"cimmanon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72897",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114430
|
When comparing food processor models, why do some have additional blades?
What are advantages or disadvantages to a middle blade in the food processor? Might this shape be harder to clean than a single-blade model?
It's also called top blades:
Hey, you need to narrow down this question a bit; you're asking like 5 different things here. Maybe make it JUST about the middle blade, and not all those other questions?
Asking what features people look for is opinion based so off topic. If all you want is to make smoothies a stick blender is a better and cheaper option.
This seems to be a pretty good guide: https://www.techgearlab.com/topics/kitchen/best-food-processor
Nice guide, thanks Gigili! No GdD, smoothies are not all I want to make. I already have a blender. Additionally, the question was edited to include "what features might be nice to have" as an optional addendum.
Sorry, voting to close this question due to lack of focus. If you edit it to be asking just one clear question, I'll reverse that.
Edited ..... :/
Adamaero: just a warning, I can see deleted posts.
----------->
The Robot Coupe is widely regarded as the standard food processor for professional use. Neither it, nor the industry-leading Cuisinart or KitchenAid food processors have those middle blades. As such, it seems unlikely that they are requirements for a quality unit.
The maximum rating is based without the top blades inserted into the pitcher. This drives the greatest power.
TIP: When pureeing, use only the bottom blades for best results.
Top [middle] blades are needed to power through tough ingredients like ice, solid fruits and vegetables.
http://content.abt.com/documents/51012/BL830_OwnMan.pdf
Bonus idea
For the prices I'm looking at ($100-200), it almost seems worth it to get rid of my current blender, buy a combination attachment blender--with food processor and portable blender containers:
Related: blades be sharpened or replaced?
Why is this answer getting downvotes? It directly answers the question, "Top [middle] blades are needed to power through tough ingredients like ice, solid fruits and vegetables."
Not the downvoter, but having blended ice, fruits, and vegetables, I can tell you categorically that a middle blade is not required. It’s probably not a good idea to take that company’s marketing material’s word for it.
@Sneftel It's in the manual, not "marketing materials."
:-) You were curious about whether a particular feature was important; you went googling; you found something from the manufacturer, saying that it is. That is an example of marketing.
Um, no, I first found it from a customer review. You're still clinging to the manual being "marketing materials." It's not. Additionally, I never claimed nor thought it to be "important."
Btw, I generally agree. A middle blade is likely for marketing purposes. Although, I doubt I'll write that into my answer. That would be more-so an opinion. And I'm not involved with blender companies to actually know.
Think of my question as analogously "why do a few submarines have two propellers" (and less as a self-fulfilling prophecy).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.682915
| 2021-02-21T18:17:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114430",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Gigili",
"Sneftel",
"adamaero",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73063"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121551
|
How do I fix over-salted dry brined chicken wings?
I am dry brining chicken wings for the first time. I used fine sea salt instead of coarse kosher salt to dry brine my chicken wings. I also used baking powder. 1 tsp of each per pound of chicken. The wings are cut and separated into drums and wings, the drums being significantly meatier than most of the wings.
They have been sitting in the fridge for about 4 hours now, and I test-cooked the skinniest piece of chicken. It’s pretty salty.
What can I do to reduce the salt levels in chicken at this point? Can I soak them in cold water to draw out some salt?
Thanks
Can we just call it "salting?" By definition, a brine is a solution of salt in water.
@moscafj Salting carries the connotation of long-term preservation with higher amounts of salt used. 'Dry brining' accurately conveys that a similar mechanism to traditional wet brining is used - just that the water is sourced solely from the food itself. https://www.seriouseats.com/how-to-dry-brine
I am closing as a duplicate, because to my knowledge, it doesn't matter if the oversalting happened through dry or wet brining, and the existing answer seems to be in line with the older question.
agree with closing....@borkymcfood we'll have to agree to disagree. No one used the term "dry brine" before a couple of years ago....there is salting (no liquid) and brining (a salt solution). Serious eats is complicit in spreading the inaccurate terminology. I also realize the culinary world may have passed me by on this one. So, if you want to "dry brine" go ahead....I'll just "salt."
@moscafj so i was interested and did some searching and it seems like it might have been cook's illustrated which brought dry-brining en vogue with a brined turkey test (including dry) . Here's an article from all the way back in 07, https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111300427.html and another from 09 https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-nov-18-fo-calcook18-story.html . Pretty sure Alton also did it on good eats around the same time.
weirdly enough the earliest references I've found are all from fishing sites/forums, with the oldest mention being a thread from a fishing site in 2004.
@eps...nice work, and interesting....personally, I'll stick with "salting" and "brining" as two (perhaps related, but) distinctly different techniques...I do realize I may be taking the loss on this one. I'll just shake my head and move on.
What can I do to reduce the salt levels in chicken at this point? Can I soak them in cold water to draw out some salt?
Yes. Use plain water and cover the wings, stirring to agitate and changing water every 5 minutes or so to maintain the sodium concentration gradient, and test cook a batch for taste after each water change.
If not using right away, add ice cubes to the water to target <4C/40F and refrigerate overnight, replacing ice and water at least once partway through, evenly spaced intervals if doing multiple changes.
For future brining, use a scale and target a salt amount between 0.5%-1.0% of the total mass of wings. The fine sea salt is denser than kosher salt, meaning you put in much more sodium by mass in this batch.
The baking soda (NaHCO₃) contributes sodium as well - approx. 27.3 g sodium per 100 g baking soda, compared to ~39.3 g sodium per 100 g pure sodium chloride salt. Account for that by multiplying the mass of baking soda used by 0.7 to get the mass of salt to subtract.
The wings turned out great and drastically less salty. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.683176
| 2022-09-03T04:40:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121551",
"authors": [
"Chicken thang",
"borkymcfood",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99917",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121786
|
Can I save flour dredge used for raw chicken for a later batch?
What if I have like 50 pieces of chicken and I only fry 25 but I have 25 left would it be ok to use the same flour considering it’s the same batch of chicken
Yes - though since it's come in contact with chicken and picked up chicken juices and bacteria, treat it like the raw chicken, store it in the fridge and use within the next day if possible.
A similar question, Saving seasoned flour used for dredging chicken , has a couple more answers as well - none suggesting refrigeration.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.683469
| 2022-09-26T07:31:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121786",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121829
|
Why are the tops of my sponge cakes tough and cracking?
My sponge cake has a layer on the top of the cake that is cracking and can be peeled off the cake. I have tried beating the mixture for a longer period.
can you edit your question to include the recipe you used (including any changes you made) and possibly an image of the cake?
And what kind of oven are you using? At what setting?
The toughening and cracking of the top layer of your sponge cake is due to excessive moisture loss during baking. It's forming a 'crust' that can be easily peeled off due to the typically very weak soft crumb structure underneath.
There are multiple methods of reducing moisture loss you can implement alone or together:
Check for doneness 5-10 minutes earlier in the baking process with the skewer method to avoid overbaking.
Use a lower temperature for a longer time. If the initial temperature isn't high enough though, there won't be enough heat energy to generate steam in the batter for rising - try lowering 25F first if you can spare a batch.
Use a hybrid high temp-low temp baking process - 400F then 250F. Most of the steam generation and batter rising will occur during the first third of baking, with the latter of the bake time spent dehydrating and setting the starches and proteins in the batter.
If baking your sponge cake in a water bath, start with a higher bath temperature - boiling water straight from a kettle directly before putting in the cake batter - and check for doneness sooner as well.
Add additional steam at the start of baking - preheat the oven with a sheet pan, then pour boiling hot water onto the sheet pan after the cake is in the oven and immediately before closing the door.
Cover the top of the cake with a cut-to-fit sheet of parchment. The surface will trap a significant amount of moisture and may have visual imperfections when removing the parchment. If it's too wet, leave the cake in the oven a little longer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.683545
| 2022-09-29T13:46:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121829",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121400
|
Overcooked grapes for jelly?
I cooked my grapes overnight in a crock pot. It only has one temperature setting.
The grapes became brown and appeared mushy, and the juice they released was also brown. The taste became almost cherry-like instead of grape, and I didn't taste any burnt flavor. Are they still good?
Are you planning on adding pectin to make your jelly?
Yes, they should be perfectly safe. [Assuming you've kept them hot or cold rather than sitting at room temperature, of course.]
Somewhat oxidized (thus, brown) but nothing wrong with that (raisins are brown...unless treated with anti-oxidants.) Also rather like a grape version of apple butter, which is essentially overcooked applesauce, and also brown. Likely better for jam than jelly at this point.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.683723
| 2022-08-18T20:07:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121400",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121357
|
When do bananas go bad?
When do bananas become unsafe for eating? Is it when they turn brown? Or black? Not for recipes, but for straight eating. Also, does the peel color even matter if the inside of the banana is still more or less okay? If a banana is green with brown/black spots, does that say anything bad about the banana? Because bananas that ripen like that are often chemically treated or ripened, but it sometimes happens naturally as well. EDIT: The difference between this and the original question is that this question has other factors, like what is going on with bananas that have an okay inside but black peel, and what color should I trust with green but spotted bananas.
(Note: this is for Cavendish bananas, the main banana sold in the United States; I don’t know if this is true for other banana varieties)
As a banana ripens, it becomes sweeter and softer.
When is best to eat it directly is a matter of personal preference. I know people who eat them when yellow or even green. I prefer them when they have a good amount of spotting, but no large black spots.
If they’ve ripened further than you’d like, I recommend freezing them (peel first, then a plastic bag) for later use (in ice cream or banana bread), or if they’ve gone completely black, you can use them in banana bread immediately. (The freezing helps to break up cell structure so they mash up very easily after you thaw them)
Once they’ve gone to black, you want to consider freezing or using them soon, as they may start to attract fruit flies. At some point after that, they might start fermenting or rotting, as the insides basically liquify.
I'd say when they start tasting of alcohol it is time not to eat them anymore.
At home we had the running joke that my mother would prefer to push a straw in and drink the contents, but they never lasted that long, got eaten when they were all brown latest.
But if you like your bananas a bit less soft, you have a lot of people on your side and you can use them in cooking or freezing them and using them in drinks or ice(cream) recipes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.683814
| 2022-08-13T21:08:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121357",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121368
|
What is the purpose of heating peanut butter and butter when making this type of peanut butter fudge?
I've seen two basic kinds of recipes for peanut butter fudge. One is the traditional method of making fudge where sugar and milk is boiled and then peanut butter is added. The other method involves mixing butter and peanut butter over heat, usually until it boils, then mixing in powdered sugar off heat. I understand the need to bring the sugar and milk mixture to a boil in the first method, as it is necessary for the sugar to candy. But is the step of heating the peanut butter and butter in the second method only to make mixing easier? Would the end result be any different if instead of heating the peanut butter and butter, you just stirred in room temperature butter to the peanut butter and did an extremely thorough job stirring everything together?
Here is an example of the second method that I'm wondering about:
https://preppykitchen.com/peanut-butter-fudge/
3 cups powdered sugar 360g, sifted
1 cup peanut butter 250g, smooth or chunky
1 cup unsalted butter 226g
2 tsp vanilla extract 10mL
1/4 tsp salt optional
1. Line an eight inch square dish with foil or parchment paper.
2. Add the butter and peanut butter to a medium pot then place over medium heat and bring to a boil stirring occasionally.
3. Bring to a steady boil then remove from heat and stir in the powdered sugar and vanilla.
4. Once the sugar is completely stirred in transfer to your prepared dish and smooth with a spatula. Set aside to cool and set (about an hour).
5. When the fudge has set you can invert onto a cutting board, remove lining and cut into squares.
There are many in-depth sources of how to properly control the temperature and agitation in candymaking in order to make fudge. I have never come across your second method, so I won't write an answer, but you might be interesting in reading articles like this one: https://blog.thermoworks.com/candy-chocolate/thermal-tips-for-perfect-fudge/ for a background.
I referred to this page from Pastry Chef Online on the science of making fudge.
Fudge happens when you heat sugar and mix it with other ingredients. The water evaporates and leaves a sugar concentration that crystallizes. See footnote about sugar's water content.
So, if you just stirred in the powdered sugar, you wouldn't be evaporating the water in the sugar, the sugar wouldn't concentrate, and the end result wouldn't crystallize and turn into fudge.
Footnote - sugar contains some water.
Are you saying that you need to evaporate the water from sugar crystals or they won’t crystallize?
In the second method, would mixing the powdered sugar into the hot peanut butter off heat be enough to evaporate the water in the powdered sugar and crystalize?
@Sneftel I believe that's correct. The water needs to evaporate to create a supersaturated solution so that the sugar will crystallize. Here's a site with the science explained - https://foodcrumbles.com/how-to-make-fudge-controlling-crystallization/
The water you suggested being present in sugar is negligible . The point in candy making is not to evaporate the water, it is to get the sugar to the target temperature, which should be 112 C for fudge. If you would start with a dry method and heat until the exact point where that 1% of water from your footnote has gone, but don't heat it to the candying temperature, you won't get fudge. If you are seeing references to evaporating somewhere else, they refer to the wet method of sugar work, where you add significant amounts of water, and then evaporate them before waiting for the temp.
@Edward45 I would assume so since that's how the recipe is written and the boiling point is 212F/100C - the residual heat seems to be enough to melt the sugar.
@JC007B That's not what I mean. If there's enough water in sugar crystals to make them not even a supersaturated solution, then how exactly did they crystallize in the first place?
Per the FDA, white sugar is about 0.02% water. (Peanut butter is about 1%.) What percentage of water does a saturated sugar solution contain?
@JC007B It doesn't seem like the peanut butter would be hot enough to start candying the sugar. From this chart, https://www.thespruceeats.com/candy-temperature-chart-3057575 it would seem the minimum temperature at which the sugar starts to change is 230 F. And I would assume that once off heat, the hot peanut better would start to lose heat fast enough that even if it did reach 230 on the stove, there wouldn't be enough heat to cause the powdered sugar to start to candy.
@Edward45 what do you mean by "to candy"? caramelize? That doesn't actually require any specific temperature, lower temperatures + longer time will do the same job.
@Esther Yeah sorry I'm not sure what the proper terminology is, I guess I mean caramelize, or whatever it's called when sugar transforms into a candy/caramel. The point I was making though is that it seems like there would be enough heat from the residual heat of boiling peanut butter to transform the sugar and effect the end result of the fudge. Am I wrong?
@Edward45 most likely the sugar would not dissolve properly if the mixture wasn't heated. Also, a lot of powdered sugar has starch, which possibly gets cooked in the heat of the peanut butter + butter (it doesn't take that much heat to cook cornstarch). Think of creaming peanut butter + butter + sugar, it would never harden into a fudge; it would be mixed together but not dissolved/fully blended unless you heat it (even with the sugar out, the residual heat is more than enough to dissolve sugar).
The butter needs to be heated to lose water, just like with making traditional fudge. Why the peanut butter is heated I cannot say.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.684017
| 2022-08-14T20:12:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121368",
"authors": [
"Edward45",
"Esther",
"J007B",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"rumtscho",
"user105678"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
821
|
Can I freeze egg whites?
I saw this question and it got me thinking, can I freeze egg whites, and if so is there anything I need to bear in mind when doing so?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.684453
| 2010-07-13T11:09:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/821",
"authors": [
"Ashwin Nanjappa",
"James L",
"Wil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9830",
"keithjgrant",
"nemix",
"rgvcorley",
"rhamin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4750
|
Make chocolate with a high melting point?
Is there something that can be done to chocolate which will raise its melting point?
I ask because this question wanted a way of getting space dust into a cake, which might be able to be done by encasing it in chocolate chips, but to have the best chance of success the chocolate needs to have a higher melting point. So can this be affected, and if so by what?
Chocolate chips made for baking have a higher melting point.
The typical tricks used by chocolate manufacturers is to change the viscosity of chocolate by adding a gel like xanthan gum or glycerine. The other trick is to incorporate more water into the chocolate with the aid of an emulsifier such as lecithin. All these techniques are hard to do at home as they require many hours of stirring the chocolate to avoid grittiness. Patents often give recipes.
One can buy chocolate with higher melting points. Callebaut Volcano melts at 55°C, the highest melting point for a commercial chocolate that I know of, but is not yet on sale. Many of the commercial chocolate bars, such as the wartime Hershey's Tropical Bar use chocolate that incorporate these techniques as do the Nestle Toll House morsels.
Here is a patent from the 1940s to make chcolate with a melting point up to ~65C.
That's not very practical and a bit tongue-in-cheek. More practical:
Food-info.net's information on chocolate melting point.
Temper the chocolate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.684763
| 2010-08-10T08:56:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4750",
"authors": [
"Anne Mollere",
"Baldy",
"Karen S.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9229",
"silves89",
"texclayton",
"vvnraman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58950
|
What foods are safe to leave in the car over a long period of time?
I'm going on a long distance permanent relocation road trip and have some random stuff left at home that I can either throw out or bring along.
What foods are safe to leave in the car over a long period of time?
Please clarify: will you come back or are you moving permantly? Welcome, btw!
Sorry, but there are thousands of foods in the world. It is impossible to list all the safe ones here. You can read up on basic food safety in our tag wiki, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info, or if you are not certain which foods require refrigeration, check them up on a database for shelf life such as StillTasty.
@rumtscho I understood this as a "how do I know" not a "list of things" question, where the answer is that it's the same as leaving it without refrigeration at home, except the shelf life might be a bit reduced compared to that if it's summer and your car is hot.
All right, it's still closed, but I've pointed to our canonical question about food left at room temperature. The same advice applies here: either things need refrigeration or they don't. (Again, with the caveat that you'll need to be more careful if your car gets hot in the sun.)
@Jefromi I pointed to our tag wiki because it has a very well structured text on the basics and ends with links to some very important places to read further, including the question you posted here. I think we should make more use of such a good resource, now almost nobody comes to it (it is somewhat hidden). For the actual closure, I don't care that much if it is seen as a list or a duplicate of the basics of temperature/refrigeration, it was somewhat unclear from the start.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.685025
| 2015-07-10T05:40:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58950",
"authors": [
"Asha Jakhar",
"Cascabel",
"Christine Pace",
"Elaine Kedzior",
"Ida Turpeinen",
"RAVISHANKAR KUMAR",
"Stephie",
"beth blatt",
"heidi markmann",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59025
|
How much is in a handful of spinach?
Yes, I know it's a volume unit, but I want to know how many grams does a male or female handful of spinach can hold. You'll see, a recipe calls for 2 handfuls of spinach, 1 handful of parsley and 2 leaves of kale (these aren't all the ingredients, just the non-precise ingredients). So, as you can see the recipe is good for you because you don't have to measure, however, I want to get the nutritional fact of this recipe. To do this, I have to put the ingredients and its quantity on a page.
So, how much is a handful of this green veggie? Or much does it weighs? (it'll also help).
possible duplicate of How much is a bunch of spinach?
I used to work in a deli and when a customer told me to give a handful, it usually meant approx 200 gms. That is the amount they were looking for. So i think 200gms(a female hand)-250gms(male hand) is what you might be looking for.
I general any recipe that uses non precise words like a "handful", is either not a well tested recipe, or the author is suggesting to use the ingredient for taste, colour, and/or texture reasons. The amount (within reason) is not critical to the recipe
Just add the amount you would like in terms of a balanced meal, and what gives the taste, colour, and/or texture you like
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.685206
| 2015-07-12T23:21:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59025",
"authors": [
"Cecilia Blancia",
"Cindy",
"Laurie Alaimo",
"Tess Aquino",
"Tom W",
"User56756",
"Zainab Giyori",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34243"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74041
|
Cheese substitution in casserole recipe
The recipe calls for:
200 g (each): broccoli and cauliflower.
200 g: cottage cheese.
100 mL: water.
1/2 tsp (each): nutmeg and thyme.
Salt & pepper.
30 g: Parmesan cheese.
Coconut oil.
So in the directions, you start chopping vegetables. Then you make the creamy sauce: mixing cottage cheese, water, nutmeg, thyme, salt and pepper. After that you pour this cream in the casserole with vegetables and sprinkle Parmesan cheese. Finally you just bake.
What cheese, or other ingredient, can I use instead of cottage? It can be anything but cottage. I'm looking for one as high in protein as cottage (so, would yogurt work?, but that's more nutrition-related, so a substitution for the texture and flavor would be the answer I'm looking for.
Are you looking for a non dairy, non cheese substitute? Or just anything that isn't cottage cheese?
Anything that isn't cottage.
Is the sauce heated before baking or mixed cold?
@Stephie It's mixed and baked: you make the sauce (cottage, water and species), then mix it with the veggies and then bake.
As ricotta is often substituted in lasagna with cottage cheese, it seems like you should be able to do the reverse in this recipe.
Other options mentioned in this similar question include sour cream and cream cheese.
Will try it tomorrow!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.685345
| 2016-09-18T22:10:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74041",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Stephie",
"alejnavab",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36785"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70613
|
How can I thicken my smoothie without frozen ingredients?
I like thick drinks and I cannot lie.
You other posters can't deny,
That when a shake pours out, all watery and fast
My first thought is "that's just nast(ay)"
Normally, I put in my smoothies a combination of the following:
4-5 med. Strawberries
½ Banana
½(?) cup baby spinach
Rhubarb
Hemp milk
Other seasonal fruits/vegetables
Cocoa powder
I'm also going to experiment with adding things from this list:
Home-made hemp milk (from hemp hearts)
Flax seeds
Small portions of avocado
Tofu
So far, the smoothies have come out with the texture of chocolate milk. I'd like it to be a bit thicker, but I have some very interesting food allergies/intolerance. I'd also like to keep the beverage nearer to room temperature at the time of preparation/consumption.
I cannot consume any of the following items I've found online for thickening:
Xanthan Gum, Guar Gum (other polysaccharides)
Dairy (both cow and goat make me ill, I'm not trying others)
Whey, Pea, or other bean/lentil-based protein powders
Anything considered High-FODMAP
What other methods are there to thicken a smoothie, with neither dairy, nor frozen items?
More FODMAP information:
Examples of low/high fodmap foods
Wikipedia: FODMAP with more reference links
Do you have a better link for the high-FODMAP restriction? I'm not sure where to look on that page to find what things it means you're avoiding.
I did not see it below, but have you tried oat flour? It is a great shake thickener. It seems to meet your requirements. It is also easy to make if you can't find the pre-ground stuff. I just start some rolled oats in my blender for a bit before I add my shake ingredients.
There are so called non-dairy yogurts but I have not tried any
@Paparazzi I've not found a non-dairy yoghurt that does Not contain inulin (aka chicory extract) or polysaccharide gum.
My favorite smoothie thickener is chia seed.
A tablespoon will thicken a blender of smoothie into pudding. According to the internet it is also a low FODMAP food.
It is a small, black seed which will change the texture a bit. With raspberry or strawberry or vanilla they are lost among the other seeds.
It has the added benefit of being neutrally flavored and high in fiber, protein, omega 3 fatty acids, and various minerals.
I have a feeling Glucomanan (konjac root) would work well for you. It's fairly easy to source online and in some stores, and is super simple to use in smoothies. You add 1/4-1/2 tsp of the powder per cup or so of liquid and blend in high until it starts to make a glug-glug sound and leave to rest for a minute. At this point you can drink it, or blend again for a pudding consistency. Almond milk works especially well with it, but any liquid is fine. It also thickens well with heat and a whisk for hot puddings.
Your first option are thickeners. I won't be counting them all off my fingers, see http://blog.khymos.org/recipe-collection/ and choose the ones which fit your dietary restrictions. For example, gelatine will work, and so will starch. You'd need to cook your smoothie and let it cool for the starch, but you could alternatively prepare a thickish starch pudding with water, syrup or a fruit juice, keep it in the fridge and dilute it with the smoothie. As for the ones which don't need cooking, I really don't know if they fit your diet.
Your other option is fat. You'll need to make an emulsion, the way fruit custards are made. Use egg yolk or lecithine for the emulsifier. With enough mixing speed, and given that the smoothie is somewhat acidic, it will probably work without the need for heating.
What happens if you simply adjust the solid: liquid ratio? I.E use a bit less milk?
I would also perhaps suggest using more banana.
To make smoothie thicker, you need to lower the content of liquid in it. Liquids obtained in a smoothie come either from the fruit and vegetables and also from the milk or other liquids that you pour in it.
From my experience if you put a handful of sunflower seeds into your recipes, it will make the texture thicker. But not everybody will like the taste (yet they are very healthy). Possibly I would recommend this recipe http://smoothie-recipes.eu/quick-smoothie-energy-boost/ with lower content of milk.
Avocado is from my experience also good to make the smoothie a bit thicker, but this fruit contains a lot of fat as well, so it depends whether one wants to lose some weight or not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.685489
| 2016-06-11T17:32:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70613",
"authors": [
"BigHandsome",
"Cascabel",
"Eris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126649
|
Can raw eggs be made safe with hot sugar in an Italian meringue?
I found this recipe which features Italian meringue as topping. After preparation, the meringue is not cooked further, yet the author claims that adding the sugar syrup alones has pasteurized (i.e. killed all germs) the eggs. Can this really be assumed?
The basic steps in this recipe in this regard are:
Beat 100g of egg whites until stiff
Add 200g of sugar, dissolved in 30g of water and heated to 120°C
Assuming that the 100g of egg is at room temperature, or slightly cooler, then the mixture would probably exceed 70°C, but I am concerned that the time it would be this hot would be long enough to actually consider the final product pasteurized.
I imagine you'd primarily be concerned about salmonella and listeria in eggs? I have to think that the relatively low water activity of something with such a high ratio of sugar to water is also protective. It might not kill any pathogens present, but it would prevent them from multiplying.
For the pasteurization of egg whites, the time required is at most 48 seconds at 140 F (60 C). (Source: FSIS, table on page 39)
This means that you can easily use the method to know if you've pasteurized the egg whites. Simply keep the thermometer in the bowl while beating your meringue. If it takes more than 48 seconds to fall under 60 C, you've pasteurized them. And if you should find out that it fails too often, you can change your setup - e.g. start beating the meringue over a water bath - to ensure you reach the required duration. In practice, I think that it would be difficult for you to make a meringue that cools down in less than 48 seconds.
Note that this requirement is for egg whites specifically! The times for whole eggs and egg yolks is given in the same source, in a chart on page 17, and they need more time for pasteurization.
Looking at that table, it seems that if it is above 62C for more than 17 seconds it would be fine, so extra heating would probably not be required assuming the introduction of the hot sugar syrup will bring the temperature above 62C. Which I would expect it to do as the sugar will be between 118 and 120 when it enters.
In other words if it is over 62C then you need 1/3 the time as you would at 60C, which gives a much wider margin of safety.
@Justinw the sugar syrup in Italian meringue is heated to soft ball stage (about 114°C) and then added slowly to the mixer over the course of about 30 seconds to 1 minute. So it won't be quite as hot as you are suggesting, but should still be plenty hot enough to kill any pathogens almost instantly.
@Z4-tier My point was less about the sugar temp, as it was that if you are expecting the mixture to heat to over 60C with the inclusion of the sugar, it is a very reasonable assumption that it will be over 62C anyway. Which means that the temp/time window for it to be "safe" without extra heating was larger than what the answer implies. (Also the recipe in the OP specifically calls out heating the sugar syrup to 118-120, which would be more in the firm ball stage if I am remembering my sugar stages correctly)
I would not consider this "pasteurization," which has a specific meaning in food science, but the method of "cooking" sugar to around 240°F or 116°C and threading it into an egg foam is an accepted and proved method of ensuring the food safety in your meringue. You do not need to check the temperature, but you can feel the mixing bowl (especially if it's metal) and you'll get an idea of how hot it is and how long it takes to cool to room temp.
As a side note, I would not employ the method you state exactly. I find it's best to use about 1/3 of the sugar uncooked and add it to the eggs (French meringue-style) after it has reached soft peaks (or at least a decent foam, depending on your sugar grain size) and then beat the whites to a a medium peak before threading in your sugar. There are many methods that work well, so if the recipe you're following works for you then that's great as well.
You can also add an acid (like cream of tartar) to the whites before beating them which helps prevent the proteins from bonding too tightly and also helps the foam form.
If you're very concerned with food safety another method you can use is the Swiss method where you cook the egg whites and sugar over a double-boiler first (to 160°F or 70°C) and then beat them in your stand mixer with the whisk. I prefer the Italian method, but this works well and is easier to do.
Why do you add 1/3 of the sugar unheated? What benefit does it give over adding it all as syrup?
I have made meringue both ways. By adding some of the sugar earlier it helps stabilize the foam and you get a better, more stable, shinier meringue than cooking all the sugar and adding it to the eggs that way. Acid will also help stabilize the foam as mentioned, so this will also help if you want to cook all the sugar. I never both with acid myself, but I do prefer the French/Italian method. I teach baking and food science, and I have made a lot of meringue.
"I never both with acid myself" should be "I never bother with acid myself."
Jurisdiction disclaimer: If you are in the US raw egg whites are not considered food save and may not be served in a commercial setting. Whether you want to personally take the risk is up to you.
If you are in Europe, raw beaten egg whites are used in some recipes and are considered food save. A common example is a mousse au chocolat. Of course one should only do that with very fresh eggs from a reputable source and possibly avoid recipes like that if you are in a risk group like being pregnant.
I don't know whether the difference is due to the US having stricter standards on food safety or due to Europe have stricter standards on producing and selling eggs. If you are somewhere else in the world, check your local health authorities.
Which is exactly why raw egg mousse au chocolat is not considered generally safe, but an acceptable risk for non-vulnerable groups. Or bluntly, those that may end up with diarrhea that they will likely survive. So raw meat (think steak tartare), raw egg (your aforementioned mousse) and raw milk are examples of foods where food safety related risks can be limited by proper preparation and handling, but not excluded. It’s up to the consumer whether they are willing to take the risk or not.
@Stephie This may be jurisdiction dependent but in Germany you can get dishes like steak tartare or a chocolat mousse in restaurants. So they are considered save enough to satisfy the official health standards. This is not something where the customer is taking a risk or not, it is just officially save food (assuming the restaurant is doing things the way they are supposed to).
The UK in particular are quite proud of their “lion eggs” (standard for grocery eggs), which they promise are safe to eat raw even for vulnerable groups.
Harmful microbes are not your only concern. Raw egg whites contain protein named avidin, which is an antinutrient that severely interferes with vitamin B7 absorption. Prolonged consumption could cause vitamin B7 deficiency. Avidin is quite heat resistant and remains stable below 70 °C. Just mixing raw egg whites with melted sugar is not going to destroy that protein.
More from Wikipedia:
A 1991 assay for the Journal of Food Science detected substantial avidin activity in cooked egg white: "mean residual avidin activity in fried, poached and boiled (2 min) egg white was 33, 71 and 40% of the activity in raw egg white." The assay surmised that cooking times were not sufficient to adequately heat all cold spot areas within the egg white. Complete inactivation of avidin's biotin binding capacity required boiling for over 4 minutes.
I don't believe the presence of avidin in egg whites poses a significant dietary concern. In Italian meringue the whites are heated to a temperature above avadin's denaturation point and also one would need to eat a relatively high amounts of raw egg whites to impact biotin status. However, if there is original research that shows otherwise, I'd love to see it. Because Italian meringue is subject to many variables, the peak temperature of the egg foam will vary, but I'd also love to see any data showing average temperatures and slope.
How much raw egg does one need to consume to cause a vitamin deficiency, and over what period of time? Besides, this is a dessert not bodybuilding supplement.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.685835
| 2024-02-12T10:37:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126649",
"authors": [
"Justinw",
"Luciano",
"Matt Morgan",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Z4-tier",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"myklbykl",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121225
|
How many fresh peaches are equivalent to 20 ounces of frozen peaches?
I have fresh ripe peaches and plan to make a cobbler. The recipe calls for 20 ounces of frozen sliced peaches, how many fresh (medium sized) should I use?
In a cobbler, I'm not sure that you need to super accurate, but why wouldn't you use 20 ounces (or round up to the nearest whole peach)? Do you have a scale? Or maybe your question is "how much does a medium sized peach (minus pit) weigh?
I'd say it's 1:1 (i.e. 20 for 20), assuming the frozen peaches are frozen from fresh, then there shouldn't be any water loss that might complicate things.
If the problem is that you don't have a scale in your kitchen, (which for some reason is common in the USA, I grew up in a house like that) then get a quart measuring cup and hack up fresh peaches until you hit (or exceed, I agree with the comment) 2-1/2 cups - because 20 ounces by weight of frozen peaches is pretty near to 20 ounces by volume of fresh peaches and juice, if cut and packed so there's not much air space. If leaving air space it might be full quart of less packed down/cut up peaches.
Also, put a kitchen scale on your gift list for whatever gift giving occasions (including gifting yourself) might be coming up, and correct that situation.
If you have a scale, remove pits and weigh 20 ounces of pitted peaches.
How many medium peaches gets caught up in "what's a medium peach" but seems to be 4 according to one definition of "medium" (5.3 ounces, I'm going to guesstimate the pit as 0.3 so it works out, and I'd choose 5 to be sure there was plenty, since @mosjafj is correct in the comments. And pits might be heavier than that.)
You can get perfectly serviceable kitchen scales for about $10 on eBay (mine are as good as the ones I had before cost 3x that, except for being a little small so the display hides under big pans). I'd hesitate to recommend just spending money, but honestly, they're worth having
I absolutely suggest, without hesitation, buying or getting a suitable scale, but that doesn't help with making a peach cobbler right now.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.686479
| 2022-08-02T20:55:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121225",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"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
}
|
103032
|
How to Everything Soup / Anything Soup / Build It Yourself Soup / Stone Soup
Saute onions, fresh garlic, in the pot using 1 tbsp olive oil.
• For every cup of chopped veggies, use approximately 2 cups broth [or water be used for a cheap imitation?]
• For every 2 cups broth, use 1 bouillon cube [or not?]
• For every 2 cups broth, stir in 2 teaspoons onion powder and garlic powder
• Bring everything to a boil and cook until the veggies are fully cooked [for approx how long?]
https://www.thegraciouspantry.com/clean-eating-build-it-yourself-vegetable-soup/
Why have onions and garlic twice? Why not just saute more?
Why broth and cubes?
I'm not sure what the actual question is. Can you clarify your recipe and what you want to know?
Another common name is "refrigerator soup".
Can water be used for a cheap imitation? Yes, though you'll probably want to use more bullion in this case, or else end up with a bland soup.
Use 1 buillion cube (or not)? Up to you. More bullion could add more flavor and will definitely add more salt (which is an important element of flavor). I note in the link you provided that they specify no-sodium bullion, so in that case you'll just be giving more enhanced flavor.
How long? [until fully cooked] It depends on the type of vegetables. Things like carrots and parsnips can take longer to soften, if you prefer to have soft vegetables in your soup. Potatoes will take a little less time, but still need to cook for a while. Other vegetables can get overcooked (very mushy) if simmered for too long. Some people don't mind mushy vegetables in soup; others do. In any case, I'd say after bringing to a boil, turn down the heat and try simmering for about 30 minutes. That should give time for flavors to blend. If you don't have particularly hard vegetables to cook, you might even try 20 minutes.
Then taste. If some vegetables aren't tender enough for you, cook longer. (Unless you have large chunks of hard vegetables, it shouldn't take much longer -- perhaps 45-60 minutes at most; after that, you'll start to break down some of the most subtle vegetable components and lose some flavor.) If some vegetables get too soft for you, wait and add these more toward the end of cooking next time.
Why have onions and garlic twice? Why not just saute more? The recipe you linked lists the powders actually in the ingredients, but then it contains a note at the end about "if you have fresh onion and garlic, saute them first." I think that's pretty clear: the soup doesn't assume you have any particular fresh vegetables on hand, so it's just using the powders for flavor. IF you have fresh onion and/or garlic, saute them first. And in that case, I'd say you could omit the powders.
Note that garlic powder and onion powder do often introduce a different flavor (which I wouldn't usually find as pleasant in vegetable soup) compared to their fresh versions. You could experiment as to what you like better. (Personally, I'd just saute both fresh and skip the powder, assuming you have fresh onion and garlic.)
Why broth and cubes? Well, I'd have guessed this was about adding salt, but again your linked recipe clarifies that they are using low sodium broth and no sodium bullion, only adding salt to taste at the end. So, I guess this is just about adding more flavor. Note that most vegetables will release water as they cook, which will dilute the broth a bit -- adding bullion is a way to enhance the flavor a bit more and counter this. (Yes, the vegetables will add flavor to the broth as they cook too, but an all-vegetable soup can end up tasting watery.) I also suspect that this recipe is using extra bullion (and perhaps extra onion and garlic powder too) to add flavor, because of the lack of salt in everything. I understand why some people want to limit salt intake, and I personally prefer to make stock/broth with no salt and add it later myself, but if you don't add any salt at all, you'll end up with what most would consider a rather bland soup. This recipe appears to be trying to make up for that by adding other flavor components.
If you start with broth, use a good one (homemade or store bought) and you do not need cube bouillon.
If you start with water, then you can use cube bouillon (to each is own imo).
You do not need to add onion or garlic powder, just use the real thing; I imagine using powder will add a different flavor (I don't have lot experience using them, maybe someone else can answer that part)
When cooking vegetable for soup, you need to think about the end product, do you want to make a blended soup or a clear soup; if blended, then cook the vegetables until they are very tender, if you make a clear soup, you could cook them until they still have some bite into them .
You do not need both broth and cube.
When I do something like that, I do the following
fry up aromatic (onion, carrots, celery ... )
add broth (vegetable preferably).
put in whatever vegetable in the pot (cut in small manageable size)
cook until tender
adjust seasoning (salt, pepper ... )
After bringing to a boil, should it be let to simmer for approx 1-2 hours?
I suspect the onion and garlic powders are to boost the flavour of the stock, especially if using bought where simply adding more could make the soup taste very salty. Using extra fresh onion and garlic is betting but will change the overall texture as the ratio of bits to liquid will change. Blending some of the onion + garlic mix is good here, but now we're getting fancy
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.686660
| 2019-10-23T22:50:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103032",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"adamaero",
"arp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73063"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102813
|
How to check on something baking in oven
Whenever I bake something, I am afraid of opening the oven door because I think heat/hot air/steam will escape.
For example, today I made baguettes with a water source at the oven bottom. When I opened the oven, a huge blast of steam came out, which seems detrimental to the baking of the bread. At the same time, in my experience, oven lights can be quite deceptive in seeing how done something is. Are my concerns valid or is there a better way to check on the "doneness" of something baking?
Yes, clearly steam and heat will escape when you open the oven door. It is best practice to do this as little as possible during a bake. Of course, there are many variables, such as ambient room temperature and how long the door is left open, but I have read some estimates that one can lose 150(F) or 66(C) in just a matter of seconds. To combat this, preheat your oven fully. For many artisan bread baking formulas, that is often around 475(F) or 246(C) - 500(F) or 260(C). These temperatures are then reduced after steaming. If you are setting up for steam, have those materials in the oven during the preheat. Place your loaves and water for steam in the oven as quickly as possible. Don't open the oven until the steaming period is over. Depending on the recipe, this is typically anywhere from 10 to 20 minutes. At this point, when most bread recipes call for a reduction in oven temperature anyway, opening the door is less problematic. Remove the steaming apparatus, close the door, and continue the bake. Now, nearing the end of your bake, with the bread being almost completed, temperature loss by opening the door probably becomes less important. The bread is close to completely cooked, so checking near the end should not be too much of a problem. I find that the critical time is during the use of steam and the initial oven spring.
Beyond that, it is probably less critical when dealing with items (such as roast meats or vegetables) which are less sensitive to fluctuations in temperature.
Most of the bread recipes I have specify to bake about 400-425 (200-220 C) for leaner breads and 350 (180 C) for richer mixtures. 500/260 seems a bit high.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.687150
| 2019-10-11T00:33:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102813",
"authors": [
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98744
|
Can I just substitute fresh ube for the "frozen ube, thawed" my recipe asks for?
I got a recipe that asks for "frozen ube, thawed", and looking around my local stores and a quick google shopping search has failed to bring up any frozen ube, but I have found I can order fresh ube. Seeing some of the similar questions about fresh vs. frozen has me worried that it might not work or that I might have to do something besides sticking it in freezer and later taking it out.
Other details that I guess might be helpful:
The recipe is for bread for an extra blue blueberry jam sandwich with extra batter being used for blueberry muffins (will consider doubling each ingredient to ensure extra batter). The frozen ube is apparently counted as one of the wet ingredients to be mixed with the other wet ingredients before being combined with the dry ingredients.
EDIT: Oh, and the recipe calls for 16 ounces of the "frozen ube, thatwed".
Not 100% sure, so not posting as an answer. I would expect that frozen ube (purple yam) would be cooked by boiling or baking before freezing.
I suspect that by using the fresh ingredient you don't need to freeze it beforehand.
Frozen ube is usually grated, raw, and packed in liquid. It comes as a solid block of ice.
Frozen ube is easily found in Asian grocery stores. Especially those that carry Philippine products. In my experience it is much easier to find frozen ube than raw. I expect that is why your recipe calls for it.
I haven't personally used fresh ube but from what I've read, grating it will give you all of the color and more flavor than frozen. Grating it would be messy but would also produce quite a bit of liquid that your recipe would require. I fear that shipping fresh ube you would receive a dryer than average specimen in which case you would have to adjust the liquid of your recipe.
Another alternative is ube flavoring. It ships easily and a tiny bit will stain your muffins ridiculously purple.
I might go with that alternative, especially as the search results for flavoring extract seem to be more affordable. Any idea what kind of ratio I should use when substituting it?
@MarkerMage - I wouldn't recommend substituting the extract directly, you'd be missing, what, 16oz of volume in your recipe (the liquids and solids both), that will be really tricky to balance. You would probably be better off searching for an extract-using recipe to begin with. If you must substitute it, I'd suggest finding a texture-substitute for your 16oz before worrying about how much extract to flavor with, since whatever flavors are in that substitute will effect how much flavoring you'd need to cover it.
@MarkerMage- I agree with Megha. Sounds like your recipe is using the ube for its color but it is also adding a lot of fiber and liquid that will need to be replaced.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.687356
| 2019-04-30T03:04:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98744",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Luciano",
"Marker Mage",
"Megha",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73216"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121609
|
Seasoning ceramic pan just gets sticky
I have a set of Caraway ceramic pans which started out fantastic. One of them has completely lost its nonstick coating now and I’m trying to season it to regain some nonstick back.
I cleaned the pan well with soap and warm water and there are no scratches or baked on food residue. I used a tiny amount of avocado oil and put a thin glaze on the pan (just barely enough to see a slight sheen on the surface, not so much that there’s any to roll around) and heated it on medium for I’d say about 20-25 minutes to try and reach the smoke point. I never saw it smoke but it did start to discolor so I took the pan off and let it cool naturally back to room temp.
However, the result was a sticky surface instead of a rejuvenated nonstick pan. The pan now has some mild discoloration due to this even after washing.
I have read avocado oil is good because of its high smoke point. Though I’m not sure I even reached it.should I be using more?
What am I doing wrong?
I've not heard of seasoning a ceramic coated pan. The sticky coating is polymerized oil, which is what you are going for on a steel or cast iron pan. I don't think you will get the same result on a ceramic pan.
Try cleaning it right down, removing your first attempt, then use lard. I know for certain that gives an almost matt black hard finish to cast iron/mild steel, if you persevere. If it won't take properly, just throw out the pan. I've had a couple of those & both went in the bin after only a couple of months. I didn't have the will to try season them. I do the same with non-stick after a couple of years. Once you can't clean it right back to the original non-stick surface, it's time for a new one.
Ceramic coated cookware should not be seasoned. You'll note that on the Caraway site, in the "Before Cooking" section, it reads:
3 SKIP THE SEASONING
Ceramic comes naturally non-stick, so no need to season your pan beyond a dash of oil.
While there are food bloggers that, I'm not aware of any manufacturers of pans that provide that advice for ceramic coated pans, like cast iron manufacturers do.
Traditionally, ceramic (or enamel) coating was used on cast iron cookware (like Le Creuset) specially to prevent the need to season the cast iron.
More recently, companies have started selling ceramic coated stainless steel and aluminum pans, as an alternative to Teflon nonstick coating. I believe this is the type of pan you have.
Like Teflon coated pans, the nonstick surface eventually loses it's nonstick properties, and food begins to stick. In my experience with modern ceramic coated nonstick pans, the "stickiness" can be caused by either not being completely clean--such as a thin bit of polymerized oil--or from use/abuse causing putting or imperceptibly small scratches.
I find it to be tricky to maintain perfectly--if you don't wash it well enough, food starts to stick. If you wan too aggressively, you create micro scratches and food starts to stick.
The manufacturer Made In has an article with more info on the pros and cons of ceramic coated cookware.
By trying to add a seasoning coating, you've created or exacerbated the "not clean enough" scenario. You'll need to scrub that coating off to get back to the pristine ceramic. However, getting it back to pristine ceramic will likely require pretty heavy scrubbing or harsh cleaning chemicals--both of which are likely to cause pitting or micro scratches. Your pan may be unsalvageable.
Regardless of the type of coating, nonstick pans eventually degrade over time & need to be replaced. Some folks admit defeat and buy less expensive pans to replace more frequently, and others buy higher quality and longingly care for them, and others simply avoid nonstick pans and go with uncoated pans that last longer in exchange for more cleaning.
I personally keep dedicated nonstick pans for delicate things like omelettes so that they last longer, then use uncoated stainless steel cookware for very high heat (which causes oil polymerization to build up faster), and less delicate, less finicky food.
I've had a couple of these 'miracle' ceramics. They went in the bin after a couple of months. Waste of money. I'm sure you could eventually build a full seasoning on one, but I never had the patience. You can certainly semi-permanently cleave an egg to one, unlike they show on the adverts. ;)
My pan is only about 6 months old. We have cared for it pretty well, no metal utensils, soft washing, perhaps some higher heating at times but nothing nuts for sure. There are a ton of sites that state you can and should season your ceramic cookware. Many seem legit and from reputable sources, so I find this comment that we shouldn't, confusing. What is the best way to get the pan as clean as possible to try again? If it's smooth to the touch but still slightly discolored in areas, is this clean enough or do we need to rid the pan of the discoloring as well somehow?
@kporangehat Without seeing your cookware, or knowing how it's been treated for the last 6 months, I can't say why yours might not be working up to your expectations. I've updated my answer slightly, including adding a link to & excerpt from the care instructions from the manufacturer of your pan, which explicitly states "skip the seasoning"
@kporangehat unfortunately, ceramic cookware often remains non-stick for less time than teflon, and teflon often only lasts a year or two. So the pan stopping to be nonstick after about 6 months sounds normal...
Colour change is normal and expected for oils during seasoning. What happened in your scenario was incomplete polymerisation due to a combination of inadequate time, uncontrolled heat, and still too much oil:
Polymerisation rates vary too greatly to measure completion on the presence of smoke or elapsed time. Polymerisation is complete when all the oil transitions from fatty acids, to tacky plastic, to smooth inert plastic. This should be measured by feel.
Stovetop heating is wildly inaccurate as you have a single direction heat source with no way to measure if it can sustain a temperature for polymerisation without overshooting and smoking.
The ideal layer is a thin film spread evenly, enough to give a matte moistened appearance. The presence of a sheen indicates the oil layer is thick enough for reflectivity and likely too thick.
There is further added difficulty with the design of modern cookware not made of cast iron (CI) and carbon steel (CS). Most will be a majority aluminum with bonded layers of stainless steel and/or copper to achieve good heat transfer and durability; aluminum has almost double the specific heat capacity but only a third of the density of CI and CS, and most aluminum cookware is designed to be much lighter (have less mass) - meaning the pans retain much less heat for thermal stability during seasoning, and lose that heat very quickly as it's transferred from the heated base to the unheated sides.
The residual ceramic coating contributes to difficulty too due to uneven wear and loss of non-stick properties. Where the ceramic is worn down most, oil will more easily spread and form a thin layer; where the ceramic is mostly intact, the oil will more likely collect in small beads.
If after all that difficulty you still wish to season your pan, you should sand the inside evenly for better oil adhesion and thoroughly wash the pan, then follow an oven baking seasoning method for a more even first seasoning layer. The site below has a very detailed process and explanation for most of the technical aspects:
http://www.castironcollector.com/seasoning.php
Ceramic coating is separate from the enameling of cast iron by Le Creuset, Staub, Lodge, etc. Ceramic coatings are typically 'sol-gels' - silica or other minerals with polymerising inorganic carrier components, that are applied and cured on the pan to form very very thin and even glass/ceramic layers.
Enameling is a much older technique where vitreous enamel is heated and fused onto the cookware surface to form a more uneven but significantly thicker and more durable layer of glass.
I don't think you are doing anything wrong; you might just not have the conditions to get it done. But there is no reason to think it shouldn't be done (except for it being very difficult) - the seasoning will stick to the pan as well as to iron pans.
Cast iron pans are easier than others to season, because cast iron is able to really pump a lot of energy into the layer of matter right next to itself. I am not a physicist and don't know which property of the metal makes it work this way. But you will notice that nothing browns food like a well-preheated* cast-iron pan. Even forged iron isn't as good.
Your ceramic pan is almost certainly not cast iron, but either steel or aluminum. Which means that you cannot enjoy the cast iron properties, which would crisp your oil into a proper firm polymer. You may try to get it to work nevertheless, by changing the hob setting and/or the time you heat the pan, but it may be that the margin you have between "bad, sticky seasoning" and "burned oil" becomes so thin that you never catch it.
So, if you decide to go for it, just continue deseasoning and reseasoning, testing out different variations of temperature control, until you get it to work. If you decide against it, you can still use the pan - ceramic pans with used-up coating tend to perform much the same in terms of stickiness as uncoated stainless steel.
* this might take much longer than you think, I once had a huge amount of vegetables which I browned side-by-side on all available hobs, and the cast iron pan started visibly outperforming the other pans around 45 min into the process
https://www.carawayhome.com/faq/ they don't look like coated cast iron, and the company site does not say what material the actual pan is...but they sure do talk up the coating. The FAQ states "no need to season." I don't see these as being receptive to a seasoning....but maybe you have experience with coated pans that I don't. In my experience when non-stick pans run their course, there is not much you can do to save them.
@moscafj of course, the pan as-bought doesn't have to be seasoned, because it is nonstick. The OP has used it until the nonstick coating failed. At this point, most people throw away the pan, but the OP wants to continue using it, and is trying to get it to the state of a seasoned cast iron pan (which is more nonstick than a failed ceramic coating).
I do understand the original question. I've simply never seen a failed non-stick pan successfully re-seasoned. ...would love to hear someone's direct experience and see pics. I am skeptical, but if it were possible, it would certainly save some folk money...and be an environmental savings as well.
@moscafj I think it depends on what you mean by "successfully reseasoned". It won't perform the same way as a new ceramic pan (it will be stickier), or as a seasoned cast iron pan (it won't have the same thermal properties), but it will be usable as a pan, and less prone to sticking than if the OP just continues using it as-is, using up smaller amounts of oil. This can count as success, or as a disappointment, mostly based on expectations.
I didn’t think this would create such a discussion! :) I too am interested to hear if anyone has first hand experience with successfully re-seasoning a ceramic pan. At this point, I too am skeptical and not terribly optimistic, but once I have some time, I plan to give it a solid attempt (attempts) and will report the results. I admit, the marketing was a solid grab of my attention. And the pan did perform amazingly for the first few months (as do the others in the set). I’m stubborn and don’t want to give up until I’m fully convinced it’s hopeless. I am very appreciative of all the comments
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.687597
| 2022-09-10T13:16:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121609",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Esther",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"kporangehat",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75499
|
Do both large and small fish bones soften with pressure cooking?
I have seen people say pressure cooking and tin canning only softens bones in small fish making them edible, however I also read it works for bigger fish. Do you know which is correct and why?
Are you talking about commercially sold tins of e.g.: sockeye salmon? Don't they have a lot of the vertebrae included? & you can eat them. They're sort of soft of like wet chalk. Or are you talking about the other bones of the fish?
The bigger the bone, the less you will be able to soften the bone. You can increase the temperature at which you pressure cook or can the fish, and that will allow for more softening on larger bones. Your results will depend on the tools you use, hot hot you can get them, etc. Give it a try and you'll figure out how big of bones you can soften.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.688493
| 2016-11-15T02:08:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75499",
"authors": [
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44382
|
Frozen pizza kept at room temp (23 C) for 48 hours - safe to use?
I bought a salami pizza and a Hawaii pizza (ham & pineapple) the night before yesterday, but forgot to put them in the freezer.
This is the latter, soggy part removed:
Normally they should cook for 16 minutes, but they are completely thawed. Will cooking them at 190 degrees Celsius for 11 minutes make them safe to eat?
Opinions are divided, with 66% in favor of cooking, but i'd like some expert advice.
Any perishable food (in this case I would be concerned about the ham more than anything) left at room temperature for more than 2 hours should be considered unsafe, even after cooking. Considering we're talking about a frozen pizza and not a full beef fillet, why take the risk? If it's been in the fridge, however, you may be ok.
I'd accept that as an answer. The govt agrees.
Some bacteria leave behind harmful protein toxins that cannot be "killed" (denatured) by cooking. but how likely is it that those were present?
That's the gamble isn't it? You have to weigh up your desire to eat that pizza with your aversion to food poisoning...
You may also wish to make that decision now, rather than waiting until late at night after a few beers. Remember: don't drink and make questionable decisions about food safety. I think I saw that in a pamphlet somewhere.
lol @logophobe was this pamphlet entitled, "Personal Experience" by any chance?
Any perishable food (in this case I would be concerned about the ham more than anything) left at room temperature for more than 2 hours should be considered unsafe, even after cooking. Considering we're talking about a frozen pizza and not a full beef fillet, why take the risk? If it's been in the fridge, however, you may be ok.
I would never eat a pizza that has been "room Temperature" for 24-hours. Bacteria grows on food in the danger zone, which is 40-degrees to 140-degrees. Once food has hit 70-degrees (room temp.) to 120-degrees, it is considered to be in the "double danger" zone. This means that bacteria grows twice as fast as it would at cooler or warmer temps. Most foods have to be heated to 165-degrees for 15 seconds and this kills all the harmful bacteria that makes us sick. After heating to 165-degrees for 15-seconds, it can be held at 140-degrees safely.
There is dangerously ambigous diction in your answer. To be clear, cooking spoiled food to 165°F will not reliably make it safe again, while cooking anything to (not at!) a temperature of 165°C will leave very few food groups edible (and ironically, most 165°C proof ingredients, water excluded, are themselves preservatives).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.688612
| 2014-05-24T16:52:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44382",
"authors": [
"Cees Timmerman",
"Christian Trainum",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Matthijs P",
"Olias Sunhillow",
"Preston",
"Spy Pathan khan",
"Strider",
"TinfoilBat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59782
|
How can I be sure my food is ready for a raw egg to be dropped on top?
When I go to a korean restaurant and order BeBimBap, there is usually an egg placed on top that is done over-medium/over-soft. How do I know if the food I prepared is at the right temperature to do this?
I'd like to be able to do this to other foods, like steaks, or hash browns, not just make BeBimBap.
Note: I'm not concerned about safety. I'm interested in the texture of the half-cooked egg, and keeping the yolk fluid.
I’m going to do an experiment and post it in a bit as an answer, but I think the key is that the egg is dropped on top and is cooked in the oven or under the broiler. BeBimBap is traditionally served in a hot stone bowl, and when I have had it in restaurants it has stuck a little to the bowl (the rice anyway), which tells me that the whole bowl of food, including the egg, is heated.
There are many example of dishes (including bebimbap) where the egg (generally raw yolk) is the last addition...and the dish is not returned to the oven. Pasta carbonara comes to mind, as does ramem. While the egg will get heated, I am doubtful that there is any cooking (to the point of killing potential bacteria) going on. I think we mainly trust that the yolk will be safe to eat.
I don't know if the OP is concerned about safety (a lot of people eat raw or extremely undercooked eggs), and I have often added a fried egg on the top of various dishes. If it's scrambled (as in for carbonara), just the fact that the pasta is hot is enough to thicken the egg. It won't make for an aesthetically pleasing egg to just put a whole egg on top of a warm dish. A whole egg either has to be cooked in advance or cooked on top of the dish.
If you want to cook a raw egg the residual heat of the food, I don't think it's going to work well with steak and maybe not hashbrowns. (It also doesn't seem to be typical of Bebimbap, searching the web suggests that the egg is either raw, fried in a pan or fried using the side of the stone bowl.) The problem isn't temperature, but getting enough heat to transfer to the egg. I don't think a steak will do that well enough. It should work with hash browns if you mix (scramble) the egg into the potatoes.
@Jolenealaska FWIW, when I make carbonara, I separate white and yolk. The white is mixed with the cheese and black pepper and added to the pasta off the heat. Then, in my final plating, I place the raw yolk on top of the serving of pasta.
I've had BiBimBop served both ways. Sometimes it's an entire egg - usually it appears to have been at least cooked sunny side up to cook the white but leave the yolk raw; and sometimes it's only a yolk - not cooked at all. But I get it in the hot pot, so stirring usually cooks the yolk to some degree. I think most recipes for hash etc have you cook the egg separately and then place it on top of the food before serving.
Your title says you're asking about raw eggs, but the body of the question asks about over-medium/over-soft/half-cooked eggs. Which is it?
@Jefromi The over-medium is the result the OP is trying to get, the question is about starting with raw eggs, though.
@Catija I guess so. I thought it was pretty clear that cracking a raw egg over bibimbap wouldn't result in an over-medium egg placed on top, at any temperature.
@Jefromi Well, yes. Which is what I tried to clear up in my answer.
@Catija much of what you said in your answer is what I intend to say in mine. The only things I plan to add are time, temperature and pictures for cooking the egg after dropping it on the food. I have done an experiment and it works. If you meet me in chat, I can add a few things for your answer if you'd like. That would be clearer than me writing a whole different answer.
There is some slight confusion but there are two methods for this. You either cook the egg separately, which is how they make BiBimBop or you poach or bake the eggs if you cook the egg on top of your food. With the latter method, the eggs generally cook very quickly so it doesn't take a lot of time but you are still cooking the egg using a heat source, you are not relying on the food to cook the egg for you.
When you make BiBimBop using a whole egg, you fry the egg in a pan before you place it on top of the food. This is why the egg often has a bit of browning around the edges of the white.
Here's an image of a BiBimBop with a whole egg:
There is a "how to make BiBimBop" video here that shows (around 8:50 in) that you cook the egg separately and place it on top of the finished bowl.
The other option is to bake or poach the egg by placing them on top of the food (which is still on the stove) and then covering the pan (or putting it in the oven) to essentially steam the egg, which is often used for hash. This gives a different final product than frying the egg and placing it on top, as the steam will cook the top of the egg while the still-cooking food heats the bottom.
Here's a video of Venison Hash where they use this method at around 5:05.
And here's a recipe that uses the oven version of this method.
The temperature of the food is mainly irrelevant, as you are not cooking the egg. It is not making the egg any safer to eat. You run the same risk whether you crack a raw egg into a glass and drink it, or top your steak with it.
If you like raw egg, find a source you trust and go for it.
If you are looking for a pasteurized or cooked egg, there are a number of ways to do that and add it to your food. In fact, you can pasteurize an egg (ensuring its safety) by cooking it in a water bath at 57 degrees Celsius for two hours. It will be safe, but look raw. You can, of course, get other consistencies (and safety) at other times and temperatures.
Using a low temperature water bath (sous vide) for you egg cookery, you can dial in on the exact texture you like...with the added benefit of no safety issues. Without dealing with your eggs as an independent ingredient, I think this would be difficult to gauge for something like a steak or hash browns. Having said that, see my comment about carbonara above, for example.
If it's not cooked, why does the white of the egg congeal, and become opaque?
From a food safety point of view, no it's not cooked ... but if the food's too cold you'll just have a raw egg sitting on top of the food, which is rarely the goal. You'd need at least 158°F ... but I have no idea what the ideal temp is (or how much it varies by what you're placing it on)
@eris egg yolk and egg white cook at very different temperatures.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.688860
| 2015-08-10T17:46:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59782",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris Cheryl Becker",
"Eris",
"Jennifer DeLucia",
"Joe",
"John Buchanan",
"Jolenealaska",
"Ross Ridge",
"Sadaf Mohammad Nesar",
"Shirley Walsh",
"Stevie P",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"wickenden"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117492
|
Salty water in the pressure cooker?
I am following the Ninja Foodi recipe for cooking a whole chicken:
Part of the instructions is to mix 2 tablespoons of kosher salt into the water base of the pressure cooker. I am wondering what the effects of this salt in the base provides. Specifically:
Does this salt make its way to the chicken, raising the sodium?
I thought salt (especially coarser kosher salt) doesn't evaporate with water, so from a chemistry standpoint, I don't really understand what the salt is doing.
In other words, if the salt isn't evaporating, how do the salt molecules end up in the chicken itself?
What are the alternatives to kosher salt in the base of a pressure cooker for a recipe like this? Could I use salt substitutes, such as potassium chloride.
I think it might be worth pointing out that kosher salt isn't necessary unless you're eating kosher. It's just bigger granules of ordinary table salt, and you're just measuring an amount of it out with a spoon and dissolving it in the water anyway so the advantages of the larger granules are nullified. You might need a slightly different volume of it, though, because different salt granule sizes can have a different overall density due to the differences in packing efficiency.
@nick012000 Kosher salt is kosher (compliant with Jewish religious dietary rules) but so is any other salt. It's so named because it's koshering salt, used in the process of draining the blood from meat so that the meat is kosher.
@dbmag "It's so named because it's koshering salt" Yeah, I know. It's not being used that way here, though.
@nick012000 My point was that your phrase "kosher salt isn't necessary unless you're eating kosher" could lead someone to believe that kosher food needs to use kosher salt, which isn't the case. Hopefully the extra information will enlighten people reading these comments who might not otherwise have looked it up.
@dbmag9 It's also certified as being approved by the Kashrut Authority, which verifies that the production process is also performed in accordance with kosher standards, which ordinary table salt might not be.
@nick012000 All salt is kosher even without certification, and salt labeled as "Kosher Salt" is no more likely to contain certification than table salt. The only difference is the size of the salt granules.
@Esther "All salt is kosher even without certification" Even if it might have been processed on machines that also make, say, powdered milk?
@nick012000 In actual production, salt is not processed on machines that process non-kosher, and therefore salt is always kosher even without certification. See this list from the Star-K on items that don't need certification https://www.star-k.org/articles/kosher-lists/3502/no-hechsher-required/ . Non-iodized salt doesn't even need certification for Passover: https://oukosher.org/passover/guidelines/food-items/salt/
Yes, the salt in the liquid will flavor the chicken (and raise the sodium). Your second bullet point is correct, salt does not evaporate. I'm not sure why you've asked that question though. The salt is not necessary from a cooking standpoint. If you are concerned about sodium, you can reduce, eliminate, or season with anything you like.
Could there be an osmosis effect that improves how the chicken comes out, separately to flavouring it? That would be something the salt is doing which I guess is the intention of the second bullet point.
@dbmag9 I assume salt will enter the chicken, as salt molecules in solution are small enough. The pressure will certainly help. I would guess the concentration of salt is not great enough, or the time long enough, to result in a state of equilibrium. That said, it certainly will not impact the cooking (40 min in a pressure cooker) to any great degree.
To expand on my second bullet point, if salt doesn't evaporate, then how does the salt molecule enter the chicken in the first place?
@E.S. salt dissolves into the liquid in the pot. Once in solution, it will penetrate and flavor.
It sounds like there’s no more than about a cup of liquid in the entire pot; I think the OP was asking because that doesn’t seem like enough to cover the chicken and allow the liquid with the salt to permeate the chicken (other than below). And that would track with their other part of the question about salt sticking with water or not when it evaporates; would you end up with a seasoned lower part and unseasoned top of the chicken? I doubt that the salt can make its way from one side of a chicken to the other, so the salt will need to contact the rest of the chicken somehow, at least.
@fyrepenguin - the recipe has you sprinkling the remaining salt on top, after cooking. As I state in my answer, it is entirely optional for the cooking process. This is simply about seasoning.
Does the salt used in the water at the base of the pressure cooker contribute to the juciness (or lack of juciness) too?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.689550
| 2021-10-12T17:23:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117492",
"authors": [
"E.S.",
"Esther",
"dbmag9",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"moscafj",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119202
|
Dirty sheet pan left in oven for over a month. Is the oven safe to use?
I just discovered a sheet pan in my oven that must have been there for well over a month or more. It looked like it had been used to bake chicken and there was a burnt outline of the pieces, but there was no mold, only a rancid oil smell. I took the pan out and have had the oven on at 450 degrees for about an hour. Is the oven safe to use to bake cakes and cookies?
A rare exception to the "when in doubt throw it out"
If you have a self-cleaning oven, run a cleaning cycle. That heats the interior to something like 800 degrees, which essentially incinerates anything organic still in the oven.
If that were unsafe I had died long ago.
The oven is safe. When you bake chicken plenty of fat ends up on the inside of the oven, the chances are there's more on the oven walls than the pan you left in there. You don't need to run the oven for hours to make it safe -- by the time it's up to temperature any nasties will have long been fried.
The pan should be fine, too, after a good soak and cleaning.
I'm pretty sure that lots of people have left dirty/used dishes in their oven for weeks or even months in the past, and if it was a cause of illness and death, we would know about it.
Your cookies may taste a little ... chickeny if the oven is particularly messy.
Source if the op is interested: https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/60701000/FoodSafetyPublications/p328.pdf (pdf) . The vast majority of food molds and bacteria are killed at 160 F within minutes, even the more hardy things like botulism will succumb at 250 - 270 F aka sterilization temp (which is why you use a pressure cooker when canning)
For complete peace of mind you might choose to do an oven clean. It is not required, but will help you feel more confident.
There are spray-on products which will foam up sit inside your cold oven overnight and soften/lift grease and baked on grime. Next day you can wipe it off with a damp paper towel or cloth.
You can spray this cleaner on your tray/s and shelves as well, it won't harm them. Likewise, the inside of the window can be sprayed this way.
Do be aware that these cleaners are strong and nasty. You want good ventilation, no kids/pets in the kitchen, and a window of a day or two where the oven won't be needed.
If one night doesn't get it all, you can simply repeat. I once had to do 4 cleaning passes on an oven that hadn't been cleaned for many years.
Some fancy modern ovens have a "self clean" function which means they run at a very high temperature for a while. This may or may not not be able to remove the smells.
You should read the manual for your oven to see if it has such a function, and whether that prevents doing a chemical clean.
To extend Criggie's warning about cleaners being nasty: Wear gloves. I'd go a step further and wear a face shield (or at least eye protection). I admit I'm a bit paranoid, but I know people who were seriously injured by unexpected splashing.
@Brian I don't think safeguarding your eyes from caustic chemicals is in any way paranoid. Some warnings are stupid ("Warning: This fishing lure contains lead, and is harmful if you eat it"), but not oven cleaner warnings.
Any cleaner brings with it some health risk, as opposed to rancid fat. This makes zero sense from a health perspective.
@WayneConrad: Some people might not be aware that some fishing lures contain lead.
@WayneConrad I wonder how many more injuries are caused by people ignoring warnings (because of desensitisation) than those often redundant warnings prevent…
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.689981
| 2021-12-16T03:36:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119202",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Stuart F",
"Tim",
"Vikki",
"Wayne Conrad",
"chepner",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96914",
"lmat - Reinstate Monica"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75063
|
Pumpkin pie in a crust that requires a shorter cooking time
I'm trying to make a pumpkin pie in a crust I normally use for cheesecake, it's about 1/8th inch thick, and bakes for 25 min @ 325 and I usually top it with a nonbaked cheesecake filling of cream cheese and gelatin.
I want to top it with a pumpkin pie filling recipe that cooks at 350 for almost an hour.
Will it burn or overcook inside a springform with the filling completely covering it?
Is it possible to reconcile the two? Should I just plan on somehow baking them separately and then stacking?
This is the crust:
115 grams unsalted butter at room temperature
30 grams dark brown sugar
30 milliliters honey
125 grams all-purpose flour
35 grams whole-wheat flour
7 grams unsweetened cocoa powder
3 grams kosher salt
1 gram ground cinnamon
I just meant it's not a regular pie crust and only bakes for 1/3 of the time as the filling. Sorry, I'll post the recipe. For some reason I had thought it was against the rules here.
Asking for recipes ("recipe requests") is off topic, discussing an existing recipe to evaluate or eliminate problems is absolutely ok.
Is the crust normally baked empty? If so, the baking time of the crust alone probably doesn't matter much when baked filled.
I would agree with @Catija that the baking time shouldn't be an issue when you top the crust with filling. However, I would probably increase the ingredients so that your crust is closer to 1/4 in thickness and would pre-bake for 10-12 minutes before adding the filling.
Okay, thanks for the advice. Would a water bath be advisable here?
I don't think it's necessary, since the pumpkin filling would be sturdier, in a sense, than fillings which need the gentler bain marie.
Honestly, it seems like your crust recipe is basically trying to create a buttery graham cracker crust from scratch, plus cocoa powder (that sounds interesting). Here are the ingredients of Nabisco graham crackers, from their website:
UNBLEACHED ENRICHED FLOUR (...), GRAHAM FLOUR (WHOLE GRAIN WHEAT FLOUR),
SUGAR, SOYBEAN OIL, HONEY, LEAVENING (...), SALT, SOY LECITHIN, ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR.
So I expect that you'd be fine baking it (creating the consistency of grahams, which are cooked) and then topping it and cooking again, just as if you used crumbled graham crackers in the first place. Not seeing your crust, though, my only concern will be if it's not dry enough to stand up to the moisture you'll pour on top with a pumpkin pie recipe (a custard).
All that being said, I'd be very tempted to just crumble grahams per usual and add a little cocoa powder to simulate your crust.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.690309
| 2016-10-27T19:06:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75063",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Giorgio",
"Patrick",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124623
|
Why heat milk and use it to temper eggs instead of mixing cold milk and eggs and slowly cooking the whole thing?
My understanding of tempering (similar to the answer here) is that you're attempting to add egg to a hot mixture slowly enough so that you don't curdle the egg, so that it incorporates in the mixture instead of making, say, scrambled eggs inside of whatever dish you're meaning to be making. You would accomplish this by taking a small part of the hot mixture, add it to your egg mix while stirring quickly, and when the overall temperature of the egg has risen adding the entire egg mixture to the rest of the hot mixture.
But why is this necessary? Why couldn't you, say, mix the egg with the other ingredients while everything is still cold, and then slowly raise the temperature of the whole mixture? For example, when mixing a custard why can't you mix the sugar, vanilla, eggs, and milk together, then then raise the heat slowly in a saucepan?
Why couldn't you, say, mix the egg with the other ingredients while everything is still cold, and then slowly raise the temperature of the whole mixture?
You could (and when cooking by sous vide, that's exactly what you do).
It's the "slowly raise the temperature" that gets you.
Sous vide guarantees that not one bit of the mixture will ever get above the set temperature.
But when the mixture is heated in a pot, the bottom surface of the pot will almost always get hotter than the maximum desired temperature of the food, so any mixture that stays in contact with the bottom of the pot for more than a small fraction of a second will be raised to too high a temperature.
The egg proteins will instantly denature, and you'll end up with lumps of scrambled egg.
Some people can get good results, but it requires very gentle heating, continuous stirring and scraping, and a lot of practice.
For us mere mortals, it's so much easier to heat the mixture without the egg, and then when it is at the appropriate temperature quickly stir in the egg and it won't get hot enough to congeal.
Mixing the egg with some of the liquid first makes it thinner and easier to combine with the rest of the liquid.
The key principle in all of this is how protein cooks.
All cooking is a combination of temperature and time, and some foods can be cooked quite well either at low temperatures for a long time or at higher temperatures for a shorter time.
For protein, temperature is by far the dominant factor.
It can be cooked for hours at too low a temperature and still be raw, or can be cooked for one second at too high a temperature and be overcooked.
This is very evident with eggs.
Consider breaking an egg into a hot frying pan.
As soon as the egg hits the oil, some of it instantly turns white (it's already cooked), because the part of the egg that was immediately in contact with the heat was raised above its cooking temperature.
The rest of the egg remains liquid for a while because it is more isolated from the heat and is still below that temperature.
The whole point of tempering is to ensure that none of the egg reaches its critical temperature before it has been thoroughly incorporated into the other ingredients.
Not just sous vide. If you make custard in the oven, you put everything together cold.
The bottom line is that it's hard to warm the egg mixture slowly enough to not curdle the eggs.
Mixing some of the liquid into the eggs doesn't just thin them- it raises their temperature a bit so it will be less of a shock when they are introduced to the pot. It's not just the maximum temperature reached but also how abrupt the temperature change is that can cause eggs to coagulate.
Beside the technical challenges Ray Butterworth mentioned, it's also the best way to move forward if you have to heat the milk anyway.
For some applications, you want scalded milk. Then you wait until your milk is no longer super hot, and start tempering the eggs.
Some flavors have to be steeped in the hot milk. Vanilla beans are the classic example, but if you're making e.g. sage ice cream, then the process is basically cooking a tisane in the milk instead of water.
If your milk isn't pasteurzized, you have to cook it first.
Another reason is speed. If you're using large amounts of sugar (again typical for ice cream), it's very slow to dissolve them in cold milk. And even if you don't, you're much quicker if you heat the milk to the proper temperature and add the eggs, than by using some super gentle heating process on a milk-egg mixture.
Thanks! I was thinking of doing a scalded-milk recipe, but I was planning on cooling the milk after scalding it. The speed aspect makes a lot of sense too.
One problem with mixing first and then heating is that different types of protein have different denaturation temperatures. So the protein molecules with low denaturation temperature like casein aggregate together while the less temperature sensitive proteins like ovalbumin are in the liquid phase. And then when the temperature rises further the ovalbumin molecules aggregate together unless you stir. Personally I use an immersion blender with metal shaft instead of stirring by hand.
I don't think the model you describe is correct. A mixture of casein+ovoalbumin doesn't behave like a pure casein mixture, even before the ovoalbumin "has denatured" (which is a short word for a process that goes through many steps and likely has already started when the casein is in optimally-sticky mode). And more importantly, whatever happens on the protein level, it's not a problem for cooking at all. There are many custards which get started from cold (especially the baked ones mentioned above) and they're tasty uniformly-textured custards, no problems there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.690540
| 2023-07-01T23:01:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124623",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"RonJohn",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75422",
"mkdir",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99775
|
Most popular choices based on the concern of ingredients
For example I can name it these choices:
gluten free, vegan, vegetarian, organic etc.,
Is there any other style options?
Too many to list, many overlapping, some mutually exclusive. What's your goal?
Based on the concern of ingredients:
Gluten free, Keto, Vegan, Vegetarian, Non-vegeterian, pescatarian, Eggeterian etc.
Based on types of cuisine:
Continental, Italian, Thai, Mexican, Burmese, Lebanese etc.
Based on cooking techniques:
Barbeque, Baked treats, Let's steam, Straight from grill, Stir fries etc
Based on the dishes:
Salad station, wrap & rolls, one pot meals, puddings, munchies etc.
Then there's the see-food diet (my favourite).
@Mick yes....Pescatarian is all about sea food diet
it was a joke (I see food and eat it).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.691011
| 2019-06-27T05:12:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99775",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Mick",
"aashii",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100366
|
Is there a name for the Cinnamon-Mint under-flavor?
I was experimenting with Italian Sodas, and added flavor shots that perfectly balanced the heat and cool flavors between Cinnamon and Menthol, and they canceled out. What remained was a previously unknown-to-me third flavor that was very, for the lack of a better word, clean tasting. It was refreshing, and also palate cleansing. I haven't experienced this flavor before, and was wondering if it had a name already. For the lack of another name, I've been calling it "Seng'd" (pronounced "Shinged", it just felt a name that fit the flavor, not much to the name really). But making up my own words, if there's' an existing one, is just silly since it doesn't help me talk about it.
Does this flavor have a legitimate name?
There are a couple of 'cinnamint' toothpastes out there, but it seems that it's also the name of a marijuana strain.
I would get many disappointed brownie eaters then if I went with that name.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.691107
| 2019-07-25T17:02:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100366",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76709",
"lilHar"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122515
|
Feeding pasta dough through Kitchen aid roller
The problem
I recently bought a Kitchen Aid stand mixer with the 3 in 1 pasta roller/cutter attachments to make fresh pasta.
I found a few recipes online, made some dough and when I get to the part where the dough must be fed through the rollers, one of the following happens:
Nothing happens, the dough won't "latch on" the roller or the roller won't "catch" the dough so it doesn't go through
The roller does catch part of the dough, but it doesn't go through properly. Some of the dough accumulates on top of the roller while the rest of the dough goes through... and then the accumulation goes through at the end.
The result is a wrinkly dough with curled sides and tears...
As you can see in this example, the dough should just go through smoothly, the bottom part STAYS at the bottom instead of being split in a part that stays on top of the roller and one that goes through.
Since I am new to making fresh pasta, I'm thinking that the dough is the problem, but I don't know what I'm doing wrong. There seems to be so many possible recipes that all "work" in YouTube videos and nobody seems to have any trouble just feeding the dough like I have.
What I have tried
Followed this recipe using all-purposed white flour - no success
Followed this other recipe using non bleached all-purpose flour - no success
Speeds: the manual says to use speed 2 when rolling, some people have used speed 1. I tried both speeds but that does not fix the issue
Thickness level: I never went beyond 1 (the widest setting)
Measurements: made sure I used a scale for flour measurements
The roller attachment's brand is Kitchen Aid, not another third party module
What I have noticed
On my roller attachment, only the roller directly connected to the Kitchen Aid motor rolls. The other one (used to adjust the width setting) does not roll and seems static. Is this normal?
EDIT
: NO, it is NOT normal. I recieves a replacement for the roller and tried the same recipe (the first one) listed above and everything worked fine. Both rollers have to roll. When adding flour between each step, I would put flour on the counter, dab my hand in it and lightly rub both sides of the laminated dough. Eventually, when the dough gets thin and large enough, I was able to stop adding flour.
The side of the dough that goes through is on the same side as the roller that revolves and the dough accumulation occurs on the side of the static roller
The question(s)
Is my roller attachment working as intended?
If so, does anyone understand my problem and know a fix?
Are there things I should look out for that could help improve the situation?*
Why use that Kitchen Aid attachment
I once bought an actual pasta rolling/cutting machine with a handle. It broke after one use (could not turn the handle smoothly at all) and this time around I decided to try the Kitchen Aid attachment.
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/49038/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/65014/67 ; there might be others. I recall one talking about the proper process of using a pasta roller (folding the dough and running it through a few times on the widest setting, etc)
Found it, I think: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/67958/67
I have a similar problem with my manual pasta machine. After folding and running the dough through a couple of times, it becomes way more smooth, and the end result is perfectly fine.
I would expect both rollers to move. I don't have a fancy electric one like this, but the whole mechanism of the manual one I have is about internal gears that make both rollers move at the same speed. As for tearing, run through, fold a couple of times (eg into thirds so you have two clean edges) and turn 90 degrees and run through the other way at the same thickness setting.
Yes, both rollers should definitely be gear driven. I just confirmed this on my Kitchenaid.
@Dennis Williamson Thank you for the confirmation. I'm currently awaiting a replacement. Hopefully everything should work fine now. I found it weird that only one of the rollers worked, but since I'm no expert, I thought it was my fault. I will keep everyone updated as soon as I can.
Hey, now that you've found out that your original roller was defective, is your question still relevant? If that's your answer, then you can post it below.
@FuzzyChef I wasn't sure what to do. I think it's still relevant; what if someone else is in the same situation as me? I didn't find any documentation easily on the Kitchen Aid website or manual and all their videos use camera angles that hide the rollers. I will post an answer to this question but if mods judge that this is irrelevant, then I won't be mad if it is removed.
Posting the answer was the right thing to do. Thanks!
(OP here)
In my case, the Kitchen Aid attachment rollers were defective. Both rollers must roll in order for the pasta to go in smoothly.
The roller does catch part of the dough, but it doesn't go through properly. Some of the dough accumulates on top of the roller while the rest of the dough goes through... and then the accumulation goes through at the end.
This happens because the part of the dough that touches the moving roller wants to go through but the other side (on the unmoving roller) stays stuck to the roller and just builds up there.
If both your rollers work and you have this issue (which you shouldn't, because the recipes I linked in the OP worked for me), then I suggest taking a look at Sneftel's answer for ideas.
In particular (and following this recipe), the way I laminated and floured the dough is this:
Shape the dough in a square or rectangle, and press it with your hands so it is between a 1/4 to a 1/2 inch in thickness
Put flour on the counter next to the dough, tap with 2-3 fingers, rub the dough (this seems to be more or less a good amount to help the dough go through without it being too sticky (not enough flour) or too soft (too much flour)). I did this step between each pass.
Do 14 passes with the widest setting (setting 1), but after each pass, fold the dough on itself once. Alternate the orientation of the fold for each pass (vertical, horizontal, vertical, horizontal, ...).
Do 3 passes at width setting 2. Keep adding flour but stop folding
Do 2 passes at width setting 3. Stop adding flour (the dough should be dry enough)
Do 1 pass at settings 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. I usually need to add flour maybe once or twice during those steps if I feel the dough is suddenly not dry engouh
For Fettucini, I don't do the last two passes at width 7 and 8.
Nothing happens, the dough won't "latch on" the roller or the roller
won't "catch" the dough so it doesn't go through
Flatten it some more. Polished steel is as “grabby” as you’d expect; it can’t pull a big wad of dough through, but it has better leverage against a flattened one.
The roller does catch part of the dough, but it doesn't go through properly. Some of the dough accumulates on top of the roller while the rest of the dough goes through... and then the accumulation goes through at the end.
Yep, that’ll happen. Early on, there won’t be much gluten development, and the rollers can easily tear the dough to rags. That doesn’t mean it’s ruined; just roughly layer the pieces into a mostly-solid piece and keep going.
If so, does anyone understand my problem and know a fix?
Some combination of:
flatten your dough by hand more before you roll it
Don’t worry about it, and keep re-rolling the bits
Increase your dough hydration so it’s more pliable and sticky initially.
Either of the first two is recommended. The third is not recommended.
Oh, and while speed 1 or 2 is fine, I find speed 1 is preferable on the first couple of passes, and also while thinning the sheets (to prevent the outer edges from curling in).
Thank you for your answer. I did try to flatten it a bit before rolling and uh... "laminate" the mess that came out. I just don't understand why for some people (like here https://youtu.be/J4QDMu7qJgQ?t=137 ), everything goes in smoothly at the first try, which is why I'm thinking there's something wrong with either the roller or the dough. Can you confirm that the roller has one side that revolves and another that is static?
Oh. Uh, no. Yours is f___ed apparently.
Just going off my memory as an Italian, but i seem to recall flour being involved in the rolling process. Having some flour on the dough when trying to roll and starting with the rollers far enough and bringing them closer gradually should help. I might still be wrong dough, i wasn't the one cooking, i was just the one in charge of turning the handle.
@bracco23 flouring sheets of pasta dough can be helpful to prevent them from sticking to each other when stacked, but is not important or helpful when rolling. And the OP already has the rollers as far apart as they'll go.
@bracco23 I did not mention it in the OP but I did try with and without flour. Too much flour and the rollers really would not catch the dough (no friction). Not enough flour and the dough would stick in the roller and break. In any case, others have suggested that my unit was not working properly: both rollers should roll and pull on each side of the dough evenly. Since I only have one rolling, well one side of the dough goes through and the other accumulates. I will update everyone as soon as I get a replacement unit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.691476
| 2022-11-30T21:47:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122515",
"authors": [
"AdamV",
"Dennis Williamson",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"arne",
"bracco23",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91650",
"orion2112"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100612
|
Can opened cooking cream in frozen state go bad?
I opened this cooking cream 2 months ago and it stayed in the refrigerator in an almost fully frozen state (right under the cold air blowing fan). It also has lost its flavour (not bitter, doesn't have a taste) and doesn't have an odour (slightly smells like flour). When I first opened it 2 months ago, it had solidified into some kind of thick whipped cream (probably age gelation). 5 minutes ago I gave it a stir and now it looks like this:
First, I'm not sure what cooking cream is. Can you say what it is? Heavy cream? Second, from the looks of it in the pictures, it would be in the trash in my house. I am going to upvote the current answer.
Typically cream that you buy from the supermarket is homogenized and stabilized so that the cream looks and behaves uniformly when you want to use it. If you get milk from a cow, the cream tends to separate from the water component and create a layer of fat (the cream) on top of the water (largely milk).
The reason it separates is that it is full of small lipo-spheres (think tiny ball-shaped droplets) of fat which are less dense than water, so they float and interact with each other to form larger balls which then from the top layer, kind of like when you shake a vinaigrette and the oil separates at the top over time. When you have homogenized cream, this doesn't happen because the lipo-spheres are even tinier and too small to interact effectively or even to float well.
Now you are probably wondering where I am going with this - well, what is happening in your frozen cream is that the water component (about 70% of cream) freezes and creates ice crystals and these crystals disrupt the tiny lipo-spheres allowing the fats to again interact and separate out from the water when defrosted. This is a bit patchy in how it happens so the cream appears clotted and looks funny as not all those tiny lipo-spheres are disrupted, so some remain in suspension and still won't interact effectively, while others come apart and form the clumps that you see.
If it was frozen while still cold from when you first opened it, then it should be fine to use, just give it a shake to break up the lumps as much as you can and then beat as you would normally.
As you indicate that there is no smell, this is probably fine to use (I know this advice is late for OP, but maybe it will help someone else later). If it had a smell, that was sour or "bad", then like always, I would advise not to use.
yes. definitely
the butterfat can go rancid even if it's fully frozen
almost frozen is like almost sterile, so there's surely plenty of microorganisms doing their happy little lifecycles, albeit more slowly than at room temperature
it looks like it's gone more towards becoming crème fraîche, but since you didn't intentionally inoculate it, you have no reason to trust that it's not going to hurt you
high risk, no reward. you'd be smart toss it out
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.692292
| 2019-08-06T18:05:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100612",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123487
|
Eggless milk 'mayonnaise' - how do milk and oil emulsify without lecithin? What's the science behind it?
The recipe:
Ingedients:
100 ml milk
200 ml oil
Lemon juice
Salt
Instructions:
Whiz 100 ml milk up - 30 secs
Slowly add 200 ml oil
Move the blender up and down to help emulsify
Flavour with salt and lemon juice
Whiz up until thick
"Note: It's NOT 100% fool proof – if blender is hot the mayo splits."
Here's the video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iEOecpzD01c
This is not the first time I see this kind of recipe, how do oil and milk emulsify? Why the note says that when the mixture gets hot it starts to separate and what's the purpose of the first step "whiz the milk up before adding the oil"?
Why post the exact same question again after the first was closed as 'needing detail'? Add the detail, then it will go to the review queue for potential reopening. This will just be closed again, presumably for the same reason. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123478/eggless-milk-mayonnaise-how-do-milk-and-oil-emulsify-without-lecithin-what?noredirect=1 [can only be seen by high rep users]
Yeah and what kind of "detail" can I add given that this is all the information I have?
The ingredients & method used in the video, at least. The video could be used as an external reference, but you shouldn't make people go off-site to know what your question is - most especially when there's a 3-minute video to have to watch, explaining something that could be read in 15 seconds. Plus, of course, if the video is ever taken down, there's no question left.
OK. I added the 'method' although I don't see how it relates to the question posted above.
@TheLostInUnknown it is very rare in cooking/recipes that a method doesn't matter. Especially in a case where you are asking about the "science" behind it (I suppose the physics of the emulsion getting created), this absolutely depends on the method.
Milk proteins (mainly casein) are emulsifiers, because milk itself is an emulsion:
Milk is an example of an o/w [oil/water] emulsion, in which the fat phase or cream forms tiny droplets within the skim milk, or water phase.
As such, emulsifying vegetable oil in milk is pretty much just a matter of getting the emulsifying milk proteins to link to even more fat molecules, which they can do to a lesser extent than the extremely powerful emulsifiers in egg yolks. This is why it's both possible to create a "milk mayonnaise", and why that mixture breaks much more easily.
If you want to know a lot more about it scientifically, read the papers from the two links at the beginning of this answer.
As for why you blend the milk before adding the oil: that's both to make sure that the milk proteins are well-distributed, and to agitate the milk so that the stream of oil disperses quickly. Also, casein denatures when it gets hot, which is why the emulsion would break.
Alternately, you can also create an oil/milk emulsion using synthetic membranes.
So, it's like fixing a broken mayonnaise? You're basically adding the oil to an emulsion?
Sorry, not quite following your question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.692556
| 2023-02-25T17:34:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123487",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Tetsujin",
"TheLostInUnknown",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76760",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100722
|
I want a burrito, but I have no avocado
I am thinking of making a rice, salmon, and (chili) bean burrito, but I don't have any avocados.
After looking up some substitutes, I was thinking about peanut butter...but I am a little hesitant.
Has anyone tried to capture the texture of an avocado before?
What characteristics of avocado are you hoping to capture?
@Erica. Mainly the texture. Added to the question.
Your link is balancing things on some vague interpretation of "healthy" & ignoring anything else… like what it may taste like :\ Peanut butter on a burrito sounds … not good.
@Tetsujin, IMHO, I feel the same way about avacados. The sour cream or maybe some well-whipped cream cheese with chopped chives sound like a better option to me.
@Ring - tbh, I wouldn't dream of putting rice or salmon in a burrito either, but that wasn't the question. Avacado at least fits the 'Mexican' theme, I couldn't say the same for peanut butter, banana, pesto or hummus… & I don't even know what chia is. The link totally ignores taste or theme, it goes on some vague notion of 'health'.
@Tetsujin, I'm often amazed by some of the combinations I hear. The first time I'd heard someone ordering a pizza with pineapple on it, I thought they were deranged. I still do, but I figure as long as I'm not expected to partake, I don't care ;-)
@Ring - I'm definitely with you on the pizza/pineapple combo. Tried it once just to see… it was as gross as I imagined. Basil sorbet, on the other hand, which sounded equally 'weird' in my head, was a real eye-opener once tasted. I always say I'm prepared to try anything once… after that, let's see ;)
@Tetsujin, if you like chocolate and appreciate spicy hot foods, try chocolate brownies dipped in hot salsa!
I feel like we're being trolled here. Salmon bean burrito with peanut butter because there is no avocado? Is someone going to suggest toothpaste as a substitute next?
@Sobachatina No, I am actually that..."adventurous". It's not that I wanted that combination, but it's what I had on hand.
@ChrisHappy- I've been thinking about your question. Instead of trying to create a burrito and replace the avocado, if you think of the ingredients differently it might work better. If you made a fish taco with the salmon, you could make a thai sate sauce with the peanut butter. Refried beans and cheese wouldn't work there but whole black beans would.
refried beans, or just skip the avocado?
Why are you asking him?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.692845
| 2019-08-13T15:10:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100722",
"authors": [
"Chris Happy",
"Erica",
"NothingToSeeHere",
"Rob",
"Sobachatina",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77007"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104149
|
Hot water vs warm water for hot chocolate
First off, I don't normally do hot drinks. I don't like coffee or tea, and I only drink hot chocolate/cocoa or hot cider on occasion, so I really don't know what could make a difference in the flavor of using really hot or boiling water to make hot chocolate versus using hot tap water. Also, I don't like really hot drinks. I always let them cool down to what coffee drinkers think of as warm, luke-warm, or tepid. In fact hot tap water is usually hot enough for me and, unless it's unusually hot tap water, it's comfortable for me to drink right away.
So my question: is there something that really hot water does to a hot chocolate powder mix that makes it taste better than warm water? I've used the same powder mixes in hot water as well as warm water, and the hot water cooled down almost always tastes better than warm water, regardless of brand or style of mix. I find the warm water often tastes a bit bitter, if that's even the right description of the flavor difference. I know it just tastes a bit "off". I think I notice it more if there's a "marshmallow" flavoring involved, if that makes any difference.
Does the really hot water melt the chocolate and the warm water not? Is there a chemical reaction the warm water is not activating? Is it the length of time being hot a factor? Is it that my taste buds need to "re-calibrate" for hot liquids?
FYI, I'm aware of How to make Instant Hot Chocolate Taste Less Watery and Does Boiling Water, Instead of Warm Water, Hurt the Flavor of Tea/Hot Chocolate. The first one might be the be my real answer, in that I'm not adding enough mix to get the flavor I'm looking for, but I'm not 100% convinced on this. I put enough mix in that it settles over a short time, so I think I'm adding enough. The 2nd question has answers that just barely touch on hot chocolate, but to no real definitive solution, since they are geared almost 100% towards tea and coffee.
Edit (for a little more clarity):
The reason for this question was that I had just used a K-cup in hot tap water, since I didn't realize my job didn't have a Keurig when I bought the cups. (I thought they did, but was wrong.) I've used other brands of K-cups as well as pouches with the same results. Using a Keurig, I end up adding tap water or even ice to be able to drink it within 5 min of brewing.
I believe I've only purchased or used instant mixes, rather than mixes that require simmering/steeping or need milk rather than water.
Note that hot tap water may not be safe to drink. See: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/49798/56980
@TannerSwett, I live in the US (not Flint, Michigan), so my drinking water should be very safe to drink at any temperature. Good to note for other people, though.
I don't know what makes you think that your water "should be safe to drink at any temperature," or that hot tap water is "drinking water," but the United States Environmental Protection Agency says that you should not use hot tap water for cooking or for drinking.
The EPA also states that most of the lead comes from the building/housing, not the water supply. And in 1986, they banned the use of lead pipes and solder from being used. Even the CDC article in your link mentions this. Where I currently live, most buildings are much newer than 1986. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20040708005684/en/Contamination-Lead-Solder-Household-Water-Pipes-Toxic
That's fair. If you're sure that the particular building you're in doesn't have any contamination in its hot tap water, go for it.
There are two good reasons to use boiling water in hot chocoolate.
The first reason is that boiling water helps drive off chlorine which is added to the water supply. This won't work with some chlorine treatment, and of course isn't necessary with bottled or other unchlorinated water, but for standard free-chlorine treatment it can make a big difference. As a rule of thumb, if your boiling water has a distinct (possibly pool-like) smell, it's from the chlorine. (The smell is the chlorine leaving the water. It's still there in unboiled water, but more evident through taste than through smell.)
The second is that cocoa powder may need to be "bloomed" to fully release its flavor. Cocoa powder is a very fine powder, but it's still tiny bits of dried plant matter. Boiling water hydrates these particles much better than hot water, allowing flavor components to disperse into the mixture. The importance of this method varies with the type of cocoa powder you use, and from my anecdotal experience is not as important with European cocoa as it is with North American cocoa.) Failing to do this won't directly lead to bitterness, but the underextracted flavor may make bitterness in the drink more directly evident.
As an experiment, I suggest that you try making "cold chocolate" both ways. Use boiling water as normal, and refrigerate the result to refrigerator temperature. In a separate mug, try making it with cold water. (Add the cold water a bit at a time while stirring, and make sure to scrape the sides thoroughly as you add it; it will not be as easy to mix everything up as it is with hot water. If you end up with a bunch of bubbly, granular mud floating on water, toss it out and try again.) The difference between the two will be evident, and should help you pin down the difference between warm and boiling water.
I don't notice any chlorine smell to the water, but I'm sure it's still there, since most water treatment plants use it. This is all good info that I'll consider for my next cup!
You have a closing parenthesis in your second paragraph with no corresponding opening one
Is there a possibility that you are not using an instant chocolate drink mixture, but a drink mixture made with cocoa powder, or even pure cocoa powder? If that's the case, then you have to heat it to 95+ Celsius in order to cook the starch in the cocoa powder. Else it will taste undercooked.
If it is in fact an instant drink mixture, it is very difficult to guess why it tastes worse, since nobody beside the producer has experience with the exact recipe. But in this case, it is quite possible that you will get a different result if you switch brands, because a different brand will be made in a different way and may not have the same side effects when being made in an off-label way (with tepid water). Even better, you might be able to find mixtures meant for cold drinks - tepid chocolate is a rare thing, but iced chocolate exists, and maybe you can find instant powders engineered for that use case.
The reason for my question was that I had used a K-cup in tap water, since I didn't realize my job didn't have a Keurig when I bought the cups. I've used other brands of K-cups as well as pouches with the same results. Using a Keurig, I end up adding cold tap water or even ice to be able to drink it within 5 min of brewing. Sorry I didn't make that clear. I don't think I've ever bought anything but instant mixes.
K-cups are not an instant mix at all, they are meant to be brewed in the machine, and filtered inside it. So no wonder they taste bad when made with tap water. You would be better off buying actual instant mixes for your tap water usage.
The cocoa K-cups don't have any filter, so the water runs through it in less than a second without any actual brewing inside the machine, as I understand the word and usage of "brew". On reading the side of the box I currently have, it does have cocoa powder in it, so it apparently does need hot water to "bloom", like the other answer suggests. I don't have a Keurig, since I wouldn't use it enough for it to make sense, so I'll just have to heat water "normally" to finish off the 12 pack. And yes, I should probably go with cold mixes from now on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.693120
| 2019-12-16T21:03:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104149",
"authors": [
"Kat",
"Sophie Swett",
"computercarguy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103001
|
Biscuits with Egg and Butter - how long will they keep?
I have a biscuit/cookie recipe that involves egg and butter - after I bake the cookies how long will they keep, at room temperature in an air-tight container?
(edit: In the USA cookies are (sometimes?) made with egg, is that right? In which case I'm just asking how long cookies keep)
edit: If context helps: my daughter has epilepsy and is on a medically supervised ketogenic diet. What she eats has to be carefully made and carefully rationed. I'm making her a batch of biscuits based on this recipe and so I'm wondering how big a batch I can make in one go based on how long they will keep. I imagine all the ingredients are pretty long lasting except for the eggs and butter.
I've never personally had cookies in a tin last long enough to go bad...
I am surprised, but I can't find an existing canonical answer about the shelf life of baked goods!
Can you also be specific on "room temperature" and what's the local humidity? The industry in general understands it as being between 20-25C and punctual excursions to the range of 15-30C which might not be the case in many locations
@JulianaKarasawaSouza Happy to go with the industry standard
There are many different ways to make cookies, with and without eggs; you cannot really generalize that cooking made in the USA have eggs or not.-
The egg and butter are cooked into the product, and won't behave like raw egg and butter. If you want to preserve them for a long time, use the freezer. If you want a few hours in a lunch box, I doubt there's a problem. (E.g. I never had any problem taking egg sandwiches for my lunch, and most people put butter on their sandwiches without thinking about it.)
@Johanna should I interpret that as meaning they last a long time? (and did they have egg in them?) ... or should I interpret as meaning they get eaten very quickly? : )
the recipe you put looks just weird, are the quantities in grams ?
@codeulike I'm asking what are the conditions in your location, since I don't know where you're writing this from. Depending on the place, meeting room temperature standards might imply air conditioning
@Max yes its in grams. Its very precise because the aim is to get a Fat to (Carbs+Protein) ratio of 3:1
Hi @JulianaKarasawaSouza I'm in the UK so room temperature is roughly what you describe for the industry standard. Humidity in the UK is roughly 70% I think
Basically once cooked and if stored in a dry container cookies will keep for a couple of weeks at room temperature and several months (perhaps a year) in the freezer.
The biggest problem with these cookies will be degradation of the fats in the almonds and butter resulting in rancid tastes - these are not dangerous, just unpleasant.
There are few risks with food safety regarding cooked cookies as the temperature of cooking is enough to kill all potential pathogens and typically lowers the water activity within the cookie to a point where few pathogens are capable of growing. It is hard to say what the exact water activity of your cookies will be, but I suspect fairly low.
To add a few figures on that, the recipe has not much in terms of water content, and considering that OP is sitting in the UK, they'll last for about 2 weeks in a dry, airtight container (to avoid rancid tast)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.693746
| 2019-10-21T22:00:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103001",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Max",
"Ray Butterworth",
"codeulike",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79115",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107552
|
Pressure cooking gadget that is heated with a torch (looks like a Afghan Kazan Pressure Cooker)
I have no idea what the thing is called but I found these videos via TikTok but cannot find the name of the device. I unfortunately also did not save any screenshots of this thing...
But, it is a metal contraption that has a pressure gauge on it and is somewhat teardrop shaped. This is then stuffed with ice and the item you want to cook. The whole device is pretty small, maybe, 6-8 inches?
It is then heated while sitting on a stand and being rotated.
When it is completely cooked, they open it in an explosive manner, into a metal bowl.
Yes. Sorry, I am looking for what it is called!
do you have a screenshot of the device?
Do you now for sure if it is a real cooking item, and not somebody misusing lab ware?
The description sounds like a "popcorn hammer" sometimes also called a "popcorn cannon":
popcorn hammer
The US TV show Mythbusters did an episode on this gadget a few years back.
Essentially, it is a cast metal pressure vessel that is used to make popcorn/puffed grains. It can be used over an open flame, allowing street vendors to use them to create both an attention getting show and a salable snack (when caught into a bag).
With a popcorn hammer, pressure is built up inside the vessel during heating. When it is released, the explosive decompression causes all of the kernels to pop simultaneously. The popping plus the vessel decompression sends them flying.
High pressure devices that rely on explosive decompression can be dangerous. Pressure cooked popcorn / puffed grains do have a unique texture, but safety is the main reason you don't see home versions of these devices on sale at your local department store.
With most seemingly impossible videos from the internet, it's either fake or best left to professionals. This one is real, but not something anyone should try at home.
Yes!!!!!! That is it!!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.694090
| 2020-04-13T23:36:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107552",
"authors": [
"DataDiplomat",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79447",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62947
|
Red Bean Cream puffs timing and filling
I want to make this recipe for a luncheon tomorrow: http://eatnorth.com/eat-north/karine-moulins-red-bean-cream-puffs
I have three concerns.
First, the local Asian grocery store was closed early yesterday, so I didn't get adzuki beans in time to soak. If I get them today is there a safe way to skip the soak?
Second, to avoid the puffs getting soggy, what should my timing be like? Should I make the pastry and filling seperate tonight and fill them in the morning? How should I store everything? It's a work luncheon so I'd be able to fill them at 7 am at the latest, to be consumed at 12:30.
Third, I have mung beans and wet Tamarind. If I'm unable to secure Adzuki, would a direct substitution of mung taste alright? Or a tamarind flavored cream? If I went either of those routes, should I skip on any white chocolate topping ?
You do need to soak the beans unfortunately, you are not going to get good results without soaking them. There's really no substitute for adzuki beans which would work well in this recipe, I'd go for another type of filling.
Choux pastry (ie the puff) can be baked ahead of time but is best fresh as it gets soggy easily.You could make the pastry cream the night before, just remember to get it out of the fridge a good half hour or more before piping so it loosens up. If you absolutely have to make everything the night before don't pipe until the morning as your pastry will be very soggy by the time they are eaten.
If I bake the pastry tonight, how should I store them? And how should I store them after they're filled? I'm assuming refrigerate them in an airtight?
If the grocer has canned beans, would you recommend using them? I've never had adzuki beans outside a restaurant so I don't know how different each is.
I've never seen canned adzuki beans, if they have them you could try them. The trouble is you don't know how much 3/4 of a cup of dry beans translates into cans of beans. I have no rule of thumb for that.
If you bake the pastry tonight let the shells cool completely and then store them in an airtight container at room temperature. Putting them in the fridge might make them stale.
Is the pre-made red bean paste worth anything, or would it be wiser at that point to move on and choose a different filling?
@PatrickSchomburg Pre-made red bean paste is fine, if sometimes a little oversweet for my tastes.
Just to follow up, I did get canned, I'll post here how it turns out.
Canned turned out okay, but the canned beans themselves were already boiled and had a strange metallic taste. I went light on them and it made a nice subtle red bean and vanilla combo.
Glad to hear it worked out, and thanks for posting your results
There is a way of speeding up the soaking just a little, and that is the addition of bicarbonate of soda and potassium bicarbonate (baking soda & baking powder)... This will somewhat reduce the soaking time. However remember to clean your beans well after soaking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.694282
| 2015-10-29T12:17:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62947",
"authors": [
"Azeem Qureshi",
"Cascabel",
"Dave Miller",
"Debbie Shaw",
"GdD",
"Muneeza Umer",
"Patrick",
"Whitney Curtis",
"colin bell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37487"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60227
|
Beef fat for frying
Where do I purchase beef fat for frying fish? I have been using a solid fat of half vegetable and half beef fat, but have not been able to find beef fat only.
beef fat or tallow can be found on amazon or gourmet cooking stores.
Other then that; local butcher.
If all else fails; you can render your own; the best cut is “leaf fat”; from around the kidneys on the cow. Then you just render down; similar to clarifying butter.
Really depends on how much you need.
note: Do not buy the hydrogenated junk at chain grocery stores
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.694556
| 2015-08-25T01:11:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60227",
"authors": [
"Debbie Welch",
"Dianne Behnfeldt",
"Megan Clinton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144134",
"mona story"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103808
|
Making dough fluffier
When I didn't have any bread in house I baked some dough of just flour and water.
I was quite pleased with the result but it was still a bit "compact".
If possible I'd like to make it more fluffy and absorbant.
Are there any easy things I can add to it to achieve this?
I know for actual bread I'll have to have to follow a bread recipe but I'm wondering how close I can get.
Never really understand the random downvotes. If anyone can offer an explanation I'll either try to improve my question or remove it if it isn't a fit for this site.
I don't know why people downvoted the question. My only clarification is what do you mean by "so I can bake it in egg"? Bake what in egg? And why are you baking it "in egg"?
I wanted to dip slices of bread in egg and bak them. I removed that part since it indeed might be confusing. Since I did not have any bread in house I was trying to get as close as possible.
Just flour and water? Unless your goal is flatbread, like a tortilla, you are going to want to add some type of leavening. This can be fresh or freeze-dried yeast, or a starter culture. There are also "soda" breads that make use of baking soda and powder. Egg whites are also a leavener, though in a bread situation, probably not as effective.
I know for actual bread I'll have to have to follow a bread recipe but I'm wondering how close I can get.
Your question is a contradiction in itself, or, from a different perspective, there is no way to say how close you can get.
A recipe for bread (be it classic bread, tortilla or soda bread) will always contain the ingredients, their ratio, and the process needed to make it. And you can be sure that the simplest process has always been codified in a recipe. Sure, there are recipes which get very specific effects by using baroque techniques, but you can be sure that, out of all possible combinations of ingredients and ratios and processes, millions of bakers before you have roughly charted out those which lead to a tasty end product, especially on the easier end of the combination space.
From that follows that you have four ways of working:
Every time you bake, try a completely random combination (no matter what happened last time you baked). Then, most of the time, you will end up with something not tasty. Rarely, you will happen upon something tasty. But next time, you will throw your dice again, to try a completely different combination, which likely won't be tasty.
The above sounds quite stupid, doesn't it? Instead, you might be tempted to keep track of your successes and misfortunes, and only try combinations similar to what has worked well before, refining as you go. You will still be making bad experiences at the beginning, but after dozens to hundreds of attempts, you will likely converge on a good way of baking - you will have (re-)invented a recipe that's good enough for you.
alternatively, you might try the first few dozens of times until you find something that is acceptable for you in taste, and continue replicating it. Maybe a replication won't be possible the first time, but with a few more tries, you will arrive at a recipe that you don't want to improve, and continue to make it.
Note that the second option will take a long time of determined, repeated baking before you see results. And the results are unlikely to be earth-shatteringly new. You would save yourself a ton of work if you would just take a recipe and follow it, and will get an equivalent or even better result without the lengthy discovery phase. Alternatively, the third option gives you a shorter discovery phase, but still longer than starting out with a recipe. Also, as an inventor, it is unlikely that you will discover the easiest way to getting a given result, since successful recipes have usually undergone an evolutionary process that favors the recipes which lie on the optimal trade-off line between complexity and taste, while you will almost certainly stumble on something that is below that trade-off line. So, if you keep using the recipe you invented, it is almost certain that you can achive either better results with comparable complexity or the same results with less complexity, by just using the right recorded recipe.
Even if we take your question literally, "how close can I get" - you can bet that any recipe that was worth baking again has been recorded, espeially the easiest ones. So, if you try to use something that is simpler than any findable recipe, you will, by definition, arrive at something most people don't want to eat. Alternatively, if you continue trying out combinations until you arrive at something edible, it will be just as complicated as written recipes.
There are valid reasons to go through the whole process of invention. One is for the sheer fun of playing in the kitchen, without caring about the result. Or you could use reinventing the wheel as an effective learning technique, if you want to devote yourself to become a master craftsperson of baking. But if you want the easiest possible way of getting homemade bread worth eating, you are on the wrong track.
"One is for the sheer fun of playing in the kitchen, without caring about the result. Or you could use reinventing the wheel as an effective learning technique" that was more of the track I'm going for. I know I won't improve on bread but I'm trying to get a more intuitive feel about why some of the ingredients are added.
@turoni Getting this feel by trial and error will take you ages. As with any learning process, the optimal thing is to combine theory and practice - read up on how bread baking works first, then try it out for yourself, including variations. My favorite sources would be McGee on food and cooking, and Corriher's Cookwise, but you can find alternatives too.
The fluff of a dough comes from the carbon dioxide released by the yeast fermenting the bread. If you want to make it fluffier, add some yeast to the water that is used to bind the dough and add recommended sweetness to compensate for the slight sourness the yeast gives.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.694751
| 2019-11-30T10:24:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103808",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79683",
"rumtscho",
"turoni"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107987
|
Is there a term for this distinction of sweet categories?
In a mildly synesthetic sense, I have been describing two categories of sweet flavors as "bright/clear" and "dark" all my life. These categories aren't exhaustive, but I think it will be easy to correlate what I mean if I list the two:
Dark
Coffee
Chocolate
Pancake syrup
Nut-based sweets like peanut brittle
Marzipan
Caramel
Honey
Pure sugar itself
Most ice creams
Clear
Cherry
Watermelon
Apple
Lemon
Grapefruit
Grapes
Almost all sorbets
Unsure
Banana
Fruitcake
Are these categories that exist and are useful in cooking?
Edit one year out: I just saw a video that showed a popsicle stand that had that exact distinction made between such flavors. The words it used were simply Fruity and Creamy.
Coffee, lemon and grapefruit are sweet to you?
Are you talking about black coffee or a caffeinated sugar bomb ala Starbucks? ... My initial thought would be the type of sugar though. The bright category is predominantly fructose, while dark is predominantly... Not fructose. But honey is fructose, so there went that. The other things I'd consider would be acidity and sugar concentration. But the coffee throws me off.
Many of your "dark" sweet items have a hint of caramel, either added or as a result of their processing. I suspect malted sweet foods would also fall into this group. Fruitcake may be variable - a light fruitcake with only white sugar: light, a dark fruitcake with lots of brown sugar (Christmas cake in some countries), or a teabread: dark. Am I guessing correctly?
No, there is no standard categorization on these lines. You are just creating a personal categorization in your head (which is not a bad thing in any way - that's how everybody's mind works) and you are attaching an association to brightness/darkness which is mostly personal, but might be close enough to a shared experience/language use that other people could understand it if you gave them sufficient examples.
The prototypic quality of your "dark" category seems to involve the presence of caremel-like notes and maybe some phenol-based tastes. (To check if phenols are defining, ask yourself: is liquorice a good example of the category, maybe a better one than pure sugar?) The presence of fat also seems to play a role.
The prototypic quality of your "clear" category seems to require the combination of sugar and acid, and also having water present, as opposed to fat.
I said above that these are not usual categories, but they are to some extent recognizable when explained. More common descriptions are for phenolic compounds to be associated with "earthiness", to some point maybe also caramel may have that association. Fats tend to be associated with density and heaviness. The coloring of many caramelized or phenol-containing foods is also dark. So I think that this makes your category name somewhat intuitive.
As for the "clear" category, on some occasions acid is indeed called "bright". And water is indeed clear visually - which might strike you as irrelevant, but actually our brains overlook this kind of separation when building associations.
So I would think that your categories are intuitive enough in the sense that, if you were to give people examples from above and then pressed them into assigning a bunch of new items to these categories, there will be a noticeable correlation in the assignments. But if you also ask the people if they use these categories or know of them, I would expect that almost nobody does.
The closest widespread classification which is somewhat similar is the division of "top", "middle" and "bottom" notes in perfumery. But besides not having made it into cooking, that categorization only has some overlap with yours - they are related, but not too closely.
This answer is based a lot on my own reaction to your examples and the associations I make with your categories - feel free to explain more if my guesses about the prototypes of your categories are wrong. Which, incidentally, would be a good sign that your categorization is even more subjective that the answer assumes.
If you really want to obsess over this, I'd recommend reading George Lakoff's "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind".
It touches upon topics like how not all cultures handle colors the same way. Some only deal in light/dark, and don't really deal with what European cultures think of as "color".
Personally, I don't see these as sub-categories of sweetness. I see them as a different facet of taste. Non-sweet foods can be what I think of as 'dark' and 'clear' just as easily as sweet foods can be. I think that it's more typical to call those categories 'rich' and 'bright', though ... but I'm not sure if they're exactly the same categories that you've come up with, or just that they're correlated to those categories.
It's possible that your 'dark' category is things with bitter notes in them (chocolate and coffee definitely qualify) or other flavors associated with more complex chemicals from cooked sugars (like in caramels, which can be developed when reducing syrups), and the 'bright' category is those with more simple sugars and possibly a sour note (citrus and other fruits to a lesser extent).
Of course, my definitions for the categories makes grapefruit more difficult to classify, as it can be both bitter and sour, but we also get into issues of classical vs. prototypical categories, where classical categories require some objective criteria for inclusion, while prototypical categories are more about how subjectively similar things are to other items in the cluster.
And it's important to note that categories don't exactly "exist" -- they're a construct that help us to make sense of things, and so of course they help individuals reduce mental processing necessary to deal with many different things. So we have categories like "root vegetables" and "tubers" which have differences, but is everyone sure what you mean when you talk about them? An onion clearly isn't a tuber ... but is it a root vegetable?
(See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/3027/67 ; as people have commented about how it doesn't align with the categories uses in other countries for fruit based condiments. Also note that there are categories that aren't shared across all English dialects -- summer squash, neeps, floury potatoes, pulses, etc.)
Categories also help change how we look at things (also called "framing") -- once something has a name, we can talk about it. So how we used to talk about mushrooms being "meaty", but now we talk about "umami" which includes other foods high in glutamates like soy sauce and hard cheeses which might have been called "savory" but not "meaty".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.695191
| 2020-04-29T02:10:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107987",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Johannes_B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129502
|
Rust on canned goods from the environment
I have had some canned food stored under the sink and recently discovered some water had pooled around the base of the cans and caused rust along the bottom ring/outside.
I understand when rust appears on cans by itself it can indicate compromised internal structure of the can. However as the rust came from the outset of the can and doesn't seem too advanced, would these cans still be potentially safe to use?
Yes, cans can have some rust on the outside and still be safe, as long as the rust hasn't eaten through the can you're fine. If the can rots through the food will usually leak out, however some food in cans isn't liquid like refried beans or canned meat, so it's not always an indicator.
A better way to check is to pour the food out of the can into a separate bowl, keeping it separate from other food, then rinse the can out and fill it with water. If the can holds water then the food should be fine, if it leaks throw the food away.
Don't forget about cross-contamination!
I'm not sure what you mean by that @Arctiic, if you mean don't let potentially contaminated food come into contact with other food that's why I said put it into a bowl. I've edited to clarify that.
It was a reminder to be mindful of it while transferring the raw material.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.695698
| 2024-11-05T17:04:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129502",
"authors": [
"Arctiic",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43720"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124268
|
How to tell if pork-filled steamed buns are pre-cooked?
I recently bought some fresh "pork and Chinese-sausage filled" steamed buns from a supermarket. The supermarket also sells fresh, pre-cooked Taro and egg custard filled buns, which are kept next to the pork-filled buns in the refrigerated section and which I have bought before.
It didn't occur to me until I went to eat them today that the pork-filled buns may need to be cooked. While the dough part of the bun had the light and fluffy consistency of a bun that had already been steamed, the filling was a light pink color (not the darker color I see when I simply Google images of "pork-filled buns").
I'm currently out of state, and the supermarket doesn't appear to have a phone number. How can I tell if these are pre-cooked, or if they are meant to be cooked? I've never cooked buns, and don't really know what I'm doing here. I tried cooking one in the microwave (I don't currently have access to much more) according to some online instructions which suggested wrapping the bun in a moist paper towel and heating it for 6-8 minutes, however the result was rock-hard (and a darker center).
One would imagine the instruction to cook for 6-8 minutes was for half a dozen or more at a time. 1 pre-cooked bun would have been ready in about 30s, a raw one in maybe a minute or a minute & a half, though having never tried cooking steamed buns in a microwave, I wouldn't be sure the result would be palatable, done from raw. BTW, your clue was that they were sold next to other cook-chill food. In many countries it's not legal to stock cooked & raw together.
@Tetsujin The results of heating in a microwave are.... acceptable. Putting them in a closed container with a bit of water gives the best results, avoiding a leathery skin. (If you wrap them, they stick to the wrapping.)
The pork buns have been cooked already. By steaming them, hence the name “steamed buns”. The color of the meat is due to preservatives and/or food coloring.
Brightly coloured pork is likely to be char siu or some supermarket copy of that.
This is a dangerous assumption to make. I worked at a frozen food manufacturer for over a decade, and we had among our offerings a Pork Mini Bun (aka soup buns, or 小籠包). We produced both a fully cooked as well as a heat-treated variety. In terms of quality, the heat treated SKU holds up better after cold storage and final cooking, so it was sold in higher volumes compared to the fullly cooked variant.
@Arctiic those aren’t steamed buns of the sort the OP is describing. Char siu filling is never uncooked.
@sneftel I did not say they are uncooked (Raw), I said they could be NRTE (Heat Treated, Not Fully Cooked, Not Shelf Stable), which requires achieving lethality prior to consumption. Unless you mean to say that Char Siu Pork has a Standard of Identity prescribed by FSIS that states all Char SIu Pork products must be fully cooked (gated under Appendix A)? If so, could you cite a reference to code? I can't seem to find any such reg.
@Arctiic I’m not talking about laws, I’m talking about cooking. It is not practical to sell a fluffy steamed bun of the sort the OP is talking about unless it’s fully cooked. “Heat treating” without fully cooking would utterly ruin the texture.
@Sneftel OP stated he had purchased the product from a supermarket. That means this is regarding a retail food product, packaged and labeled accordingly and bearing an FSIS writ of inspection and establishment number, and hence these laws have to be observed? Unless we're talking about some mom-and-pops operation running outside the scope of the law? I happen to know a manufacturer for char siu pork buns — Shine Foods out of Torrance, CA — but I can't recall if theirs was fully cooked or not. Regardless of the quality issue though, it still is a dangerous assumption to make.
Of course, there are exceptions, such as with hot dogs. Due to the ubiquitous nature of the product and how it is consumed, a standard of identity is prescribed that makes it so that all hot dogs must be fully cooked. But in the absence of such a standard, however little sense it might make due to quality reasons, you still cannot say it is outside the realm of possibility for a manufacturer to produce such product. It would be prudent to understand and be able to identify the difference as to mitigate the potential for foodborne illness outbreaks.
Again, it is not possible. The way dough works won’t let you half-cook them. They would collapse.
@Sneftel I assume you meant with that specific dough it isn't possible to preserve the quality? Because the establishment I was employed at primarily produced potstickers and dumplings (which are wrapped in dough), and nearly 95%+ of all our product was heat treated. Of course, we had a state-of-the-art processing line and equipment, which included a water shock bath followed immediately by an IQF spiral blast freezer, so our product would flash freeze from 160°F to -15°F within 45 minutes.
Yes. Try half-cooking mantou and see what happens.
Though it would be kind of fun to watch it implode in that flash freezer.
The product's labeling should have specific language/verbiage that would indicate whether or not the the product is fully cooked or not. Please note that there is a distinction between "fully cooked" and "pre-cooked"; fully cooked falls under the "Ready-to-Eat" category, which indicates — regardless of quality — the product is safe for consumption without further heating or preparation. On the other hand, while there can be raw product, many processors these days choose to utilize "heat-treatment", which is basically a "partial cooking" and falls under FSIS Appendix B: "Heat Treated, Not Ready to Eat, Not Shelf Stable". The easiest way to distinguish between the two of these if you aren't familiar with the regulatory vernacular involved, would be to look for a "Safe Handling Instructions" label; if the product is not fully coked, the vendor/processor is required by law to include this one the same panel that the ingredient statement is on (typically the rear). It should also state "cooking instructions" rather than, e.g., heating instructions, etc. There would also be a specific internal temperature target indicated (likely 160°F or 165°F) within the cooking instructions. Finally, note that this may or may not apply to "hot foods" served on-premise of a retail storefront, I'd have to defer to someone else on how much overlap applies to that sector.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.695852
| 2023-05-25T00:25:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124268",
"authors": [
"Arctiic",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121410
|
When baking bread in a multi cooker is some water required?
If I want to bake bread in a multi-cooker, do I still need a small amount of water at the base of the inner bowl?
No - think of the inner bowl as a loaf or sheet pan the dough is in contact with, and instead of air transferring heat energy from the heating elements to the pan, the heating element is already in direct contact with the pan and outputting much less energy.
If your inner bowl is plain stainless steel, you may want to add a thin layer of cooking oil or parchment to prevent sticking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.696357
| 2022-08-19T23:43:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121410",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121491
|
Is baking with wheat starch similar to using other gluten free starches?
I came across this article about wheat starch being gluten free the other day and it was the first time I'd heard that. It would be nice to experience the texture of wheat bread again.
Has anyone tried baking with wheat starch? Was the texture at all similar to wheat flour with the gluten removed or is it just like any other starch?
much of the texture of wheat bread comes from the gluten, so bread made with wheat starch and no gluten will likely have a texture more similar to bread made with other starches.
With the new edits I'm voting to reopen as it seems like a legitimate question (unless there is a duplicate among the many gluten-free baking questions).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.696437
| 2022-08-29T15:11:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121491",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121600
|
Crack at the bottom of bread
During the last weeks I have repeatedly failed to get a decent bread out of the oven and most of them shared a prominent characteristic: a crack or tear at the bottom as shown (image shows the underside):
This happened with various recipes but all of them used dry yeast as you get it in Germany. All breads were baked in a sort of Dutch oven. I proof them seam-side down, then the seam-side becomes the top and is supposed to rip and produce an open crust - which never worked with the crack shown below: These problems seem to be obviously connected. I used to get nice breads and don't know what changed in the process.
Do these cracks at the bottom look familiar to anyone?
Question implies no change in process or ingredients, correct? If it used to work with dry yeast as you get it in Germany, that's not the issue. Bread is usually not terribly sensitive to weather changes, but if nothing else has changed...
It was never exact the same recipe, they might have included some buttermilk or quark or a higher/lesser amount of wholegrain flour, but this exact crack kept recurring together with an unwelcome flat shape. Something is wrong with the oven spring. Maybe it is related to a temperature that was still too low? For the sake of energy, I turn the oven on with the pot inside and wait maybe 20-30 minutes. But I hadn't waited much longer before and it had still often turned out very well.
More thinking (without being sure enough to make it an answer) that the kitchen outside the oven might be warmer with summer heat, and the dough may be over-proofing before the bake if you are rising by the clock/time, rather than how much it has risen. And not thinking these were all the same recipe, but that the various recipes used to work, and you haven't changed type of flour or how you shape the loaf or something like that...
@johnny7 The crack indicates expansion is occuring, though may not be related to the root cause. Can you add 1) at which temperature you preheat the Dutch oven 2) how you add the yeast to the doughs, and proofing conditions, 3) if the issue is from the same batch/container of yeast, how long ago you purchased it and what brand, and 4) some pictures of the loaves from other angles?
I am thinking you may be introducing a fold in the shaping process, and the fold expands in baking.
Over-proofing might be a possibility, although I didn't only look at the clock. Some of my breads with the shown crack might have probably been rather under-proofed. I preheat the oven with the cast iron pot at 250°C for around 20-30 minutes - which is surely not ideal, but I'd deem it sufficient for a more decent bread than the one shown. The dry yeast is some weeks old (I purchase it in a 9g package). Picture added.
What a challenging question! Do you have a side view and/or a photo that shows the cross-section? It may or may not help, but will tell us a bit about the directions of expansion etc.
Have you been upping the hydration or using another flour (even just another batch)?
I've got no more pictures unfortunately. As I said, the recipes were not all the same, so the hydration varied, and various batches of flour were used. These various conditions led to different breads that shared that common characteristic of the crack at the bottom.
Based on the yeast being weeks old from purchase, I'd agree that the issue was caused by underproofing due to age of yeast reducing viability.
Ideally you'd get a new packet of yeast, though the same old yeast can still be used by 1) adding additional yeast to account for reduced viability, or 2) gently nursing the yeast to recover while rehydrating - both will require some experimentation.
For option 2), assuming you are mixing the dry yeast directly into the dough and not rehydrating and tempering the yeast beforehand, there is an article published on rehydrating lager yeast for increased viability referenced below - in short:
sprinkle mass of yeast onto 10x yeast mass of water at 25C-30C
allow yeast to slowly hydrate undisturbed for 15 minutes
gently stir yeast and water to form a slurry
allow yeast to acclimate undisturbed for at least another 15 minutes
Figure of one rehydrated yeast from "Rehydration of Active Dry Brewing Yeast and its Effect on Cell Viability". A=immediately after sprinkling on water, B=15 minutes after sprinkling, Cn=15 minute intervals after forming slurry.
An additional step you can add is 'proofing' or 'proving' the yeast with some added sugar - generally, a step used to verify yeast activity with gas formation, though it will also provide some nourishment to restart yeast metabolism before incorporating into dough. The King Arthur Baking Company and a MasterClass article describe the procedures; you can also replace a quarter of the added sugar with flour to provide the yeast with protein for reproduction and to acclimate it to amylose metabolism. I'd recommend forming the slurry before adding sugar and flour to avoid further osmotic stress during rehydration.
Rehydration of Active Dry Brewing Yeast and its Effect on Cell Viability.
D. M. Jenkins, C. D. Powell, T. Fischborn and K. A. Smart.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2050-0416.2011.tb00482.x
Additionally, the small cracking throughout the top surface of the loaf and the 'pinched' appearance of the left two score marks suggest the scoring might not be deep enough - the cracks specifically are a sign that gas expansion is being restricted by the hardened crust until pressure builds up enough to tear the crust.
You may have better oven spring by scoring a little deeper as well.
I think two things have come together here: 1) The bread was underproofed because of old yeast and not enough time. 2) The "crack" may have been formed by the little sheet of baking paper that I used to transfer the dough piece to the pot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.696536
| 2022-09-08T19:46:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121600",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"Stephie",
"borkymcfood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99917",
"johnny7"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121971
|
I need to judge whether my bread flour is ok or not. 50LB bag 11 months old
The bag was packed tight. It was in standard flour sack and inside a thick cardboard shipping box, there were a few hundred pounds on top of it, on a skid. It was not wrapped in plastic. Mostly the room is pretty dry, but there was humidity in the summer.
When I open the bag it is hard like concrete, but breaks apart once I start busting it up and its light, fluffy once I crush it in my hand. I think there might be a light must scent to it, but its sort of tricky, like is it there or not, seems to disperse after a little while. Color is good.
I am really interested in any seasoned opinion on this situation. I don't want to make anyone sick, I also don't want to over-react and toss out $100 worth of flour. I am going to test it also for rolls, I should have those in a few days.
Thanks! I think these responses cover it. I baked some bread to test from the same batch different bag today, Bread was good. I will test run the bag we talked about here in a few days as well as make sure my digestion/energy/flavor don't show any impacts. I broke up the chunks some and put in a giant plastic bag to see if it airs a bit or what. If any aspect of it fails I will make paper mache halloween ghouls. :)
Crust/solidity implies moisture
Hi Breandan, we cannot tell you if it is "OK". There is no way for anybody to predict whether some food will make someone sick or not! The closest that can be stated whether the food is "safe", which is a very different thing. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info for details.
@rumtscho Can you explain how "OK" and "safe" are different, please? On the face of it your "safe" is a lot more clear than anyone's "OK."
Brendan, why not just bake some and see what happens? Won't the temperature rule out any queries about safety, leaving only quality of the bake… EG, how well it rises?
@RobbieGoodwin intuitively, people expect "safe" and "unsafe" to be separated at the boundary of "will/won't make you sick". This is not the case; "safe" means that you can prove that your food was stored and handled under a predefined set of conditions known to not allow pathogen growth, and so it is a statement derived from your information about the food, not from something in the food, and also, most unsafe food won't make you sick. Predicting the "won't make you sick" criterion is intuitively better, but it turns out to be impossible - but people keep guessing, which is off topic here.
Is this some more fancy variety of flour? Standard wheat flour is around 1€/kg or around 50 cents per pound in the super market for me so 2$ a pound sounds very high unless it is organic or something else special about it.
You seem to be saying that "safe" is certifiable through following official protocols and "OK" is not.
Are there other points that matter to you about the difference?
It's impossible to say whether the four is safe for certain, given the conditions you describe it is likely fine but there are no guarantees. It's very possible that the flour has simply gotten compacted by the weight on top of it rather than from moisture, if the flour is dry it's much more likely to be safe. A year is a long time to store flour, though, so you may be smelling some of the oils in the flour having turned rancid - even if it's safe it may not be good.
To test for moisture you need an accurate scale and an oven. You take a decent sized sample, say 100g, spread it out on a tray and bake it for an hour at medium temperature (130C/260F) to drive the moisture out. You weigh it straight after taking it out of the oven and measure the difference. If the water content is above 15% it's been exposed to too much moisture. So if you bake 100g and it comes out at 86g or higher at least you know it's not damp.
If you do decide to use the flour you'll want to sift it at least once to aerate it and bring back its fluffiness.
From your description it sounds more like the flour was simply packed tightly rather than getting damp, but even if it remained dry, I think you will likely find the flavor is off.
You said you don't want to throw away $100 worth of flour, but ask yourself if you would pay $100 for a 50 lb bag of flour that you knew was a year old?
If you are looking for a way to repurpose the flour rather than just discarding it, you could always use it to make salt dough for crafting, or donate it to a school for this purpose.
Water activity of the flour would be the determining factor for if the flour is safe or not. From Colorado State University's page on flour safety:
Flour should be stored in a cool, dry place in airtight containers. All-purpose, bread, and cake flours will keep for 6 months to 1 year if stored at 70°F and for 2 years if stored at 40°F. Wheat flour should be kept refrigerated or frozen, if possible. Naturally occurring oils in flour, particularly whole wheat flour, oxidize when exposed to air, especially at room temperature, and cause flour to turn rancid.
[...]
Flour is a low moisture food with a water activity (Aw) level of 0.87 or lower. Generally, an Aw of 0.95 or higher is required to support microbial growth.
Flour will typically have a water activity in the range of 0.35 to 0.52 [1, 2].
Given that moulds are inhibited at as low as 0.70 Aw, if there are no signs of mould growth on your flour, then the flour has not picked up enough moisture to allow harmful bacteria to grow.
The shelf life recommendation relates more to oxidative rancidity, a quality issue. If the smell is faint and dissipates to a point you're comfortable with, and the flour is not part of a batch recalled for contamination, then the flour is safe to use without causing illness.
If you want to be more sure, water activity can be determined from moisture content at home using the heating method suggested by GdD using the relations below (from relatively high humidity Bangladesh):
Moisture sorption isotherm of flours, including wheat. From Ahmed & Islam [3]
[1] The Case for Water Activity as a Specification for Wheat Tempering and Flour Production.
Brady P. Carter, Mary T. Galloway, C.f. Morris, G.L. Weaver.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/CFW-60-4-0166
[2] Water Activity in Foods: Fundamentals and Applications - Appendix E: Water Activity Values of Select Food Ingredients and Products.
Shelly J. Schmidt, Anthony J. Fontana Jr.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470376454.app5
[3] Moisture Sorption Characteristics of Selected Commercial Flours (Wheat, Rice and Corn) of Bangladesh.
Md Wadud Ahmed, M N Islam.
http://dx.doi.org/10.12691/ajfst-6-6-7
Simple: taste it.
Stale flour tastes notably bad, even in its raw state. If you're still not sure, get a small bag of known-fresh high-quality flour, and compare tastes. Rancid flour will have notable off, bitter flavors.
If it tastes fine, then it is highly unlikely that anything has happened to the flour to make it a contamination risk. All flour should be cooked, in any case, and the bacteria that infect flour (such as salmonella and e.coli) do not survive cooking.
(spit out the raw flour after tasting. Eating raw flour is never a good idea, even if it's fresh)
As it's generally recommended to use sieving before use, you will find if there are some insects inside, and whether it is still "fluffy". Also as recommended already, try the taste.
The age alone should not be a problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.697119
| 2022-10-15T06:04:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121971",
"authors": [
"Robbie Goodwin",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365",
"quarague",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126555
|
Can I freeze already caramelized Mirepoix?
I was wondering if I could batch cook enormous amounts of Mirepoix (finely diced carrots, onions, and celery) until they're a little caramelized and then freeze it in ice cube trays for various recipes later.
I've successfully done this with just caramelized onions, though I had to coat them in a decent amount of oil.
I was wondering why I haven't found anywhere on the internet of people talking about doing this with mirepoix, does it mess up the flavor or ruin it?
Not in answer to your question, but I also see caramelised onions, made in a slow cooker with hardly any oil. So long as I don't pack them too tightly into the container (when they form a solid block), they freeze well without additional oil.
I haven't frozen caramelized mirepoix, but I have frozen the closely related sofrito, already caramelized. The results were fine... freezing and thawing caused some liquid to separate out, but once used in cooking it seemed the same as freshly cooked sofrito.
What do you include in your sofrito?
Yes you can, but apparently you should freeze it without cooking it first. I don't know why you wouldn't cook it, but I've reviewed 8 different online recipes and all of them freeze the mirepoix raw. It's even a commercial product.
Isn't that product frozen but raw? The picture and description look like it is, and that's what I've bought (though the local supermarkets all seem to have stopped selling it)
... The recipe you link also says "no pre-cooking"
Interesting! So, I cased online articles discussing freezing mirepoix, and 100% of them freeze it raw. I can't find any sources that freeze it cooked. That suggests that freezing it cooked is a bad idea, but I couldn't tell you why.
If I could get the frozen stuff at the moment, I'd cook a batch of that and try it. I haven't tried lightly browned onions, only soft slowly caramelised ones, and not celery, though roasted carrots freeze. I feel like it should work so long as you want the result to be soft. I suspect the idea falls in between batch cooking and meal prepping, so purists in both camps don't do it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.697678
| 2024-02-02T21:27:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126555",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Rebekah2020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"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
}
|
129136
|
Pinkish stains on a rice pudding
I cooked was milk together with rice, sugar, and cinnamon for more than 50 minutes yesterday. It was stored in the fridge for a night. Today I found small and sparse pink spots (~3mm radius, one or two max for each single-dose small bowl).
Any idea of what these can be? Can these signal any safety problem with the storage or boiling of the milk? Is it safe to ignore them?
How did you store in in between cooking yesterday, and checking today?
Thanks! Stored on the fridge. Max 15 minutes after cooking it was already on the fridge.
Clarification: when you write "Stored on the fridge" do you mean you stored it on top of the fridge (as opposed to inside the fridge), or is "on" a typo and you meant "in"?
Thanks, fixed. It is bad grammar: I meant "in".
There is no way to be sure from the information you have given us. If in doubt, throw it out!
If you could take a photo of the spots, and edit into the question, that might help. Also a description of your process would be helpful to determine if there is a problem with something you are doing. Particularly how you stored it (as one mass? if so how big is that? if not, how much per aliquot? etc.).
Milk, sugar and rice make an excellent medium for growing bacteria and yeasts. If your food was warm enough for long enough (a few hours between about 60 C and 4 C), then it could easily grow bacteria or yeasts to a visible colony size.
Pink spots could be colonies of coloured bacteria such as Serratia marcescens (often found as pink stains in around drains in sinks, showers, baths, or other damp spots like the back of the fridge) or yeasts such as Rhodotorula genus, or they could just be pink stain from the cinnamon. There are other potential bacterial species that you might not see as colonies, as these are often pale yellow or beige/tan and would blend in with the cooked colour of your dish.
Boiling doesn't sterilize (you need higher pressure to get a higher boiling point of water for that). It will kill off many species of bacteria, but not necessarily, and you can contaminate between boiling and storing in the fridge. For the fridge storage, you would need to separate the mass into small lots and cool rapidly. It may be that your fridge is too full or too empty to cool properly. Another possibility is that you put the food in there too hot and the fridge couldn't cool effectively, so acted as an incubator, keeping the food warm.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.697876
| 2024-09-02T13:01:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129136",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"brhans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"mkr53"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128304
|
Help recalling the name of a recipe?
While in Europe I frequently cooked this wonderful pasta recipe someone there recommended to me, but I've tragically forgotten the name! It started with spaghetti and the second word started with an M. Not marinara, not mostaccioli, not meatballs. It used a sauce with tomatoes and wine in it. It was a fairly involved sophisticated recipe, not one of the "easy 15 minute" recipes. When I try to google "spaghetti m*" I just get drowned in basic meatball and marinara results. I didn't know about it while at home in the States, I learned about it from a friend over there. (we were in Ireland, but they weren't Irish so that's not relevant. it's more a mainland Europe one)
Does anyone have any ideas about what this may have been?? Thank you all!
Edit:
Known ingredients: spaghetti, wine, tomatoes, perhaps some sort of meat? (less certain about the meat but I'm vaguely sure).
Cooking method: I believe the sauce was made just on the stove, adding the ingredients together in a pan and adding stove heat. I might be wrong, my memory is fuzzy!
Beyond tomatoes and wine, what else do you remember of the ingredients and method?
Edited, thank you!
As an aside: there are exclusion search operators in Google, so you can search for [spaghetti m* -marinara -meatball]. It doesn't turn up anything useful for me in this case, but it's a generally useful bit of knowledge :)
@rumtscho I've noticed exclusion in google search is getting worse. Yesterday (coincidentally a recipe search) I fancied making a garlic mushroom sauce similar to something I'd had out, but to have with fried potato gnocchi. Despite excluding "cream" and "creamy" those dominated my results. In the end I made it up as I went along, based on a vegetable velouté
@rumtscho You can also use those search operators in Bing and DuckDuckGo. I don't normally use Bing, but just had a go and that worked surprisingly well. You do need to be specific though; searching for [-meatball] doesn't exclude [meatballs], but [-meatballs] does both.
Could that pasta be Spaghetti all'Amatriciana?
It's one of the most famous italian pasta dishes.
It doesn't start with an M but the M is the second letter. And as correctly suggested By @Chris H, and explained on Wikipedia, it's often called Matriciana in romanesco dialect.
I've seen someone use wine to deglaze the guanciale and there are tomatoes in the recipe.
Good thinking. It could easily be misheard/misremembered as "alla Matriciana" (which is even correct in one dialect according to Wikipedia)
My first thought, too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.698410
| 2024-05-08T06:01:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128304",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Robin Betts",
"SuperDialga",
"bob1",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128374
|
Rice milk + hojicha - why did it curdle?
I'm trying to make "hojichata" (hojicha + horchata) with the intent of serving it over ice.
My thought was to either:
Cold-brew the hojicha/cinnamon in the rice milk, then add sugar and vanilla.
Brew the hojicha/cinnamon in the rice milk at somewhere around 175-200° F, add sugar and vanilla, then chill.
My first attempt at cold-brewing the hojicha in rice milk overnight seemed successful, but I mistakenly added powdered cinnamon towards the end and didn't really get as much cinnamon flavor as I was hoping. (Using powdered cinnamon also left a lot of sediment in the drink and seemed pretty unpalatable.)
For the second attempt (this time as a hot brew), I switched from powdered to chunks of cinnamon bark. After the rice milk hit about 150° F, it started to separate/curdle. I got it up to about 180° F before realizing that something was indeed Not Right.
The final product looks somewhat like miso soup in the bottle. It still tastes okay (and shaking it seems to redistribute it somewhat), but the mouthfeel definitely feels off and it looks pretty unsightly when it starts to settle.
Does anyone have ideas on what caused the rice milk to behave like this, and how to avoid it? I was under the impression that rice milk only curdled in presence of acid and heating it was otherwise OK.
From a couple searches, it seems that rice milk isn't recommended in hot beverages because it curdles when heated. (More sources: 2, 3)
A suggestion…
Make a hojichata tea concentrate and then dilute with rice milk.
Simmer cinnamon sticks in hot water to infuse, about ~10 min.
Add hojicha tea and brew for desired taste/time.
Strain out tea and cinnamon.
Add sugar and stir to dissolve.
Once cooled, combine tea concentrate with rice milk and vanilla (vanilla extract will evaporate when heated).
Enjoy!
Ah, so it was indeed the heat that did it.
I was hesitant to go the concentrate route (I normally do this for other iced tea blends and pour over ice) because of how thin rice milk is. I thought the water in the concentrate would dilute it too much for it to feel like horchata.
I'll do a second test and compare it with cold-brew - thanks for the suggestion!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.698645
| 2024-05-21T08:04:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128374",
"authors": [
"hmmwhatsthisdo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110345"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122098
|
Flavor in store-bought seltzer?
I live in the northeastern United States, and have drank unflavored seltzer water (also known as club soda, sparkling water, fizzy water or effervescent water) regularly all my life. Often purchased in bulk from stores.
Recently, I have noticed that "unflavored" or "original" seltzer are noticeably flavored. Right now, I'm (ruefully) drinking a very clearly peach-flavored seltzer labelled "original" by Polar, but I've noticed this in a variety of brands, including generic ones. The flavoring is considerably weaker than in the seltzers advertised as being flavored, but still noticeable.
Has there been any news coverage of this phenomenon? (I'm new to this site but I think it's on topic here because it involves selection of ingredients).
I am confused - what is your question? The seltzer itself is in scope, but "Has there been any news coverage" is off topic. Is there something specific you want to know about the seltzer itself?
@rumtscho to put it bluntly, my question is: "Am I crazy?".
@JohnMadden I'm inclined to think it's either a mistake/contamination or you're imagining it.
@Esther Yes, surely it's a mistake rather than an insidious plot. I suppose I'm wondering if anyone else has detected this.
I love polar seltzer, but this is an ongoing quality issue they have had for years, particularly affecting their plastic bottles, rather than their aluminum canning lines. Sadly, it's been happening for decades, so I don't expect them to change
I don't know that I'd consider this a "cooking" question though. Ingredient quality is an on-topic question but in it's current form this question feels more like an off-topic "rant" about a finished consumable commercial product, rather than being about cooking or ingredient quality
@AMtwo 1st comment) I have noticed this in the Kroger-generic aluminum cans as well. 2nd comment) I suppose this depends on whether we consider, for example, alcoholic cocktails to be recipes, since this would ruin my enjoyment of, say, a mojito. But I agree, this would be a better topic for something like a "gastronomy" SE, but I don't believe there is one.
@AMtwo also would be very interested if you have any sources for your claim in the first comment.
@johnmadden There is a Beer, Wine, and Spirits site for your mojito discussions, but not as familiar with that community.
@johnmadden my main source of info for Polar is just personal experience. I'm a lifelong New Englander, where Polar is headquartered & popular. As soon as I read your first sentence I knew you were talking about Polar. I've had a few employers stock Polar in the kitchen and it's been a frequent intermittent problem
It's possible that Kroger is having their product copacked by Polar, since Kroger likely doesn't run their production lines themselves
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.698860
| 2022-10-24T13:07:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122098",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Esther",
"John Madden",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93931",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110081
|
What is the je ne sais quoi flavour my green curry is always missing?
I've been making green curry for years, and it always sucks (It's actually quite sad). I've followed David Thompson, and I've found recipes from other top chefs, and they're all pretty much the same, and the flavour is always very meh compared to what I get at a half-decent Thai restaurant.
The general paste recipe:
(Blend or Pound)
galangal (1 thumb sized portion)
lemongrass
lime zest
shallots
garlic
coriander seeds 1 tablespoon
cumin seeds 1/2 tablespoon
bird-eye peppers * 5
(shrimp paste) (I don't put this in)
cilantro stems
For the sauce
Good coconut milk (Arroy-D or Savoy)
Thai basil
fish sauce
kaffir leaves
For the recipe:
Cook coconut milk until it cracks, throw in the paste, cook until aromatic, then throw in some water, meat and vegetables, cook to desired tenderness, and when it starts to cool off, top with some shredded Thai basil. Optional add lime leaves and fish sauce.
Honestly, I feel like a crazy person. I want to say that the missing flavour is not enough birds-eye green peppers, or not enough of the basil flavour. With the peppers, I've just never been able to do more than 5. I have a pretty high tolerance for heat, but putting them in the paste and then cooking them makes this awful back of the throat heat that adds nothing to the recipe. With basil I find that the raw basil flavour is a little overpowering, but if I cook the basil at all it loses all flavour.
Are you actually adding in the shrimp paste?
@FuzzyChef I've added it in the past, but generally I don't. I just don't like the taste. I know it's authentic for Thai, but I feel like for the american styled green curry I'm trying to replicate, it's not so important.
@FuzzyChef Just out of curiosity, when you make green curry, is it up to par with some of the better Thai restaurants?
The recipes I know have you cook the paste in the pan first, then add the veggies and coconut milk. I don't know if this is what you're missing, but it might allow the shallots and garlic in the paste to caramelize a bit, which should enhance the flavor. (I'd also just add some onions and get them caramelized along with the paste, before adding the wet ingredients) But I am by no means especially knowledgeable about Thai cooking.
@ThePhoton I used to do that, but I found that cooking the paste resulted in a loss of flavour.
You should edit your question to show the actual, exact recipe you use. It sounds like you’ve diverged from the listed recipe a great deal.
I don't know; I tend to make red curry or massuman curry more often, and I can't remember the last time I ordered green curry in a restaurant. It's not my favorite.
@FuzzyChef I guess that being said though, how does your Red Curry compare to good restaurants. It's ok to boast here.
I like my own massuman curry better than the version they have at Thai Seasons, an above-average Thai place near me. Honestly, that's easy though ... I'm going to use more and fresher spices, and a higher paste/coconut milk ratio than a moderate-priced restaurant will.
For the really high-end Thai places (like Padee) I'm not going to order anything I would ever make at home. That's the point of going to a restaurant.
(not that I can go to any restaurants right now, since I'm American)
@FuzzyChef good point
It's not possible for us to know what flavor you are missing in the green curry paste; your comments in the question about basil and peppers suggest that you may have flavor sensitivities that others do not share.
That said, I compared your procedure and ingredient list against Pailin's recipe, and noted the following items in her paste which are missing in yours:
Basil
Cilantro stems
Makrut lime zest (you're substituting regular lime zest)
shrimp paste (I assume the parens mean you're omitting it)
around 10 chiles
I'd guess that it's a combination of the items you're omitting that make the paste unsatisfactory, rather than any one of them. That said, shrimp paste adds a pretty significant glutamate punch to the paste, so if you're omitting that, it could be the key piece.
I think what you need is palm sugar. Essential.
I've used palm sugar before. The sweetness is very nice, but it's not the missing flavour
Maybe white pepper then?
I've tried that to, I always thought it created an unpleasant throat spice
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.699104
| 2020-08-07T21:08:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110081",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Sneftel",
"The Photon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87092",
"l2silver",
"user87092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108438
|
What does the date on eggs mean if it does not say sell by or expires by in the United States?
I have several cartons of eggs that have a date stamp but the date stamp does not say, sell by, expires by or best by. It's just a date. By the way the date is in the future so I know it is not a pack date of when the eggs were packed. If I knew that I would be OK.
What is the default if the date is just a future date? Should I assume it is an expiration date and it's time to toss them out after that or should I assume it is a best buy in which case it is good for another 2 weeks or so? I assume on eggs there is no such thing as best by because you need to know or be able to figure out when they will expire so you can toss them out.
The date appears as follows "May 29 11:45" 121 P1008 L6". I know you will be tempted to say pack date but May 29 is in the future. Should I eat them all by May 29 or do I have the standard 2 weeks after a sell by date?
Does this answer your question? How long can I keep eggs past the sell by date and still eat them?
Does this answer your question? How long can I keep eggs in the refrigerator?
What territory are we talking about? US & EU eggs have massive differences in treatment & storage requirements.
All: None of those "duplicate" questions address the question of the dates on egg cartons.
In the US, the most important thing to look for on the carton is the number which shows the day of year that the eggs were packed. If the number is 1, that's January 1st. If it's 365, That's Dec 31st. In other countries the system may be different, so find out what system in your country indicates the pack date, if possible. Note: apparently some states in the US don't regulate this, so you would have to see what your state's protocol is, if not. All the good states do, and the others can go suck an egg.
Eggs last a very long time (a few months at least) properly refrigerated and are safe to eat long after the sell date. The egg will lose water, and the air bubble in the end of the egg will continue to grow, so if you put the egg in water and it floats, it's pretty old, but can generally still be eaten if the eggs is not crazy old.
The membranes will also thin over time, making the yolks easier to break if you're trying to separate them or use them for sunny-side up eggs, e.g. The whites will also thin and the thicker part of the whites won't be as pronounced from the thinner parts.
Some recipes actually call for aged eggs. Also note that in the US eggs are washed and the outer membrane is removed, so they must be refrigerated. In some other countries the outer membrane is left on and the eggs can be stored safely outside of the refrigerator.
Your numbering system is very territory-dependant. EU eggs have a 'best before date' in plain English stamped right on each egg itself. For instance the eggs I bought this week clearly say BB 05JUN
My apologies… "plain English, or the local language of your particular country within the EU"
Even in the US there is not a standard answer to the meaning of the dates on eggs, they are regulated at the state level, not federal. When I sold eggs in one state for instance, the rule was the eggs had to be graded and dated at the time of packing, with the date of packing + 28 days. No rule on how old the egg was at the date of packing, only that it had to be graded that day and older eggs would result in a potentially lower grade. I always packed within 48 hours, but there was not rule saying I needed to. Other states had various other rules including how old they could be.
looking at the date provided by the OP I see a 121 in there - day 121 is March 21st this year, suggesting the eggs will be about 9 weeks post-packing when they reach the date stamped on the carton.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.699478
| 2020-05-16T22:32:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108438",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Kate Gregory",
"Peter Duniho",
"Tetsujin",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78544"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112781
|
Are any corn products in the United States made from nixtamalized corn?
I believe polenta, corn meal, grits, and corn flour are not. But how about tortilla corn chips you buy at the supermarket? This is what I am looking for!
I have a link to a quora question that I believe is wrong in that it says most corn products in the United States are but I read just the opposite on other sources.
Still searching, this is a tough question. Here is the link which gives various opinions. https://www.quora.com/Why-isn-t-nixtamalization-a-standard-process-for-corn-production-outside-of-Central-or-South-America-European-settlers-seem-to-have-just-ignored-and-eliminated-the-process
P.S. After posting this I discovered a corn chip made with mesa flour! It's called Calidad. It's the only one so I assume the quora answer is incorrect. If it does not list as mesa flour probably the corn meal is not nixtamalized.
You might want to also include the things you mention that you've read which you think are correct, which conflict with this one. It may be easier for folks to help navigate those differences, rather than trying to fact check this one from scratch.
Try looking for "corn treated with lime" in the ingredients.
@Ross Ridge...thank you. I like your idea. Will try that.
I wonder if this varies by region? Here in Tennessee, I've noticed it's easier to find hominy than in Virginia. That said, Masa harina is everywhere, and that's what you use to make tortillas, associated chips, and tamales. Cornmeal is in a different aisle entirely. So I'd also consider if they're called "tortilla chips" or just corn chips. But that could be a local distinction.
Masa Harina is nixtamalized corn flour, as is anything made from it. So, most corn tortillas you can buy are, as are premade tamales, sopes, etc. While you may come across varieties made from non-treated corn flour (be suspicious of anything bright yellow), most are treated. Corn/tortilla chips are a little bit more of a mixed bag; some are made from corn flour and some from masa, and it's pretty hard to tell from the labeling which is which.
Hominy is also nixtamalized, as are grits, and any product made from/with grits (no, grits and polenta are not the same thing). There's another kind of masa, called masarepa, which is used to make arepas. This isn't an exhaustive list, but should be sufficient to show that yes, we are eating nixtamalized corn in the United States.
Also instant Masa. It comes as a powder in 5Lb bags. 2 types. One for tortillas, the other for tamales. It makes an excellent substitute for flour as a thickener and in gravies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.699919
| 2020-11-22T22:21:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112781",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Ross Ridge",
"Sedumjoy",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84278",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124800
|
How many grams is one serving of great northern beans for an average adult?
I was told for my diet one serving of great northern beans, But I do not know how much that is so I bought a gram scale thinking I could measure it but I don't know how much to measure. I don't mean to be pedantic or nitpicky here.
The great northern beans package says one serving is 1/4 cup dry = 35 grams.
The internet usdrybeans.com says 1/4 cup dry of great northern beans is 56.70 grams.
The Kroger Simple Truth cooked dry cans says 1/2 cup which is 1/4 dry is 130 grams.
The internet usdrybeans says 1/2 cup cooked which is 1/4 dry is 113.40.
Just wondered if there are any food measuement gurus out there. I'm probably chasing a red herring and there is variation.
Why not just use a cup to measure a volume, rather than a weight? They all seem to agree on that as a definition.
There's no consistent, coherent definition of "a serving" of an ingredient. How much is a serving of flour? Is that enough to make one serving of donuts? Is it too much to thicken one serving of chowder? Some countries' standards organizations have attempted to standardize the 'serving size' of various ingredients, but these are estimates at best and make assumptions which probably aren't valid for your circumstances or your recipe.
FWIW, though, such serving size references are always measured by weight; if you see standard serving sizes quoted in volume, those are estimates based on the weight.
If someone told you to eat exactly "one serving of dried beans", and it seemed like they really meant "exactly", you'd better ask them what they meant by "one serving".
I see your point. thank you for feedback
Note that if you need the quantities for a diet the restriction might be in terms of calories instead of grams but for a given food these can be converted into each other.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.700144
| 2023-07-21T15:18:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124800",
"authors": [
"Sedumjoy",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84278",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129337
|
What are the pitfalls of freezing and reheating casseroles with raw and cooked ingredients for later use?
Cooking for a ranch here. We'll be slammed soon. One self-trained cook, well-appointed kitchen, multiple chest freezers, 30-40 hungry guests for two weeks straight. What are the pitfalls of preparing and freezing casseroles containing cooked and raw ingredients for later use? I'm talking lasagna, fire station casserole, green bean casserole, quiches, etc. Lasagna for instance: cooked meat sauce, everything else is raw. Thank you.
Hi. You are going to need to be more specific. This site operates best with specific questions that lead to direct and specific answers. There is a lot of content on freezing. Did you try searching our site?
edited. thank you.
@NjyReading What components are uncooked and which cooked in each instance and how are they mixed? For instance for lasagne; I'm not sure how you would prepare it with any uncooked ingredients, which should be meat sauce, cooked sheets of pasta, white sauce, cheese layered. You can certainly prepare this as a stack then freeze for reheat/final cook as a whole. Also a lot of people here aren't USA based, so things might need a bit more description to make clear as to what they are. To me a casserole is a stew-like dish cooked in the oven such as coq au vin.
Well, for lasagna the meat sauce is cooked. The white sauce and noodles are not cooked. The mozzerella topping is not cooked. So in my mind the lasagna can be assembled as usual, covered, frozen ... and at a later date thawed completely and then baked like it was prepared fresh.
Green bean casserole is a little different. All the ingredients are cooked prior to assembly. Only the fried onions would be withheld to add partially through the bake time.
But a quiche ... with or without crust is going to be mostly raw eggs until it's baked. Should the quiche be baked, then frozen, thawed and then reheated for serving? Can it be frozen raw, thawed and then baked?
This is not sufficiently clear. The problem lies in "what are the pitfalls". That is much too broad. For example, we have Q&A on freezing and reheating quiche. I think you may have separate questions for each planned dish, and we likely have the answers already.
The freezing quiche Q&A referred to, evidently: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/84685/34242 and one for lasagna https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/35644/34242
From a food safety standpoint, you're going to be how long the middle of the casserole is in the 'food danger zone' both cooling and reheating.
Because of this, you don't want to make too deep of casseroles (thinner casseroles freeze and reheat faster), and in cases with a sufficiently thick top (tater tot casserole, shephard's pie), you may even want to freeze them without it, so you can warm them separately and then combine.
I would also recommend allowing the ingredients to cool some before assembly. As you're not relying on the hot ingredients to spread their warmth to the other ingredients, you want to let them cool to just above 140°F (maybe 150°F for working time), then assemble everything and get it into the fridge to chill (or even straight to the freezer, see note about containers below)
If your ingredients can be assembled cold, then you may want to chill them first instead. This doesn't work with all sauces, as some will thicken up and make them difficult to spread. (eg, refried beans in an enchilada casserole)
You should also consider what containers you're using. Many ceramic dishes can't handle the thermal shock of going straight from hot to the freezer, or from frozen to a hot oven. Metal or even disposable foil pans (with support underneath) may be a better option. If you absolutely have to reheat directly from frozen in a ceramic pan, put a sheet pan on the shelf below and put the casserole in a cold oven and then start preheating it. Putting the dish directly on the sheet pan can act as a heat sink and cause extra thermal stresses.
I would personally try to move the casseroles to the fridge a day or two before you plan on baking it. This allows it to thaw some, reducing the chance of breaking your casserole dish, and to heat through more quickly.
You'll want to heat the casserole until it reaches the necessary safe temperature for the riskiest ingredient (usually a meat, poultry, pork, chicken, etc). My family usually heats things slowly (about 350°F, covered), until it's sufficiently heated, then brown it under the broiler (top heat only at higher temperature). I suspect this may not be as safe as heating at a higher temperature (maybe 400-425°F, and starting uncovered if you're using foil)
To deal with the possibility of the casserole being dry from overcooking, I would have some sort of extra sauce available for people to add. Tomato sauce, bechamel (white sauce), gravy, salsa, etc.
I would also recommend looking for recipes specifically intended for freezing and reheating, and see if they have specific tips or just how they vary from your normal recipe. Some keywords to use include "freezer cooking", "make-ahead cooking" or "make now, serve later" or "once a month cooking". There are cookbooks that use these terms, but before you order online, be aware that some of these may just be intended for a day or two in the fridge and not necessarily freezing.
As one example, I've never done it, but if I was going to make a quiche to freeze, I would make it without the custard... then heat it in the oven while mixing the eggs and milk, then pour that over the thawed ingredients and finish cooking it.
Great tips! Thank you!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.700315
| 2024-10-08T16:55:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129337",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"NjyReading",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"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
}
|
114449
|
Why do apples bleed after soaking in boiling water for 10 seconds and what substance is it?
I was trying to remove the wax. I don't really know what kind of wax is used. It is not listed as an ingredient. That's a mystery for another day. Nor do I know if it is harmful to eat but I thought I would remove it and enjoy an apple. I read a 10 second soak in boiling water and then I scrubbed with baking soda.
The apple skin felt dull and slightly able to be shifted so I assume all the wax was gone. I put the apple aside for an hour or so and it was bleeding a tear shapped sticky substance that I rinsed off with hot water. I sat the apple down and a few hours latter the same thing, Bleeding a sticky substance. I washed it off again and finally ate the apple. Does anyone know what the substance might be and why is it bleeding out?
A word of warning, You will need a heavy duty scrub pad for your pot if you boil apples in it. After the pot dried there was a sticky substance which I asssume is some unknown type of wax that covers the sides of the pot. I was able to get most of it off but not all of itf. The pot is stainless steel with copper bottom.
What color is the sticky substance? If it's clear, my guess is you cooked the outer surface of apple and split the skin at the same time, so you have apple juice leaking out.
@csk....It is clear in fact and that makes sense since most of the wax was in the pot and it kept weeping clear drops. I think you solved my mystery. Thank you and have a great day..
Haven't tried myself, but you might see if wiping with oil or alcohol gets the pot clean.
There are two types of wax on apples, both of them are from natural sources and are safe to eat. Occasionally other types of sprays are used on apples, including polyethylene (a type of plastic), which is derived from ethanol made from fermenting corn.
The first type of wax is produced by the apples themselves, and is called a bloom. These natural waxes are produced by the apple to protect it from drying out and from allowing fungal spores to penetrate and cause rot in the apple (this would damage the seeds and hence the chance of the plant reproducing successfully). The wax in blooms contain a bunch of chemicals (as one might expect), including ones found in petroleum.
Sometimes these waxes are removed from the apple by washing at the producer/growers after the apple is picked. In order to preserve the apple so that it appears on the shelf in a manner that most people like to eat, the apples are sprayed with the second type - a very fine wax coat which consists of about 3 milligrams of wax (3/1000ths of a gram, or 0.0001 oz) per apple. The waxes used here are from natural sources such as carnuba oil, candelilla wax or even shellac from the lac scale bug.
Boiling the apples as you did probably resulted in partial cooking of the apple (if the skin was loose at all, cooking is certain), this could result in releasing some of the fruit juice, much as you would when making apple sauce. As I am sure you know, apple sauce is sticky from the sugars in it, and this is likely the source of the sticky droplet - every time you picked up the apple or applied pressure to it, it squashed out some of the sticky sugar sauce.
Exactly what needs to be declared as a food additive is dependent on where in the world you are and often on the amount of additive added. It is quite likely that what you washed off the apple is a natural coating.
There is a basic description and some explanation of apple waxes at McGill University
@bob1.....I enjoyed learning this. Thank you. It pretty much answered all my questions. And I might add in excellent detail with added resources, links and definitions.
@Sedumjoy You are welcome.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.700740
| 2021-02-23T03:16:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114449",
"authors": [
"Sedumjoy",
"ariola",
"bob1",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114506
|
Is mechanically separated beef legal in products in the U.S.?
I was shopping on line at a major supermarket and noticed items from major brands that the ingredients list lists mechanically separated pork and chicken. I don't know about the pork or chicken but as for the beef I found the following link.
https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/What-is-Mechanically-Separated-Meat-MSM#:~:text=At%20that%20time%20the%20use,for%20use%20as%20human%20food.
Regardless of legality I wouldn't buy a product with MSM in it simply because of quality reasons.
I don't know if there is a ban, at least in the US, which is generally pretty lenient compared to many other countries when it comes to this sort of thing.
My knowledge MSM Beef was banned in 2004 but had been used since at least the 80s before that. I originally heard about this from my dad who was and is still a butcher manager.
I just texted him and he said that MSM Beef is still prohibited for human consumption because of mad cow disease but mechanically separated Pork is legal and can be used when the package says so. He was not sure about chicken but if it's not banned then they probably do put it in products. he says he likes that they "use as much of the animal as possible but yes , its kinda gross."
i think the beef vs pork thing got ya in the article as both are meat but only beef is banned
....Thank you ! You are spot on. I read the label wrong. Chef Boyardee Spaghetti & Meatballs. It is only the chicken, the beef is not. Me bad. ...Have a great day and thank you again. By the way I edited the question to make ir more appropriate since I read the label wrong. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.701069
| 2021-02-26T04:33:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114506",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Josh Randesi",
"Sedumjoy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84278"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121343
|
How do you measure 2 ounces of dry thin spaghetti pasta?
I tried the size of a quarter and a juice bottle with a long neck. When I cook half of what I measure as 2 ounces it is enough for me. Two ounces according to the quarter theory makes a mountain of pasta. I am thinking maybe there is a difference between the pasta size? The thin spaghetti has a smaller diameter and maybe a handfull that has the diameter of a quarter is 3 ounces not 2 ounces.
Does anyone know.I didn't want to but I guess I need to buy a scale.
Just gotta use that eggwhisk very fast.
When you make spaghetti, pay attention to the size of the bundle before cooking and then pay attention to whether it makes the desired amount, so that you get used to the correct sized bundle for the pasta you are using. As you note, different pasta may have different thickness and length so the size of the bundle might be different for different brands.
Having said that, a scale is a very useful kitchen tool and good compact electronic scales can be obtained very cheaply. I would recommend one in general, not just for measuring pasta portions. Then you can get used to what your preferred mass of dry pasta is and measure more confidently for any pasta shape.
I think you are right on. I am planning to buy a scale now. Measuring pasta is not a one size fits all unless you have measured it with a scale first and know the amount 2 ounces is for that particular pasta.
An accurate kitchen scale is useful for many things.
If you are willing to spread out a whole box of pasta (so you know how much you are starting with - 16, 12, 8 or whatever number of ounces) you can divide the spread out pasta into, say, 8 (roughly) equal piles from a 16 ounce box (halves, quarters, eighths by dividing in two and repeating.)
But a scale is a very useful thing to have in the kitchen.
You are creative. I feel stupid not thinking of that. I bought a very nice 500 gram scale this morning and as I suspected 2 ounces is a lot of pasta ,double what I have been eating and all the time thinking I was eating a normal serving.. I am using the scale to weigh my beans and bread too. I love it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.701230
| 2022-08-12T22:27:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121343",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Sedumjoy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84278"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109641
|
What is the difference between 100% whole wheat pasta and 100% whole wheat couscous?
I google the ingredients list and one says 100% durum wheat the other says 100% whole wheat. I still don't see any difference? Does anyone else?
If they are the same then couscous is just pasta?
Thank you Max and Onyz. I will use the couscous as a pasta replacement when I can't get pasta on the shelf.
I am a bit confused: What I know as couscous is just cooked or steamed wheat semolina. By definition it cannot be whole wheat, as part of the grains, namely the the bran and germ, are removed during production. - You can produce pasta from whole wheat flour, though.
@Monica ...I believe you are half right. Pasta can be made from whole grain wheat the germ and bran included but couscous cannot from what I can see. However pasta can also be made of the exact material that couscous is made of namely duram wheat semolina. I cannot find any couscous made of the whole grain wheat but I can find couscous made of whole grain semlina. There appears to be a difference. Here are the links I found. https://www.amazon.com/RiceSelect-Organic-Whole-Wheat-Couscous/dp/B000EGZ98S link 2 https://nutritionovereasy.com/2018/11/is-durum-wheat-semolina-a-whole-grain/
I think OP needs to clarify exactly what his question was, cos the answers seem to try to answer the difference between cous cous and pasta, where, what brought me here, was what the difference between 100% whole wheat and 'normal' cous cous ie: durum wheat cous cous is.
Which; if OP was wondering the same; none of the answers here are attempting to answer
Thank You. From what I understand there is no difference between 100% whole wheat pasta and 100% whole wheat cous cous. 100% whole is not the same a durum wheat. The only difference between pasta and cous cous is the shape from what I read. So you can make each from what ever ingredients you want and the difference will be what ever the difference is in the ingredients. Durum wheat is processed differently than whole wheat. I hope this helps.
Other than the shape, obviously, not that much in the grand scheme of life.
the couscous grain is coarse wheat semolina; when wanting to eat it, it is usually boiled (boiling water added to couscous) or steamed (using a couscoussière)
Pasta is a dough made from finer semolina, it is made with water or eggs.
From the pasta dough, you can make many different type of pasta.
Some small pasta shape can look like couscous, for example Kushku or Fregola (larger than normal couscous) ...
As to know which came first, I would venture to say Couscous as it is easier to prepare.
A quick trip to Wikipedia suggests that you are correct. Couscous originates some time in the 11th to 13th century, and pasta in a form we would recognise as pasta no earlier than the 13th.
Couscous is a type of pasta. As you say, there are many different types and shapes of pasta. Couscous is simply a form that pasta can take.
According to Wikipedia, Couscous was first introduced to Europe around the thirteenth century. While creating pasta that is many small ball shapes is not something you may consider to be revolutionary or new, the method of preparation was, I believe, novel.
Edit: It is worth mentioning that there are other distinguishing characteristics, such as a lack of dough during preparation of Couscous, and the difference in boiling vs. steaming.
Personally, this seems like an insufficient difference to warrant an entirely new categorization of food, but that gets into opinion-based territory, so I'll simply leave the differences to speak for themselves.
Also according to that wikipedia page, "Pearl or Israeli couscous, properly known as ptitim, is a type of pasta.", which implies that other couscous isn't a pasta.
@Jasper interesting! Further down the page it mentions Couscous is distinct from pasta, even pasta such as orzo and risoni of similar size, in that it is made from crushed durum wheat semolina, while pasta is made from ground wheat.
Calling Couscous pasta is like calling malt liquor a beer. Lots of similarities but no, not the same.
@anotherdave, Wikipedia has a lot of bad information. The statement "[couscous] is made form crushed durum wheat semolina, while pasta is made from ground wheat" doesn't make a lot of sense, and is probably wrong. Semolina is ground wheat. It's a specific kind of wheat and a specific grid, but A is semolina, while B is ground wheat makes as much sense as A is an apple, while B is a fruit. It might make sense if it means "...while B is any other type of fruit/ground wheat." But in the case of pasta, this would be false. Pasta is often made from semolina.
@eps "Malt liquor, in North America, is beer with high alcohol content." from Wikipedia, which admittedly may not be the best source, but maybe not the best counter-example one could use, either way. Personally, I think that is a good example of what I mean when I say that at a certain point it's just opinion, depending on where and how you draw your own personal lines of definition.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.701444
| 2020-07-13T17:59:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109641",
"authors": [
"I'm with Monica",
"Jasper",
"Juhasz",
"Onyz",
"Sedumjoy",
"anotherdave",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84278",
"pythonian29033",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112876
|
How should fully cooked refrigerator stored chicken be reheated to retain moisture?
Why do instructions to reheat already properly cooked and stored chicken say to check internal temperature to 165 if you want to warm it up? The logic escapes me here, does anyone have a clue they can share with me?
The chicken has been already cooked. And is loveingly know as "leftovers". Good in the fridge for 4-5 days and in the freezer much longer. I was looking for a way to keep it moist while wanting to heat it and did not expect this other issue to develop in the process. All the directions on the internet say to check internal temperature for 165 degrees for an already cooked chicken. My logic tells me I don't have to heat it at all, it's already cooked I can just as easily make a cold chicken sandwhich with it. According to google if I choose to have it warm instead of cold then all of a sudden it decides to grow bacteria. Maybe take google with a grain of salt?
Fist, what do you mean by "proper?" If your chicken was correctly cooked, then chilled to refrigeration temperatures within the window for food safety, and stored within the window of safety, you can obviously eat it directly from the refrigerator...or warm it and eat it. No significant bacteria are going to grow, for example, if you remove it from the fridge, stick it in the microwave (or in pan on a stove) and warm it for a few minutes, and eat it. There is just not enough time for anything to incubate. Again, the preceding assumes that you've followed general food safety protocols for your raw product, preparation, cooking, and storage...and you are consuming within the storage life of your food.
Now, if you've got some time, and your goal is to reheat to have an experience as close to the original cooking as possible, the then best tool is to use a sous vide device. It is the most gentle and thorough tool for this job. This is a good explanation. All you have to do is set the device to a degree or two under the original doneness temperature, bag it, and put it in the bath. It's the path toward moist leftover chicken...among other things.
Thank you for pointing that out. I reworded it improved. The use of the word "proper" was indeed confusing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.701850
| 2020-11-29T00:40:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112876",
"authors": [
"Sedumjoy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84278"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122416
|
Can I make ginger bug from existing ginger beer, or from ginger beer yeast?
I was having trouble getting a ginger bug started from wild cultures, so I went ahead and bought a small amount of 'Ginger Beer Yeast'.
I was hoping to get a more successful Ginger Bug started, either directly from the yeast, or potentially by backslopping (or such) from an existing ginger beer (that I plan to make with the yeast I bought as well!
Does anyone have any advice or thoughts about how to do this?
No personal experience, but my educated guess (from similar scenarios) is “should work”. Although what would be the more interesting question for me is “what caused your previous attempts to fail” - failure can teach us so much for the future.
Hmm, @Stephie I'm really not sure. The first time it fermented a bit but then stopped, and a layer of slime grew on top. It wasn't bad, just still very sweet, so my guess is it stopped fermenting.
I tried starting another bug with bottled water (since we have hard tap water here), but that just didn't really start fermenting at all.
My only other thought is that the ginger was too clean some of the time, so maybe it was pre-treated. But it really shouldn't have been, as I fed each colony from different batches of ginger, all organic, and from different stores!
Got any other ideas?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.702156
| 2022-11-21T21:47:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122416",
"authors": [
"Jww",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122944
|
Why does baking cooked rice not overcook it?
Many recipes like stuffed peppers call for baking already fully cooked rice for upwards of an hour at ~375 F. I’m surprised the grains come out intact and texturally not that different than before they were baked. Why does the rice come out not tasting overly mushy or over cooked?
Rice does taste a little different after baking, and its texture is also a little different, but the reason it is not mushy or overcooked is that the recipe controls the moisture levels. Totally uncovered it would dry out completely in the oven, and with too much water it would become mushy, but inside something like a stuffed vegetable or sealed pot the extra cooking time doesn't have too much of an effect.
There are several factors involved here.
Being stuffed
This plays quite a big role. My mother would usually run out of peppers and place the extra stuffing in the pan alongside the peppers. The texture between the two portions of rice, from inside the pepper and outside, is quite different, even though they were baked together. The main reason should be the reduced water inside the pepper, which doesn't allow the rice to hydrate fully (but you still have to poke a few holes in your peppers or you will end up with completely undercooked rice).
It doesn't start out fully cooked
You don't stuff peppers with completely cooked rice. Rather, a pilaf method is used. The stuffing is prepared by pre-frying the rice in fat, either with the meat and onions or separately. It isn't cooked by that time, only "loaded" with fat. The actual cooking comes in the oven.
Rice variety
You can make stuffed peppers with any rice, but if you try some long-grained rice types such as jasmine, it will end up quite soft - not inedible, but markedly softer than the out-of-the-ricecooker texture many people consider a standard. There are rice cultivars which cook up firmer.
Acid
Whenever you try to cook a starchy food in acid, it ends up firmer than without it. A bell pepper does have a bit of acid, like most (botanical) fruit, and recipes frequently call for capping the stuffing hole with a slice of tomato. This changes the pH of the rice inside the pepper slightly.
Oven inefficiency
Ovens can be remarkably slow in getting water to a boiling point. In dishes where you don't stuff the rice, such as baked lamb with rice, you start out with completely raw rice, and it simply takes 1-2 hours to cook the rice to the point it would have cooked in 20 minutes on stovetop. A similar effect applies to stuffed peppers, but there you start with partially prepared, still warm rice, so the hour would overcook the rice if not stuffed.
Water management
Oven rice recipes don't make you add your water at the beginning. Rather, you typically start with little water, and adjust it over time - a bit like risotto in slow motion. In the times where the grains have soaked up all available water, they cannot continue towards overcooking until you give them a bit more water. And if you never give them enough total water to get waterlogged, they will never get mushy either, despite experiencing high temperature for a long time.
Taste expectations
If I try to be objective, I believe that the rice is many oven-baked recipes is different in texture from the rice coming out of a Chinese rice cooker. It is just that it is considered the "normal" texture in these cases, so nobody calls it "mushy", even though it would be somewhat softer if compared side-to-side.
This case has to do with air flow, as well as moisture from the additional materials.
The pepper in the outside, and the mix that is combined with rice is often raw. Vegetable like the pepper, onions, and other components all impart water or steam to the stuffing as it bakes. Meats contribute water and fat to the mixture. If there is all vegetable and no oil added, you’ll likely get more of a steaming effect than if there is oil incorporated.
The pepper itself is also a container. By stuffing it, you are limiting how much airflow and where the airflow occurs. The stuffing will receive thermal change, but the moister only escapes from the open end. Having everything contained in anything would help in the same why (i.e. put the mixture in a cup and bake it, and the contents will still more moist). Spreading it out on a sheet pan, you increase the surface area, which will increase the rate of evaporation.
As proof of concept, put the cooked rice one some parchment paper, and then wrap it in a loose ball of tinfoil. The foil should simulate the pepper, and the parchment will stop the rice from sticking to the foil. Compare that to rice cook without the foil and you should see the impact that airflow has to evaporation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.702289
| 2023-01-07T23:55:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122944",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123083
|
How to properly season or marinate steamed potatoes?
When boiling potatoes, most guidance is to heavily salt the water which in turn internally seasons the potatoes.
When it comes to steamed potatoes, I’ve achieved fine results salting after they’ve steamed. I’m wondering if seasoning or marinating the potatoes in advance of steaming would be better.
What is the best way to achieve flavorful results when steaming potatoes?
Edit: for context, I am tossing russet potatoes into the steamer basket of a rice cooker while the rice cooker cooks white rice. I typically cut the potatoes in halves or quarters to ensure they fit. I keep the skin on.
How are you steaming them: in a pot with water, in the microwave? Do you peel them before cooking or after?
This might be a "try it and see" question. There just aren't that many recipes for steamed potatoes period. Boiled potatoes are, of course, not marinated except to the extent of seasoning the water. Roasted potatoes frequently are. Steamed potatoes fall somewhere in between, so it's not clear how things would work out.
There's also the question of "marinate and then steam" vs. "steam them in a marinade, like Chinese steamed fish". I think you're going to have to try it.
I like to toss russet potatoes into the rice cooker steamer basket. I keep skins on but cut them into halves or quarters to ensure they fit.
@FuzzyChef I wonder if the lack of recipes is just that it's too simple. I've only ever steamed particularly small new potatoes, and am more likely to boil potatoes (unsalted) and steam veg over the top.
I dunno. I did some searching, and it feels like potatoes only get steamed like 2% of the time (instead of boiling, roasting, or frying). Not sure why, exactly; it's actually a very effective way to cook them, and less cleanup than boiling, particularly if you steam them in the microwave. I steam potatoes to par-cook them instead of boiling all the time.
Blythe: this doesn't answer your question, but is related and good info for you: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/12142/7180
I had a lot of steamed potatoes growing up, but it's almost always seasoned afterwards with sauces. I find it's a good alternative to boiling, as you still get the moist texture, but it's much harder to overcook. If you season the water, it might not work for some types of seasoning (e.g. salt), therefore marination will probably work better:
Increase the marination time to overnight.
Increase the surface area (e.g. cut them into thick slabs instead of large chunks, cut grooves, poke holes, etc.)
Interesting… I can't abide unsalted boiled potatoes. There's some kind of 'chemical reaction' that takes place which simply cannot be replicated by salting afterwards. I can smell the difference as they're cooking & that difference remains in the finished product. [It only ever happens by accident & if I smell it soon enough, I can fix it whilst cooking.]
Steamed veg I sprinkle salt lightly on before cooking [after rinsing quite often, if otherwise it wouldn't stick.] Perhaps that could be an option.
I'd wonder why you would consider potatoes would be good steamed, though. It doesn't feel like it would add anything, just make the process more difficult.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.702685
| 2023-01-20T12:35:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123083",
"authors": [
"Blythe Simmons",
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"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
}
|
123014
|
What is the food that James Woods eats in "Best Seller" (1987)?
This is a screenshot of the food. What is it?
It appears in the original movie in at 49:28.
I’m voting to close this question because a) it requires access to an external resource that may not always be available & b) is likely to be of interest to only the original asker.
I replaced the video link with a screenshot. It is indeed bad etiquette to require people to go watch a video somewhere out on the Internet, especially on a page bugging people to create an account. Also, the film happens to have a nude scene less than 30 seconds before the plate comes on, and with the search bar covering 2 hours of video, it is hard to catch the plate without it. And finally, I would be very surprised if the hosting site has a license for the movie.
Please do not re-edit the link to the video into the post - it is quite iffy given that it is probably a pirate copy, and there is no need to see the actual movie when a closeup screenshot is available.
@Toteigs I had to delete two of your comments for verbal attacks on other users, and lock the question because you continued re-editing it with unacceptable content. Please read our Code of conduct, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/conduct, before posting anything else.
Those are canapes: little bites of something tasty. Being served on a silver tray implies they are expensive and were made with care and time, letting us know that this setting (I know nothing about the movie and haven't followed your link) is rich and luxurious.
The black blobby stuff is probably supposed to be caviar, the white piped stuff probably some sort of creamy filling. The red could be fruit, or a red caviar / salmon roe kind of thing. (It would be odd to have sweet and not-sweet on a tray together.) Other visible garnishes include sprigs of parsley and "cheeks" of olives. The beige cylinders are probably puff pastry or bread and the green ones probably carved cucumber. A comment on the other answer points out you could use a fluted cookie cutter to cut both bread and cucumbers, and that seems really likely in a catering context. [In movie-set reality these things might be play dough or mashed potatoes or anything else a prop person feels like using.] Would you need more detail than that? Why?
Please watch the actual movie link because I think the green thing that he eats appears to be sugar candy of some kind.
I actually like your interpretation of caviar - the cucumbers are very likely to be filled with black and red caviar side-by-side.
A canapé is always on bread. If they're sweet they could be considered petit fours, savoury would be amuse gueule. The latter pair are both types of amuse bouche… none of which tells us what might be in these particular snacks, hence my vote to close the question [even though the OP has added a helpful picture since then].
@Tetsujin "Traditionally, canapés are built on stale bread (although other foods such as puff pastry, crackers, or fresh vegetables may be used as a base" - from the wiki link I provided. Most people I know aren't pedantic about it and call little savoury bites canapes regardless of their base. You are technically right though (the best kind of right.)
@KateGregory Thanks Kate. I believe you are right about the green things. They appear to be cucumbers topped with red and black caviar. –
This is an appetizer plate made from vegetables.
The light green stumps are cucumbers. The reddish filling is not recognizable from this angle and size. Update As Kate Gregory noted in her answer, a combination of red and black caviar is a very likely candidate.
The "roses" are carrots. update after consulting a vintage garnish book, apparently there are cooks dexterous enough to make these out of tomatoes. So, there is some possibility that it is a different vegetable of a similar color.
There are some bites of dip (it's impossible to tell the ingredients from a picture, although there is a high chance that it is dairy-based) served on pieces of vol au vent, garnished with olives and parsley. update after comments, the base might be bread instead. I want to believe that I am seeing horizontal striations, but the resolution is not high enough to confirm it one way or the other.
There are a few chives around the plate circumference, as garnish
The light pink flower in the middle is an orchid blossom, used as a decoration only.
Incorrect. The green things are sugar pastries of some kind with some kind of strawberry-like thing on it.
@Toteigs It would be most unusual to have a sweets plate made to imitate a standard-looking vegetable appetizer/canapé plate. While people do such kind of thing in our Instagram-first age, this was not done in 1987. Also, such imitations tend to be recognizable when one has the opportunity to look at them long and close enough. These look way too realistic, and in the context, they cannot be anything but cucumbers.
I'd guess i's a base of bread / toast cut with possibly the same cookie cutter as the cucumber (enlarged the screenshot as much as I could) instead of vol-au-vent, but apart from that, I agree with everything.
@Toteigs If you can’t deal with community edits and abide by the Code of Conduct, you will not enjoy your time here much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.702968
| 2023-01-13T17:15:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123014",
"authors": [
"Bellend54",
"Kate Gregory",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123438
|
What happens to nitride-treated carbon steel skillet if overheated?
I just got a nitrided carbon steel skillet that has a max temp of 450f. This is supposedly the max temp of the treatment, but I can't find anything about what happens if it does overheat. Does it produce toxins? Can the pan be simply reseasoned like reg CS?
Also, can I still use it in oven/broiler at higher than 450f if it's full? (the handle is removable)
Nitriding is not the same as seasoning
Nitriding is a heat treating process that diffuses nitrogen into the surface of a metal to create a case-hardened surface.
If you exceed the recommended temperature, the nitride in the surface will start diffuse further, loosing the designed effect the longer it is kept at high temperature.
If you want to nitride again the surface, you would need to use dedicated processes, to apply either
gas nitriding
In gas nitriding the donor is a nitrogen-rich gas [...] The nitrogen then diffuses onto the surface of the material creating a nitride layer.
salth bath nitriding
in salt bath nitriding the nitrogen donating medium is a nitrogen-containing salt such as cyanide salt. The salts used also donate carbon to the workpiece surface making salt bath a nitrocarburizing process.
plasma nitriding
n plasma nitriding, the reactivity of the nitriding media is not due to the temperature but to the gas ionized state. In this technique intense electric fields are used to generate ionized molecules of the gas around the surface to be nitrided.
From the description, it is obvious that they are "don't try this at home" processes.
Regarding using it in an oven above 450 F, if it contains liquids the water, until present in liquid state, should mitigate the temperature at around its boiling point.
Thanks, you've partially answered my question. Let me put it another way. If I overheat it, is it ruined or can I season it like any other CS pan and still use it?
@Robert Nitriding is a process that is used to harden the surface of a metal without hardening its interior. This improves scratch resistance without also increasing brittleness. If the nitrides diffuse into the interior of the metal, not only will you lose some of the scratch resistance, you'll also have the increased brittleness that the case hardening was trying to avoid. Seasoning won't help either of those.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.703396
| 2023-02-18T01:15:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123438",
"authors": [
"Robert ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124035
|
Safety of cooking pork loin for just 1 minute and then refrigerating it?
Here's the situation: I had 2 meals planned for the week: one with ground pork, and one with pork loin. Today I was cooking the meal that was supposed to use the ground pork, but I accidentally put the pork loin on the stove instead. Realizing my mistake, I immediately took the pan off the heat, removed the pork loin, and bagged it up and put it in the fridge. I continued my cooking with the ground pork and all went well enough there. Overall, the pork was cooking on the hot pan for about a minute.
The question is, is this pork loin safe to eat tomorrow? All the information I see, including USDA guidelines, says no, it is not safe to partially cook pork, refrigerate it, and then continue cooking it the next day because it creates an environment ideal for bacterial growth. The problem I have with this information is that in my situation, the pork was cooking for a very short amount of time. It has a small change in color at the bottom, but it is not much. The context for other people asking this seems to be from people who want to cook it something like halfway through and then finish it the next day, which is not the situation I'm in.
What is the cutoff? Is the pork unsafe to eat the moment you put it on the stove and then take it off and refrigerate it? Could it last even one second? Essentially, would this minute of cooking be enough time for the pork to reach the "danger zone" and start growing bacteria? And if there were problems, would I be able to tell by things like the smell?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.703615
| 2023-04-27T02:28:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124035",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19155
|
How do I make the chicken absorb more salt by freezing it?
I previously asked How to make chicken absorb more salt when cooking a soup? on how to make the chicken in my soup absorb more salt water, as I have noticed that the amount of absorption changes in some days. Note that the recipe is simple: Add 1.5 liter water, 1 kilogram chicken, and 8 grams of salt in a pot; bring to boil; simmer and eat. There are no vegetables.
The major reason the answerer gave was pore size influenced by freezing. Initially I thought he hit the nail, as I do recall the few days the absorption was good were the days I had taken it from the freezer.
Having been using frozen chicken since then, however, the absorption doesn't seem to be occuring while cooking. I am thinking that perhaps it is due to the way the chicken is being frozen. Factors I have thought about include:
If the chicken's skin isn't removed, the freezing doesn't open pores effectively. (However, I sometimes have removed the skin, then frozen the chicken; yet, this didn't help.)
Perhaps the duration of freezing makes the difference. (I used some old chicken, and it didn't work either.)
Sometimes I have cut the chicken into small pieces, where the inner parts of the chicken becomes visible; perhaps, the crystals should only form around the chicken surface, if that is where the pores are.
If I put the chicken in a bag, and tightened, the ice crystals do not form on the chicken hence pore sizes do not open.
Having done a fair bit of testing, I cannot seem to get these pores to open via freezing, which should then lead to high absorption of salt water when cooking. I didn't brine on the days when there was good absorption, so I think the answer has to do with freezing, although I could be wrong.
Do you think it is an issue of freezing, and it might be something about the way I am freezing?
just wanted to add another factor, perhaps the shop I am buying from have loaded the chicken with something? However I doubt this is the case as I bougt from their today(unfreezed) and it didn't absorb any salt so I'm still leaning towards freezing.
I think your best bet is to change your recipe. While trying to figure out the exact process that sometimes makes your soup work does indeed sound like an interesting science project, it doesn't sound like its going to yield a reliable recipe. Especially since you've got to deal with supermarket chicken from suppliers that may change their processing procedures whenever it suites them—maybe even from package to package, depending on which plant it came from, or the specifics of the chickens the plant processed that day.
There are easy, reliable ways to get salt into chicken. The following two will get you salty chicken, every time you do it:
Put your chicken (chopped up or whole) in the fridge submerged in a 13% brine for a day, and you'd at that point have chicken which would be (once cooked) inedibly salty (among other problems).
You could chop your chicken fairly thin, and pack it (again in the fridge) in kosher salt. Then it'd become dry, and also very salty.
Of course, that'll be far more salty than you want. So you'll want to scale back—use a 5–6% brine, put it in only for a few hours, etc. But that will get flavorful chicken every time.
Then, to keep your soup base from being salty:
rinse the brined or salted chicken before adding to the soup (to remove any salt resting on the surface)
keep salting of the soup to a minimum.
don't overcook the chicken, that'll force more liquid from it.
make sure to use low-sodium chicken broth. Normal store-bought broth/stock is pretty salty.
if too much salt leaches from the chicken, cook the chicken separately and drain it.
</rant>
edit: random suggestions since the above apparently doesn't work
Commercially, many things are quick-frozen (e.g., fish) to prevent ice crystal damage. It would seem to follow then, that since you're trying to cause ice crystal damage, you want to freeze as slowly as possible. Easy way to do this would be (assuming your chicken is already under 40°F e.g., in the fridge) to insulate it before throwing it in the freezer. So, put it in a freezer bag, but then wrap the freezer bag in some kitchen towels, then toss that in the freezer.
In previously-frozen (commercially) chicken, there may be some anti-ice-crystal additives, I have no idea. Previously-frozen isn't always sold frozen. Check the package, it should say (probably in tiny print).
You could try a second thaw/freeze cycle (just make sure to thaw in the fridge, or in cold water, not the microwave, for food safety reasons—keep it under 40°F). This will certainly increase the effects of freezing (and would normally be avoided for flavor and texture reasons)
This isn't freezing, but may accomplish the same goal: you could try one of the 40+-blade meat tenderizers.
Also, as a final note, it turns out that a lo of how we (humans) perceive flavor has nothing to do with the food. The ambiance, how we're feeling that day, etc. affect perceived flavor substantially. Keep this in mind, since you're not using e.g., a salinity meter, its possible you're chasing down differences that aren't due to the food itself.
Apoligise, I understand where your coming from, however this is not an answer to the question(freezing and pores). Having tried brining, it still seeems to upset my stomach. Comparing tastes with brined and my random soup, brine tastes more salty although the other soup taste more well distributed, tender and succulent. The only method which works for me is a normal soup with whatever factor causes the higher absorbtion to occur. This is why I must find the cause, it is the only food which my stomach seems to tolerate/heal with. My quess is it is due to freezing factors.
No apologies required, though I think I'll edit my question and add in a few suggestions for things that might make your freezing approach work better..
Having left some chicken in a freezer unrapped, ice crystals now seem to have developed all over it. Cooked it the next day and it seems to have absorbed more salt throughout although not alot more. So perhaps that is the answer. If your food is wrapped in a bag less crystals will form around it hence less denaturing.
Should have added, my guess is that if i live it frozen fo longer it may absorb even moe salt.
@JamesWilson: I wonder if with freezing it unwrapped, what is actually happening is that you're dehydrating it somewhat. Those ice crystals are water escaping from the chicken after all. Smaller pieces, say spread on a jellyroll pan, ought to hasten that process. You could also try wrapping in paper towels, that may draw out even more moisture. This is an interesting science project :-P ... also, if its moisture loss, that's easy to measure with a scale (compare before and after weights).
Maybe the freezing process is drying out the chicken and that effects the salt absorption, but I don't really know. If you're freezing the chicken yourself, make sure it is well wrapped (food-saver if you have one, or wrapped snugly in plastic wrap and then foil).
Also - are you controlling the source of the chicken? Some brands of commercial, supermarket chicken are injected with salt water, so if you're using different chicken one or the other could have been salted before you got it home. Aside from flavor, they do this to increase the weight, so they can make more money. Check the labels carefully. (This excess water can cause problems with stir-frying, BTW.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.703787
| 2011-11-26T20:33:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19155",
"authors": [
"Chris Nava",
"James Wilson",
"Jason Zukowski",
"Jay",
"Ky -",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945",
"osp",
"user1440624"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63163
|
Can I cook in this stainless steel balti dish?
I recently purchased what I believed to be a balti dish. It turned out, it was just a serving dish.
It is described as
A Quality Stainless Steel Balti Dish 15cm in diameter. Balti dishes are perfect for serving your Indian food & Curry Dishes the traditional Restaurant way. Two handles on either side for easy handling.
Are there any obvious/common dangers cooking with this on a gas hob? Or is the risk more that the material won't take the heat and could break (spilling the food)?
If you decide you don't want to cook in it, you can do balti-style cooking in a wok, if you have one.
The handles could get surprisingly hot quickly, and thin stainless steel will take some practice to cook on without things sticking... but given that you will normally start a masala with a good amount of oil (which works as a lubricant and heat buffer/distribution medium) it might work... and thin metal might even be advantageous for fast heat control (what made your mustard pop tends to incinerate your fenugreek with a thick bottomed vessel ;)
I would say that is too thin to use on a hob. There isn't an Indian restaurant in the country that uses them to actually cook in: they cook in a proper pan and then dump it in a dish like this to serve.
What restaurants do vs what is common/going to work in home cooking is one question, and whether or not it is a proper pan is hard to see from the tiny photo. I can't tell the thickness, but I have a kadai that looks quite similar to that and is indeed thick enough for cooking, but probably not pretty enough for serving. Restaurant style food is arguably generally less authentic, so I wouldn't base advice for home cooking on what all Indian restaurants in the UK do...
I have seen these dishes in the metal: they are not cooking vessels.
I'm not arguing that there are not some dishes that are not suitable for cooking in, but I can't tell from the photo whether or not this one is. If you've seen Dave's specific one (or one from the same source) then that explains it. As for similar ones, I was trying to find a good picture from a roadside dabba but none of the photos I have shows this style of dish clearly ... there are wok-like cooking vessels in common use that are superficially similar to this, but generally less pretty. Some companies make pretty ones meant for home not restaurant use that are also suitable for cooking in.
...of course, the description does say "for serving" in the Restaurant way.
Yeah it's fine, that's a balti dish and you can cook in it.
...if it really is quality stainless steel. ;-)
Personally, I wouldn't ever again... After a while the cheap(ish) one I bought from the Indian grocery store began to discolor from being cook directly on the gas stove...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.704516
| 2015-11-04T17:30:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63163",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Carol Wilkes",
"Ciara Denton",
"Dreads Outdoors",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gregory Possible Warner",
"NadjaCS",
"Sharon Bustos",
"Uros Pavlovcic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26160
|
How to reduce the chewiness of fruit leather
I have found out quite a lot on fruit leathers. I have researched on Google about them but from my research it appears everyone loves the fact they're nice and chewy and I can't find any website which explains why they're chewy.
My issue is, when I do them with passion fruit, they are far too chewy (as in they get stuck in your teeth). The only other ingredient I use is the fruit and sugar, but I do let it reduce in a pan first.
How can I make the fruit leather less chewy?
possible duplicate of What am I trying to cook - I need the name of the dish or technique
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/26159/3203
I had already (several hours before hand) mentioned this in my answer to this question?
Have you considered just not drying it as completely? I have a friend with false teeth, and that is what she does for her fruit leathers. Maintaining a bit of moisture makes for a softer, less clingy leather.
The answer has now been posted on my other question
What is the name of this dish involving fruit & sugar - blended and baked thin and flat?
It is by adjusting the sugar level.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.704803
| 2012-09-14T09:21:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26160",
"authors": [
"Coty Johnathan Saxman",
"Dave",
"Shalryn",
"TFD",
"harvey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61963"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110023
|
How much magnesium is in Hinode Calrose rice?
I was looking for foods high in magnesium and I stumbled into Calrose rice. One source said 3000% for a quarter cup which is rediculous must be mistake but there is no other source that talks about magnesium content.
So I assume it has probably never been measured. Does anybody know?
Can you link the source of where you got the 3000% value ?
3000% of what?
@wumpus I asked the administrator of the website and he emailed me back and said it was a mistake , thanked me for bringing it to his attention and he will delete it. Sorry for all the confusion. Next time I will be more careful what I choose to believe. Lesson learned.
@sedumjoy You did the right thing: ask when a confusing statement presents itself.
This shows that 1 cup of cooked brown rice contains 80mg of magnesium. and white rice contains 50mg.
The wikipedia for brown rice show that for 100g of raw rice it contains 143mg of magnesium, and for white rice it's about 127mg.
The wikipedia page for calrose rice does not display nutritional information.
I would imagine it is similar to regular white rice or it would be stated, especially if it was 3000% of the base value (or about 3810mg) which would be very high.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.705199
| 2020-08-04T16:23:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110023",
"authors": [
"Max",
"Sedumjoy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84278",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35747
|
What is this technique where they add a thick sauce and spread it out with the back of a spoon
I'm sorry my question is so vague but I'm trying to research a technique but have no idea how to describe it.
If you review the picture below, you can see the orange/yellow splodge! :) I see this technique being used quite a lot but have no idea what it is called.
Does this have a name or technique associated with it? If not, can some one give an example of how to get this type of consistency. I want to recreate this so the meal looks flash but have no idea!
Another example can be found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udzs_MPNpMQ
I can't speak to technique, but I have seen this referred to as a "chef smear"
I've seen it referred to as a tadpole or a comet but I'm not sure if either of those names are widely used. Either way, there's an excellent video on Youtube about how to do them. You want your sauce or puree to have the consistency of mayonnaise for this particular presentation. Just use a dessert spoon to place a circular blob on the plate, clean the back of the spoon and then drag the spoon back through the puree. The video is here.
What an excellent answer, thank you. I will view video after work!
I've heard it referred to on some tv shows (eg, Chopped) as 'spoon push', usually in a derisive way.
Searching on that terms yields some websites that describe it. For example, from http://www.champagneandhamburgers.com/2012/02/jarret-first-spoon-push.html :
This could be an opportunity for me to attempt my first "spoon push". For those unfamiliar, the spoon push is an oft bastardized technique used most restaurants just past PF Changs on the swank meter. To add a faux artful element to the dish when plating a sauce, purée or any other semi-viscous component, simply drop some on the plate and "push" your spoon across creating a nice little design.
It's only faux artful if you decide that you don't think it looks nice!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.705334
| 2013-08-02T11:35:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35747",
"authors": [
"Annie",
"BThompson",
"Bastian Blankenburg",
"Cascabel",
"Dave",
"Kay",
"Oni",
"Rakshitha Prakash",
"etmuse",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87238",
"sumit kundan"
],
"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
}
|
129719
|
Persimmon black splotches vs black spots. Safe to eat?
Never had nor heard of persimmons until they were recently introduced in my grocery store, and I have a couple of questions on what's safe to eat.
I've noticed that they can have black spots around 1cm or 2 in diameter with sometimes?/always? a break in the skin. I don't know if the black comes because of the rupture, or if the black comes with a shrinking of the skin that causes it to eventually rupture, i.e. I don't know the order of cause-and-effect here. I first thought they're the former, but in one batch I saw so many that it might be the latter. I've been rejecting them on the idea that they all had their skin broken, but maybe they're more like banana spots?, and they just indicate they're about to spoil?
Then in the latest batch, there were a lot of persimmons that instead of those black spots had black splotches. The skin on them is perfect. They look perfect, ignoring the color. The flesh on the other side of that black skin was also perfect, last time I cut one open.
Searched online, but information is kind of scarce and inconsistent. Some sites say black spots are from a fungal infection, others from a bacterial infection, others say it's a sunspot, others say it's an accumulation of sugars. Most sites don't talk about whether it's safe to eat, maybe because they seem to be gardening sites rather than food sites. The ones that do though always say that they are safe to eat, regardless if it's from a fungal infection. They never have pictures of the persimmon or they have a picture of a leaf of the persimmon tree. They also aren't consistent in that they interchange the terms "spot" for "stain" or others, so I'm not sure what type of "spot"/"stain"/"splotch" they're talking about or if they even imply a break in the skin.
BTW, the ones with the spots seem to be Fuyu (by my estimate, the store didn't specify), and the ones with the splotches seem to be Hachiya (ditto).
Instinct tells me a break in the skin is what matters, so the Fuyu one is bad and the Hachiyas are fine. I kind of feel like the small broken spots on the Hachiya are too small to matter, but that's based on feeling rather than logic.
What do you all think?
Pictures:
Closeup of that third Hachiya, showing more spots:
The first photo shows an infection. I can't tell the cause from the image, but it is certainly rotting. For fungal causes it is fine to remove the fungus contaminated area with a wide margin and eat the rest, but bacterial rots may not. Fungal ones will put up (short or long) fuzzy hairs and either be white or blue/green; whereas bacterial will go softer, start to ooze juice and typically, but not always, smell bad.
The second photo shows a discolouration that could be the result of a bruise or possibly sunburn of the fruit. I've not seen persimmon looking quite like this before, they normally show a blush in the region that is more exposed.
The third (and on the fruit on the right in the second photo) shows some dry cuts in the surface. These are fine to cut out for cosmetic purposes only and eat the remainder. You can eat the brown bits too, they will just be tougher than the rest and may not taste as nice. The brown in this case is caused by exposure to the air and oxidation by a polyphenol oxidase enzyme that is naturally present in the fruit.
The discolouration being a bruise seems very unlikely. It's not softer, nor dented. They were also all very consistent in their stain being on the side like that. About cutting out the fungus, I thought cutting out fungus is only doable on hard foods like a block of parmesan cheese.
BTW, sorry I can't upvote you because of my lack of reputation. I'm also waiting before accepting to give chance to others.
@Migas See https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/molds-food-are-they-dangerous Scroll down to the table near the bottom. If your persimmons are soft then you should indeed discard the whole fruit. If they are still quite firm, then you can cut it out. Having said that, based on the colour of your fruits, they are near ripe and starting to get soft/mushy (my favoured state for them). The modern varieties are edible in almost any state apart from green, but the old varieties needed to be mushy before being edible or were astringent.
The first one is rot. The telltale sign is the depression and the mushiness relative to the rest of the fruit (important to note that this is relative, because the ripest – and most delicious – persimmons will themselves become quite soft). If you look closely you can see that the skin around that spot is wrinkly, which is a sign that it is starting to be consumed by whatever is causing the rot.
The large stains in the second photo seem to be normal. The entire batch of persimmons at the grocery store on my last visit 3 days ago looked exactly like this. I ate a couple and the stain was superficial and had no impact on the taste or mouth feel. The shared timing of your post and my own experience suggests this is a specific persimmon varietal for which this appearance is normal. Fuyu and Hachiya persimmons are the most common varietal, but there are many others.
I have no specific knowledge to say what the damage is on the last persimmon, but based on personal experience with persimmons and other hard fruit @bob1's answer that these are harmless dry cuts makes sense.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.705551
| 2024-12-06T02:15:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129719",
"authors": [
"Migas",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66219
|
Beef Bone Broth: How much should I end up with per starting bones?
I'm trying a beef bone broth recipe that is short on details... it basically says to cover the bones with water and simmer for 48 hours in a slow cooker.
Based on Google, other recipes don't say to cook for anywhere near that amount of time, but I decided to try it anyway.
I started with 2½ pounds of bones and about 3 quarts of water in a slow cooker. During the 48 hours the liquid reduced enough that it was no longer covering the bones, so I added more boiling water and continued cooking. I had to do this a total of 2 times and the final result was about 1¼ quarts of broth (after skimming the upper layer of fat).
My question is: given the initial 2½ pounds of bones, how much broth should I end up with? Is 1¼ quarts of broth going to be super-concentrated and in need of dilution, and if so, how much water should I add?
If your other recipes aren't slow-cooker specific, their timings are irrelevant.
You can choose. Just taste it. Too strong, more water, too weak, boil down. It is better to leave the lid on while boiling. That will make the broth cloudy, but more tasty.You can always filter it and clear it up with egg white.
For easy storage: boil it down, really down,and freeze. i dont think more than a litre of a kilo of bones will be very strong
BTW, I think fourty eight hours is a BIT too much. It wont hurt, but it is not necessary. A night, 12 hours is really enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.706001
| 2016-02-05T02:00:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66219",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Gerard Kavenagh",
"Leah Roush",
"Marc Luxen",
"Meg Piaskoski",
"RuthYaron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169"
],
"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
}
|
108935
|
Safety of Quick-Pickles at Room Temperature
I just followed a recipe for pickled turnips, but am questioning the step of letting them sit out at room temp for 5 days before refrigerating.
The recipe used:
1 cup white vinegar (5% acidity)
3 cups water
70 grams salt
It's a 1:3 vinegar to water ratio and, if my math is right, has a salinity level of about 7.5% (by weight).
I have found this same, or nearly the same, recipe on several websites so it seems to be pretty standard, but just wanted to ask about the safety of skipping refrigeration for nearly a week.
I was curious I've peruse a few recipes, some say to leave it at room temp for few days , some say to refrigerate immediately; personally, I put in the fridge as soon as it is at room temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.706150
| 2020-06-08T17:22:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108935",
"authors": [
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117272
|
Can my freezer be too cold?
The FDA recommends a freezer temperature of 0˚F (-18˚C). Warmer temperatures risk bacterial growth and quality problems. But what are the reasons not to set the freezer colder? My Bosch freezer can be set as low as -8˚F (-22˚C).
The only downsides I can see are increased electricity usage, increased thaw times during food preparation, and more wear on the freezer compressor. But advantages include colder ice cubes and faster freeze times for new items. Are there any other reasons not to set my freezer to the coldest setting?
faster freeze times - how do you define "freeze"?
I would like to see empirical evidence surrounding this. I always set my freezers to their coldest setting on the assumption that colder=longer storage, but I have nothing to support this position. Interesting question!
@CaiusJard How do you define it? Colder freezer means heat loss from food will be faster, means food freezes faster (albeit not much faster)
@JamesGeddes when it comes to chemical processes colder it is slower they are. So in principle you are right.
Another consideration is this: refrigerators are often cooled by blowing cold air from the freezer into the fridge. If the freezer is too cold, the drafting air will freeze some things on the top shelf
@AdamO I could be wrong, but I assumed OP was talking about freezers only, not the freezer section of a refrigerator.
Get it too cold (or too pressurized), and you'll see phase changes between the different crystalline forms of ice! Okay, I'll go back to the chemistry SE now.
Side note, you appear to be using the masculine ordinal º, \u00BA instead of the degree symbol ° \u00B0. Pedantic, but it looks especially odd in the underlined link where it more or less looks like it's double-underlined.
Is your freezer part of a fridge/freezer combo, or is it a separate deep freeze? That changes some of the dynamic referenced in the answers.
@PoloHoleSet I actually only have a fridge/freezer combo, but the considerations for dedicated freezers are interesting too. Sounds like the main combo consideration was a too-cold freezer causing things in the refrigerator to freeze. Fortunately I haven't experienced that with my unit, even with very cold freezer temps.
@Doug - I use my dedicated deep freeze for storage, so any frozen treats or ice cream get moved to the fridge/freezer, as opposed to getting it directly from the deep freeze.
One possible consideration is that some frozen desserts (most notably ice creams and sorbets) can be very difficult to scoop if your freezer is too cold. Optimal serving temperature for ice cream is between about 5 & 10°F (-15°C & -12°C); colder freezers may result in difficult scooping and/or needing to leave the ice cream out to thaw.
The proposed advantage of "colder ice cubes" is relatively small, because the vast majority of heat absorption by ice (in a drink, say) is due to it thawing. To put some numbers on it, every gram of frozen ice absorbs about 2.1 joules of heat energy when it warms up by 1°C. In contrast, that same gram of ice absorbs 335 joules of heat energy when it thaws into liquid water. If you run the numbers, this means that ice at -22°C will only absorb 2-3% more heat from your drinks than ice at -18°C.
@Michael your second paragraph also explains why "reusable" ice cubes made from plastic or stone ("whiskey stones") don't really work.
@henning: There are some varieties of "reusable" ice cubes that actually have a freezable liquid sealed inside them (like these ones.) They actually do work moderately well. But yes, if it's just solid stone or steel or plastic, you don't get the magic of latent heat working for you.
Where did you get the 2.1 J/g/degC value? When I was at school in the 1970's the specific heat of water was 4.2 J/g/degC
@uɐɪ: You're remembering the specific heat of liquid water. The specific heat of ice is different, it turns out.
There is little reason, aside from the obvious ones you already mention, to avoid the coldest setting. You might be concerned with scoop-ability of some frozen desserts, but that probably will not be too much of an issue for store-bought products, which are often stabilized for texture. Also, these can be removed in advance to temper.
The Institute for Food Resources at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, states that "most foods will maintain good quality longer if the freezer temperature is -10°F to -20°F."
The Ohio State extension states, "the colder the better."
Freezer burn is not caused by cold temperatures. It is dehydration that occurs from poor or improper packaging. It is not unsafe, but usually not pleasant.
Most modern freezers control potential ice build up. So, that is usually not an issue either. However, some chest freezers might need the occasional, manual defrost. This would be the case regardless of your set temperature.
Well increased power consumption is a pretty significant reason. Regarding storage time, is that really something to maximize? I.e. isn't the goal “long enough” rather than “as long as possible”? Also, ice cream at –10 or –20°F is nearly impossible to scoop, and it's an error-prone hassle to remove it early enough to warm up enough but not too much so it melts. It would be easy to waste more food this way than you would save with a theoretically longer storage period.
Most modern freezers control potential ice build up - yes, but they do that by blowing warm air through the freezer. Will that work as well at lower freezer temps - or burn a LOT more energy perhaps?
In biology labs, the "temperature at which biological activity completely halts" is -135C and they like to go lower than that to be safe. Higher temperatures lead to degradation.
Two minor considerations (but still is an answer)
Even if your freezer can be set as low as -22, it is good to have some safety margin in regard to the freezer longevity.
Most machines don't like being operated at their extreme settings and they are much safer by operating somewhat off the extreme. Both energy consumption and wear are expected to double or triple (an educated guess, it can be even more) between -18 and -22.
Random failure modes like cracking or breaking internal doors or drawers or frost build-up inside the insulating foam are also much more probable.
You don't gain much more storage time at -22, compared to -18. I am yet to see something gone bad when stored at -18, even after years of storage. Yes, textures somewhat change, but in regard to textures, the colder is not the better anyway.
When it is good to crank your freezer lower, even all the way down to its possible minimum temperature?
Unreliable electricity
Frequent opening
These both get the temperature temporarily higher than the setting. Whatever the reason is, you will have some time until the temperature climbs above the acceptable values.
(Modern freezers automatically react to the frequent opening by lowering the temperature)
There are two things that can happen if the freezer is too cold for extended periods of time:
You'll get more ice build-up (especially with frequent use) and
The food inside will have more freezer burn than expected
Note that some more modern freezers have a "quick freeze" setting that drops the freezer temperature for a few hours and then returns it to "normal", as there are no problems with having a lower freezer temperature for a couple of hours, most issues will happen after an extended period of time with too low temperature
Freezer burn is caused by dehydration as a result of poor packaging, not temperatures that are too cold. Your link highlights that temps. that are too WARM are a problem....It states, "zero and below...."
@moscafj maybe that's not the best reference - a freezer temperature too low definitely can contribute more freezer burn over extended periods of time vs the "proper" temperature. That's assuming that everything is properly packaged so the "incorrect packaging" is not the issue at hand
I would like to see supporting evidence. I'm not convinced that is the case (given proper packaging for freezer storage).
@moscafj - you are absolutely right. I had an old freezer set to so cold that ice cream wouldn't get soft for about 15-20 mins at room temp. Never ever had freezer burn. Now my basement freezer chest was set much higher and would get freezer burn from the process of things getting soft and refreezing. (Poor packaging also an obvious point. You leave lid off of ice cream or anything and you get freezer burn)
One of the reasons that some critical science and medical supplies are stored in dry ice or even liquid nitrogen (-196°C) is that the lower temperatures largely prevent the destructive effects of a household freezer. They certainly don't exacerbate these issues. As for ice build-up: that's mostly a result of letting air (at room temperature and -humidity) into the freezer, the exact temperature make little difference on this.
Most commercially frozen foods are "quick/flash frozen" in freezers at -40 and they don't have freezer burn because of their packaging.
I would edit out the part about freezer burn. It is 100% untrue.
Yeah, sublimation (the process by which "freezer burn" occurs) is slower at lower temperatures, not faster. Ice build up is also questionable... the temperature could only make a difference to ice buildup which occured while the freezer was open, not the buildup which occurred after it was closed.
I was told freezer burn only happens in frost-free freezers. https://www.thekitchn.com/the-problem-with-frost-free-freezers-247588
@jcollum, that's not what the article says. It says freezer burn can happen more in frost-free freezers, not that frosted freezers never get freezer burn. I find their claim that the temperature raising to do auto-defrost causes more freezer burn to be sketchy. I'd like to see their research before believing that part.
I assume you mean standalone freezer, not refrigerator+freezer combo.
There is no reason to not use the lowest temperature setting, except the obvious wear of the machine.
The advantage of this is that food may keep a bit longer. The temperature within freezer is not uniform - it will be a bit warmer near the door. Depending on which location the manufacturer used for measuring, and inaccuracies of thermostat, it may vary slightly.
Many food I see has label saying something like -10C: two weeks, -18 C: until expiry date. So to be extra sure it never exceeds the -18 C, just dial in couple extra degrees.
Regarding the disadvantage of thaw times - use fridge and the built-in freezer it has.
The food you know you will be using soon - a week, a day - just keep it in fridge's freezer. It has higher temperature, so the food will not be as rock frozen. Whenever you use stuff from fridge, bring new ones from the freezer. I do that with ice cream - fresh from freezer, it can bend spoons, but in fridge freezer, its nice and soft.
In case you need to get something thawed out now - microwaves are great for that.
Alternatively, you can rearrange things in freezer slightly - move the stuff that you want absolutely rock solid frozen deep inside, and keep the stuff you want not-as-much-frozen near the door.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.706264
| 2021-09-21T04:27:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117272",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"Alchimista",
"Caius Jard",
"Doktor J",
"Doug",
"Glen Yates",
"James Geddes",
"Joe M",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Michael Seifert",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Reid",
"SiHa",
"Sneftel",
"SurpriseDog",
"blankip",
"computercarguy",
"evildemonic",
"henning no longer feeds AI",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95690",
"jcollum",
"leftaroundabout",
"moscafj",
"neph",
"uɐɪ"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.