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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
126147
|
What does egg do for baked grated cheese?
Here's a recipe for baked cheese bites. Is that what would call those? It mixes 200g grated cheese, 2 eggs, 2 tsp baking powder. I note that the surface has some smooth blisters in among the grate threads.
(SunnyKida, chefkoch.de)
I suppose the baking powder requires some moisture, yet water wouldn't mix well with fatty cheese. But why use eggs specifically? Would something like cream cheese or cream also work here?
And if I changed the amount of egg, should the baking powder vary by the same factor or is there an upper limit?
Whether you’d want to change the amount of baking powder would depend on why you were changing the amount of egg.
@Sneftel The only current reason is to know what's useless to try out.
When egg is cooked it becomes solid so in this recipe it is part of the substance of the finished product, holding the cheese together and contributing substance and flavour. If you have ever had an omelette you have encountered cooked egg.
Both cream cheese and cream are liquids when heated and would fall apart if cooked. The grated cheese might manage to melt together but I would expect an unappetising mess.
Thanks. I flat forgot part of the query, please see new last paragraph?
Well, a mess, certainly. Not necessarily an unappetising one.
@Sneftel The picture in my mind is some cheese floating in a puddle of burnt, split cream or cream cheese – but I could be wrong!
@ariola Adding new questions through an edit doesn't work well for the format of this site – I would encourage you to edit it back out and ask it in a separate question.
@dbmag9 Would you have found anything amiss had I managed to include it in the first place?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.707246
| 2023-12-19T08:51:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126147",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"ariola",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"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
}
|
125772
|
A little olive as flavor enhancer
People variously recommend adding small amounts of something to boost and deepen a dish's flavor, without the enhancer being noticed for its own profile. Like frying some tomato paste, a little anchovy, fish sauce, soy sauce, Worcestershire, brandy... but just a figurative drop.
I'm thinking olives too should fill that role. How do you best employ them that way? Is it common?
You might want to look into ‘olive relish’ or ‘olive tapenade’. They’re usually added towards the end of cooking, though. It’s never going to completely disappear into the background, though, as it has texture. (You could add a splash of juice from them, though)
@joe if you get olives packed in oil instead of brine, the leftover oil works very well to add a little flavour to dishes (used sparingly)
I have some difficulty understanding your question, and had to remove some subquestions which are off topic for the site, such as a request for recipes. What do you mean by "explanations of any established way of doing it"? I have trouble picturing such an explanation.
@rumtscho Since outcomes sometimes depend significantly on an ingredient's treatment, established ways to a given outcome can exist, and the particular treatment necessary would be something to note. Like perhaps crushing when fine mincing weren't fine enough. OTOH where a usage has not achieved technique status like that, recipes make for a fallback. I'm putting in a less convoluted formulation.
@Joe, Your comment and Chris' together would make an answer I'd accept over moscafj's for specificity. Is relish added late because it would overbear or because it would diminish with cooking?
Unlike the other ingredients that you mention, olives don’t break down to disappear.
Instead, they’re often added at the end of slow cooked dishes. In some cases they might be diced up into an ‘olive relish’ or ‘olive tapenade’, and then added as more of a condiment at the end.
If you wanted to get some of that olive flavor into your dish without it being so obvious, you could try using some of the liquid that the olives are packed in (brine or oil), but you may need to experiment with when to add it; long cooking might make it disappear too much.
All of the items you mention, including olives, add umami. They are high in glutamates. Every culture's cuisine has glutamate boosting ingredients. It really doesn't take much, and is often an ingredient or step in the process of creating a dish. They often come in different forms. If you want to experiment with olives, it would certainly depend on the flavor profile of the final dish. For stews or braises, you could add a few chopped or even whole olives...for roasted items, maybe whole olives...There is not really an established universal way to add these ingredients. As with any culinary experiment with ingredients, start small. It is easier to add than to remove.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.707415
| 2023-11-08T22:57:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125772",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"ariola",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125258
|
Can I engrave a stainless steel pot inside?
I'm thinking about giving my stainless steel pot volume markings on the inner wall, like in 250ml increments, with a multitool and fine diamond tip. Various info says that scratches in stainless are benign since the material is the same throughout. Also fine scratches don't appreciably increase surface area and hence alloy release.
Yet even a fine engraving mark would be pretty micro-rough, and the first increment would be just one cm above the bottom. So there's a possibility I'd create a strong stick and burn spot.
Would you dissuade me from going ahead?
I'd be very careful with engraving, particularly if your pot is made of multi-ply stainless steel, where the thickness of a single ply may be less than your planned engraving depth (you have mentioned 0.5 mm in a comment) -- this could harm the pot's structural integrity and/or expose plies that are not meant to be exposed (e.g. copper or aluminium).
@mustaccio You have a point. While the wall proper is just 1mm thick, the foot curve is appreciably lower on the outside than inside, so I suppose the bottom's core might skirt up there. Another reason to skip the lowest marking.
I don't know what pot you use, but many high-end pots use laminated steel all the way up to the rim.
Perhaps electrochemical etching might be better.
My hand-me-down brew pot came with markings scratched into... - the accompanying big/long spoon, not the pot itself. Far less of a risk for any problems.
@mustaccio Do you have a way to know short of identifing the make+model, or a Physics q?
@ariola that's actually a good question. Perhaps someone on [physics.se] or [engineering.se] can answer it.
@mustaccio you were implying that the whole sandwich might be just 1mm thick, right? Any views on just deforming that with a chisel like hildred suggested?
@ariola I've never done any chasing myself, on pots or otherwise, so my intuition may be wrong. But I'd imagine the pot being a suboptimal substrate, both because the stainless steel is a relatively hard material, and because of the pot's radius, which makes it more difficult than working on a flat surface. As mentioned by many people, the best choice would be etching, either by acid or electrochemically.
Also, it seems that you might be overthinking this. All suggested methods should work, and none of them is likely to turn out perfect anyway, especially seeing that you don't seem to be experienced with any of them. I think the result will be workable nevertheless, no matter what you go for, and none of them would render the pot unusable, despite the expected imperfections. If it's a very expensive pot or you need it to look really neat, you should practice first. If you don't want to sacrifice an existing pot for practicing, charity stores sell used ones very cheaply.
Why not use heat-resistant paint, instead? I don't understand why engraving would be a problem except on a very thin pot but paint should be simpler.
Go for it. Stainless steel is quite stick-friendly already, and the added unevenness from the microtool won't really make a difference. Also, this is a soup pot, and the side instead of the bottom, so you wouldn't really expect sticking.
I'd suggest that you try to make a wide marking, not just a groove, for sanitary reasons. You want water to easily come in and wash out everything, so a width of at least one milimeter would be good, two milimeters better. You can just align the bottom of the mark with the needed position, so you don't have to eyeball the middle of a wide mark.
This will be a bit difficult to do if the pot diameter is small, because your router-stick-on-thingy* is supposed to go onto a plane surface. But maybe you'll find a way to do it. In any case, really use a router bit with some width, not the side of a small cutting wheel. Ideally, the resulting mark will have an oblong cross-section, with a flat bottom, vertical sides, and a rounded connection between bottom and sides. If you don't have such a bit, make it vertical with a 90 degree angle at the bottom. The worst option would be a v-shaped groove, that would gunk up quickly, like a condo for bacteria.
And if you find it not so practical, either because of the "catches dirt" possibility or because you can't find a way to hold the bit vertically to the surface one centimeter above the pot bottom, consider acid etching instead. Chloric acid at home-improvement-store concentrations should work on domestic grade stainless steel.
* sorry, that was my best try translating Oberfräsenaufsatz into English. If you have the microtool, you know what I mean.
Wouldn't the corners of a rectangle be about as under-accessible as that of a V shape? Anyway none of my narrow bits is capable of forming a true corner. But you steered me from the needle to the little ball, which also moots the fact that the pot is not so large as to let a Dremel lie flat in it. Cutting depth will hardly exceed 1/2 mm.
I'll second the acid etching idea. Grinding the steel will actually destroy the surface chromium oxide layer which is what actually resists corrosion. It will regenerate naturally even just by setting exposed to air and fairly quickly, however, when physically damaging the surface of stainless steel, you can expose iron particles in the steel to corrosion before the chromium oxide can reform. While unlikely, you may end up actually rusting your stainless steel pot if you grind the surface. Manufacturers will usually use an acid cleaning when etching stainless steel to avoid this issue.
Upvoted for the Oberfräsenaufsatz translation :-). Of course the question that comes to mind whether there is an Oberfräsenaufsatzhalter, and, in order to prevent losing it, an Oberfräsenaufsatzhaltersicherung?
On the more practical side, metal surfaces have somewhat antimicrobial properties, so I wouldn't be too concerned with a possible "bacteria condo". (That would be different with plastic surfaces which tend to harbor reslilient microbial films.)
@Peter-ReinstateMonica I'm afraid you hold the Aufsatz with your own hands, and the Germans haven't yet decided to rename them. But I've considered going fancy and mounting my Micromotfeinbohrschleifer onto the workbench, for which I could purchase a Micromotfeinbohrschleiferhalterungsschraubzwinge. The producer seems to have given up, in their catalogue they call it simply "Universalhalterung".
I tried to figure out what a Oberfräsenaufsatz is with an image-based web search... do you mean the thing that attaches the router to a work bench or other flat surface? I think we just call that a mount, or perhaps a jig.
@KarlKnechtel The OP isn't talking about an actual router, but about a Dremel-style multitool that can be used for engraving, routing, drilling or sanding. In order to use it for routing, you have to add an attachment to the front of the tool that ensures that the bit will go at a constant depth into the workpiece. I just found out that Dremel calls theirs "plunge router attachment" in English, and that the German name is "Oberfräsenvorsatz" and not "Oberfräsenaufsatz" which I suppose is technically more correct, although I think the second word wouldn't strike the average German as (cont.)
(cont.) strange. This seems to be moot after all, because apparently the OP will (and maybe intended so from the start) use the tool for freehand engraving. I assumed they are using the attachment because of the word "routing" in the title.
Another method is using a cold chisel as a marking punch. place a piece of wood inside the pot for use as an anvil, and then place the chisel on the outside where you want the mark directly across the side of the pan from the anvil and hit once with a medium heavy hammer. done.
I've done this before. I didn't notice any significant sticking. I would suggest not making marks extremely low on the pot, as the lower areas get much hotter during cooking and I'd imagine carbon deposits in the scratched area would be basically impossible to remove.
Good to have your first-hand info! The lowest mark blackening doesn't bother me. Or is carbon deposit a glom magnet?
The primary problem with small carbon deposits is that they'll flake off into your food. Safe but yucky.
In the past, on aluminium, I've engraved the outside. I found it good enough to match the water inside with the marks outside outside - this is never going to be a precision measurement. Marking the outside is easier, and allows you to engrave actual numbers as well as just marks. You can also use non-food-safe materials to fill in the markings and make them clearer (e.g. nail polish).
I did it for camping kit, when I wasn't going to carry a measuring jug but didn't want to waste water.
As an alternative to engraving, it's possible to etch the stainless with salt, acid (5% vinegar) and an electrical source (9v battery). This really only creates a very fine surface difference, so should not present a food/bacterial trap.
Mix the salt and vinegar, the ratio isn't critical, just to make it conductive.
Attach the negative side of the battery to a cotton-swab (use a stick-swab)
Attach the positive side of the battery to the pot (anywhere metal is ok).
Mask-off the lines with tape or similar.
Carefully and evenly "draw" on the pot with the swab
Work in a well-ventilated space, and wash the pot well afterwards to remove any chemical by-products.
A good reference is: https://byo.com/project/etch-your-kettle-projects
Extra purchases or custom soldering made etching not so attractive to me, technically best solution though it may be. But this I'll try!
Any mark is going to be a potential bacteria trap, which will be a potential problem on any pot used for water-based cooking i.e. where the temperature doesn't normally go above 100C. However this also applies to scratches from normal cleaning etc., so is probably insignificant in practical terms.
Electrochemical marking, as described at e.g. https://hackaday.com/2015/01/15/etching-steel-with-a-dc-wall-wort , will have the advantage that the surface and edges will be somewhat rounded rather than being sharp scratches, which is probably desirable in this context.
Apart from that, the warnings given about thin stainless surfaces on some other metal apply.
Electro etching is the way to go. This is the method that logos are added to stainless steel knives, sissors etc.
One of the links in that Hackaday article specifically deals with a big stainless steel container. However I won't post the URL directly since it's on Imgur with lots of "viral videos" crap, suffice to say that it appears to do a very nice job using stick-on stencils... the ultimate original appears to be the same as in Kingsley's answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.707679
| 2023-09-18T09:18:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125258",
"authors": [
"CitizenRon",
"D Duck",
"Ecnerwal",
"Karl Knechtel",
"Mark Morgan Lloyd",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"Sneftel",
"ariola",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98590",
"mustaccio",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128014
|
Why add eggs to semolina dough one hot, one cold?
On a packet of durum semolina that I bought is a recipe for Nocken (a light Austrian dumpling). It has you mix the semolina into boiling milk, which gets pretty stiff as the liquid is taken up; then off the heat, mix in one egg; then let cool and add the second egg.
When I did this, I half expected the first egg would begin to set on the hot paste. It didn't, and actually I had stirred the semolina in already off the hob. But I don't think it's supposed to set either, that wouldn't give a smooth mix. So why not add both eggs early, or add them both after cooling?
My guess would be that perhaps in the late case the dough would be too thin from the eggs' water. And similarly, in the early case the dough might become too stiff to work, or too dense for the target texture, when all the eggs' water is up for absorption. On the other hand, I didn't feel that the dough had gotten much stiffer after cooling with the one egg, and anyway if that were the hazard one could form the dumplings while still warm. (Right?)
What does the described mixing schedule achieve?
Edit: Customer service, whom I also asked this, is not responding. Who knows how they got by the recipes to put on the box. Full instructions are:
Bring to boil 250ml milk with 20g butter, 1tsp salt.
Add 100g durum semolina and stir until dough lifts off pot bottom.
Remove from heat, stir in one egg, and let cool.
Then stir in second egg.
Form dumplings with two teaspoons and cook in chicken broth for 10min.
I've asked customer service about it, response pending.
If you still want an answer after that, you'll need to share the actual recipe.
I propose a little science experiment. Divide the mixture in half after the first two steps. Each half now needs one egg. In the first half, add the egg while still hot. In the second, half cool completely before adding the egg. Cook up the dumplings and observe the difference if any!
From the Nocken recipes I could find only about 10% use this method of adding one egg to the cold dough. Coincidentally those are recipes where Nocken are meant to be placed in broth afterwards, take that as you may
@npst I wouldn't know what to take from that observation, are you saying you neither?
Indeed, other than the two-step-egg seems not to be necessary
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.708505
| 2024-04-02T21:46:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128014",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Kuykendall",
"FuzzyChef",
"ariola",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81327",
"npst"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116893
|
How to make (vegan) cheese saltier?
I have recently been making some quick vegan cheeses such as paneer and halloumi with similar methods to making the dairy version of these cheeses. The process I'm following is roughly:
Blend softened/soaked nuts with water and strain to create a creamy plant milk.
Bring milk to the boil, then immediately remove from heat and add coagulant (lemon, vinegar, etc.).
Gather curds in cheese cloth and press/chill until firm enough.
That is typically followed by various types of brining/other cooking/etc. depending on the style of cheese.
The cheese has actually been coming out really well, but I feel lacks saltiness. I have tried things like covering in cheese salt for storage, brining, etc. but I find this hasn't really helped. I would like the actual cheese itself to be saltier. As I have only been using plant milk I'm not sure whether this lack of saltiness is something that also happens with dairy milk or not.
So how do I make my cheese saltier? Can I add a fine salt to the curds before pressing? Should I add salt to the milk before boiling (or will this hurt coagulation)? I'm not sure exactly where to start!
Step 2.5: Add salt. (?)
@GregNickoloff - that's where I'm leaning also, but curious to know if that will disrupt the setting process/whether it will make the curds themselves saltier. Was hoping someone might know before I start doing tests! I hate when a batch of cheese doesn't work, because the food waste is unreal.
mfox: based on experience with regular cheeses, adding salt before pressing the curds will cause the curds to shrink and give off more water, resulting in a denser cheese. Sometimes you want this; it's part of the cheddar making process, for example. But sometimes you don't.
I'm also curious that brining isn't working for you. What's the salinity of the brine you're using?
You could make a batch and divide it into "sub-batches" processed with salt (or any other variable) at different stages, etc. potentially wasting only a portion of the total.
@FuzzyChef - you are probably correct about the brining. I was using about 20g of salt for 250g whey + 250g water. I've dug around and see a lot of other recipes with 40g of salt for that same about of whey + water. And thanks for letting me know about the salt making denser curds. If you write up your comment as an answer, I'd be happy to accept it.
@GregNickoloff Good idea on the batches - I will give it a go!
The primary way that cheesemakers create salty cheeses is brining. And cheese brine needs to be quite salty to be effective, as cheese, even vegan cheese, isn't that absorbent. The standard is a "fully saturated brine", which is roughly 22% salt (ignore the egg in that recipe, it's just a float test).
You might think that, for a less salty cheese, you'd use a less salty brine ... but that's not how it works. Instead, you control the saltiness by brining it for less time. If you use a less salty brine, you risk not having the cheese absorb salt at all.
So my advice is: make a fully saturated brine, and try brining your cheese for varying amounts of time up to three days.
You can also add salt to the curds before pressing; this is called milling the cheese, and is mainly used in making cheddar. While it does make the cheese saltier, the primary purpose of milling is to make the cheese denser and drier. Whether or not this would work for vegan cheese is an open question; I could not find any remarks about milling on any of the vegan cheese forums/blogs. So if you try milling, it will be an experiment (and you should publish it).
Thank you for this! These terms are very useful to learn and I didn't realise just how salty a brine I should be aiming for. I am going to test all of these and will hopefully be able to publish something successful :)
Happy to help! I'm interested in how much vegan cheesemaking is becoming like dairy cheesemaking.
FYI, fully saturated brine is sterile due to the salinity. So it's customary for cheese makers to re-use it multiple times before tossing it. It's also good for de-icing your driveway.
Just my two cents:
Add a teaspoon of miso paste when cooking the plant milk, for instance, white miso (saitaku miso).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.708740
| 2021-08-18T10:48:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116893",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84999",
"mfox"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32783
|
Making yogurt without heating milk?
Most recipes for yogurt indicate that you should heat/boil the milk, then cool it.
Is it possible to skip this step, and use milk straight from the fridge? Would the result be terribly different?
The biggest reason to heat milk to almost boiling before fermenting is that it improves the texture of the yogurt.
During fermentation the bacteria consume lactose and produce lactic acid which causes the milk proteins to denature and coagulate trapping most of the fat. The proteins involved are primarily the casein proteins.
When this happens, there is still quite a bit of protein left that isn't bound up in the new casein mesh. All of the albumin proteins are water soluble and will not add to the structure of the yogurt.
These albumin proteins denature when they are heated. For this reason recipes universally call for the milk to be heated to 190 and then cooled. The albumin is denatured and is able to tangle up with the casein during fermentation and add to the yogurt structure.
Skipping this step will make a very profound difference to the structure of your yogurt. Without it your yogurt will be thinner and much more fragile. When you scoop it there will be more whey and all that albumin will wash out in it.
According to Harold McGee (On Food and Cooking pp 48)
"These treatments improve the consistency of the yogurt by denaturing the whey protein lactoglobulin, whose otherwise unreactive molecules then participate by clustering on the surfaces of the casein particles. With the helpful interference of the lactoglobulins, the casein particles can only bond to each other at a few spots, and so gather not in clusters but in a fine matrix of chains that is much better at retaining liquid in its small interstices."
I almost want to make this a separate question, and I deleted my answer in favor of what seems to be superior knowledge but: why would the acid from the bacterial action not denature the proteins much as the heat would?
I have to admit that this starts to get to the limit of my understanding but Harold McGee has the following to say: "(heating the milk) improve the consistency of the yogurt by denaturing the whey protein lactoglobulin, whose otherwise unreactive molecules then participate by clustering on the surfaces of the casein particles." On Food and Cooking pp 48. Actually I'm going to put the full quote in this answer.
Cool! Now I don't regret deleting my one up vote :-) I keep On Food and Cooking by the computer, but did I think to read it? No.
Casein is the milk protein that gels to form yogurt, encapsulating whey in a "spongy" matrix. Casein floats around in milk in the form of globules, or micelles. In fresh milk, the suspended micelles bump into each other and bounce away, going off in different directions.
When an acid is added to the milk, the interactions between the protein micelles are modified, and now instead of bouncing off each other, they stick together when they meet.
Now here is the reason why you need to heat the milk and failing to do so results in sub-par yogurt:
As the milk is heated, the microstructure of the protein micelles changes, they become bumpy. Micelles in unheated milk do not have these bumps.
The bumps on the micelles make it so only a limited number of sites on its surface are available to interact with other micelles. This means that the micelles can only adhere to each other in branched chains.
In unheated milk, there are no bumps to prevent adhesion, so ALL sites are available, and instead of forming a spongy matrix, the proteins form a curd. This means that less liquid can be trapped in the "pockets" of the matrix. Therefore, you will have runnier and grainier yogurt.
Check out this link for technical details and diagrams: http://www.medicinalfoodnews.com/vol01/issue5/kalab.htm
Use UHT (Ultra High Temperature) milk so that you don't need to heat and cool the milk.
Your answer would be better if you explained why you think UHT milk removes the need to heat it? I would have thought any pasteurised milk would be OK from a safety point of view so would there be any other reason UHT would be better?
As explained in other answers, the heating is not to kill bacteria, it's to have a certain effect on the proteins in the milk. Given that you have to do this with even normal pasteurized milk, I can't imagine UHT would be different... is it?
This is very true. HTST pasteurization, which is the most common in regular milk, only heats to 160F. Not hot enough to denature albumin proteins. UHT, on the other hand, is heated to 275F. More than hot enough. UHT in fact makes fantastic yogurt.
The specific details in the expert answers are great, and really helpful in understanding the chemical and biological processes taking place in making yogurt. Understanding more about the underlying science makes anything more fun in my experience. Even after making yogurt for years, there is more that can be learned!
The original question asked whether this step could be skipped in making yogurt. Here is an empirical response. I haven't experimented fully to confirm all the assumptions that I make (having "learned" them from anecdotal sources), but have developed a procedure that works well for me.
I did try making mesophilic yogurts like the "Caspian Sea" strain mentioned in another post. It was very easy, no heating cycle at all, and "incubation" consisted of leaving the jars at room temperature for 12-24 hours. The process is super easy, and I really liked the flavours of most of these strains, which tend to be more tart. But alas, I was the only person in the household to like the tartness, so I went back to the more common thermophilic strains.
I have been making thermophilic yogurt successfully for about a year or more without the pre-heating step, just incubation. This greatly simplifies the process. However, there are several items that I think are crucial to getting this to work well.
I only use milk from a previously unopened container to reduce the risk of unwanted bacteria being introduced to the milk. (In the rare events that I have raw milk available, I use the pre-heating stage to pasteurize the milk.)
I use glass jars with metal or plastic lids freshly "sterilized" by the hot wash and hot dry cycles of a dishwasher, for the same reason.
There seem to be differences in the resulting yogurt between different dairy brands etc of milk. My best success has been with Organic Valley Whole homogenized milk. I have avoided anything that has been ulta-pasteurized (UHT) because of general online chatter, though I haven't verified it myself. Perhaps as an earlier contributor suggested, the UHT process may achieve the denaturing effect - this could be an interesting experiment. I am guessing that even the regular flash pasteurization may affect the proteins and thus the consistency of the finished yogurt.
I use about 1 teaspoon of starter (from previous batch or favourite store brand of yogurt with live cultures)per quart or litre of milk.
Simply put the teaspoon of yogurt in each jar (I prefer the quart or litre size as I make 4 of these at a time. Then pour in the cold milk directly. Put the jars in the incubating chamber.
A good ice chest (cooler, Esky, whatever you call it) works well as an incubating chamber with hot tap water to maintain the temperature. Use enough water to immerse the part of the jars below the lids, and close the lid of the cooler to keep the temperature stable.
The water temperature should be about 105-120F or 40-50C. The cold milk will affect this temperature, so check up and adjust the water an hour or so after introducing the jars. I usually try to have the water temperature in the upper half of the temperature range as it will cool slightly overnight in the cooler.
Usually overnight or so, roughly 10-12 hours, will complete the process. You can tilt the jar to see that it has gelled. Then just transfer the jars to the refrigerator. Longer incubation seems to yield a more tart flavour which may be a personal preference.
The result is a thinner consistency than if the higher temperature denaturing process is used, but it is very smooth and creamy. Since our household uses about 2 litres of yogurt a week, the simplification of the procedure is welcome. An entire batch can be prepared in about 10 minutes in the ice chest, the water temperature checked and adjusted an hour or so later, and in the morning have yogurt ready to put in refrigerator. Never do I get the graininess that can occur sometimes from the denaturing process etc. The differences in consistency can be a personal preference.
Occasionally, if the incubation temperature is lower than it should be, and I end up with yogurt with a viscosity only slightly thicker than milk. It still tastes great and works well in beverages or smoothies. Some people may actually prefer this.
With a wide variety of milk, bacterial cultures, and procedures, there are myriad varieties of yogurt that can be made at home. This is part of the fun!
There's a specific culture of yogurt that can be fermented at room temperature without keeping the milk warm that produces the desired texture. The "Caspian Sea" yogurt strain works well with room temperature fermentation and, in my experience at least, required no heating.
I was able to obtain this strain a few years back from friends who were growing it; it works as long as you're regularly using and replenishing it, but it can spoil eventually. I believe you can find vendors for this kind of product at health food stores or online, but I don't know how you'd be able to distinguish quality or efficacy, so I can't speak to the best way to obtain the culture.
Keep in mind, though, that this is a much more viscous and lower-acid yogurt than you may be used to. Because of these characteristics, it became quite popular in Japan and among Japanese immigrants to the US, which is how I first encountered it.
I make yoghurt without pre-heating the milk and it has come out super 6 or 7 times now. I use the cheapest milk from the supermarket.
I do sometimes strain it a bit and it becomes even thicker and creamier.
Could you share some more experience in making yoghurt without pre-heating the milk? Is there anything special about it? How do you "strain it"?
I have been making yoghurt using 100 per cent powdered milk and not only do I not heat it above fermentation temperature but it makes the thickest creamiest Greek yoghurt I have ever eaten. Just mix the milk up with loads of extra milk powder because this really affects the thickness of the yoghurt. Some of these comments puzzle me because normal pasteurised milk has already been super heated during its process. I could understand if it was straight from the cow..
Modern pasteurization techniques don't involve heating the milk long enough to change these proteins. In fact the goal of modern pasteurization is to change the milk proteins as little as possible while still killing enough bacteria.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.709093
| 2013-03-18T18:45:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32783",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Evenden",
"Ciaran Haines",
"Mikael Dúi Bolinder",
"Peter",
"PeterJ",
"Rauf",
"Roderick Yates",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98856",
"liz Harrison",
"maxi",
"user5441"
],
"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
}
|
39588
|
What is this sushi?
I'm trying to identify what kind of sushi is featured at the bottom right of this picture of a display of what seems to be mainly nigiri sushi. The yellow, spongy looking one. Can anyone name what kind of fish / meat / other that is?
(from Wikipedia)
That item in the bottom right is Tamago nigiri, a slice of omelette on top of seasoned rice.
Just egg, but it's STILL $7 a pair!
@Jolenealaska - There's a lot of technique in that little omelette. It's prepared with ground mountain yam in place of water or milk for one, and cooked in a particular way that involves ultrathin layers of egg rolled into a tamagoyaki, requiring a special makiyakinabe pan. Like the french crepe, tamagoyaki can be either pedestrian or the height of sophistication, and it's down to technique.
@RISwampYankee Well, maybe I'll try it someday, after I'd had my fill of eel and SMT. YUM!
@Jolenealaska : think of it as the dessert at the end of the meal. It's also useful to know to ask for as a westerner who's not used to Japanese breakfasts.
Mastering tamagoyaki http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTIcJ_tdEJM
@belisarius - That was cool. Now I'm going to have to try it next time I go for sushi. I go through a lot of Groupons that way. It also looks like fun to try to approximate at home.
@Jolenealaska Indeed! Bon appétit!
@RISwampYankee : From my experience, I'd wager that the vast majority of sushi bars in the US and Canada use pre-made/frozen Tamagoyaki.
@Didgeridrew EEEW! We have about a gazillion sushi bars in Anchorage, I'll never visit them all. That might be a good question to ask over the phone to separate the wheat from the chaff, "Do you make your own Tamagoyaki?"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.710104
| 2013-11-20T05:47:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39588",
"authors": [
"Christine Ngh",
"DBJDBJ",
"Didgeridrew",
"Dr. belisarius",
"HomeCuring.co.uk",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kifayat Ullah",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Somdutta",
"homecuring.co.uk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91908"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58884
|
Difference between French bread and Japanese bread
I have been living in Japan for 1 year now, but I cannot find French bread - baguette - in Tokyo like the one we have in France.
Their bread is not crunchy nor crispy at all, and it's chewy, I kind of feel like I am eating a sponge... like old bread.
What is the difference between the bread made in Japan and the one we have in France? Do they use different flour, different way of baking? Do they wait for the bread to become chewy before selling it?
Have you considered looking for a Vietnamese shop? They usually have very nice French bread (for bahn mi). (In the US, at least).
In most Asian countries I find they have a preference for softer, sweeter breads. I'd wager they are closer to a brioche than regular bread. So literally, it's a different recipe, it's not just water, flour, salt and yeast,
If you're from France, surely you've had an awful lot of kinds of bread, not just baguette. Have you really never had any soft bread? (Like brioche, as Megasaur mentioned?) Asking about the difference is still a fair question, of course, but the way you've written it seems odd. Do you possibly mean you're buying things that look like they should be crunchy/crispy/crusty bread but are chewy instead?
@Jefromi yep, that's what I mean... I buy at the supermarket or in shops bread which looks exactly like french bread in appearance but they're all spongy so I do not understand why the look is the same but not the crunchy... it is not really about taste, more about texture
I'm a professional bread baker from 2018. I started learning by my self until I open my shop in China. I was living in Japan and Brazil also and I had the same experience when I moved to Japan.
Now I know why the Asian bread is different from European bread.
The major basic components are totally different. The basic flour is also different.
In France, they are classified like T55, T65, T45, etc...
These numbers mean the percentage of ash contents in the bread and the percentage of proteins inside the flour. Asian bread is almost like T45 and T55 flour. Some flours are special for soft bread or toast loaf bread.
The french Baguette use T55 as traditional French Baguette and T65 for more hard French Baguette use, and also are added semolina to show that yellow golden color and help also to be more crispy like pizza dough.
Almost of Japanese bread useT45 or special flour T55 to make soft bread but also adding milk, sugar, butter , cream to be more soft and sweet. almost of Asia peoples don't no how to eat French baguette, as after turn cold will be super hard even to eat it. Its come from culture as they no have oven in their home and also normally just buy and eat without adding jam, or ham, or butter etc. Cause this is not their culture to do. Soft bread even cold can eat easy and inside is stuffed with several tastes to be not necessary spent time to cut, add other ingredients.
When I start make bread in 10 peoples only one buy French baguette and whole-wheat bread. They prefer soft bread and stuffed sweet bread or salty with cheese , salsage etc...
As I love French baguette, I refuse make soft bread for two reasons, one simple french salt bread is more healthy and second as we start plant base style bread, avoid use milk, butter, white sugar etc...
I choose smaller market and healthy than choose best seller soft bread.
Actually we have a lot of fans enjoying my bread.
One of the best known (if not the best known) breads in Japan is, in fact, very much like a brioche. Japanese Milk Bread contains butter and egg, it also contains a fair amount of sugar. The Japanese think of bread more like a sweet than a staple. Another sweet bread known in Japan is Maple Bread, it's even sweeter and really does taste like maple syrup.
If you are looking for something more like a French Baguette, Catija's advice in comments is excellent. The Japanese aren't big into sandwiches. The Vietnamese, however, have a huge French influence (whether they want it or not). The bread traditionally used for Banh Mi is a short baguette. If you ask for Banh Mi in Tokyo, someone will know just what you mean.
Also very popular in Japan is メロン・パン, "Melon Bread". Sweet, with a outer crust that resembles a melon.
Thanks for introducing all these products, but as I told you, I live there, so I already now what they are selling. What I would like to know is why the bread which looks exactly like french bread is all so chewy and spongy, what are the differences in the cooking process or preserving process ?
@StevenBENET I want to know if you have asked for Banh Mi. I also have lived in Asia. I wouldn't have written the answer if I didn't think it was a key point.
Well, i tried in france... not yet in japan.
While I am not 100% sure what you are eating and looking for and am relatively new to bread making myself, I'm going to guess that what it comes down to is a matter of fat content in the bread.
What gets called "French Bread" (in the baguette sense) is usually a mixture of flour, water, salt, and yeast (similar to the recipe in The Bread Baker's Apprentice). It uses a pre-ferment (usually pâte fermentée, which is itself just flour, water, salt, and yeast) in combination with a mixture of flours to produce the final loaf.
Variations on this (e.g., pain de campagne) which maintain that characteristic texture still basically come down to a mixture of flours, walter, salt, and yeast. These are what can be characterized as lean breads: breads with very little (if any) fat added.
My guess is that most of the "chewy" breads you are encountering have a higher fat content. These are more like what in the US we'd call an "Italian" bread (which is frequently shaped in a similar manner to some french loaves, another example would be breads like Challah bread) all the way up to something like a brioche (which has a very high fat percentage). The fat adds some flavor and can provide a sort of softer mouth feel, which is what I suspect you are picking up on.
I think that different countries (including France and Japan) use flour with different ash and protein content.
eg. I cannot create the proper chewy/crunchy texture for baguettes, using the kind of flour commonly available in my own country. (And actually, I can't make very soft Japanese bread with our flour either).
French flour for baguettes use type 65 flour, which is high in ash and protein. It helps create the chewy, strong texture of the bread you are used to. I suspect the French type 65 flour is not commonly used or available in Japan. The characteristics of the standard flour used in different countries vary a lot, producing very different textures in baking products, even if they are called similar/same names (eg.'bread flour'). I think Japanese (and Asian) flour has a composition that can only produce very, very soft style breads and cakes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.710304
| 2015-07-08T02:07:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58884",
"authors": [
"Betty R.",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Hlayisanani Mboweni",
"Jim Shalliker",
"Joe Bull10",
"Jolenealaska",
"Megasaur",
"Molly Waterbury",
"Pauline Kirk",
"Steven",
"Wayne Allder",
"Yvonne Scott LetsTawk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59787
|
Substituting fresh vegetables/fruits for canned
I've made a commitment this year to reduce the amount of waste coming out of my home. This includes cooking and buying in smaller portions so less is composted and paying attention to what kind of packaging my food comes in, so it can be eliminated wherever possible and recycled other times. Part of this is I'd like to drastically reduce the amount of canned products I buy. I know cans can be recycled, but I figure it takes energy to convert that can into something else, so it's still better if I buy less of them.
In attempt to reduce the amount of failed trials with trying to substitute fresh produce for canned, does anyone have any tips as to where my efforts may not be worth it?
For example, my sister is telling me that if a recipe calls for canned tomatoes, it's usually better to just listen. Another recipe I tried to sub fresh pineapple for canned in a dessert and learned that the acid in fresh pineapple destroys the gelatin proteins so that is why my dessert didn't set. [Edit: It's the enzymes in pineapple, not the acid. I actually knew that and just mis-typed, but thank you, Joe, for the correction!]
If it helps, I live in Vancouver, BC, Canada (to give you an idea of what is grown locally during what season). I have not ventured into canning endeavors yet, but I do have a stand-up deep freeze so I freeze a lot of stuff myself. I do not have a garden, so everything is bought from a store that sells organic, local-whenever-possible groceries.
Thank you in advance!
Not exactly cooking related, but still: If you go with whatever is in season (=> buy local) you will probably decrease your footprint the most. Thumbs up for your commitment!
It's actually an enzyme in the pineapple, not the acid. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/47450/67 & http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/33957/67
There might be clues from where the recipes came from. Some cookbooks are specifically for fast/easy cooking -- they're more likely to use canned items simply for convenience ... but there are still some reasons (eg, inactivating enzymes) that they might favor canned over fresh.
I'd agree with Joe. If I come across a recipe that calls for anything canned or frozen, I just find a different recipe or don't make it. Also I don't agree with using canned tomatoes, no matter the recipe.
Oh right. I did know that it was enzymes, not acid, in the pineapple.
Tomatoes are one of the few things I use from cans, mostly because they have more flavor than the ones you usually get at the grocery store, but about 2-3 good-sized, ripe tomatoes substitute just fine for a can.
The canning process includes heating the food being canned, so using fresh fruits and veggies might require more cooking to get the same effect or texture in a dish, and as was noted in the comments, could also cause some other effects like denaturing enzymes. If you're preparing a recipe that doesn't require you to cook the canned veggies, you may want to steam or blanch their fresh counterparts before adding to the recipe.
I find the can also affects the flavor, but not in a good way, so I wouldn't worry about that difference ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.710855
| 2015-08-10T22:57:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59787",
"authors": [
"Alison Wilkinson",
"Joe",
"Lisa Lovejoy",
"Op Na",
"Patrick",
"Peter Dupree",
"QMusic3",
"Stephie",
"Timmy G",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59285
|
Sourdough starter
I was given a sourdough starter a week ago and I kept it in the fridge. Yesterday I added the flour and warm water and left it at room temp. The recipe said leave for about 8hours and when it is bubbling, add more flour and water and knead it. But it has now been nearly 14 hours and it has never bubbled. It got some pin prick marks in the surface but that was all. Is it ruined? What do I do now? Throw it away and give up?
I was attempting to begin the process of making a loaf from the Cotteridge Sourdough Recipe. Once it had bubbled I was due to remove the amount for next weeks loaf, add more flour, cold water and salt, knead for ten minutes and then leave in an oiled bowl overnight to rise, but no real bubbling and now it looks like it has separated.
What are you trying to do, feed the starter to keep it alive or bake bread with it? If baking what recipe are you using?
What temperature was the water you added? And what is the temperature at your house?
I don't know enough to answer this question, but I've read that after refrigerating and before baking you have to wake the starter back up and do a 3 feedings every 12hrs before it's ready for baking. You can feed it, separate half out, put half back in the fridge and leave the other half on the counter, feeding till you're ready to bake.
When I've made sourdough, I've always had a very active starter. To get it active discard half of the starter, and then double it with equal volumes of water and flour.
For example: If you have 2 cups of starter, dump out 1 cup, and add .5 cup water and .5 cup flour.
Feed it twice a day. When you see vigorous fermentation between feedings, it's ready to use. You can tell it's fermenting well by transferring into a new jar (mason jars work well) and seeing if the level rises and falls significantly between feedings.
@Dotid. Kevin is right. From what I understand, starters go dormant in the fridge and most people say you have to leave them out and feed them 2-3 times, getting them active again, before you can bake with them. Also, don't forget to keep out some starter to keep it going. Usually, people double the starter and then use half for the bread baking and put the rest in the fridge for the next time.
I hear it's better to use weight instead of volume. I.e., remove 200 grams of starter and add 100 grams flour + 100 grams water. This way you'll keep it at 100% hydration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_percentage
I wouldn't worry just yet, it won't die easily. You can dispose of half and try again. Have a look how much of the starter you need for the recipe. Put most (80%) of your starter into a separate container and top it up with equal quantities of water ( doesn't have to be warm) and flour ( I you organic wholemeal or rye) to match required amount, mix well and leave at room temperature for twelve hours. You should see it grow by then. Don't forget to feed the remaining starter (50:50 water and flour) and put it back to the fridge until you'll need it again... Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.711130
| 2015-07-23T10:36:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59285",
"authors": [
"Dalton",
"GdD",
"Igor Deruga",
"Jay",
"Katherine West",
"Nico G.",
"Selfie House Of Beauty",
"Thomas Elliott",
"dfrain",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"jannieauch1953"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109511
|
Why re-boiling milk doesn't boil over again?
When I heat milk, at some point it begins to boil over.
When I reheat the same milk after it has reached boiling point once before, it doesn't boil over again, it just boils "normally". Why is this?
I haven't done extensive testing, and I can't seem to find information about this anywhere; be it in English or in my native language. But here is what has happened to me:
I make a homemade hot beverage with low fat milk, cocoa, sugar and coffee (a pseudo-Mocha). Enough for 2 cups.
I boil the pseudo-Mocha, and hope to pay enough attention to prevent it boiling over, but there is still the "rising bubble" phenomenon occurring.
I pour out one cup, the rest of the liquid stays in the pan.
A few hours later, I boil the pseudo-Mocha again.
This time, no bubbly phenomenon occurs, just "classical" boiling.
Just to clarify by 'rising bubble' phenomenon, do you mean that the liquid level rises in the pan, as though it might boil over? And when you boil it a second time, the liquid level doesn't rise in the same way?
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/5228/67
I believe there are two processes involved here, one physical and the other one chemical.
When you heat milk (or any other liquid) dissolved gasses are released. Milk can contain up to 10% dissolved gasses, mostly CO₂ and O₂. When heated close to the boiling temperature, these gasses will form bubbles and cause the milk to boil over.
There will also be chemical changes, and it's entirely possible that the proteins will denature to such an extent that they will no longer form a foam as easily.
You could easily make an experiment to determine which effect is the greatest. Boil up some milk, in order to cause both degassing and denaturing. Let it cool down to room temperature, and sit until the next day. Whisk it, in order to reabsorb gasses, and try to boil it again. If it will boil over now, then the dissolved gasses was the dominant factor. If it doesn't, then you will have shown that the denaturing of proteins is dominant.
(Then discard the milk - you probably shouldn't drink milk that's been sitting out overnight, even after boiling it.)
Let us know what you find!
I did it for the science, but quite doubful to be honest. I whisked already boiled milk for 1 minutes or so, vigorously, and heated it again... And it boiled over, again !
I'll try to reiterate the experiment though, it could be biased (lower than usual boil over the first time for instance).
If you heat food high enough, you can cause chemical changes. Letting it cool back off doesn't necessarily reverse these changes.
Typical changes include:
deactivation of enzymes
denaturing (breaking down) proteins
converting sugars into more complex forms
evaporation of part of the liquid
In general, we call this 'cooking', but there's specifically a term in English for that you're doing to the milk: scalding
I suspect that you've denatured the proteins in the milk, and proteins can create foams (such as what happens when you whip egg whites or the liquid from canned beans), but there might be other processes that have happened as well.
I also know that scalding isn't called for typically in modern cookbooks. Part of this is because today's milk is homogenized and pasteurized, and so some of the chemical changes that we get from scalding have already happened. But there are still quite a few people who insist that you need to scald milk for certain types of bread making, or you won't get the proper rise and final texture from the loaves.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.711649
| 2020-07-07T08:27:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109511",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Tahn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84999",
"mfox"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103173
|
Instant coffee melts like chocolate
After my instant coffee (with chicory mix) powder got hard due to moisture I decided to heat the hardened coffee in a pan, and it got soft stuck to the pan like chocolate, and even had strings when I broke it (something like when you pull a caramel bar). I expect it to form a powder on heating, instead of turning into candy. Was it because of the water content?
This also happens with common unsweetened instant coffee (without chicory) if you allow it to cake and then try to heat in a pan or any other kind of heat that is concentrated on a specific spot or surface.
Instant coffee (a.k.a. soluble coffee) is made by spray-drying brewed coffee, and not by finely grinding coffee grains. You are not dealing with a moist powder that can be dried by local application of heat, like when you have wet flour or wet coffee grounds.
The coffee was partially dissolved by the moisture but it lacks the crystalline quality of other solutions that naturally form grains or crystals - like salt or sugar - it then becomes an amorphous mass and when you try to heat it up, it melts instead of crystalizing. This will also happen if you try to heat it up in the oven.
You can still use it as is - it will take longer to dissolve and need more stirring than you usual powder. The only way to fully recover it is to replicate the process used to make it - re-dissolve it and spray-dry (which is very difficult to do in a domestic setting)
That's really interesting!
This is also why instant coffee dissolves. If they are using actual coffee grounds, you will be drinking some very rough coffee...
Very interesting! It sent me off researching "spray drying", it's worthwhile mentioning that instant coffee could also be freeze-dried: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/instant-coffee-good-or-bad
Could you just grind it up to get something close to the original products usability without having to invest in spray/freeze drying tools, or would it just gum up the grinder?
Would probably just gum up the grinder. Use hot water to get it away from something it's stuck to.
@DanNeely I don't even think that there is a domestic scale spray / freeze dryer. The smallest ones I've ever seen for R&D applications are the size of a big fridge.
@Dan: I'd consider freezing it really hard and hand grinding it with a grater or microplane, ideally onto a cold metal pan/sheet. Just an idea though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.711942
| 2019-10-30T08:38:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103173",
"authors": [
"Alex KeySmith",
"Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight",
"GdD",
"Gloweye",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Nelson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9036",
"nomen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117024
|
Food is still undercooked on cast iron
I've recently gotten my pre-seasoned cast iron skillet and just tried to sear some meat.
1st attempt was on a rack of lambs and 2nd was on a salmon fillet.
I cooked try to fully cook them both on a preheated skillet. The outsides of the lamb/salmon looked nice and brown but when I cut open the meat isn't even cooked.
My salmon skin has even turned burnt but yet the insides were not even cooked.
My steps were:
Heat the cast iron skillet on a stove top
Add olive oil. Wait for the
oil to give off some smoke/ oil is hot.
Add in the lamb/salmon.
Wait/flip.
Skin looks burnt.
Cut open, and nothing is cooked - literally still raw and the cuts aren't even thick.
Throw them back in. They look burnt even more.
Take them out, insides are still not fully cooked.
Gave up, use a normal non stick pan.
I was just trying to get my lamb/salmon to medium. But it looks 100% raw.
Anyone has any idea what I did wrong?
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/267/, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6153/
I can't think of any delicious cooking application where smoking oil is involved. Olive oil in particular haws a low-temperature smoke point. I cook on cast iron for everything except eggs. On my cooktop, I put the olive oil in, wait about, ooh maybe a minute, then add the ingredients. If the oil smokes (because I've been distracted), I discard it, rinse the pan, start-over.
@Kingsley you shouldn't literally smoking the oil, but it's perfectly fine to start cooking as soon as you see the first bit of smoke coming off, you won't get any off flavors as the food will drop the pan temp. But also you should always be using peanut or grapeseed when pan searing at any rate.
You say “undercooked”, but especially with salmon and lamb having a sear on the outside while leaving the inside untouched is often the point, and what you’ve described, rather than “undercooked”, sounds cooked to perfection.
One thing not in the answers but not enough for a separate answer: usually the process called “searing” isn’t even intended to cook a piece of meat. In the recipes I know, searing is either only one part of the process or it’s all that is done to a piece of meat that is otherwise left raw (as Konrad commented). So you are searing correctly, and searing isn’t cooking. You probably want to find a different recipe that actually cooks your meat.
@Kingsley For high heat stir fry, I heat the oil and watch very carefully for the first wisps of smoke before adding the first ingredient. The oil doesn’t get burned because I catch it right at the very beginning of smoking and then the added food brings down the temperature very rapidly.
Your pan was too hot. Cast iron pans can get ripping hot (which is good) and retain heat very well (which is also good). But, on the other hand, if you have a thicker piece of meat and want medium doneness, you should not start with maximum heat, depending on your stove.
If your pan is really that hot that the outside looks burned while the inside is still raw, the heat from the pan simply did not have enough time to penetrate into the inner layers of your food.
A few approaches to your problem could be:
take your food out of the fridge at least half an hour before throwing it into the pan, to allow it to get up in temperature - this does not make a big difference as per SirHawrks comment quoting Kenji Lopez-Alt
start with lower heat and sear your food for longer
start with high heat to get a good searing, then transfer the whole pan to a pre-heated oven and finish cooking in there
use a meat thermometer to gauge the doneness of the interior
Taking your food out of the fridge and leaving it on the counter won't actually make any significant difference according to J. Kenji Lopez Alt over at SeriousEats
@SirHawrk good point, I did not know it made such little difference.
Thanks a lot. I didnt really think that it will get too hot and just cook it normally as with a non stick.
I think this misses the biggest mistake OP made. Searing is not cooking. What OP is trying to replicate is restaurant style seared meat. This means you should get the pan very hot, sear for 30 seconds - 1 minute on each side, then put it into a pre-heated oven to cook the interior of the meat. Searing, by definition, will not cook the inside of the meat. Keeping it on the high-heat pan searing for long enough to cook the interior will burn the exterior.
Solid second for a digital, instant read meat thermometer. I started using my cast iron a lot more at the start of the pandemic and a thermometer has been key to understanding the timing between searing vs. interior cooking. The next gadget I'm thinking of investing in is an infrared thermometer so I can get an even deeper understanding of pan temperatures and cooking times.
The only way (I know of) that the meat temperature can make a difference is if it was originally frozen and it's not completely thawed when you throw it in the pan. But I assume that's not the case here.
Another alternative, although it requires more equipment - sous vide the meat beforehand, then sear to brown the outsides.
The very short answer: You had bad temperature control.
You have to leave meat on the skillet until the proper internal temperature is reached. If the outside burns before that, then you used too high heat. Also, if you have a very thick steak, you may need to use more involved methods.
A longer answer: It is absolutely normal that cast iron behaves very differently from a typical thin nonstick pan. This is why people are making such a big deal out of the kind of pan they are using - cooking with both is simply different.
When transitioning to using the cast iron, you have to take into account that it has a much better heat transfer into the food, but also reacts a lot slower to changes in the burner setting. It also manages to make much better crusts, I suspect that this is because it stays very hot in the places where it makes contact with the food, as opposed to an aluminum pan where the heat gradient might extend a bit into the pan itself.
So you will need to learn to recognize when the pan is at the proper "temperature" (actually, the proper rate of heat transfer) and use a burner setting that provides that temperature and not a higher or lower one. The smoking oil is not a good indicator, because the smoking oil is only an indicator of the current temperature at the current moment, not of the rate of heat transfer at equilibrium. You will simply have to experiment until you have found the right setting for your burner, pan and usual meat thickness. You also have to curb your impatience and give it enough time to reach that temperature at the needed setting (which will be lower than the one you are using now). And if you notice that you made a mistake and the setting is too high or too low, you can of course regulate during cooking, but remember that the pan will react very sluggishly. So after each change, wait for several minutes until it takes effect, before intervening again.
All that time, you have to be aware that the appearance of the crust has nothing to do with the actual doneness. Either learn to recognize the doneness by touch/pressing, or, much simpler, use a meat thermometer.
Last but not least, consider also using methods beside simple "throw it on the pan and wait", for example Alton Brown's oven+pan steak. They are certainly more work, but they have a much higher chance of success for somebody who is starting out.
Cast iron does not have good heat transfer into food. It's big and heavy and holds a lot of heat, but the thermal conductivity of iron is awful so the food tends to suck the heat out of the area it's in contact with, leaving your food sitting on a cold spot while the rest of the pan's surface is still ripping hot. I don't know where this "cast iron has great thermal conductivity" myth comes from, but it's absolutely wrong. I love cast iron, but it has quirks that you need to understand and manage. Good heat transfer is not one of its advantages.
I suspect that this is because it stays very hot in the places where it makes contact with the food, as opposed to an aluminum pan where the heat gradient might extend a bit into the pan itself. This is completely backwards - think of a blacksmith where you can have an iron rod red hot at one end but cool enough to hold on the other. Heat moves slowly in iron. Now go try to do that with an aluminum or copper rod and watch how fast you have to let go. Copper bottomed pans actually help scour heat from the whole pan surface and bring it to the food - iron gives you no help here.
Iron has "great" thermal conductivity because it is metal. It blows away wood, plastic, glass, etc. In comparison, Aluminum: 230, Copper: 390, Iron: 60, Glass: 0.8 I'd really like to see a FLIR video showing that iron can develop a "cold spot" where the food cooled it significantly.
"Iron gives you no help here" A copper bottom will spread the heat more evenly along the bottom but it still has to transfer through the thickness of the pan. Cast Iron pans do "help here" by being thick. The heat can equalize side-to-side as it moves through the greater thickness.
@JDługosz Just cook on an iron pan - you don't need a FLIR to notice what's going on. Iron cools where cold/wet food touches it - that heat goes into the food. The cold spot re-warms slowly because heat has a hard time conducting from the still-hot parts of the pan. You either have to move the food to a still-hot part or turn up the heat - in the latter case, the still-hot parts get even hotter while your cold spot comes back up to temperature. Your own numbers show exactly the difference - iron is about 4-5 times worse at conducting heat than aluminum or copper. That's a huge difference.
There's alot of info here. Thanks alot mate. Yeap I have to admit i am just starting out and just thought it would cook the same as a non stick
@J... Sorry, I've never noticed any such thing. Is your stove under-powered? Yes it's 4 or 5 times worse than those other metals, but it's more than enough. Like, the heat evens out in the iron faster than it moves into the (non-metal) food, and effectively maintains a uniform temperature on the scale of a tenth of a second.
@JDługosz I've been cooking for decades on every kind of stove you can imagine. If you don't notice cast iron cold-spotting, I have to conclude that you're just not a very experienced or observant cook. You can use the leidenfrost effect to see this easily - get an iron pan very hot and drop 25ml of cold water in one area until it cools enough that the leidenfrost effect disappears. Use a spoon to drop water on different areas of the pan and notice how the water still beads on the very hot areas but spreads out and boils on the cooler areas. Use a clock to notice how long it takes to equalize.
Heat moves slowly, and takes a while to travel into the middle your food. If your pan is very hot, the surface of your food gets heated so quickly that it burns before enough heat has got into the middle of your food.
The skill in cooking on a pan is finding the right combination of temperature and time, where the middle has time to heat up to a desired doneness, while the outside does not cook too far.
It's a skill you have to learn, because the right heat and the right time depend on what you are cooking (e.g. fish and meat cook differently), what its original temperature is (room temp or fridge) and most importantly how thick the piece is.
As someone else suggested; sous vide cooking is one solution to this problem: you start by first heating the entire piece to the desired doneness of the middle, and then you can very quickly cook the outside on a very hot pan. It's a bit of a hassle, but the results are reliable.
There is an extremely easy solution to this problem if you want to invest a little bit of money: sous vide. Cook to just under the desired temp (or just follow the guide for the cut on serious eats or other good cooking site) and sear the heck out of it on the cast iron like you did using a high smoke point oil (peanut or similar). It's cooking for dummies, basically impossible to mess up and should come out perfectly every time.
Searing is not cooking. You will need to finish the meat in a pre-heated oven. This is how it's done at restaurants, and seems to be what you are trying to replicate.
Searing will develop a delicious "crust" on the exterior of the meat as part of the maillard reaction, without the heat penetrating deep into the meat (which is what "cooking" is). To penetrate the heat, it takes time. To preserve the nice crust developed during a sear, it's best to finish cooking in an oven.
Steps:
Use a high-temp oil, such as Canola or Vegetable Oil. Olive oil will burn and leave a foul taste on the meat.
Preheat your oven (temperature depends on what meat you are cooking. For steak, 500℉ or its highest setting. This will differ slightly depending on the meat).
Place your cast iron pan on your stove on its highest temperature setting, with oil inside, and let is heat up for 5–10 minutes.
Place meat in pan, and allow to sear for 30 seconds up to 1 minute. Flip and repeat. Exact time will again, depend on the meat, its thickness and type.
After seared on both sides, remove the pan from the stove and place it into the pre-heated oven. Allow to cook for 2 minutes on each side (again, exact times depend on the meat, etc).
Remove from oven, transfer meat to a plate and loosely cover with aluminum foil.
Allow meat to rest for 5–10 minutes before cutting into it. This allows the juices inside the meat to settle and be "sucked" back into the meat while cooling, resulting in juicier meat. Cutting into the meat before allowing it to rest will result in the hot juices running out and leaving your meat dry.
Alton Brown also suggests reversing this: bake it first, then sear to give the crust. In a Realoaded episode he says he does this now for steaks too (the classic episode was for a roast).
@JDługosz Alton Brown's Good Eats is my favorite of all cooking shows. Not just showing how to cook or follow some instructions, but explaining the why behind what you do really unlocks next level cooking. I keep meaning to watch his Reloaded episodes - bumping them to the top of my list now. Thanks for that reference!
I've only watched a few of the Reloaded episodes because I can't stand stretched video. The old content is widened to fit the new aspect ratio. If you like that stuff, check out Adam Ragusea on YouTube as well.
"Anyone has any idea what I did wrong?
Actually, in one way you were highly successful. This is exactly what you want when cooking with cast iron. Ever have seared tuna at a nice restaurant? It's cooked on the outside and raw in the middle. If you attempt to cook the food through at searing temperature you will get something with the consistency of a hockey puck or it will become charcoal.
You seared perfectly. You just need to finish the food. What I do with my iron pan is sear, flip and then after a short time, cut the heat way down and cover to allow it to cook through. I have a universal lid that's reflective and has a vent to prevent steaming the food.
Use a thermometer and check the middle after some time has passed. It will often take a lot longer to cook through than to sear. You'll start to get a feel for how long you need for different items with practice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.712302
| 2021-08-30T10:54:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117024",
"authors": [
"Dacio",
"Dronir",
"J...",
"JDługosz",
"John",
"John Doe",
"Kingsley",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Michael Seifert",
"Nathan",
"SirHawrk",
"SnakeDoc",
"Todd Wilcox",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95385",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115517
|
Is "mintiness" a well-defined thing?
I perceive a similarity in taste and odour between spearmint and peppermint, and I describe both as minty. The smell, taste and cooling sensation of peppermint are reproduced almost perfectly by pure menthol. But spearmint, despite being very closely related to peppermint, contains very little menthol, and it apparently gets its character from R-carvone, which is also found in caraway, which exhibits a vaguely minty aroma.
To me, lemon balm smells primarily like lemon, and not at all minty. Wild watermint (from which peppermint is obtained by hybridisation with spearmint) smells, to me, vaguely minty but also disagreeably vegetal, like lots of inedible greens do. Likewise catnip. And most other mint varieties sold in garden centres for culinary purposes (pineapple mint etc) smell, to me, similarly like weak mint with unpleasant off-notes.
On the other hand, pennyroyal and hyssop both smell unmistakably minty and pleasant to me.
What, then, do the two best-known mints have in common that makes them identifiably minty? Is it anything inherent to their makeup, or is it just mental association?
I've seen some Americans describe wintergreen as a type of mint. Botanically that's not true at all, and wintergreen oil's chemical composition is very different from the mints. I'm from the UK, where wintergreen is very rare as a food flavouring, and its smell is primarily associated with medicines and liniments. I don't perceive it as having a minty quality at all. I can recognise that it's pungent and herbal, so it has similarities to (for instance) eucalyptus, camphor, pine, rosemary, juniper etc, and in that sense, it's vaguely like the mints, but no more so than any of those other plants listed.
So I believe that when an American describes wintergreen as minty, it's because a) for them, the flavour is associated with the herbal candies referred to as "mints", and b) in broad terms, it's in the same sort of category. Is it the case that I similarly consider spearmint and peppermint both to be "minty", just because I'm used to using the word mint for both of them, even though they're very different chemically?
Addendum: here to illustrate the chemical differences are gas chromatography analyses.
Peppermint oil is primarily eucalyptol, menthol, menthone, menthofuran, menthyl acetate and iso-menthone
Spearmint oil is dominated by limonene, carvone, myrcene, beta-bourbonene; the spikes for menthol, menthyl acetate etc are tiny
(I believe that the distinctive characters of eucalyptus and wintergreen come primarily from eucalyptol and methyl salicilate respectively.)
Surprised to see that spearmint and peppermint have so different chemical profile. I would anyway say that menthol should be essential to define "minty". And as you said, if someone says minty to eucalyptus, most likely s/he is influenced by candies called eucalyptus but containing menthol, too.
Take a look here at a gas chromatography analysis of spearmint! Menthol is spike number 25, totally dwarfed by even the pinene and eucalyptol components, which is why I'm inclined to think that spearmint is really no mintier than eucalyptus or even wintergreen!
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/technical-documents/articles/analytical-applications/gc/gc-analysis-of-spearmint-essential-oil-g005898.html
problem is that my English is relatively OK, but not to the point to know which mint is what in my language. So can't really link words to my tasting olfactory experience... Anyway interesting.
Note piperitone. Probably very minty in itself.
Don't worry, lots of native English speakers have very little understanding of the terms for the different mints! Thanks for pointing out piperitone. I noticed it, but I discounted it, assuming from the name that it was a pepper-like odour, but Wikipedia says it's got a strong peppermint aroma. But, like menthol, it's still a very minor component of spearmint...
indeed I took 36 for 38 or viceversa. So the mistrry remains unless it is really the whole profile tasting/smelling mint...
I feel like this question is its own answer.
Butting in a bit late LOL I worked a few years for a major toothpaste manufacturer in the Quality Department and we considered "wintergreen" a different flavor family than "mint". The mints (peppermint and spearmint) both have the cooling mouthfeel associated to ligants to CRM1 receptor,s which the wintergreens typically don't have (note that artificially produced flavors might have menthol incorporated in the formulation, tho)
Thanks @JulianaKarasawaSouza . I didn't realise that spearmint triggered CRM1, so I think maybe that is the common aspect to mintiness that I was looking for! Yeah, to me, wintergreen is unpleasantly medicinal and not at all minty, but I got the impression that that wasn't the case in US common parlance. If you'd like to write an answer about the cooling mouthfeel, I'd gladly accept it.
@tea-and-cake Yeah, I get the medicinal taste - I HATED taste-testing batches of wintergreen toothpaste. However, I'm not sure about the US common parlance, as I'm not from the US and I've only ever talked about mintiness and toothpaste in the very technical context of making it, I'll give you an answer from that point of view
The mints in general - spearmint and peppermint - have the cooling mouthfeel associated to ligants to CRM1 (now named TRPM8) receptors. The various nuances in flavor are given by other molecules, like limonene and carvones in spearmint; and menthol, menthone and menthyl acetate in peppermint.
Wintergreens do not contain those ligants that provide a cooling mouthfeel, so they're not considered mints per se, but it is very common practice to combine wintergreen with mint (or just add menthol) when using it as flavoring, especially in products where the consumer expects a "cool" mouthfeel, as it enhances the perception of cleanliness (e.g. toothpaste, mouthwash, chewing gum, breath mints, throat lozenges...). This could be the reason why many people describe wintergreen as being "minty".
From a technical perspective (toothpaste manufacturing, specifically), wintergreen is not the same flavor family as mint. When transitioning from a wintergreen flavor to a mint flavor, the cleaning cycles for the processing equipment are far longer than when transitioning between wintergreen flavors or between mint flavors, as the acceptable levels for cross-contamination are FAR lower, since it is very highly unlikely that an average consumer can spot a bit of peppermint residue mixed in with spearmint toothpaste, but it is far more likely that they can spot a bit of wintergreen residue mixed in with any minty toothpaste
I consider my mystery solved at last, thanks!
Regarding cross-contamination, I can well believe that. I find that Hoegaarden beer has a very subtle wintergreen nuance, and even that slight taste is right on the borderline of what I find palatable. I'll drink it, but I'm reminded of Germolene antiseptic salve while I'm drinking it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.713496
| 2021-05-03T15:18:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115517",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"FuzzyChef",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93720",
"tea-and-cake"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69099
|
Can somebody identify this tea?
I was eating at my local Denny's and when you ask for tea, they give you some hot water and two of the below tea bags. On the menu it says "Hot Tea / Herbal Tea" but the tea bags only say Lipton and don't say what kind. I am hoping to identify what type of Lipton tea this is. I know the inside has a number on the bottom which didn't help me in Google.
The webadress "www.ufs.com" and the text "This unit not labeled for retail sale" tell you that this is the tea mix Unilever delivers to restaurants, senior homes etc. The rainforest alliance logo is used for coffee and black tea, so it's not herbal tea. (That the menu lists both, only means both are available, typically for the same price; without qualifier a server will always assume "tea" = "black tea".)
As this paper wrapper does not give details, you could ask your server (tip generously...!) for package details or check the ufs website. My gut feeling is that it's the standard Lipton black tea:
... or at least a very similar blend.
Stephie - While this is clearly a foodservice item, not being labeled for retail sale does not mean that a product can't be sold at retail. It means that the individual unit is not for retail sale, so you would have to buy it in a package of "X" number of units. This same wording is often found on retail items that contain more than one unit as the units are not meant to be sold individually.
I finally was able to strike a conversation with a server who brought the entire box out to show me. It was Lipton 100% Natural America's Favorite Tea (Serve Hot or Iced) 100 Tea Bags as you show above. I noticed that the tea didn't taste the same at first because I believe that my tea water is actually TOO hot. Once it cooled down a little bit it started tasting the same.
Lipton brands it's tea as "Orange Pekoe", which this essentially means it's black tea from India or Sri Lanka. Black tea has caffeine in it, Lipton averages at about 40mg per cup, which is pretty moderate compared to coffee, but is not caffeine free like some herbal teas.
From Google Images, when I type in Lipton Black Tea Bags, the packaging is exactly the same when other variants have different labels. Thank you for pointing out black tea as I thought I Googled that before.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.714031
| 2016-05-19T06:51:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69099",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Gabriel Graves",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9484"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22970
|
Does microwaving eggs kill salmonella?
If eggs are thoroughly washed and of course beaten before microwaving, and after the process I can find no liquid, is there a possibility that salmonella is still there, or does it die from high temperatures?
Isn't putting eggs in a microwave oven one of those things your mum always tells you not to do... or else?
They're fine outside the shell @nico
@ElendilTheTall: oops, I didn't read the question properly :) thought he was talking about whole eggs!
Microwaves do not kill bacteria, heat kills bacteria. The higher the temperature, the faster those bacteria will die off.
"Instant death" for most bacteria (including salmonella) is about 160° F (71° C). You only need a few seconds at this temperature. The notoriously strict USDA recommends 160° F for egg dishes but is considerably more lax about whole eggs and just says to cook until firm. Very few eggs are contaminated in the whites or yolks, so the risk is very low.
Pasteurization begins around 57° C (135° F), so many bacteria are killed before the egg coagulates (at 63° C / 145° F), which is why the USDA is not very strict about it; if an egg by itself is "firm" then it's generally already been hot enough for long enough to ensure safety.
Unfortunately, microwaves tend to heat (a) quickly and (b) unevenly, so if you are concerned about food safety and insist on making eggs in the microwave (not recommended), be sure to use short bursts and stir several times, otherwise you might end up with a combination of uncooked and overcooked parts, which is bad for food safety and for general taste and texture.
Note that there is not only a possibility but actually a certainty that some salmonella is still there, assuming that there was any to begin with. Cooking is equivalent to pasteurization and that does not kill every single bacterium, nor is it meant to; it just kills about 99.9999% of them which makes the cooked item safe enough to consume.
Thanks for the answer. I did stir them every 30 seconds, and it took 2 minutes at 800W for them to get cooked (for all visible liquid to disappear). However, I admit, they aren't quite as yummy as I expected, so I probably won't do it again :\
Taking that back. Years passed, and I have added some milk, torn bread, plenty of spices and got a most delicious omelette :)
they're better if you add a lot of milk, they go even fluffier than stove cooked scrambled eggs. Also extra liquid means you can get them a lot hotter for a lot longer before they dry out, so hopefully safer.
Not necessarily: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/health/22real.html?_r=1
However my guess is that the heat generated by a microwave would be hot enough to kill most of the bacteria (backed up by some of the research in this article: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2947/do-microwave-ovens-kill-bacteria), so as long as it's a fresh egg the risk of salmonella poisoning is low.
If you're using pasteurised eggs, you should be fine.
True, however most eggs are not pasteurized, and despite posting a question about good places to find them, I have not been able to locate ANY local source of pasteurized eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.714263
| 2012-04-12T04:56:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22970",
"authors": [
"486dx",
"BobMcGee",
"Carol",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kirt",
"Nyer2london",
"Septagram",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9883",
"jmf1205",
"karlalou",
"miguelgr",
"mmathis",
"nico",
"user51900"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41543
|
How to saute without oil on stainless steel pots/pans?
In an effort to reduce oils from my diet, I've been trying to saute without oil, but I'm not sure how to do it. In doing so, my pans now have a brown residue that is impossible to wash off.
I have read that it is possible to saute in a dry pan and also in broth or water. I've looked up videos, but they all show non-stick pans.
I've also had a look at a few relevant links, such as this, but they don't explain how to do it. Could some please explain how to saute on a stainless steel pan using water or broth, and also on a dry pan?
If you take another look at the question you linked to... the author was aware it's not actually sauteeing, and several people pointed this out too (it's more like sweating or steaming). And the answer points out that you're not going to get the kind of browning you would with sauteeing.
I wonder where you have read it. Your link doesn't help, maybe you linked the wrong question? It talks about using a stainless pan with oil.
If you are talking about true saute (very quick movement of bite-sized pieces of food on a very hot pan), it is completely impossible without oil. If you are misusing the term to mean shallow frying, you can do it without oil in a coated pan, if you take care not to overheat to the point of damaging the coating. Stainless steel pans have to always be used with oil or other fats, else they will stick. The taste of food browned without fat (in a coated pan) will also be different from that of food browned in fat, because fat is needed for important flavor-producing reactions. It is up to you if you like the different taste or not.
You can braise food in a broth, meaning that you put a small amount of broth in the pan, add the food and wait for it to cook through. This works with stainless steel pans too. But this is not comparable to either sauteeing or shallow frying. The temperature does not exceed 100 Celsius, which is way too low for Maillard and other flavor-developing reactions. So, if your recipe calls for sauteeing, browning, grilling or frying the food, you cannot use this method as a substitute.
In summary, you seem to have been misinformed. This is not possible, frying always requires oil, and browning without oil requires a PTFE coated pan (or a fresh ceramic coated one - they tend to lose their antistick properties with time).
Update You can sweat vegetables without oil, as mentioned in the corrected link. This is very different from both the true sauteeing you will find in textbooks and the quick browning usually meant in recipes which call to start with sauteing the ingredients. The result are softened vegetable pieces suitable for e.g. stir frying or mixing into chunky sauces. If you are going to make a soup or stew, don't bother using it instead of browning, as it doesn't add flavor and a soup doesn't mind the vegetables weeping into it. For other applications, you can try it and decide if the taste is good enough for your purposes.
The process is simple. Cut your vegetables finely (in the 4-7 mm range). Pour 3-5 mm of water into the pan and add a level layer of vegetables, up to 1.5 cm thick. Turn on the stove on slow to medium heat and leave them largely undisturbed. Wait until they are done - they will have softened and lost some moisture. As you are not using oil, you have to watch the food closely, because if all the liquid evaporates, the food will heat enough to stick and scorch. But don't stir much, because the vegetables need time in contact with the pan/broth to heat through, not to get a new side exposed to the heat each second. You could do it with constant stirring, this is the risotto method, but you will end up with preparation times similar to risotto (> 40 min) while waiting for the vegetables to heat through despite the stir. So it takes a little experience to know when the bottom of the vegetables is done but the liquid is not yet evaporated, without stirring to take a look at what is happening on the bottom.
In the end, it is up to you to decide if you really want to bother. You get a higher probability of failure (risk of scorching it), higher effort (the need to watch it closely) and less taste. If you feel that the fat reduction makes up for it, do it.
I generally agree but see for example this question. I've done that with onions in stainless steel, and it "works", but anything with more moisture than an onion will of course stick aggressively.
@rumtscho I fixed the link.
saute requires oil, without oil it's not sauted
A non-stick pan does the next best thing, but not quite
For a compromise; a splash of oil to cover a typical pan will be about 10 g. Just remove 20 g of carbohydrate or 10g of other oil from other recipe ingredients and it will still be more or less the same
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.714665
| 2014-01-28T19:48:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41543",
"authors": [
"Andrea",
"Cascabel",
"Finnegan Brubeck",
"HABALABALU COMING FOR THEBOOTY",
"Lo Miles",
"MarkE",
"Milan Navratil",
"Pointy",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96872",
"madprogramer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35897
|
Are sweet potatoes and yams treated different in terms of cooking?
I saw this this question, and a few others, but there aren't any explanations I can find that say whether the two are treated differently or not. In other words, can they be used as a direct substitute?
It depends on what you mean by "yam".
Once upon a time, in the deep south of the US, there was a tuber known as the sweet potato, and it was good. And then one particular grower decided to sell theirs under the trade name "yam" to get better marketing recognition. This lead to some folks in the US calling sweet potatoes by the name yam, especially in the context of candied yams (a sweet casserole of spiced sweet potato).
So if the word "yam" is being used to mean a variety of sweet potato, then they are culinary identical. Sweet potatoes of all variety are, well, potato sized (or a bit bigger than the average potato), and their color can range from whitish through yellow, orangish or reddish. Most grocery store varieties are fairly orange in color.
True yams originate from Africa, and are far more starchy and fibrous than sweet potatoes, no matter what they are called, and are used in entirely different ways. They can be very large, football to basketball sized or larger. There are also a tremendous variety of true yams.
No, these are yams http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxalis_tuberosa ... maybe there is no standardi(s/z)ed world language yet :-)
Actually, that is a 3rd vegetable by that name. From the context of the question, however, I assumed US usages.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.715093
| 2013-08-10T01:45:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35897",
"authors": [
"Catherine Ramos Basiyo",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Satya Quotes spam",
"TFD",
"Vorbis",
"carol",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84167",
"mary ching"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74879
|
How should cooked pork shoulder be stored in the freezer?
After searching the site I didn't see this question under the tag freezing or after searching for [freezing] bbq and [barbecue] freezing but I did run across How should I store steaks in the freezer? but my question is in regards to shredded barbecue. That said, I typically do around 4 bone-in pork shoulders in my smoker but my smoker holds up to 8 shoulders at a time so I am wanting to know how should I freeze the pork?
After some research on the freezing process I have concluded that I should let the meat rest for an hour before shredding but where I fall into an issue is if I should:
Let meat cool down in the fridge for four hours after shredding, bag and vacuum seal, then place into freezer.
After shredding immediately place in vacuum bag and then place in freezer.
Since air is an issue in the vacuum process, let meat rest for an hour hour after shredding, sauce meat to an extent of it only being covered to assist in vacuum removal then freeze so it will be a solid.
So how should the cooked shredded pork shoulder be prepared for freezing?
Yes, this is a real world problem. I need to know.
I don't see a strong reason to wait for the meat to cool completely before vacuum sealing it. In fact, by waiting, you're likely to let more flavor and moisture escape unless you've already put it in a well-sealed container.
The only reason to wait would be if you were vacuum sealing very large packages, which might take very long to cool down in the center. But if your packages are a reasonably small size and/or flat enough to cool quickly, it's probably fine to seal early.
I would strongly recommend cooling and chilling before freezing, however. Please do NOT cool outside of a refrigerator unless you are using an ice bath or something like a cooler as recommended by Sean Hart. (That is, do NOT just cool on the counter.) If you can't do that, the refrigerator is fine for cooling thin or flat packages -- just don't put hot food in touch with perishable food inside the fridge, and don't stack packages (you want to maximize air circulation).
It's important to chill before freezing because the rate of freezing is important for preserving the best quality in meat. If it takes a long time for meat to freeze, larger ice crystals will form during the process, which create a number of problems (more chance for "freezer burn," meat loses more juice and tastes drier when reheated, etc.). So chill the meat well, and then place in freezer. Again, try not to stack packages or place them too close together when freezing, since you want them to freeze as quickly as possible. (Depending on the size of the freezer and how much meat you're freezing, it may also make sense to freeze in batches, since adding too much food at once to a freezer may make it less efficient and less able to freeze quickly.)
As for the last question of whether or not to sauce, I think that's more of a personal preference question. I could see potential advantages if you remove air more efficiently if you add a little sauce, not only for the sealing process, but in the freezer where having more leftover air in a package tends to encourage "freezer burn" and can create quality issues. But it really depends on whether the vacuum sealing can work efficiently even without the sauce.
Shred it, vacuum seal it, and cool it OUTSIDE of the refrigerator or freezer. I typically seal 8 oz at a time, and chill them in an ice chest. Then I put them in the freezer.
(it will reheat nicely in a pot of boiling water, on a related note)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.715262
| 2016-10-20T16:57:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74879",
"authors": [
"Citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58093
|
button mushrooms turned red while frying in butter
I fried fresh sliced button mushrooms in butter over low heat with no other ingredients. After a short while dark red areas started to appear on the sides of several slices.
I never noticed anything like it before and would be happy if someone had an explanation. Also I would like to know whether or not it is a sign of some sort of danger.
I tried to find information online but the results are mostly recipes and the only instance where someone describes the same, people's responses are not at all helpful (»maybe you cut your finger without noticing«, »maybe you used fly agaric«).
Stupid question: Do you have a color vision deficiency? I have a friend who has a mild color vision deficiency and often sees funny colors in food that he fries in a pan. I suspect that the food turned golden brown and the color resembles with red for people with color vision deficiency.
interesting approach! but no, haven't noticed anything yet. also, most of the slices were just browning, only a handful (but definitely from more than one mushroom) went clearly red.
I have no idea o.o Do you have any pictures of these mushrooms?
I've seen mushrooms turn a rusty brown or pink color when they oxidize, but never "red". Is it possible that you could provide a picture? It could very well be oxidizing. Heat often increases the rate of oxidation, so its possible that this is what you're experiencing. Does the color go away or become less apparent once the mushrooms are fully cooked, or do they continue cooking into a red color?
According to this article. Button mushrooms may turn pink if they are bruised. Is the knife sharp that you used to cut them? A dull knife often mashes its way through food rather than providing a clean cut.
Unfortunately I threw them out when I could not find useful information (I have a little child, so did not want to take any risks). Only a day later it occurred to me to ask it here, so sorry, but no pictures.
I guess rusty brownish pink could also describe what happened. Eventually they indeed went brown and the discoloration went away when fully cooked. The knife is proper sharp but the mushrooms were a bit old and not stored too well, so pressure might be a good explanation, thanks for the article link @tsturzl.
I will make an answer to summarize this thread of comments.
I upvoted but will wait a bit longer before accepting as my mushrooms clearly discolored while cooking, in the article it sounds as if it happens on pressure. but thanks anyway for this!
According to this article, button mushrooms may turn a pink color if bruised while being stored or handled. This sounds very much like what has happened to you, as you've stated that the mushrooms were old and not stored properly. This is not poisonous or bad to eat by any means, but I understand that one would not want to take the risk, especially when it comes to a fungi such as mushrooms.
For more information on storage, see the article provided above. A short excerpt on storage taken from that source:
Storage - Agaricus bisporus will last longer in your refrigerator than
many other mushrooms, usually around a week. It's better to store them
in a paper bag rather than plastic. They'll last even longer if you
take the time to put them in paper!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.715560
| 2015-06-08T08:34:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58093",
"authors": [
"Brenda Snortum",
"Ching Chong",
"Elisa Dubos",
"Janet Bullock",
"K MK",
"Mark Bog",
"hazel McPartlan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35785",
"jshlke",
"tsturzl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67684
|
Use orange juice instead of water for syrup to make Orangettes?
I used this serious eats recipe to make orangettes. After removing the oranges from the syrup in the end I further reduced it in order not to waste it. After tasting I though it could do with a bit more orange flavour and wondered:
Could I just squeeze the peeled oranges and use their juice instead of part or all the water in the syrup to make the leftover syrup taste stronger of orange?
Would this affect the Orangettes? How?
I'd also be interested in suggestions as to how I can use my syrup.
Letting the peel simmer in the syrup is to candy the peels, as they are too bitter to be eaten as is. In my opinion, adding orange juice to this syrup won't make that big of a difference. The peels in themselves has a much stronger orange flavor than the juice has. If it makes you happy, you can replace some of the water with juice. When not wanting to waste, I just eat the oranges.
As to the syrup, I understand you do not like to waste stuff, but it is just water and some sugar (with some extra flavor now), so I usually discard it. However, if you really wanted to, you could use it in several applications, but make sure you account for the correct ratio (orange sauce for a duck breast, maybe you could add it to a cake if the water is no problem, you could make turkish delight with it, etc.)
Hey @Mien, thanks for the answer and some suggestions. I edited my question to clarify that my goal is to have more orange flavour in the leftover syrup without negatively affecting the Orangettes. Would that work through using juice? – This time I also just ate the oranges :)
Hmmm, I think using juice will help, however that does not have a really strong flavor. You could use some of the water in which you first boiled the peels in. That will have an orangy flavor, but might also have some bitterness, but should be balanced out due to the sugar in the syrup. No real idea :) Also, interesting for you as it should also work with orange peels: http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/03/how-to-make-fresh-lemon-syrup.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.715835
| 2016-03-23T09:27:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67684",
"authors": [
"Abigayle Stern",
"Michael Hoad",
"Mien",
"Regina Cottam",
"Susan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"jshlke",
"ttigresa777"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57825
|
Jaw Shattering popcorn
Recently I found that popcorn is a fantastic snack, and incredibly cheap if you make it yourself.
There is only one problem... it seems that some of the popcorn pieces have a jaw shattering hard pieces hidden within them.
Is there a way to easily separate these or even preventing them whilst cooking them?
Shake the bowl containing the popcorn, the un-popped kernels should tumble to the bottom of the bowl.
Warning,there might be slightly popped kernels that should be eaten at all cost (the best part IMO).
Thank you for answering. It is the ones that are mostly popped causing the issue. The unpopped ones lay at the bottom.
I think you just have to be careful (partially popped kernels are really good).
The fault is with your cooking process or the freshness of your kernels. The process I use is one an old chef taught me several decades ago.
You will need popcorn (fresh because age dries out the kernels and not enough will pop), the best you can find (Orville Redenbacher is sufficient, but look around and sample other premium brands), olive oil, a large sauce pan with (ideally) a see-through lid, and a gas range if possible (electric ranges don't give you the heat control you need).
Put enough olive oil in the pot to cover the bottom generously, and put the heat on all the way low. Let it heat for a few minutes (not to the point of smoking) and then pour in enough popcorn to cover the bottom with a single layer of kernels. The oil will be hot enough at that point to swish the kernels enough to coat them all fully. Move the pot enough to distribute the kernels fully, and put the lid on and the pot back on the range, at the same heat level.
While the popcorn is cooking, you may need to lift the lid and wipe off the condensation from the underside. Do this when you hear a drop of moisture drop and sizzle in the oil.
Keep the heat on low until you hear the first kernel pop. Then remove the pot from the heat and swirl it around to mix the kernels and distribute the browner ones away from the hot spot in the pan. Put the pot back on the heat, still on low, until you hear one more kernel pop. Then turn the heat all the way up! All the popcorn should pop in a few seconds. You may have to empty some of the popcorn into a bowl at this point to avoid overflow, but it's a good idea to shake the popcorn after half has emptied from the pot in order to distribute the remaining kernels down to the heat source.
Season to taste. Me, I like to sprinkle Parmesan cheese on it. Enjoy!
If you do this right you will get very few unpopped or partially popped kernels, and the ones that you do find will be crunchy, not hard.
If you ever can find black popcorn, give it a try, especially if you can find it fresh from a farmstand or farmstand store. It has very small kernels that pop easily into tiny white flowers, very tender but crisp.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.716033
| 2015-05-28T11:19:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57825",
"authors": [
"Aaron Hamilton",
"Colleen Baird",
"Constance Lessard",
"Kathy Gustafson",
"Max",
"Robert Sneyd",
"Terry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35815"
],
"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
}
|
60217
|
Fresh popcorn serving size suggestion
I am planning to sell popcorn spiced with my own personal recipes, and i am looking to purchase bags for them.
Each bag should contain a single serving of popcorn, but i'm not sure how much that would be.
what is the suggested serving size for an adult?
Sorry Terry, but there is no "one size fits all" solution. You'll have to pick the size which sells best, based on marketing considerations. A cook can't tell you how much everybody will eat.
Suggestion:
Make a batch of popcorn, weighing all ingredients used.
Fill one bag.
Weigh the bag.
Calculate price per serving and total amount of ingredients required based on the weight of your initial batch.
In short, decide what kind of bags you have / want to use and calculate from there.
(Hint: We often instinctively think of popcorn as a volume, not as a weight based quantity.)
If you don't have the bags yet, meassure what you consider a one-person serving. I suggest making servings of plain popcorn larger and those with lots of sugar or similar smaller - e.g. 2 generous handfulls for caramel corn vs. 4 for plain salted.
Put it in a meassuring jug, read the volume scale, buy matching bags. If you need to calculate ingredients, weigh your serving and proceed as above.
thanks for you answer.I'm asking the question to work out what size bags i should buy.
That's basically unanswerable: Do you want to sell small snack-sized baggies or gigantic "feeds a family" bags or anything inbetween... The bags will have some description of size, weigh the corresponding volume of popcorn and you should be close enough.
I'm wanting to sell enough for 1 person.
Then meassure what you consider a 1-person serving. I suggest making servings of plain popcorn larger and those with lots of sugar or similar smaller - e.g. 2 handfulls for caramel corn vs. 4 for plain salted. Put it in a meassuring jug, read the volume scale, buy matching bags.
I've re-written my question to be a little more clear.
I'd look at existing products in the same space and try to figure out if you want your size offerings to match them or if you want your product to be differentiated by size offerings. Go to a store and look at roughly who your larger-scale competitive landscape looks like.
As far as industry comparables, I have seen packaged popcorn products that target the same space as "sandwich and chips" lunch specials and they typically offer a weight around .5-.7 oz (maybe a bit heavier for sugar-glazed items, say 1-1.5 oz); 1 oz by weight will translate into a volume about 2.5 cups. Anything in that range (1/2 to 1 oz) can easily pass for a single serving.
Microwave popcorn packages appear to typically have 1.2-1.5 oz popcorn (4-5 cups volume after popping). Some people consider those single servings.
(I've done no particular investigation of the percentage of weight attributable to oil/fats/seasonings/sugar/salt, so your mileage may vary).
I would not be surprised if a large percentage of packaged foods are sized based on what packaging was available for what cost. One product (not popcorn) I previously sold with piece counts delineated by what packaging style was readily available to me for a reasonable price; I could fit 4 pieces in a small box, 8 in a large box, and then I had "bulk" pricing (25 units or something like that) for people who didn't care about the packaging; I varied the bulk packaging depending on what was available to me from PaperMart or U-Line at the time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.716314
| 2015-08-24T20:43:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60217",
"authors": [
"Blake Hummer",
"Hank Jimenez",
"Maria Jenkins",
"Maria Newgent",
"Simon Healy",
"Stephie",
"Terry",
"bob schmitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"karen robinson",
"marty Coo",
"robert hooper",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62419
|
Re-baking cookies?
I have just made a batch of peanut butter cookies using a recipe based on shortbread.
I have left them to cool and they are still slightly doughy in the centre.
I'm not sure if the peanut butter causes the doughyness, or if they just aren't cooked. Is it OK to put them back in the oven to cook them until hard throughout, or should i just leave them as they are?
Peanut butter cookies should have a soft center. It's hard to say if you are overblowing a perfectly nice soft center by calling it "doughy" or not.
Some folks like authoritative sources to support such a wild claim. So, ATK said, in small part "achieve a crispier edge and a softer center." when justifying their choice of peanut butter here. https://www.americastestkitchen.com/recipes/853-big-super-nutty-peanut-butter-cookies
Of course, if YOU don't like them, sure, feel free to cook them more. But it is the way they "should" be per the "standard" (such as there is any) peanut butter cookie.
Although it's tough to say without knowing the recipe, it is safe to say that they are not done baking. The cookies will probably end up a bit dry but it should be ok to cook them some more. However be careful that you didn't let the uncooked ingredients sit out too long (food poisoning) if they contain ingredients that will spoil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.716599
| 2015-10-09T21:57:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62419",
"authors": [
"Allegra Frazier",
"AnnMarie Fosberg",
"Anthony Montrond Jr.",
"Caroline O'Boyle",
"Vikki Sampson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150711",
"mbond49"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62418
|
Are my cookies cooked?
I've just recently started baking and I'm finding it quite enjoyable. I am now changing some of the recipes a little bit to suit my tastes better.
A problem i am having is that the ingredient swaps often cause the texture to change slightly so some may need more or less baking time than before to get to a good consistency.
Is there an easy way to check if a cookie/biscuit is ready to be put on the cooling rack? So far i've been tapping them with a fork to feel how firm they are.
There isn't a universal way to tell. It's going to depend on the type of cookie. For chocolate chip cookies, I watch for a slight amount of browning around the edges. If you're using a chocolate flavored dough, that won't work because the dough is already dark. So you'd have to watch for changes in the surface, such as cracks or dullness. The bottom line is that you're going to need to read the recipe and then experiment with it until you learn how to get it right.
As a general rule, the cookies will still be very soft and appear slightly underdone when you remove them from the oven. Leave them on the baking sheet for at least five minutes before transferring to a cooling rack. They'll set up during this time due to residual heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.716851
| 2015-10-09T21:53:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62418",
"authors": [
"Dave Martone DMarty454",
"Dev P",
"Emily Cannon",
"Lauren",
"NITHIN T S",
"Sobia Taj",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148528"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58041
|
How to clean an all-clad stainless steel pan
I accidentally left one of my all-clad stainless steel saucepans on the stove & the water in it boiled off... I used Bar Keeper's Friend(BKF) & I was able to remove all the spots in the interior of the pan but the shiny finish on the exterior is yellowed now and BKF did not remove this stain.
It almost looks like when sterling silver starts to tarnish.
Any ideas?
Brillo/S.O.S pads (the real metal ones) and Barkeepers Friend.Recently I found a liquid Barkeepers Friend that works well also.
Use the Barkeepers Friend first or just trade off. Brillo/S.O.S last.
There has never been crud or discoloration that has survived these two products. There have never been scratches with Brillo/S.O.S on my stainless steel both inside and out All Clad.
I think that Brillo/S.O.S works to really put a shine on the interior of the pan. Eggs do just slide around. Not too shabby.
Get as much of the burnt black little parts off of it as possible. Put bread around the top of it and remove when it is seared. Finally put in peeled potatoes, then put it in the fridge to cool off. It works very well.
Brenda, did you read the question carefully? The original question dealt with removing yellowish discoloration from the outside of the pan - whatever you put inside probably won't help much.
If it's a really bad stain you can use steel wool. It may leave some scratch marks, but that just means you use your pan!
Thanks for your reply! The stain is not that bad actually, I think I just ruined the finish due to overheating an empty pan! Not a big deal, life goes on...
Polish it with 'Brasso' or some other metal polish that is acidic and claims to work on stainless. This isn't the only way to get that off, but it's easiest.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.716997
| 2015-06-06T02:30:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58041",
"authors": [
"Alison Williamson",
"Ann Hanson",
"Cotty Lowry",
"David Armond",
"Javaid Hussain",
"Lu Ann Myers",
"Motsie Mochaba",
"Nancy",
"Patricia Stuckenschneider",
"Sherry Carlson",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35983"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115567
|
How to get rid of raw onion smell while doing Gojju when forgotten to fry the onions
I forgot to fry the onions before grinding it. Now I have added the ground raw onions with masala to make semi liquid sambar(gojju), how do I get rid of raw smell? Should I keep heating the Bindi gojju?
Sambar and Gojju are very different things - If I recall, gojju is thick and tamarind based, and sambar is lentil based. The 'standard' Sambar dosen't have raw onions in its spices either - most people use a dry spice mix. Could you clarify what exactly this dish is, and how its cooked?
@JourneymanGeek, edited the word sambar. I agree what you said is right.
In my experience, a combination of acid (lemon juice/tomatoes/tamarind paste) and heat(temperature) is used to cut the taste of raw onions. You will need to continue frying the raw onion and masala mixture until it separates from the oil, which is a good indicator of the doneness of the onions as well as the spices.
If you follow this route of cooking the onions after pureeing them, you would also not want to roast the spices before grinding them, and instead fry them all together at this stage.
Adding fried shallots or caramelized onion may help.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.717186
| 2021-05-07T19:57:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115567",
"authors": [
"Journeyman Geek",
"chan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93807"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119217
|
Why is my onion pickle taking super long?
I made an onion pickle recipe I saw on YouTube.
It was a brine of water and vinegar (1:1) and salt.
You boil it, then pour over onion. Let cool. Store in fridge.
It's very common on YouTube. They say, it gets done in overnight.
I made it and next day it wasn't done. I left it for 2 more days and still not done. I took it out of the fridge. And 2 days later and still not done!!
Why is it not done? and how do I make it ready quicker?
** My "doneness" meter is the color. Onion gets fully purple and so does the water. Mine is still just the outer surface purple and the flesh is white. The water is just semi opaque. Far from what I saw in the videos.
Edit : extra details
Here is the video pickled onion
Many other videos on YT under the name "pickled onion" share the exact same recipe.
And here is a picture of my current onion
And here is what it's supposed to look like
Update : results
I tried using this patch as is.
But it was sharp and had a bitter aftertaste.
So I decided to "fix" it following your recommendations.
Here is what I suspect went wrong. First thing as you guys mentioned below, my onion was pretty thick. Also, I realized that my vinegar was very stale and I still went with (1:1) ratio with water. Also, I didn't pour the brine immediately after boiling. And I just left it outside until it just cooled down to room temp.
So here is how I tried to reverse that.
I separated the onions from the brine to change a few things :
I cut the onions more thin
I increased the vinegar concentration (by adding extra amount then boiling it)
I added more salt
I poured the boiling brine immediately on the onions
I left it outside the fridge for more than 3 hours
I left them for overnight because it's extremely cold here.
The results :
Color was way off than presented (very pale greyish purple).
The onion slice has a uniform color now.
Isn't vibrant whatsoever. but better than before.
Texture was amazing. (Crunchy as desired).
Taste was pretty good. (very tasty and vinegary).
I don't know if that what it supposed to taste like. But I like it so much.
If I made a new patch (I know I will) I will post if the results are different. Thanks for your time and help.
That's odd. My onion pickle is essentially ready in 5 hours (first 2 hours are outside, as the mixture cools down, next 3 in the fridge). Can you show a picture of your onions?
Can you share the video link or recipe? I'm not clear on the purple part and the concept of done-ness. Refrigerator pickles are "done" when they are flavored. Also, sometimes people add beet juice to color pickled onions red. I don't think color is an indicator in this situation.
I do quick-pickled red onions frequently, but they do not turn "fully purple". As such, you're going to need to share a video if you want answers.
@DonThousand I didn't leave it 2 hours outside. Just let it cool down then stored in the fridge. I added a picture to the post
@moscafj They taste like regular onions with vinegar. Still solid with the "bunchy" taste. I added the details in the post. Here is a quick link.
@FuzzyChef I added the link and picture to the post. Can you check them out? How purple does it supposed to be when done?
@RooTenshi I see the issue (I think). The pieces are too big. Try to slice them longer and thinner. You want broken cells on the sides of your onions.
@DonThousand Ok I will try to slice it thinner next time. For this patch, I will see if I can slice it again. I hope this won't contaminate it
A lot of this is simply that good lighting and editing techniques are being used.
@eps ye, to some degree. But then again, other people on reddit with regular phone camera had pictures way better than mine. Although as you said, not this glowing purple like in the video
@RooTenshi I wouldn't say mine turn out as radiant as in the video, but mine are pretty close, I think. Good lighting takes it a notch above.
@DonThousand , i tried to "fix" mine. It tastes good now but the color is no way close. Idk why lol but I will take it
@RooTenshi Interesting. I'm getting a color very close to the pictured image. My mix is as follows: 1/4 white vinegar, 3/8 apple cider vinegar, 3/8 water, with sugar to taste and a pinch of salt. And then add very finely julienned onions.
@DonThousand , I will see if I can get a better patch next time. Also, does sugar play in rule in the results or just for the taste? Because I didn't add any.
@RooTenshi Just for the taste, I think. Not a chef by any means, so don't take my word for it. I'll make a batch at some point and add an image.
@DonThousand , that's cool. would love to see it. thanks for your tips tho, I've been enjoying my onions since.
Refrigerator "pickles" are generally "done" when the flavor and texture is to your liking. There is no reliable color indication. There is no fermentation expected. It is not a long term preservation technique, but rather, a flavor enhancer. You can eat refrigerator pickles after a few minutes, or keep in the refrigerator for a couple of weeks. Just keep tasting until they are what you like.
Some things to think about: the onions in your photo are sliced more thickly and irregularly than the sample video. The thicker your slices, the longer it will take the cell structure to break down and for them to soften and take on the flavor you are looking for. If you want to replicate what you see in the video, you have to use the same onions, and slice them the same way.
Other variables to look at, are the type of onion itself, as this will, of course, impact the flavor. Also, consider the type of vinegar you are using. These vary in acidity and flavor.
Finally, if you intend to use them over a few days, I would certainly not stick my fingers into the storage container, as the person in the video does. Doing this increases the likelihood that you will introduce bacteria or mold spores into your pickles, greatly diminishing your storage time.
Ye I'm sure there is no definitive time for it to be ready. But I expect it to reach the same state in a similar frame of time. The factors you mentioned are very crucial. But would it delay the "breakage" so dramatically? Mine maintained structure (solid), taste (pungent), and color (white-ish) just like regular onions. I saw many videos, posts on reddit, they all got it quick. Do you have any recommendations do help speed the current process?
It's in my answer...slice thinly, check other variables...onion, vinegar...etc. Yes, these can have a significant impact.
I meant the current patch. Is it salvageable? Or do I just let it do its thing and try better next time? Because I don't think I should take the onion out and slice them again. I feel like it won't be sanitary tbh
If it were me, I would just use them.
That's good too. Thank you for your answer and your time
Roo: if this answer works for you, don't forget to choose it as the answer
@FuzzyChef , Ye I was waiting a little extra time to see how it would turn. Thanks for reminding me
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.717329
| 2021-12-17T14:35:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119217",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Roo Tenshi",
"Rushabh Mehta",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94639",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93519
|
Temperature for making bone broth in slow cooker
I've made bone broth with grass-fed beef bones a couple of times in regular stock pots. Yesterday I tried it in my Hamilton Beach 6-qt Stay or Go Slow Cooker after carefully preparing the ingredients - soaking, roasting vegetables and sitting with the vinegar before adding herbs and turning it on - at the low setting. Last night I noticed - after 7-8 hours - the water was boiling. Continued for 19 hours when (duh!) it occurred to me this could be WRONG!
I checked a number of Websites, many of which said bone broth should never be boiled b/c, among other things, it causes the fat to be reincorporated in the broth, without being possible to separate it and it could affect nutrients in the broth. Other considerations: What about taste? I don't care if it's cloudy since it's for helping a family member with health issues - medicinal rather than show off culinary purposes.
I checked with Hamilton Beach folks who said the low setting is for 180 to 200 degrees, yet it boiled continuously. They also said it would turn off automatically after 14 hours; it didn't! I turned off crock pot and now seek advice re whether it's ruined or if 19 hours at the boil is enough cooking time or WHAT? Any feed back is greatly appreciated.
When you say 'boil' are we talking about a rapid boil / lots of movement, or just slightly, where you have a few bubbles coming up? If you're getting rapid boiling on low, it may need to be recalibrated (which I don't even know if it's something a person can do anymore)
It's almost certainly not ruined, in the sense of being unsafe or undesirable to eat. A higher temperature can actually increase the extraction of collagen, which is generally desirable for stock/bone broth, though it could also damage some nutrients and more delicate flavors. Given the amount of collagen to be extracted from beef bones, a 19-hour cooking time is certainly not excessive, and you could probably go even longer.
The bigger concern is really with the slow-cooker. A noticeable boil, even just a few bubbles, indicates that the actual temperature is probably on the high end of the manufacturer's given range. If an automatic shutoff also didn't work, that might indicate a faulty component; it sounds to me like the heating element might not be shutting off appropriately to maintain an accurate temperature. That may make the appliance less safe to run unattended and will make its behavior less predictable whether you use it for broth again or something else.
Personally, I'd start looking for another slow cooker before you make another batch. But the batch you made should be safe and fine to consume, assuming it's been handled properly otherwise!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.717860
| 2018-11-02T17:04:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93519",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122284
|
Raw Mincemeat cheesecake (uk christmas food)
I have this recipe for mincemeat* cheesecake, but it is a refrigerated recipe so it won't be cooked. Will the suet in the mincemeat even be edible?
Edit: so I made a fundamental mistake, the mincemeat in the jars is cooked and not raw.
mincemeat in the uk is a mixture of apples, dried fruit, brandy and suet*. here is a bbc recipe for making it https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/traditional-mincemeat
**suet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suet
Often store bought versions use vegetable suet. Suet is just fat, and fat doesn't need to be cooked.
good point but wouldn't that still be a little chunk of fat that is designed to melt into the surrounding food
You might want to link the cheesecake recipe as well, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary
it is a printed recipe from our local supermarket's christmas magazine
It seems to be a bit trendy - Sainsbury's have a baked one, and Asda only chilled, but both start with whole mince pies, making the base from the pastry.
this is booths (up north thinks it's waitrose) it is standard biscuit base with cream and cream cheese
When I'm up north I'm normally too scruffy for booths! I'm also not cooking properly as I'm normally on cycling trips when I get north of about Gloucester.
In general mincemeat has already been cooked and the suet distributed. The recipe you link just happens not to on the assumption that it will be cooked later, and it doesn't keep nearly as well as most recipes, because the apple isn't cooked.
I used to make this Delia Smith recipe which gently cooks it, then you have to stir as it cools. I used to make a batch every other year, that's how well it keeps. It's also far better than bought mincemeat (I used to buy the pastry but make the mincemeat for my mince pies. The other way round is far more common but my hands are too hot to make good pastry.)
Commercial versions do sometimes have visible bits of suet despite being cooked (probably because stirring during cooling isn't possible when it's packed hot). If starting with such a commercial jar, or the recipe you linked, I suggest warming it through, then stirring a few times as it cools, before using the cooled mincemeat in your cheesecake.
Another option if you were making mincemeat specifically to stir into a cheesecake would be to simply omit the suet. Although it's a decent fraction of the ingredients, you wouldn't miss it in a cheesecake. If the mincemeat is used in a layer, the suet might be needed to stick it together, then (assuming a biscuit base) you could spread it on the base before it's fully cooled.
yeah the commercial jars do have visible chunks in them so i thought it was raw suet, and as I always use if for mince pies, i had never thought about it.
Also, I can't prove it quickly but I think the pelleted suet you buy has been rendered, i.e. cooked during manufacture. But for eating quality you'd still want to even out the fat.
A simple solution if you can't find mincemeat without suet would be to heat the mincemeat until the suet melts, then cool it.
@GdD 3rd paragraph, note the need to stir a few times during cooling, or it all ends up on top.
I heated the mincemeat up and stirred it, so mixing the suet around, the resulting cheescake was a bit greasy, so a homemade mincemeat without the suet is a great idea.
@WendyG that sounds like a good plan. The fat content in commercial seems quite variable as well
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.718337
| 2022-11-09T10:35:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122284",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"WendyG",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70727"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117224
|
Replacement for Pearl Barley in cottage Pie
I am making a cottage pie (mince with mashed potatoes on top) recipe that requires 100g of pearl barley, and 600ml of stock. Right now, I can't get either pearl barley or husked barley.
The first step is place the barley, stock and salt into a small pan and boil for 25 mins, and it gets about another 1hr of cooking after that.
I was hoping lentils would be a good alternative, I have red, green and black, but what would that do to the amount of liquid and that first cooking step?
I found the recipe online: https://foodism.co.uk/recipes/yeo-valley-beef-barley-cottage-pie/
Why don't you just find a recipe that doesn't include barley? It's not a standard ingredient in a cottage pie.
@dbmag9 because this recipe was requested
I’d personally be inclined to stick with another grain. Wheat berries, groats, etc. You might check if your cereal/breakfast aisle of the supermarket has cracked wheat cereal, or something else similar. Bulgar or pinhead oats might also work, but they’ll be smaller. You can also skip the precooking on bulgar, or brown rice, I would think.
Part of the problem is that some varieties of lentils just turn to complete mush when overcooked. I don’t cook them as often as I should, but I seem to remember red being one of the problem ones. (Or maybe I’ve just overlooked them more than the others)
Hi Wendy, we are rather sensitive to rants in the questions that get posted. Your question is really quite a good one, I adjusted a formulation a bit to keep it strictly about the cooking situation at hand.
@Joe you remember right, the red ones are the most "dissolving" ones. Yellow Indian lentils can also dissolve on you, especially if you buy them split. In fact, there are vegetarian cottage pie recipes which use red lentils as the replacement for the minced meat, not for parts of the starch.
@Joe, we really are in old mother hubbard land here right now, the shops and supermarkets are focussing on the top seller lines, which aren't grains and and dried pulses they are crisps and chocolate. So I listed everything available, well I do have mung beans.
@rumtscho (and Joe) my lentil replacement for mince is a mixture of red and Puy or "lentilles vert" (the small green ones). The red provide body to the sauce while the Puy provide texture.
Whereabouts are you? Around Bristol and Cardiff there are a few gaps on the shelves in the major supermarkets but I haven't had trouble getting my first choice or a close substitute in recent weeks.
The reason to include the barley is to bulk up the filling and use less meat:
all the flavours of a proper beef stew, while the barley reduces the amount of beef needed while still retaining all the flavour
If you want to stay close to the recipe (and it's up to you whether you want to or not), you probably want to use something that retains a bit of a bite and doesn't disintegrate into your sauce. Instead of barley, most whole grains should work, from wheat berries to rice, and I would pick wholegrain rice over white, given the choice. Considering that you need only 100g, you could - if you are really determined - ask your local bakery for a cup of whole grains, they might have wheat or spelt berries for some of their breads, or check an organic store if your local supermarket is too limited.
Lentils are always mushier, because they have a soft center in a thicker skin. Once that breaks, the lentil is prone to disintegrate. You can mitigate that a bit if you cook them with salt (contrary to the often-repeated advice to avoid salt). Flavor-wise, lentils are a common choice as meat substitute, so while you wouldn't be that close to the original, the results should still be good. Choose a type of lentils that is used for salads - so black and green (verte de puy) sound good. They will darken your sauce a bit, but that's fine considering the given ingredients. Do not precook them, if you are going to simmer them quite a while in the sauce as per the recipe - or if you do, only very briefly, five to ten minutes perhaps. You may want to adjust the lentils-to-liquid ratio though. The rule of thumb is one part lentils to two parts of water, while barley needs between 2.5 and 3.5 parts, so 150g lentils plus 550g water should give you roughly the same consistency as 100g barley + 350ml (absorbed) +250ml (leftover for the sauce) water. But that's just a ballpark number, cooking time and evaporation will influence this, so use common (cooking) sense and aim for the usual cottage pie filling consistency.
I also really like chickpeas for bulking up meals and reducing the amount of meat in them. Although I don't know if the size of them works in this application.
@stanri most chickpeas are a bit too big to camouflage among beef mince - chana dal might work if OP can find them, they tend to be smaller in size
Cottage pie is essentially a ground beef stew with mashed potato on top, and barley is a completely optional ingredient in beef stew, so you could leave it out and not worry about replacing it, there's already plenty of starch from the potato topping. I make beef stew relatively often and I like barley in it, but if I run out I just leave it out and it doesn't make that much difference.
The big issue with a substitution is flavor - barley isn't flavorless but it isn't what I might call strong either, it tends to absorb flavor from the liquid around it. Lentils have a comparatively strong flavor, as do many other grains and pulses. Rice is the closest easy to find substitution and it won't effect your flavor profile. If you do decide to use lentils I'd suggest making a test dish to get the timings right and make sure you actually like the taste of the result.
It seems that the pie is made with properly pre-cooked barley. 15 minutes should be enough for it to get well hydrated, even if the texture can be still a bit al dente at this point. This actually makes it easier on you, since it means you don't have to do complicated adjustments.
All you need to do is to choose your substitution, choosing an appropriate cooking method that doesn't produce excess water, or in the worst case, drain the water after cooked, and stop your method while the substitute is still slightly harder than you'd eat it. Then add it to the pie just like you would do with the barley, without any adjustments to other ingredients or liquids.
The last paragraph is deliberately vague, because the choice of liquid amount and cooking method will depend on what you choose to use as your substitute. As said in comments, lentils are not a very close substitute, and you can certainly do better. Most grains, and some pseudograins like buckwheat, will get you closer to the original (the smaller pseudograins like amaranth will simply lack the bite of the larger ones). If you do use lentils, green will be the best choice, especially if unpeeled.
There are a few kinds of black lentils, some would work well, as would green. Red wouldn't. This would be quite a change but an acceptable one. I'd prefer it over bulghur, though brown or wild rice would be good grains, or the wheat grains sold for adding to home made bread.
Careful - the recipe precooks the barley for 25 minutes and then continues to simmer it in the sauce. - But for "softer" substitutes, I'd also go with undercooking in step 1, lest it turns to mush.
I would suggest using small pasta such as fregula. This will similarly soak up the flavour, have a roughly similar texture, and cook in the stew. You can probably use the same weight.
If fregula is unavailable, consider smashing up some other dried pasta (e.g. spirals).
Farro is a grain I like to use a lot that is somewhat similar in consistently to barley. And the cooking time / process is similar. So it would be a good replacement.
This is similar tot the wheat grains already suggested (perhaps in a comment), but not quite the same. It could work.
You could consider oats, similar texture or just omit either. It just seems like filler anyway. You already have the potatoes for carbs. This just seems like a starched filled redundancy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.718643
| 2021-09-17T11:24:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117224",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Stephie",
"WendyG",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76917",
"rumtscho",
"stanri"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123623
|
Using vegetable peelings to make stock
I read somewhere you can use vegetable peelings to make a good vegetable stock, I loved this idea of producing even less waste but I have 2 questions.
Are there any vegetable peelings I shouldn't use, eg. Butternut Squash has a really hard skin is that okay to use
Will I get loads of pesticides if I do that?
If you’re going to do this, you might want to scrub the vegetables before you peel them. Especially for root vegetables and stuff that might have dirt on them
And as for the stock vs broth thing, there are different opinions (meat vs bones as the base; if it’s intended as an ingredient or as a final dish to be served). See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/3269/67
Re pesticides: Use organic produce.
Eating vegetable peelings oftens make me feel ill, especially carrots, sometimes potatoes too. Every time I see a "TV Chef" put stuff in unpeeled I'm horrified. Surely I can't be the only one?
@Joe you should scrub vegetables before peeling them even if you just throw the peels away. Your peeler tool is likely to spread some of the dirt, chemicals, and/or pathogens from the peel to the inside as you peel.
@TimSparkles : I rinse after peeling, which is much faster (and tends to use less water) than a pre-peel scrub.
@Kingsley there are different chemical concentrations in the peel vs the middle of most vegetables. I find carrot peels can be soapy, and potato skins are often higher in solanine (if you see green, definitely pitch them)
@Kingsley: I've personally never had that issue. Is it possible, no offense meant, that you might have some sort of digestive issue?
@Vikki - Maybe :) It's been like that since I was a kid.
For some veg it makes sense:
the peelings of well-scrubbed carrots and parsnips,
the bits you remove if your celery is stringy, and celery leaves (I grow my own so always have leaves)
non-muddy trimmings of leeks, spring onions and other alliums
onion skins - but only if you want your stock brown.
outer leaves of brassicas, but in very limited quantities or the flavour will dominate. Can be better if browned first, and of course must be well-washed.
If you grow your own veg, the top growth of garlic and carrots can be added, as can undersize leeks and spring onions as you thin them.
Home grown herbs can be added stems and all, though probably not really woody bits.
Potato peelings only add starch, not flavour, and are best avoided.
In between are things like squashes - they'll add very little flavour, and probably a bit of starch that you probably don't want.
You do need quite a lot. I'm more likely to do this making turkey stock at Christmas when I have the bones to go in as well, and I'm preparing a lot of veg. Even then I usually add an onion or two as well as herbs from the garden.
Yeah I have a chicken carcass and just threw in the peelings, but I had a butternut squash in there, oh well.
The squash is probably not going to make much difference either way, with the chicken in there too
You can also throw in the stems from leafy herbs that aren’t overly woody (eg. Parsley). My mom would collect up scraps in a bag in the freezer, then throw it all in when she had a carcass (or shrimp shells)
Good point @Joe. I'd normally add bay, oregano, and rosemary from the garden after just a rinse, thyme if I've got some (thyme and sage don't do well in my clay soil, but don't last long in pots either)
well it doesn't matter I was to busy on here and it burnt dry, so I can burn water
@WendyG oops. In the future, aim for a simmer (just seeing an occasional bubble) and not a full rolling boil when making stock. You lose a lot of the aromatics (volatile compounds that we smell) if you boil it too much
Out of personal experience: do not use the trimmings of (bell) peppers, and probably other capsicum varieties. The stalks and seed parts quickly add a rather bitter aftertaste to the stock.
Good thinking. The bitter compounds are concentrated in the parts we discard so it's not surprising. If, on the other hand, you have left over roast peppers, they're a good addition (fairly likely when I'm making stock, as I always cook roast mixed veg on the rare occasions I roast a chicken or turkey)
Broth is made from meat and/or vegetables whereas Stock is made from bones. You'd need to scrub and ensure they're very clean to limit the grime and dirt. But Yes you could make broth with peels but you'd need quite a bit to have the same amount if you were to use the whole vegetable(s)
I have edited my question to highlight the question
The distinction between stock and broth is not universally observed, to quote Wikipedia: “Many cooks and food writers use the terms broth and stock interchangeably. In 1974, James Beard wrote that stock, broth, and bouillon "are all the same thing".”
Welcome to SA! While your assertion about stock and broth is interesting, it's not what the OP asked. You may want to edit your answer to remove that part of it.
@FuzzyChef it actually was part of the question (but more like an off-hand remark within the main question). I’ve linked to another question that specifically asks about this
According to the OED, Stock is "The liquor made by boiling meat (with or without vegetables, etc.) and used as a foundation for soup." and Broth is "The liquid in which anything has been boiled, and which is impregnated with its juice; a decoction; esp. that in which meat is boiled or macerated; also a thin soup made from this with the addition of vegetables, pearl barley, rice, etc., as Scottish ‘broth’." - these terms are often used synonymously.
@Joe, It did look like it was a question, but more of a footnote/aside in case not everyone called it stock
I’m voting to delete this, just because it’s unfair people are downvoting you for answering something in the original question
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.719445
| 2023-03-14T14:16:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123623",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Kingsley",
"Neil Tarrant",
"Tim Sparkles",
"Vikki",
"WendyG",
"henning no longer feeds AI",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91573"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119290
|
Does peppers (capsaicin) actually burn?
I know that capsaicin just triggers a receptor TRPV1 that senses heat. Therefore makes you feel pain.
But, my question is, is it just a fake sensation or there is real heat involved?
Scenario 1
Eating spicy food in winter makes you feel warm.
Does that mean your temp is still the same but you just (mentally) feeling warmer?
Scenario 2
If you got peppers oils on your hands while cutting them and preparing food, your hands feel burning all day. Is it only an illusion? If we took thermal camera, would that spot look more "red" in the camera? Or it would be the same as the body?
Scenario 3
When you eat spicy food, you actually turn red. It's visible to the eyes. If we took your body temperature with an infrared thermometer, will it give higher reading than before eating? Or just normal?
Maybe it DOES heat but that's the body reaction to it? Like somehow the body is trying to get rid of excess heat through skin or something? I didn't fully think this part but that depends on if there is actually heat involved or not.
Edit (kinda answers my question)
So, I found this video
in which they used thermal imaging
and the person did get more red.
they said :
Superhot nuclear wings arrived. Almost immediately the heart rate increases, pumping more blood. Literally raising body temperature.
So, the pepper itself doesn't heat you directly.
But it raises heart rate.
Thus, increasing your temperature.
However, I also found that video.
It's in Russian, so, I don't understand what they are saying.
But, he put a pepper on his skin and chewed on one. The temperature of the spot didn't go up.
That was so interesting to watch.
Capsaicin doesn't actually heat anything. it just binds to heat receptors to confuse them into thinking it is hot. That being said, it has several health benefits, so it is useful
@DonThousand , so, none of these scenarios would result a real heat difference? Nothing even heat up as an aftermath to the capsaicin? That's wild. I can't fathom how weird and interesting that is. It's hard to convince me that I'm not actually heating after I ate these blazing hot sauces. The only thing that would make me convinced is a thermal camera lol.
The "heat" associated with capsaicin isn't something that would show up in thermal imaging. Spicy foods will not be warmer on your plate or in your mouth than a non-spicy item exposed to the same temperatures.
However, capsaicin can induce a response from your body that increases blood flow. Food (particularly spicy food), trauma/stress, and other experiences can result in dopamine and endorphins being released, which will increase blood flow within the body. Increased blood flow will cause affected body parts to become warmer.
When you're embarrassed and turn red, this is caused by increased blood flow to the surface of your face, which has a corresponding increase in the surface temperature of the skin on your face. The same can happen when you eat spicy food. However, your body's response is separate from the "hot" sensation that your body feels when it comes in contact with capsaicin. The "hot" feeling in your mouth (or eyes should you be so unfortunate), is not due to thermal heat--just your body interpreting similarly.
Side question: Does capsaicin cause any damage or is it safe to consume at high dosage for years?
It can cause damage if too high of an amount is taken, or if you don't take precautions for such high amounts. But eating a lot of peppers should be fine.
The effects of feeling warmer overall is also similar an experience as when consuming a lot of alcohol. The "liquor jacket" as it's sometimes called, causes surface blood vessels to open up, making you feel warmer, despite actually lowering your overall temperature.
So, regardless of how much you torture yourself with hot peppers, it's not possibly physically damage yourself? Can't it, at the very least, excite your stomach acids to some dangerous degree?
New questions should be asked as a new question, not in comments. Screened discussion in comments is discouraged, as comments may be deleted.
Aldi: Questions around health & safety are limited to answers by official/legal agencies and their official guidelines and limitations. I'm not aware of any such guidelines for capsaicin, but any answers would be limited by that rule for this site
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.719959
| 2021-12-23T22:13:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119290",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Dustin Oprea",
"Michael",
"Roo Tenshi",
"Rushabh Mehta",
"Zoey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97052",
"whatsisname"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116741
|
What is the science of drying/dehydrating meat? Biltong, jerky, etc
What is the science of drying meat?
This is a cross-topic question, but I think it's best suited here. Let me know if it should be elsewhere...
I am South African and one of our traditional snacks is 'biltong' which is essentially air-dried meat (beef most commonly). I know there are many different types of dried meat from different parts of the world, which are significant in different societies and cultures, which is facinating. Biltong is traditionally very simply seasoned and air-dried in the South African climate but is made in driers nowadays, particularly in climates outside of SA.
I no longer live in SA (live in UK) and make my biltong in a homemade drier. It essentially comprises of a wooden box, with a small fan and a very small heater. Beef is hung until it's dried to my liking. Drying of meat is an (inexact) art and there are a number of factors that influence the final product, which means drying times change and each batch can be different. When drying, you also dont want to dry too fast, as this can result in 'case hardening', where the outside is hard and the inside still raw and very soft, the best is to slowly dry, so you get a consistent dryness and texture throughout the meat.
The factors I am aware of are: temperature and humidity of the air outside drying chamber, temperature and humidity of air inside drying chamber, airflow through drying chamber, thickness of cut of meat and size of meat, amount of meat hung in chamber, fat content of meat and the moisture content of the meat.
I am a physicist and interested in the science behind meat drying and have the following questions:
Is there a recognised relationship between drying time (of beef), relative humidity, airflow and temperature?
Is there a recommended temperature, humidity and airflow for drying beef?
Which environmental condition(s) is most important for drying beef, and why? For example, should i only be concerned about controlling RH or RH and temperature combined etc?
My understanding of the driers is that the heater is there to increase the temperature of the air and reduce its density and thus RH of the air. I assume the fans only function is to remove the air that has taken on some of the moisture from the meat - is this correct or does this serve another function?
I am interested in the above, so that I can write an algorithm to control the fan and heater. I am also potentially interested in sharing data that I collect on drying and relationships with different environmental variables, see below.
I have constructed a complex drying chamber, which measures all environmental variables inside and outside of the chamber (using a Raspberry Pi) and has a controllable fan and heater. I am also looking to upgrade with a weighing facility, so I can measure the temporal variation in temp, RH and weight and to relate these variables to drying times.
Any ideas/observations or recommended reading would be gratefully received.
Edit 9.8.21
Some photos of the drying chamber and the web dashboard I have created. All work in progress...ignore the data on the dashboard - i am exploring different configurations and fan speeds. I will also add the fan speed (RPM and frequency) and heater status to the dashboard. Note that there are some spare (intentional) relays, so i can add a second heater, UVC light etc... The box is completely yacht varnished so it can be hygienically cleaned after each use.
That sounds so cool! I would love to see a photo or two of the setup!
@Stephie just added in some photos and a bit more of an explanation of the box/drying chamber i have built.
Excellent set up. While it isn't the same, you might want to check out Meathead Goldwyn's site for (american style) BBQ, particularly the science tab.
A new user keeps posting a link to useful info, but the mods have been deleting it because of it being a ‘link only answer’ (which used to get voted down, not outright deleted): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7285303/ and because it’s deleted, we can’t fix the answer and/or tell them how to fix it
@Joe - thanks a bunch! This is a quality paper and from a respected journal.
Hope you'll still find an answer useful a year later.
To address your questions first:
1. Is there a recognised relationship between drying time (of beef), relative humidity, airflow and temperature?
Yes:
Relative humidity is the ratio of the vapour pressure of water present to the vapour pressure of air that is fully saturated (RH100%) at given temperatures. More commonly in food applications, it is expressed as grams of water per kilogram or gram of air at given temperature. The moisture carrying capacity of air increases with increasing in temperature - warmer saturated air would contain more water than cooler air, ex. 1 kg air RH70% @20C contains more moisture than 1 kg air RH70% @5C. The opposite is true as well - the warmer air can pick up more water to reach saturation than cooler air.
The relation of moisture holding capacity, relative humidity, and temperature are typically presented on graphs call psychrometric charts:
Psychrometric chart published by the University of Kentucky.
https://afs.ca.uky.edu/poultry/chapter-7-relationship-between-temperature-and-moisture
Moisture-temperature relations are also available in table format:
Table of saturated air values published by Sam Houston State University, "Weather & Climate Lecture GEOG 1401".
https://www.shsu.edu/~dl_www/bkonline/131online/f09water/09index.htm
Dehydration of meats and all foods in general is based on moisture gradients and the diffusion of water from the food surface to unsaturated air, and from inner high moisture areas to outer low moisture areas within the food. The surface layer is typically treated as an area of RH100% where water vapour is constantly released to the surrounding environment, and higher surface area increases drying rate.
Drying and internal water movement can be roughly broken down into two phases based on how strongly water interacts with components of the food:
Constant Rate: Loosely bound water moves very easily between cells, protein structures, etc. This is the bulk of water in vacuoles, cytoplasm, and in muscle bundles. Water can migrate to the surface faster than the rate of moisture loss at the surface, drying rate is limited by surface and air conditions.
Falling Rate: The majority of loose water is removed, and the remaining water has interactions that restrict its movement. This is water tightly bound in proteins, in areas of high sodium content, etc. Water migration from interior to surface is slower than surface moisture loss, and drying rate decreases.
Dehydration proceeds until usually one of 2 scenarios:
The surrounding air reaches saturation and can't pick up more water. Airflow is used to introduce unsaturated air to maintain the moisture gradient.
The moisture is unable to leave the food. The food moisture content drops to the point where water no longer migrates to the surface, or the surface reaches equilibrium with the air and no longer drives internal water movement.
The second scenario is the desired endpoint for dehydration, and final relative humidity typically determines texture. A small portion of water is very tightly bound in the food and cannot be removed using only air and moisture gradients; for beef, this occurs around equilibrium surface RH10%, though at this point the texture will be similar to a solid block of bonito.
A greater gradient between food and environment (ex. food RH100% @10C, air RH5% 120C) will drive faster dehydration, but increases the likelihood of case hardening - surface dries too quickly to be rewetted by internal moisture migration, and becomes impermeable to moisture. On a side note, the forming of a pellicle in dry aging of meats is a form of case hardening and is desired under proper conditions.
Drying time is determined by the moisture movement rate, which can be calculated with the above information regarding surface area, temperature, relative humidity of food and air, and air mass flow rate.
Placeholder for equations.
2. Is there a recommended temperature, humidity and airflow for drying beef?
The US Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) provides guidelines and rationale for pathogen reduction using a combination of heat and high humidity. This is counterproductive to the traditional low-temperature method for biltong. Alternative methods to achieve lethality are acceptable with scientific research validation - more on this after the questions. Airflow in most commercial settings is not considered as dehydration equipment at that scale target constant or decreasing RH.
In general, FSIS recommends achieving a minimum internal meat temperature of 145F (~63C) held for 4 minutes, and a 1 hour hold at RH90% to ensure sufficient delivery of thermal energy to the surface. This time-temperature lethality process targets a 5-log reduction in the most thermally resistant pathogen, Salmonella spp.
FSIS humidity guidance flow chart, from "FSIS Compliance Guideline for Meat and Poultry Jerky Produced by Small and Very Small Establishments".
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/guidelines/2014-0010
3. Which environmental condition(s) is most important for drying beef, and why? For example, should i only be concerned about controlling RH or RH and temperature combined etc?
Both temperature and RH are important due to their relation in moisture holding capacity described above.
Another example, RH30% @65F (~18C) vs @75F (~23C):
@18C: moisture capacity = (100%-30%)*12.797 g/kg = ~8.96 g/kg
@23C: moisture capacity = (100%-30%)*18.158 g/kg = ~12.71 g/kg
This results in an approximately 50% higher drying rate at 23C vs 18C given the same mass airflow.
4. My understanding of the driers is that the heater is there to increase the temperature of the air and reduce its density and thus RH of the air. I assume the fans only function is to remove the air that has taken on some of the moisture from the meat - is this correct or does this serve another function?
From answer 1, the fans generate airflow to remove moisture-saturated air. In your circumstances, airflow can also affect drying rate - halving or doubling the airflow will halve or double the the rates in answer 3.
Additionally, proper fan placement and flow direction is needed to avoid having areas with stagnant saturated air. Ideally, an additional internal fan directed at the meat should be used to generate turbulent flow around the pieces and minimize the boundary layer effect.
Placeholder for more biltong-specific material.
References (not cited above) and additional reading:
An Introduction to the Dehydration and Drying of Fruits and Vegetables. Donald G. Mercer, Ph.D., P.Eng., FIAFoST.
https://www.uoguelph.ca/foodscience/sites/default/files/Drying-Part%201.pdf
Humidity needs to be controlled to avoid mold growth. In the Highveldt where biltong originated from humidity was never much of a problem because of the arid, dry winters. You would be better served to control the humidity. Certain hams are dried for well over a year and dry in both winter and summer, but are hanged in areas where humidity is naturally low.
Meat drying is often done to cured meats. Not all cured meats are dried, but some are. Curing of meat dehydrates the meat to the point were spoilage bacteria cannot thrive. This is usually done with salt or sugar. This was traditionally done as a preservation technique, but these days it is done for taste. Charcuterie is the term in French for these meat crafts.
And just btw when you cure meat it stops being raw, cured meat may not be cooked, but it is not raw. You can have the wettest piece of biltong ever but if it is cured properly it is not raw.
Thanks. If cured meat is not raw, what is the technical definition of raw and cured meat? At what point does raw meat become cured and no longer raw? Does this definition apply to raw & dried meat (biltong) or is the biochemical transition different? I was (incorrectly) under the impression that beef only transitioned from raw when it was dried. There is the issue for both curing and drying meat - about how deep this penetrates the substrate. In particular, for biltong, drying too quickly leads to case hardening, which I dislike and you end up with wet beef inside a very hard outer case.
@CairanVanRooyen, the salts used in curing essentially denature and precipitate the proteins in a process known to biochemists as salting out
Its interesting that the recipe i have developed over many years only contains a very small amount of salt. It is also very common to use vinegar in biltong making, which i have read was for controlling bacteria.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.720357
| 2021-08-08T13:33:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116741",
"authors": [
"Cairan Van Rooyen",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95058"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116984
|
Sparkling strawberries in glass
I made several glasses of whole strawberries in syrup. Normally I do this:
sterilize the glass and the screw cap with boiling water
carefully wash and sort strawberries
make a syrup 300g of sugar to 0.5l of boiling water
put strawberries into glass and pour the syrup on them leaving approx 1cm from the cap
put the glass to the electric oven - 100°C for 30 minutes
Then I store them in the refrigerator and usually they are OK.
However this time the first 2 glasses were "strange" - when I open them the gas comes out and the syrup is sparkling. Also the strawberries are sparkling inside. The taste is very good, like sparkling water with strawberry syrup. No sour or bitter.
I think some fermentation processes started. I read the similar question Lemon liqueur has gas? and I think that the case is similar. However I used no alcohol.
The question(s):
Are the strawberries and syrup safe?
Can you speculate the reasons why the fermentation process started and suggest what to do to prevent such process in the future?
Hi Tom, you are asking a food safety question. I know that many people come to the site with the idea of food safety as if common sense can predict what will happen when somebody eats a given batch of food. This is not so; there are official food safety guidelines, which are unambiguous, but more restrictive than most people expect, and there is everybody's personal gut feeling. The second kind of safety is off topic here. That's why I had to remove the part in your question asking for consequences, and the answer which did not use official rules. See the tag wiki on food-safety for details.
OK understand, I am only interested in knowing about potential serious problem like a methanol poisoning in alcohol or that kind of things. I am OK to risk some minor inconveniences like going on toilet more often ;)
On a purely personal level, I understand why you want that. But this is not something we can provide. Food safety regulations only distinguish between "safe" (= the officials promise you that nothing at all will happen) and "unsafe" (= they are not willing to give you that promise, regardless of actual outcome). If a food of yours is unsafe, no further information can be provided about the type of risk or the likelihood of different outcomes. If that's enough fro you, then your question is fine here. If not, then our site is not the right place for you.
OK I read the wiki as you suggested and understand better now that safety is about strict binary yes/no. I will wait if someone has this strict answer for me, I am curious.
There’s a clear answer on the food safety part:
Not safe.
All unintended fermentation is potentially bad - you don’t know what exactly started to grow in your jars, just that something did - so the food safety verdict must be “not safe”.
If you want to prevent such an event in the future, stick to approved recipes and follow proper cleaning and preparation procedures. It’s hard to say what exactly went wrong, just that the problem was caused either by the parameters of the canning step (failing to reduce the existing pathogens) or by an improper seal (meaning bacteria reentering into the jars).
Home canning per the guidelines published by government agencies or other authoritative sources should give you a safe product, but the jar design will serve as a security mechanism: if the seal doesn’t work, the product is not safe. Failure of the seal right after cooling indicates a more mechanical problem (damaged jars, lids, or rubber bands, or a dirty rim), during storage is likely an indication of unwanted growths. Industrial canning also relies on such indicators, e.g. the “plopping” screw tops.
Further details as requested:
While oven-canning has been often declared unsafe by government agencies1 (although it was often enough done nevertheless), the German government has published instructions including a method for oven canning.
I am paraphrasing and translating the key parameters of the instructions into English below, please consider it as supplemental information only, not a full set of instructions. If you or future readers are inexperienced in canning, please do some further reading to learn about the basic principles before starting to preserve food.
For fruit:
Use a canning liquid of either
1/2 liter of water and vinegar plus 600g sugar or
250-500g sugar per liter water.
(I would personally choose the latter.)
Fill the clean jars with clean and prepared fruit or fruit pieces, do not use overripe, mushy or moldy fruit. Top with liquid, covering the fruit. Close jars, depending on chosen canning system.
Place the jars in a deep pan filled with water, the jars should not touch.
Heat the jars at 150-160°C fan-assisted or 150-180°C top/bottom heat until you see bubbles rising in the jars. (Personal remark: Make sure that what you see is truly steam, not just dislocated trapped air. If you see steady bubbling you should be fine.) Turn off your oven and leave jars in the closed oven for 25-30 minutes.
Note that the instructions above are for fruit, not for vegetables and not for meat.
Properly canned fruit should be good at room temperature for at least a year.
1 An - admittedly somewhat cursory - search on the website of the National Center for Home Food Preservation, set up by the USDA and others, yielded no definitive stance on the oven canning method listed above (with liquid covering the food in the jars and the jars standing in a deep pan or dish with water). There are warnings against “dry canning”, i.e. without liquid in the jars, because of improper heat transfer to the inside, and against heating the jars in a dry oven as not all types of jars can handle the temperature fluctuations and may break.
Which guidelines make it safe? The American guidelines do not allow canning in the oven. It may be that some European guidelines allow it, but a 100 C oven is suspiciously low.
@rumtscho “not in the oven” used to be the standard advice. However, while there have been non-authoritative recipes around for decades, now the method is apparently ok as per the German Bundeszentrum für Ernährung.
The asker‘s temperature however is way too low for safe canning, otoh they are not aiming for long-term-at-room-temperature storage. Reading the description in the question, we’re in uncharted territory anyway and if we are very strict, the “cooked food in the refrigerator” time must be applied when determining food safety. Hence my „follow reliable guidelines“ - and that can include using a water bath instead of the oven depending on the source.
I think the seal is good, because the jars are now at the pressure - filled with the gas and are holding it well. I use new lids each time. As you noted, it may be due to insufficient canning temperature. I very much like use oven... I am not good at German, so are there any English guidelines that states correct temperature and time? What about long term storage by room temperature, is the usage of oven possible? Or should I abandon the idea and use water bath?
@TomHANAX I paraphrased the key parameters from the given link. That should give you a shelf-stable product, no need for refrigeration. If you find that the results are e.g. too mushy and want to scale back on temperature and time, the conclusion is that after a few days in the refrigerator your jars are technically unsafe. As you experienced already, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the contents are actually spoiled, but they could be. Also note that not all microbiological growth can be detected by sensory checking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.721278
| 2021-08-27T10:02:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116984",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"Tom HANAX",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95311",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117449
|
Why do most egg tart molds appear to be blackened?
In all the videos of Portuguese egg tart molds I see on Youtube, they all appear to be fully black. Carbon steel doesn't seem to be as dark as that (although it could simply be lighting), and I'm not too sure what sort of reaction would cause metal molds to darken like that.
I first thought that it was aluminum oxide forming on the molds, but from what I can find online that would seem to taint any tart with black residue, so that doesn't appear to be it.
I grabbed a picture from this video around 3:08, but I found another example here too:
Please link pictures (screenshots of the videos, or give us links to the videos at the moment in which the mold is seen). It is difficult for us to keep guessing what you are seeing when we are not seeing it. I even tried finding videos myself, but out of three, one used a shiny grey metal mold (probably aluminium) and two used teflon-coated muffin pans.
It is doubtful to be aluminium oxide. If the videos are of production facilities where the egg tarts are mass made then it is likely that the blackening is a patina developed from carbonized fats that have built up through countless uses. If the videos are from food bloggers and the like, then it is more likely to be non stick moulds.
Is suspect that you were thinking of anodized aluminum, which is a typically dark grey or relatively clear. Aluminum oxide is when bare aluminum rusts (reacts with oxygen), and is white. There are some anodizing solutions that impart other colors, such as what you can get for iPhones, it’s not typically used for cookware. (I don’t know if it’s because of cost or durability issues)
That looks to me to be seasoned carbon steel for both the individual cups and the trays.
When first seasoning cast iron or carbon steel, it can look orange or brown, but as you cook it repeatedly (or to a higher temperature), it will turn black, as in the videos that you linked to.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.722025
| 2021-10-08T03:27:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117449",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Mr Shane",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96932",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117230
|
Temperature of a muffin pan right under a gas oven broiler
I have a gas oven stove that can go up to 550°F (~287°C), with also a gas broiler. If I place a muffin pan on the top or second top rack, under the broiler, after preheating the oven at its highest setting, what sort of temperatures might the muffin pan reach?
The end goal's to make some Portuguese egg tarts and I hear that generally it should be cooked as high as the oven can go, so I'm wondering what temperatures the muffin pan needs to tolerate.
“… it’s coating …” - I guess that’s a muffin pan with non-stick coating?
Welcome to SA! We're going to need more information about the muffin pan you're using: material, brand, ideally a photo.
@FuzzyChef Hey there, I found the previous question to be too wordy so I've rephrased it to something a bit more succinct. I don't currently have a muffin pan since I'm still doing some research on how hot the pan might go and buying one depending on that
Tins for pastéis de nata are typically made of galvanized steel or aluminum, without coating. In commercial bakeries it is also common to see disposable tins made with aluminum foil.
You can use a muffin tin made from the same materials: uncoated galvanized steel or aluminum
All recipes for that I've ever seen ask for a minimum temperature of 250°C (or as far as your oven can go, if it goes above that, which many ovens nowadays won't be able to go too far above it), so you can take 250 as a ballpark temperature for choosing your muffin tins
Use the broiler to finish them and get the charred spots after your pastéis are cooked (usually 25 minutes at 250 would do)
If you're finishing them under the broiler, you could probably take them out of the original pan and put them on a plain baking sheet - they'll have structure by then.
Wait, galvanized steel? Are you sure? That seems ... risky. You sure it's not some other kind of steel?
I'm going to strongly recommend that the OP stick to stainless steel and not galvanized. Galvanized steel can start emitting zinc at 250C, which would be toxic.
@FuzzyChef it's literally written there on the website - that shop is pretty popular
Juliana: ceramics with leaded glazes are also very popular throughout Latin America. That doesn't make them non-toxic. And even though the site says "galvanized" the photo looks like stainless. So possibly a translation issue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.722220
| 2021-09-17T15:49:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117230",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95594",
"user154989"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117484
|
Bread dough flattens during final proof & almost no oven spring
Since several weeks I'm trying to get my bread to rising more in the oven. I experimented quite a bit but the results are still far from perfect. Everything goes fine until the shaping of the loaf. Although my dough has developed a proper gluten structure, it just falls flat during the final rise and has almost no oven spring (I'm pretty sure that it is not overproofed). Furthermore, when scoring the dough my knife often gets stuck which therefore leads to more of an tearing than cutting of the dough. I wasn't able to find any useful tips on the internet which is why I'm asking here for advice now. Has anyone of you had similar problems or knows the reason why this is happening?
My recipe:
Ingredients:
225g white flour
175g whole wheat flour (spelt)
10g salt
288g water
about 7g dry yeast
some bread spice
(room temperature: 22/23°C)
about 6-7 min kneading by hand (passes windowpane test)
1:40 h bulk fermentation, with 2 folds (after 30 min and 1h)
preshaping the dough; letting it rest for 15 min before final shaping
preheat the oven with a try of water at the bottom to 250°C
score the dough after 50 min and spray it with water
bake it for about 50 min; remove the water tray after 15 min and turn the temperature down to 200°C
In the second picture you can clearly see that the bread didn't really expand during baking (maybe a little bit). Even though the crumb and the crust look good and it also tastes pretty good, I would still like my bread to be taller and not to look like a pancake. (Sadly I have no pictures of the dough during rising)
Update
I made another bread today and tried to apply some of the advices. Sadly, the shape of the bread basically turned out the same (even though it tasted much better :D). Here is what I changed:
Reduced the yeast to 2g
Increased bulk fermentation to 4h
Increased final rise to 2h
Increased fold count to 5
Used a banneton (in this case a metal bowl with towel) for the final rise
Baked a little bit longer and put the bread under a metal bowl for the first 25min
Some further information which might be useful:
Bread dough passed windowpane-test
Dough wasn't overproved or underproved (As far as I can tell)
Dough passed poke-test after final rise
When putting the dough on the baking sheet it spread out into a puddle (not enough dough strength?)
Dough didn't rise at all in the oven (at 230°C - 250°C)
After thinking a bit about the result I came up with the following ideas:
Dough isn't strong enough
Oven too hot
Not enough steam
Is it worth pursuing these thoughts any further?
Lastly, here are some images of the second bread:
Are you sure this is a recipe intended for a free-standing shaped loaf, rather than being baked in a tin? It might be that this set of ingredients will never have the strength to hold up its mass without flattening, even if you do everything right.
Maybe your oven is too dry causing a crust to form that would then prevent the crumb from expanding. If you're using a convection oven, make sure you turn off the fan. If possible, try a dutch oven - that made the most significant difference for me.
At 72% water (bakers' percentage) it looks to me like you're too wet and likely not kneading long enough to compensate, so not fully forming the gluten network, so coming out dense and flat. Reduce water, knead long enough to bring dough internal temp to 25 oC. Don't go above 25 oC or the gluten will start to degrade -- use colder water if needed to extend kneading time. Windowpane is a reasonable test, but subjective -- you'd need an alveolab to remove that subjectivity. Real test is final bread, and the results are pretty clear.
I can't see anything that wrong, it looks like you are getting a decent crumb and crust so you probably aren't that far off. Here's a few thoughts:
The middle looks denser than the outside, I suspect you under-proofed it before baking, which is easy to do when you work to a time rather than a result. In home baking you can't control for all conditions so your final proof may take 40 minutes or an hour and a half depending on the day, you need to give it as long as it needs until it gets to the right size
Your dough is somewhere around 72% hydration, so it's going to be a bit gooey and not hold shape very well. Unless you get the proofing in the right direction it's going to expand out, not up. This is often done with bread pans/tins, or if you want a traditionally shaped loaf you use a proofing basket in the shape you are looking for, in your case it's a batard (I think). A proofing basket will hold it in that shape as it proofs, then you turn it out just before baking. I'm partial to natural materials rather than plastic because you can turn the bread straight onto a stone and the basket won't melt. Another advantage of a proofing basket is that it's much easier to see how much the dough has expanded in proofing
Bad scoring can cause dough to collapse, it's important to have good technique and to use a razor. I have a box cutter reserved for this and only this purpose, but you can get a baker's lame which is a razor on a stick. Start the slash before you reach the bread so the razor is moving when it hits the dough. You can practice on un-proofed dough and then simply knead it a bit and re-shape. A few drops of olive oil on the blade just before you slash help as well. Your slash could be deeper too
15 minutes may not be quite enough steam to get full oven spring, I would go for half the baking time
For an impromptu lamé, an old fashioned razor blade (the kind with the series of holes/wavy slit down center) on a thin chopstick works quite well.
Thanks for these tips. I've tried every one of them except the 3rd one so far, still without success. I will later post a photo of my latest bread.
Can scoring really have such a huge impact on the outcome? That absolutely no oven spring takes place at all?
It's not a huge factor @Creepsy, although it does help some it's also an aesthetic thing.
Yeah I will try to get some razors for scoring. I also added some information about my second "experiment" to my post; maybe that helsp for identifying my mistake.
Your second loaf is noticeably better than the first, look at the crumb on the inside. In the first your crumb in the center is tight, in the second you have good air holes. It did expand, you can tell from the spread of the slit you made. I see nothing wrong with that.
Well, it sadly still expanded sideways, not up
but you are right, the crumb is fine :D. Would it help to develop more dough strength so that the dough expands more upwards?
As for the shape I think you need to set your expectation. Any high-hydration dough is going to spread quite a bit, it's just the nature of dough. Try reducing you hydration percentage a bit, you have a 72% dough now, try it at 67% instead, so 268g of water.
Based on the description of your recipe, I would guess that your yeast is not fully activated and/or did not get enough time with the autolyzed dough.
Some possible direct causes:
Dry yeast is getting old
Dry yeast has not been fully activated before being mixed (give it 10-15 min in a small 100% hydration bowl, made from portion of flour/water in your recipe)
Dough was not left to autolyse (15-60 min) before adding yeast/starter. Autolysation also releases some sugar from the starch making it available to yeast for gas production, and activates the gluten.
1:40 is not a long fermentation for sourdough at all. If you want really porous crumb structure, try 6 hours with around 5 folds.
Combination of above.
Smaller contributing factors:
The ~40% whole wheat flour which has less gluten in it. I’d start with maybe 10-15% until you get your fold and shaping technique down. This flour has a strong taste and you don’t need a ton of it to impart that earthy flavour. While it isn’t impossible to get a tall loaf at 40%, that much whole flour doesn’t make it easier.
If you want a tall sandwich-style shape with this flour mix, consider a Pullman loaf pan.
Finally, one way to think of a 72% hydration dough is as an 80% dough that has its remaining flour added during the folds. This means you have more moisture in the dough during bulk fermentation, but by the time you get to final shaping the dough is easier to work with and “plump up”. This gives you the advantages of both wet dough (more effective gas formation) and dry dough (easier to shape gently).
Thanks for these tips, I will definitely give them a try. Should I reduce the amount of yeast in case of a longer bulk ferment so that the dough doesn't overferment?
The amount you suggested is only slightly high but by no means out of proportion. Some artisan sourdoughs have a 24 hour bulk ferment.
Sorry, these instructions are really confusing, or irrelevant. Dry yeast does not have to be activated, it is unneeded to harmful depending on the type. The dough doesn't need to autolyse before adding yeast either - the most common way to work with dry yeast is to mix it into the flour and then make the dough with the mixture, and it gives great results. Also, this is not a sourdough recipe, so the 6 hour suggestion is out of place. And finally, the "adding" of flour during kneading is something that is usually accounted for by a recipe
He had asked for bread that expanded more and a longer bulk ferment (and hence a sourdough) is a valid way of achieving this.
72% hydration might be a bit too much if your flour is weak. Spelt is often weaker than modern wheat varieties.
I would try to reduce hydration to e.g. 67%, keeping all other variables intact, and see if it helps. Also, try to bake this bread in loaf form - fill the dough about 50% and, if your dough raises well, you have too much hydration for hearth bread.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.722458
| 2021-10-11T19:54:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117484",
"authors": [
"ChalkTalk",
"Creepsy",
"GdD",
"Stephie",
"cr3",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95943",
"rumtscho",
"stevegt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121220
|
Dial-gauge pressure canner process times
Dial-gauge pressure canner process times
I am confused about the cooking process times for various ingredients. I have a Presto 01781 23-Quart Dial-gauge Pressure Canner.
According to a website:
Raw Mixed Vegetables should be processed at 11 pounds of pressure for 90 minutes
Carrots should be processed at 11 pounds of pressure for 30 minutes
Soups should be processed at 11 pounds of pressure for 75 minutes
Pasta sauce with veggies without meat should be processed at 11 pounds of pressure for 25 minutes
Why does Pasta sauce with veggies take 25 minutes, but mixed vegetables take 90 minutes? Is it because the pasta with veggies are fully cooked? They say you should process for the time of the longest processing ingredient.
How long should I process my fully cooked and strained tomato sauce if is contains mixed vegetables? 25 or 90 minutes? This is how it is prepared. I add crushed and peeled tomatoes from my garden to a large pot. I add chopped green pepper, red pepper, onions, basil oregano, and parsley, salt and black pepper and small chopped carrots. It is then cooked and boiled for 1.5 hours. Then I pour the sauce through a fine strainer and remove the veggies, carrots, herbs. I am left with a smooth sauce. This is added to a quart sized ball mason jar. I add citric acid and lemon juice.
Since this sauce contains all of these cooked veggies and carrots, Although they have been strained out, should I consider processing for the ingredient that takes the longest to process like the mixed vegetables, so 11 pounds of pressure for 90 minutes?
I assume it may have to do with the fact that tomato is quite acidic, and "mixed vegetables" likely are not. Also notice how the pasta sauce listing says "pasta sauce with veggies" which sounds exactly like what you made.
Esther: you should post that as an answer.
The 90min time for mixed vegetables is due to them being raw and cold when they go in.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.723221
| 2022-08-02T14:29:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121220",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"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
}
|
123310
|
I recently purchased a wok from goodwill however I cannot figure out if it is carbon or stainless steel
I tested the wok with magnets and they stick, so aluminum is ruled out. It definitely is not cast iron, and it has a small “china” text etched into the small handle connector. Not a complete round bottom but it is already seasoned, I think. I may still season it though, I'm planning to use it on a large fireplace because I do not have a gas stove as well, so finding out the material may help.
For practical purposes the only magnetic metal is ferritic ( and martensitic) steels, AKA ordinary steel. That includes Ferritic stainless steels , usually 13 % chrome and cutlery grades 420, 440 , etc.
Looks like steel with a nonstick coating to me, but it COULD be preseasoned carbon steel. @Tetsujin's test will help you tell which. If it's nonstick, I wouldn't use it in a fireplace.
Mild steel is not the same thing as carbon steel.
Tetsujin: that is absolutely false. I'm an artist blacksmith. "carbon steel", as used in cookware (including pans and knives) is what's called "high carbon steel", containing .7 to 2% carbon. That high carbon content gives it its hardness and rigidity. Mild steel is low-carbon and low-nickel, is quite soft, and and you would never use it for cookware because it would leach metal flavor into the food as well as getting dented and scratched to heck.
Thank you. I determined it was carbon steel. Although I accidentally burned the secondary handle, it is good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.723380
| 2023-02-07T13:22:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123310",
"authors": [
"Compreturnum",
"FuzzyChef",
"blacksmith37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102950",
"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
}
|
95672
|
Black Garlic Maillard vs caramelization
Black Garlic is made by keeping garlic at a high humidity + 140 degree temp for 8+ weeks (generally speaking) Keep it hot and humid for a long time.
"Bulbs are kept in a humidity-controlled environment at temperatures that range from 60 to 77 °C (140 to 170 °F) for 60 to 90 days. There are no additives, preservatives, or burning of any kind. The enzymes that give fresh garlic its sharpness break down. Those conditions are thought to facilitate the Maillard reaction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_garlic
The Maillard reaction and caramelization is a type of non-enzymatic browning. However, unlike the Maillard reaction, caramelization is pyrolytic, as opposed to being a reaction with amino acids. (straight from the wiki caramelization page)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caramelization
It seems to me that making black garlic is pyrolytic (head induced) and I can't find any information as to how exactly it is a reaction with amino acids.
Why is it defined as a maillard reaction and not caramelization?
What are you asking @Mo1?
I don't understand SF
ok. I misunderstood the question. Well, both reactions are definitely heat induced, and both result in products more complex than the substrates, so I definitely don't see why one would be pyrolytic and the other not. The only difference is caramelization only involves sugars while Maillard reaction involves both sugars and amino acids, and the set of products is different, also producing different flavor. The simplest answer as to why define it as one and not the other is 'it tastes umami, not caramel'.
To me it superficially looks more like a chemical process which is facilitated by heat, and not a more simple heat caramelization.
I'd argue that it's not either Malliard or Caramelization, but its own thing.
@FuzzyChef: Hard to tell without a thorough chemical analysis of the products.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.723524
| 2019-01-15T10:43:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95672",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Mo1",
"SF.",
"brhans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70944",
"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
}
|
117843
|
Is this layer on top of my fermented peppers mold? If it is not, is it still safe to eat?
I'm fermenting my home grown scotch bonnets, and I'm concerned that they're molding and are no longer edible.
My setup was an open container, with a relatively high salt to water concentration (I don't remember specifics. I googled proper fermentation salt contents, and used a high value, maybe 10%). I used another cleaned jar to weigh down the peppers in the solution, so there was very little air contact.
Unfortunately I had to change the container they were in, because I moved to a new apartment and couldn't transport them in the original fermentation container.
I washed the container before using it, and added more salt to the solution, since they were already fermented and I was only concerned about them spoiling.
Not long after changing containers, the ferment got brown clouds of something, but since they smelled good, I didn't worry too much.
Now, however, there is a translucent film on top of my solution, which is bad enough, and also puffs of mold around the top of the container.
Here's my theory on what this is: the layer on top of my solution is yeast, and some bits of pepper stuck to the lid are molding. However, I'm looking for some more opinions before risking eating these.
What I was planning to do was blend these into hot sauce. Is this still safe to do, since it would end up in my fridge for several weeks? Or should I use them up ASAP? Or is it dangerous and I should pitch all of it?
People keep on asking variation on this question and the answer is always the same you always toss it if it shows any signs of microbial growth.
.... *mold growth. Fermentation is selective microbe farming lol. And no, I never look at how old a question is.
The growth of yeast is already slowed down by the approximately 2-3 bakers percent salt content in a dough, which makes round about 1-1.5% in total. So I doubt yeast will grow on a brine with 10% salt content.
Also I’m very sure the stuff on the rim of your jar definitively is mold and mold that is growing unintentional should never be considered safe to eat. Even if the stuff on top of the brine might be (partially) crystalized flakes of salt there is a high risk that the spores from the rim already have spread into your product. So, I’m sorry that I have to recommend to dispose this batch and to start over with a carefully sterilized container.
I concur. Mold is no-go.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.723694
| 2021-11-13T12:50:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117843",
"authors": [
"Neil Meyer",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129241
|
How do cafes prepare matcha in a foodsafe way, if a bamboo whisk/chasen cannot be sanitized in a dishwasher?
The proper way to whisk matcha is with a bamboo chasen, because the many-stranded-ness promotes a frothy result.
But bamboo doesn't fare well in a dishwasher, and it isn't clear if a trip through the dishwasher would serve to sanitize bamboo anyway.
So do foodservice venues that serve matcha use a stainless steel whisk instead? Is there anything about stainless steel which reacts with the matcha and detracts from it somehow?
What makes you think soap and water is an unacceptable way to clean things?
@GdD because bamboo is porus. The green matcha soaks into it, and after any washing step, at the very least, the colouring is still present in the bamboo. Other things couod be present as well? If not yet microorganisms, substances loved by them? Plus, washing with detergent may cause detergent (or, horror, other foodstuffs in the dishwater) to also soak in, which could taint the next brew.
@DavidBullock If that's the case, why would a dish washer be acceptable? Dish washers aren't magic, they use soap and water too. The main difference is that hand washing uses better mechanical agitation, and dish washers use a more aggressive detergent. In the end, they are quite similar.
@marcelm A dishwasher isn't acceptable. That's why I am asking how one might sanitize a bamboo whisk without one.
You seem to be confusing several things here.
First, about sanitization: it's a synonym for disinfection. It means to treat items and surfaces with chemicals which kill bacteria directly, e.g. with bleach. It isn't the same thing as cleaning, and is an additional step done after the cleaning.
Sanitization is only required by food safety regulation in some specific circumstances. For example, a restaurant might be required to sanitize the food preparation surfaces (counters) at regular intervals. It's not prescribed for utensils for food preparation, or for cutlery with which the food is served - not for knives, not for forks, not for matcha whisks. These get cleaned.
Also, the dishwasher doesn't sanitize the items put into it. It washes them, and is merely an automation of the process of washing by hand. The point of washing is to remove any food residue that might become the breeding ground for a bacterial colony. For that, you need warm soapy water which dissolves the sticky parts of the food, and mechanical action, which removes the dirty water and larger pieces of food. Manual washing is just as good at that as a dishwasher, frequently even better, if you do it properly. It's just unpopular because manual labor is more expensive than dishwashing machines.
A matcha whisk is also easier to clean than some other items. Since it doesn't come in contact with fat (which needs soap to dissolve) or animal products (which are typically contaminated with more pathogenic species), and the matcha isn't especially sticky, you could in principle just rinse it instead of washing it with soap and a sponge. I don't know if this is allowed by regulations though.
Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking that your cutlery is somehow sterilized. This isn't the case if you wash it manually, if you put it through the dishwasher, or even if you sanitize it. The last one will kill the bacteria present on it, but it will be immediately re-contaminated with bacteria from the environment. And that's OK. You're in constant contact with bacteria, and your body knows how to deal with this. The point is to not have a spoon covered in several grams of gravy sit around for days, and then eating with it without washing it, introducing billions of bacteria (and the excretion products in their colony) into your mouth, as opposed to the few dozens present on a washed spoon.
So the above explains why your assumption (that a dishwasher-safe whisk is required) is incorrect. From there on, the question "why use a bamboo whisk" becomes a business decision made by the restaurant owner, and addressing that part is off topic here. But I hope I made it clear that a bamboo whisk is a perfectly viable option, not in any way prohibited by safety regulations.
What about the fact that matcha is usually prepared with hot/boiling water?
@Calimo presumably, by the time you have finished using it and it reaches the sink, it won't be all that hot. In fact, it might be smack in the middle of the danger zone (4 to 60 C). Anyway, I don't think the regulations actually distinguish between the cleaning of something that only touches tea and something that touches other types of food, they probably just prescribe "thorough washing with detergent" or something like that.
The noun form of "sanitize" is "sanitization". This is not the same as "sanitation".
@nanoman thank you! I started writing it that way, but my browser started underlining it in red and I thought that I must be germanifying my English again, so I changed it. I'll edit.
I'm sorry, but this answer does not correspond to the actual regulations of washing dishes commercially, at least not in the places where I did so (PA, OH in the US). The "correct" way (as per county health departments) to wash dishes includes a sanitation step after cleaning and rinsing the dish (including utensils). This involves putting the thing to be sanitized into water with a sanitizer (e.g. bleach). Automated dishwashers in those places also perform this step (I know because they complain when they run out of sanitizer).
@mdfst13 now that's interesting! It certainly wasn't required in the food industry in Germany back when I got my safety certificate (for a short student job only, I'm not an industry insider). I'd really like to see the answer for places where this is required by regulation. Or maybe they do use non-bamboo whisks in such places.
Generally speaking, washing with soap or detergent does sanitize: soapy water disrupts the membranes and kills bacteria (and breaks up viruses). Adding any /different/ sanitization step has the effect of killing organisms that are resistant to the first sanitization step: organisms are amazingly diverse.
I don't know how common or uniform sanitation regulations are, but here's a segment of the Ohio Food Code Reference Guide, which says that "utensils and food-contact surfaces must be sanitized before use after cleaning". That corroborates mdfst13's comment.
@user2357112: the link gives me a 404.
@AkselA: Huh. Try going here and then hitting the "download" link.
@user2357112: I can't access odh.ohio.gov at all.
Dishwashers are in fact better at cleaning dishes than hand-washing. For one thing the water is much hotter than what typical human hands can handle. On top of that many dishwashers have a sanitize cycle, which makes the water even hotter. As to why dishwashers are preferred, in addition to the previous, and the not inconsequential labor savings, dishwashers use a lot less water to wash the same amount of dishes.
I have researched further about matcha and how bamboo matcha whisks (Japanese: chasen) are used. @rumtscho 's point about matcha being low in fat is a useful point.
Matcha is literally ground up tea leaves. The matcha-poweder particles do not themselves dissolve, although chemicals in the particles do leach into the water in solution. A nutritional analysis (USDA) gives 100g of matcha as having 0g fat and 0g sugar). It is alkaline (pH of 9 or so), and its 'microorganic achilles heel' is mould.
Not cleaning the bamboo whisk well (where cleaning is understood as removing loose clumps and particles of matcha adhering to the surface of the bamboo) is the invitation to mould.
However, a bamboo which which has been cleaned and dried is not going to attract any mould, and from a food-safety perspective, could be considered not to harbour harmful microorganisms.
As to the point that bamboo is porus and will probably soak up some matcha-solution, it doesn't matter provided the bamboo is able to later dry. Best-practice with whisking matcha is to soak the whisk in hot water before use (to make the bamboo tines more pliant and less prone to snapping during the mechanical action of whisking). So it is wet, slippery bamboo, swollen with water to restrict the size of the pores, which comes into contact with the matcha paste, and is therefore less likely to trap the comparatively large particles of matcha. Pigmentation from the matcha solution still has a chance to soak in, but microorganisms probably don't want to eat that. Finally, best practice cleans, rinses and dries the whisk immediately after use, further reducing the likelihood of mould.
Sanitization can be accomplished either by chemical means (eg. the caustic chlorine-based 'detergent' in the dishwasher, or alcohol, or ammonia) -OR- by the application of sufficient heat for a sufficiently long period. In food-safety, sanitization does not refer to sterilization, but merely to good odds of killing a sufficient number of bugs to give ordinary immune systems an easily conquered small dose of pathogens.
While caustic chemicals in the dishwasher are no friend of bamboo, bamboo can cope just fine with the '80-degC for 2 minutes' ... or thereabouts ... required by most food-safety regulators. So immersing a cleaned whisk in sufficiently hot water for a sufficiently long time is an acceptable sanitization technique.
But is it necessary to sanitize the whisk in-between each drink that is prepared? I would think not, since - barring contamination from other substances in its environment while being used - the lead-time for mould to gather in pathogenic numbers on a cleaned-but-not-sanitized whisk is likely more than a single day.
Thus, food safety can be accomplished by:
Soaking the whisk in fresh hot water immediately before each use
Mechanically cleaning the whisk under running water after each use
Storing the whisk in some sort of dock in between uses, which
isolates the whisk from cross-contamination
promotes air-drying
Sanitization by submergence in very hot water for a long-enough period of time at end-of-day
followed by thorough air-drying overnight, under a cover to prevent
environmental mould 'falling' onto the whisk
My research led me to the conclusion that a stainless steel whisk could never come close to frothing the matcha in the way a bamboo whisk does ... which would explain why there are basically no stainless-steel matcha whisks on the market. A properly-handled bamboo whisk is the way to go.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.723938
| 2024-09-20T01:55:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129241",
"authors": [
"AkselA",
"Calimo",
"David Bullock",
"GdD",
"david",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93128",
"marcelm",
"mdfst13",
"nanoman",
"rumtscho",
"stannius",
"user2357112"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40649
|
Should I use olive oil in in baking?
Many sources suggest that olive oil loses its distinctive flavors when heated to high temperatures (e.g., Can extra virgin olive oil be used for stir frying, roasting, grilling?). When olive oil is used in baking, however, it would typically stay at lower temperatures than it reaches in sauteeing or roasting. Do baked goods made with olive oil retain any of olive oil's distinctive flavors?
(For what it is worth, I am particularly interested in whether it is worthwhile to use olive oil in breads such as focaccia and in cakes made with oil.)
Bread & pizza baked using olive oil, develop a kind of crunchy crust on the bottom that I find masks the flavor of the crest. Applying EVOO to the topping of pizza or focaccia will add some flavor, but not as much as dipping in EVOO.
There are some cakes (usually of Italian origin) specifically made with olive oil.
In breads, you can certainly use it, although there often is not enough olive oil for its flavor to truly be appreciated.
New York style pizza dough, for example, is traditionally made with some olive oil.
I just made this one my first olive oil cake it turned out great except that my oranges weren't very good.
Is it possible to expand your answer by addressing whether olive oil makes a difference in the recipes that you mention? Given that many non-baking recipes call for olive oil even when it makes little difference, the fact that some baking recipes call for olive oil isn't completely convincing.
For these particular cakes, yes the olive oil is a major flavor component. For the pizza, I have a hard time telling the difference.
Having recently made a couple of olive oil cakes, I can testify to the fact that you DO taste the oil in the cakes, really good EVOO comes through loud and clear.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.725133
| 2013-12-29T01:06:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40649",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Jermaine R. Morton",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kimberlee W Hill",
"Optionparty",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Vicki Meadows",
"honestSalami",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94611"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28459
|
Storing white chocolate
Possible Duplicate:
How long can you keep chocolate, and what is the best way to store it?
I just started using white chocolate to decorate dark chocolate covered cake balls. I used a squeeze bottle instead of the standard bag and it worked beautifully. I need to store the left over white chocolate though. What is the best way and how long will it keep? Thanks!
welcome to this site. You might find the answer in this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11248/how-long-can-you-keep-chocolate-and-what-is-the-best-way-to-store-it
(except yours is kept in a squirt bottle, of course)
Just don't keep it in the squeeze bottle, or you'll have an interesting time trying to get it back out of there... anyway, the dupe does address white chocolate (it's the same as any other chocolate, just won't last quite as long). Also, stilltasty is a good resource for getting broad estimates of the storage lifetime.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.725321
| 2012-11-16T16:24:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28459",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Joseph Brown",
"Joy",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Linda Helliwell",
"Phil Costello",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65719",
"reinierpost"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112804
|
What is meant by "skim" a caramel?
I am trying to make caramel ice cream from the Silver Spoon. I'm not entirely sure what they mean by the word "skim" at the start of the recipe:
Put the sugar (100g) in a pan with 1 tbsp cold water and set over a low heat until it has melted. Increase the heart to medium, skim and, when it goes golden red in colour, pour in 5 tbsp hot water and remove from the heat.
There was a bit of a crust of bubbly sugar on the top surface of the pan, but how are you supposed to skim that? Perhaps it's something lost in translation from the original Italian recipe?
With a spoon, probably.
A silver spoon? In all seriousness though, what is removing sugar from a sugar solution supposed to accomplish?
....Could they mean to brush down the sides with water? Skim makes no sense...
I am also rather puzzled by it, but I must also say that the recipe is somewhat unusual. There is the dry method for caramel (sugar only) and the wet method (sugar dissolved in sufficient water), I have never seen it done with such slight wetting of water though. So I am not that surprised by the further irregularity.
I can see two possibilities for interpretation here. The first one would be that it is a translation/editing/autocorrect mistake, and that you are meant to stir the caramel. While one expects recipes to be better proofread than that, it can happen, and in this way of doing it, this is indeed the correct time for stirring (and it is a good thing to say so explicitly, so you don't try stirring earlier, which can ruin the caramel).
The second one is that it is indeed meant for skimming foam. Sugar solutions can form foam, which is usually noticeable in jam making. I have never had any significant foam form during caramel making, but it is possible that either the author made it under conditions which somehow produce more foam, or that they believe that the minimal foam formation that likely happens when the water boils off needs skimming. I wouldn't personally see this as an important step, but as I said, the recipe is already unconventional.
In the end, if you feel uncomfortable following these exact unusual instructions, you can either disregard the skimming step, or make a caramel in a way you are comfortable with. By "caramel" I mean pure caramel, not the combination of caramel and cream and/or butter that is also commonly called "caramel" in English speaking countries nowadays. Then proceed with the rest of the recipe as per the book. Or, just find another recipe for caramel ice cream - recipes which are confusingly written are always at a higher risk at failure, either because the author didn't know what they are doing, or because they didn't manage to transfer the knowledge well.
I ended up stirring the mixture slightly to break the foam, and although I never make caramel I thought the result was pretty much perfect. Unconventional perhaps, but it does work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.725445
| 2020-11-23T18:38:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112804",
"authors": [
"Sanchises",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60287
|
Bubbles in canned tomato sauce
I put up two quarts of fresh tomatoes for sauce yesterday. They were in the hot water bath for 45 minutes. This morning they are cold & I thought ready for the cupboard. I notice many air bubbles when I turn the jars over Should this be of a concern for my storing & eating them later on?
Welcome! For good formatting purposes, please don't use all caps for titles.
That's the right amount of processing time for quart jars of tomatoes; could just be the fruits were a little less juicy than normal so the bubbles weren't able to rise. Watch for bloating and smell carefully before eating just in case, though.
ok, thank you--will be careful when I open one but tomatoes seem very juicy
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.725691
| 2015-08-27T15:23:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60287",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cherie Lust-robinson",
"Christine Mason",
"Karl Dormer",
"Kathryn Dickinson",
"Nancy",
"V S",
"goblinbox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37890"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60174
|
Why are foods often packaged in weird measurements?
Whilst shopping I have noticed quite a number of products having very weird measurements. for example my jar of peanut butter is 127g, but I can't spot a pattern here.
Is this just a random part of production, or is there some reasoning behind this?
Quite often, it's because a manufacturer prefers to decrease the size of a packet than to increase its price. Customers notice when the price goes up but don't tend to notice the product getting smaller.
For example, jam in the UK used to be sold in jars containing one pound, which became the equivalent 454 grams with metrication. But, more recently, that's shrunk to 400g and even 350g in some cases. Similarly, according to Wikipedia, Yorkie bars used to be 70g, which then became 64.5g, 61g, 55g and now 46g; packets of crisps that used to be 30g are now often 27g (10% smaller) or even less.
I used to work in the grocery industry. I can confirm this practice.
Hence the need for them to market the Yorkie as a man-sized chocolate bar with the slogan "it's not for girls." All quite ironic really.
@steveverrill Maybe their market research indicated that girls hate it when their chocolate bars shrink. ;-)
In parts of the EU, there were standard packaging sizes. A EU directive from 2007, I think, changed that and since 2009 in the EU, manufacturers can use any packaging size they want. Since this was in the news and all, I kept watching package sizes and noticed a lot of changes. The most "innovative" way to reduce the amount is to make a bigger packaging with less content and then print "new formula" or something like that on there. It seems not nearly enough people compare the base price of the products.
While 127 is a weird number, 227 isn't - it's the grams equivalent of half a pound. In most cases where something is a weird (nonround) size in metric measurements, it's 10 fluid ounces or a quarter of a pound or something else reasonable in imperial units. Why so many 454g packages instead of 500? So the same machine can be used to make 1 lb packages (just need different labels) for the US market.
In the case of the peanut butter, there's decent odds that it's a factor of a consistent volume -- one chart lists peanut butter density as 272.63 gram per metric cup (250mL), so 127g is 116.45mL, which is pretty close to half a US cup. (236.588mL per US cup).
This works both ways: packages in the US are often some random-looking number of ounces or fluid ounces that turns out to be, for example 500g or 500ml.
while sensible, that's not really the answer. The answer by David is correct - in that, maybe the product starts from a 500g pack, but over time, with cost-per-gram rising, in order to keep the cost fixed, producers keep cutting down on the volume/weight packed for as long as possible without making it too obvious.
@kumar_harsh I think it's actually a combination of the two. If you see a packet that's a multiple of 28.3g (and, especially, 454g and 227g), it's almost certainly because it's a whole number of ounces. If you see something that's a multiple or convenient divisor of 568ml or 473ml, it's almost certainly because it's a fraction of a pint (UK and US, respectively) or a round number of pints; correspondingly, if you see a 33.8-ounce bottle in the US, it's because it's a litre, not because they were penny-pinching a 35-ounce bottle.
@DavidRicherby I get it. I agree to your explaination too (regarding non-metric units and values). It's my mistake to not make that clear in my previous comment. What I wanted to say was that even if the weight starts at 227g, it might come down to, say, 210g. 227g/473ml etc will be there on the first iteration of the product, but with inflation, they too, may tend to become irregular.
They don't usually just pick a random number to decrease it to, though - they pick another number that's logical, just less. 5 pound bag of flour becomes 4 pounds, not 4.543 pounds. 12 oz jar of jam becomes 10 oz. Kate's answer seems likely to be why the number is such an odd looking one - it's a normal amount, in some other measuring method.
@JoeM It depends where you are. In North America, maybe. But anywhere else, everything is metric. As I explained in my answer, a jar of jam in the UK used to be 454g because that's 1lb. But, for quite a long time now, food in the UK has been labelled entirely in metric: that jar of jam is just labelled "454g", not "454g/1lb" or "454g (1lb)". So, if they change the size, there's no reason at all to move to a round number of ounces. Take a look at the Yorkie bar weights I posted: none of them is a round number of ounces.
...well, 127 isn't so weird... it's a nice 1111111 in binary... /me ducks
Something like peanut butter can be made less dense by whipping in more air. Less expensive product, less weight, same size jar.
The one thing that's not been mentioned: the size of the package needs to be something easily shipped. A standard pallet in the U.S. is 48" by 40" (not sure about Europe, but I'm sure they have a similar standard). While boxes can overhang the 40" side a bit, it shouldn't be by more than a few inches, and they certainly shouldn't overhang the 48" side, or the forklift/pallet jack won't be able to operate safely.
Say your food came in boxes 20" by 10" by 4" - so you can fit say 8 on a pallet row. This is a chocolate bar, say 4" by 2.5" by 0.5", which works out to 4oz. So you can fit 5 deep 4 across and 8 high- total of 160 bars per case. Great.
Now you want to shrink the bar by around 25% (so to around 3 oz). But a 3" by 2.5" by 0.5" bar now won't fit neatly in a 20" by 10" box - you'd have 2" extra the long way. That's bad news all around. So you make it 4" by 2" by 0.5", which fits nicely (5 deep 5 across 8 high, 200 boxes/case), but isn't quite a 25% reduction in volume per bar - so it's now 3.2oz. Well, okay, make it 0.4" high - okay, now 5x5x10 or 250 per case, fantastic, a bit more than 25% reduction though, now it's 2.56oz...
Of course you could switch box sizes, but in some case you can't really do that - either because the company is a smaller company with a more limited box size choice (and perhaps a ton of pre-printed customized boxes they don't want to toss), or because of some other restrictions. Very large items particularly have this problem. As such, sometimes sizes are chosen for volume-to-ship criteria rather than just round-number-on-box.
This will not be a direct answer to your question, but bear with me.
When a producer is choosing their packaging, they have several options. They can portion by weight or volume (or amount, but that's useful less often for produce). They can then choose whatever serving "size" they want; producers of new products may have to determine sizes by themselves, but most often there are already standardized or normalized packages out there. Either way, though, these sizes are based on a combination of how much we - the consumers - are the most comfortable with buying, but also based on average consumption. This means that different products have different preferred sizes.
Added to this, different countries use different measurements (e.g. the US's imperial system or regional trends like dozens) and, finally, what's to say that 127 g is any more random than, say, 100 g?
I don't know that they can truly select any serving size -- if they did, we'd see more tricks like Diet Coke's 'just one Calorie' (2 servings per can) so that more items could claim '0 grams fat' (because it's less than 0.5/grams per serving).
The US doesn't use Imperial: they use American customary units, which they usually call "English", despite them not being English. The significant difference from a food point of view is that a US pint is only 16 fluid ounces, whereas an Imperial pint is 20 (the fluid ounce is also slightly different). Also, and this is probably only relevant if you're really hungry, a US hundredweight is 100 pounds (logical, huh?), whereas an Imperial hundredweight is 112 pounds (buuuh?), with a concommitant effect on the size of a ton (both versions are 20 hundredweight).
the non-metrics are so incredibly painful :)
Certainly can't choose "any" serving size in the US anymore - FDA has some specific limits, and will probably have more of those in time. Many foods have specific requirements (for example, foods in a size that could reasonably be consumed in one sitting have to be labeled with that as a choice, though they can also have a specific serving recommendation with an alternate set of nutritional details).
100% marketing
When the packaged weight serves no normal recipe use, or is not a round number e.g. 1 Kg
When the price end in .99 or .95
You are a victim of marketing
Avoid these if you can, or just smile and carry on
How would 127g be marketing?
By what indication do you deem the asker a victim?
@Terry exactly. Refer to David Richerby top answer
@phresnel when you buy 127g of something you are most likely buying pwhat the marketer wants you to buy to maximise their profit, you are probably not buyin what you actually want
@TFD: Probably, yes. But if you are aiming for peanut butter, it is unlikely that your intention was to buy 130g or 200g, you want to buy enough to make some creamy breads. The asker did not indicate how much he actually wanted to have; calling him "victim" may not be appropriate (but in some way, yes, we are all victims)
@Terry because a few year earlier the jar was was 140g, and before that 170g. The price "is kept low", the jar is cleverly printed to look as big as ever, but the contents shrink. Most people can store a 500g jar anyway. The cost of making and stocking a small 127g jar is probably more than the cost of the contents
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.725828
| 2015-08-23T20:15:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60174",
"authors": [
"Bellville Duchess",
"David Richerby",
"F T",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Josef",
"Leah Allen",
"Lena Bechler",
"Level River St",
"Louise Watts",
"Melva Warriner",
"Nadine Bonnett",
"Nancy Robinett",
"Pearl Buck",
"Rmano",
"RubberDuck",
"Schwern",
"TFD",
"Terry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kumarharsh",
"maria young",
"phresnel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58727
|
My dishes seem the same
I have been learning to cook for a little while now, and can make 10+ good looking and tasting meals but I have a problem I am encountering that I notice more and more as I learn new meals.
It seems all my meals (exception of things like soup or salads) break into the same 3 things
A meat (Chicken, Fish, Ham, Steak, Pork, Lamb, ect)
A starch (Either Pasta, Potatoes done some way or Rice)
A few vegetables (Normally do something like carrots and broccoli)
It seems this way with almost any fancy (ish) dish I try to make, since I don't like cooking simple meals since I one day plan to open a restaurant. I am still young and would love to learn more.
Is there other areas of cooking I can look into to break this trend of 1 meat, 1 starch, and 2 veges (or more)?
Or some way of modifying the #2 and #3 things so that it is vastly different enough to provide variety (since the meat is always cooked different ways or in different sauces).
Thanks for any help I get!
P.S. I should mention I have celiacs so I can't have gluten, but I do generally know all the substitutions in order to make up for it.
Try making a list of more interesting foods that you've had at restaurants. Then google for recipes and try them out. Also check out the Kitchn and Serious Eats for ideas.
Where I live there are no nicer restaurants. Every time I go to one the meals I get are more basic and worse than the stuff I cook at home unfortunately, since they are more family restaurants.
Try going vegan or vegetarian for a couple of weeks -- if nothing else, you'll get out of the 'meat' category. Even though I grew up in a pasta-heavy household, we had a lot of variety of sauces (butter & parmesean, oil & garlic, tomato, ragu, bechamel, carbonara, pesto, etc).
And I agree w/ David B : food blogs are a good place for inspiration. If you have a local library, you can also check what they have in the way of cookbooks for ideas.
Try different cuisines - Italian pasta, Chinese (ha! as if there was "a Chinese quisine") stir-fry, Indian curry, Thai curry, Mexican enchiladas, Mediterranean seafood..... None fall into the classic "meat and two vegs" category. Come back after your culinary world trip.
I agree with @Stephie. Different cuisines can open a vast array of dishes. A couple more ideas might be German or Spanish. A good paella, dish of kielbasa and sauerkraut, or Hunter's schnitzel make for excellent meals. Of course, it all comes around to what you and your family like.
I see the question is getting not only close votes, but plenty of random ideas in comments, which is a hallmark of being a bad question. I don't know if it would have had a chance of getting good answers (it is very marginal), but this is not what is happening.
Different Cuisines is definitely the way to go. Many dishes from South America (chile, brazil, argentina) seem truly innovative from an American palette. Maybe you can gain some excellent insights into these amazing and wonderful cultures through their culinary voyages!
While the meat-vege-starch thing is a staple of a euro-centric diet, something that our privileged positions in society takes a certain advantage of, it's remarkable what you can pull off with the addition of different plating techniques involving sauces and various cooking techniques.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.726589
| 2015-07-02T13:01:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58727",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"David Bruce Borenstein",
"Jane Fuller",
"Joe",
"Jonathon Evans",
"Lain",
"Mark Bowland",
"Mike Medici",
"Stephie",
"Veronica Richardson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jason clark",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58898
|
Reuse of Food Grade Tins
I am interested in using a food grade tin (such as this) to store small amounts of food, in particular for storing summer sausage or cheese for short periods of time (1-2 days). What are the food safety concerns (if any) for this? My searches online seemed to concentrate on reusing industrial canned food containers (verdict: not recommended), and I'm not sure if this type of container warrants different treatment.
From a materials science point of view -- the main issue is if it's coated or solid; if it's coated, then too much scouring when cleaning can chip the coating exposing the core.
Would there be a way to tell one from the other visually? The home site for those tins (here: http://www.specialtybottle.com/screwtoptincontainersmi.aspx) says they're food grade, but offers no additional information.
Sometimes there are tooling marks, which would show that it's solid (I don't see any). With it being matte (non-shiny), it suggests it's coated but there could've also been some sort of etching done afterwards to hide tool marks.
Thank you! If you would like to add a general version of your original comment as an answer, I think that it's an acceptable response to my question.
The problem is that many 'food grade' tins are coated, and not solid. As such, cleaning them can end up flaking off the coating that's been applied, making them reactive.
Unless you're dealing with antique materials, I suspect that the majority of 'tins' are going to be either coated steel, or stainless steel.
Although I mentioned looking for tooling marks, and if it's matte or shiny, an easier test might be to use a magnet -- if the magnet sticks, they're most likely steel, and thus prone to rusting. Even if they're coated, if you put something moist in there, it can seep into any cracks it finds, leach at the metal, and then ruin your food. I had this happen with some Pecan Whiskey Cakes that I had put up, as they need to soak for a couple of months ... I now understand why my aunt wraps hers in (alcohol soaked) cloth, then a plastic bag, then whatever she's going to store it in.
You could probably do the same thing as you're only dealing with a few days -- wrap it in plastic, then put them in the tin.
It's possible that some (non-stainless) steel containers might have a more durable coating ... but unless it's specifically sold as being re-usable (or as wombar mentioned, for the industrial/institutional market), it's likely made to keep the costs down and not intended for re-use.
You should also avoid acidic or salty items, as they're known to pit stainless steels, especially when there's moisture and/or poor ventilation.
Different types of tins are intended for storing different types of foods (dry crackers are very different from cheeses that contain some moisture). And as mentioned previously, linings can chip when the tin is being cleaned. Food grade does not mean that they are reusable - I'd contact the source and ask them. Usually the I&I (industrial and institutional) market has sturdier packaging than home use. If the I&I is not to be reused, I'd really doubt yours is suitable, especially for moist products.
People have been storing food in tins for generations with no negative effect. I remember crackers being sold in tins when I was a kid. Have at it. You'll be fine. You may not want to store moist food in it once you start seeing rust though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.727002
| 2015-07-08T16:46:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58898",
"authors": [
"Chrissy Poxon",
"Jay Jacques",
"Joe",
"K Bateman",
"Karen Peña",
"Mark Switzer",
"Pat Thorpe",
"Savien Traliard",
"cryptic_star",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94947
|
Why is the pasta often cooked in the sauce in al'arrabiata recipes?
I looked up some recipes for pasta al'arrabiata, and one part I find a bit confusing is that most of them finish cooking the pasta in the sauce. So you cook the pasta separately until it's almost done, and then mix it with the sauce and finish cooking. I'm used to simply cooking the pasta and the sauce each for themselves, and only then mix them.
I'm an inexperienced cook, and this part adds some complications where I'm wondering if they're worth it or if I should simply cook the pasta and the sauce separately as usual. I'm comfortable with cooking the pasta alone to something resembling al dente, but mixing them both just before they're finished and then cooking both together makes this more difficult. I also usually use a rather small pot for the sauce, so I'd have to adapt that as well.
So, I'm wondering what the purpose of this step is, and whether I should just cook sauce and pasta entirely separately.
I don't know much about the dish, but sauce generally has more flavor than salted water, so it will flavor the pasta more heavily.
The condiment is not a substitute for properly salting pasta cooking water. You need both.
This is a great question. It does not pertain to just arrabiata. This is a common technique worth discussing here
I just comment because I do not find any goods on doing it so can't answer. The point of adjusting the thickness mentioned in the good A below is true but personally I do that by drying the pasta less or more depending on the sauce. What I want to point out that it shouldn't be done with a lot of sauces (sugo di carne sugo di funghi ecc) while it is required for specific ones (cacio e pepe, e.g.).
While Italian cuisine is defined regionally, the majority of Italian pasta dishes have one cook the pasta until almost done, then finish in the condiment. While there are exceptions that include thick, long cooked sauces like Bolognese or sugos, finishing in the condiment serves several purposes: (a) the pasta and the condiment can be combined, (b) the pasta finishes cooking, (c) it absorbs the flavor of the condiment, and (d) the condiment (sauce) thickens and emulsifies from the addition of the starchy pasta cooking water (this can be controlled by adding cooking water and/or allowing it to cook off). Yes, it is more difficult than cooking separately, and it can be a little nuanced, but it is not very technical. With a bit of practice, I think you will find this step worth it.
This way of cooking is relatively new in the houses of Italians. Can't say is innovative but it got widespread by the huge amount of TV programmes and channels dedicated to cooking.
@GeorgeM of course that is possible, however, removing the pasta to the condiment/sauce pan allows you to reserve and use the cooking water as you finish the dish.
@GeorgeM hate to split hairs, but for most people "drain the pasta" means that the cooking water literally goes down the drain.
I'm going to extend moscafj's excellent answer by being more specific to the case of pasta arrabbiata. Consult the Serious Eats recipe, which covers most of what I'm explaining.
Unlike a slow-cooked tomato sauce, arrabbiata is a quick-cooked, making the tomatoes bright, fruity, and acidic. Unfortunately, that means that the tomatoes are watery and chunky as well, which means that they adhere poorly to the pasta. Finishing the pasta in the saucepan with some of the pasta water fixes this, making the sauce thicker and stickier, and helping it distribute evenly.
So you can make the sauce and pasta separately, and just toss them in a bowl, but the result will likely be a lot of the sauce running off the pasta and staying in the bottom of that bowl.
Just make the sauce in a large, deep pan and it should be no problem doing this. You're not even washing more pans, just one bigger one.
Indeed this is the answer. In my comments I didn't convey the message. " Saltare la pasta" literally jumping the pasta ( perhaps sauting is the term) is indicated with these kind of quickly done sauces and condiments, which themselves are not very adherent. It can also give a crispy note to the finished pasta, in other cases.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.727303
| 2018-12-17T23:20:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94947",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Nick T",
"Summer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104129
|
Can salted butter be used to make lemon curd?
The recipe I want to use to make lemon curd specifically calls for unsalted butter, while many other recipes I've looked at either also specify this, or simply say 'butter', making me unsure whether they mean salted or unsalted butter.
Where I live butter is very expensive, and it can also be difficult to buy it in any reasonably large quantities. So this makes me wonder whether it's okay to use salted butter which I readily have available instead of spending the time and money to buy the suitable amount of unsalted butter.
So would using salted butter to make lemon curd somehow cause it to fail? Or would it succeed, but change the taste and/or texture?
EDIT
Today, I finally got around to making some lemon curd. As an experiment, I decided to make a small batch with the salted butter I had to hand to see how it would turn out, and to be perfectly honest it tastes great. It doesn't taste particularly salty and the texture is just as I wanted. I plan to give some to my in-laws and ask for their opinions on whether it tastes salty at all, but since they have a more salt heavy diet than me (I've been trying to cut down on salt when possible for the last half a year or so), I don't think they'll be put off at all. Or at least I hope so!
In any case, I don't think I'll be worrying too much about whether I'm using salted or unsalted butter in my curd from now on. Though I will note to buy the same brand of butter as often as possible, since I might just be using a comparatively lightly salted butter.
I am not sure of this, but I wonder what would happen if you heat the butter and add water to it to allow the salt to dissolve in the water and let it cool. Separate the butter from the liquids. This should reduce the salt, I imagine. But, you have clarified butter instead.
If you have access to cream, you could make your own butter
check this too https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93163/should-i-use-salted-or-unsalted-butter-if-the-recipe-doesnt-specify
Salted versus unsalted butter: https://youtu.be/kP1BHrvYopI
Often, at least in the US, recipes will specifically call for unsalted butter, then call for salt to be added to the recipe — which causes many to scratch their heads.
There are three main uses that come to my mind for salt. One is to impart a salty taste. The usage in butter is primarily a secondary one, and that is as a preservative. The third is as a flavor enhancer (which can also apply to butter, but to my knowledge is not the primary reason there). Many recipes that call for a small amount of salt are using it strictly as a flavor enhancer. The intent is to highlight other flavors without actually tasting the salt.
So why call out unsalted, then add salt? Two reasons that I know of. The amount of salt in salted butter varies. If you read the label carefully and do the math, you might get a rough idea, but in general by just picking up the butter you do not know how much salt is in there. Some may have enough to taste, others you may not notice. By using unsalted, you are in control of how much salt is added and can even adjust to taste as individuals who practice a lower-salt diet tend to taste it at lower amounts. Higher-salt diets tend to become numbed to the taste so do not notice it at lower amounts. This contributed to the older tendency to call for a "pinch" and a pinch varied from person to person according to their own sense of taste.
The second reason is more subtle. Salt in butter is a preservative. Since it has salt, it tends to hold up longer in storage. Since it holds up longer, there is at least a perception that salted butter may be older. So calling for unsalted by some cooks and authors can be like saying "use fresh butter, not old." It is an old tendency, and many may not even realize that is an origin, even if subtly implied.
Now, not knowing your curd recipe, it may not call for added salt. I come from a high-salt background, so it is unlikely I would taste the difference, while others might. In the case of your particular recipe, there may be a tendency for at least some people to actually taste the salt, especially given that the amount of salt in the butter may vary by maker.
+1 for explaining that the perception of saltiness varies between individuals and cool history. I use salted butter and add salt even if a recipe doesn't call for it, and cut back on the sugar. Most people think my frostings are divine, but there's one guy who swears he can smell the salt and flinches back. Others think my various fruit goops are magical on their own, while others literally gag at the concentration/acidity unless they take it with a big bite of cheesecake. Taste is absurdly subjective, and no one should break their piggy bank over a pinch of salt.
@kitukwfyer - I agree, doubleplus one for variations in perception of saltiness! I have no doubt I, and all my family, would like a salted-butter lemon curd better than an unsalted-butter one, because we are used to (and like, in truth) a bit of salt to cut and complexify the tastes of sweet. And I personally adore salted-sweet, so there's that. We, actually most people ever, probably couldn't tell on tasting a lemon curd if it was made with salted-butter or not, just if it is to their (individual) tastes or not. OP may prefer curd from salted butter because that salt-level feels normal.
This is false: Salt i[n] butter is a preservative. Since it has salt, it tends to hold up longer in storage. Microbes cannot grow in a fat/oil - there is no oxygen for them. Lard, peanut butter, olive oil etc. can be stored many months without problem. Fats can go rancid (oxidized on surface) however. I keep my unsalted butter in the fridge many, many months without problem. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8084/what-mechanism-causes-a-butter-crock-to-function-better-than-other-options/8085#8085
Another important use of salt in many recipes is to limit the action of yeast in leavened baked goods. In some sense, it has the opposite effect of sugar. It also adds crust color and changes the gluten profile.
@Chloe your anecdotal ability to keep butter to your satisfaction supersedes volumes of industry and cooking literature information on why salt is added to butter? Interesting. Google, Bing or any other search engine "Why is salt added to butter" and you will be hard pressed to find one that does not say it is as a preservative.
@Chloe Anaerobic microbes do exist, though I'm not sure how many feast on triglycerides.
@Chloe Yes, you can keep unsalted butter for a long time in a machine specially designed to preserve foodstuffs. The point is that salted butter will keep OK in a cool pantry whereas unsalted will go rancid.
@Chloe Fridges preserve things, too.
@dlb You need 10x the salt in current butter to act as a preservative. Salt is not used to preserve (today’s) butter! They are interchangeable. https://youtu.be/kP1BHrvYopI.
Using salted butter would result in a perceivably salty curd - probably not what you want when expecting a sweet lemon curd. The general rule of thumb is to use unsalted butter for sweet dishes and cakes, especially when the butter makes up a significant percentage of the whole dish.
The reason why some recipes simply state “butter” is that not all locales consider salted butter as the default. For example: In Germany (where I live), “butter” means unsalted, and salted butter is a specialty item, which may even come at a higher price. In the US it’s the other way around.
From what I observed, the UK (homeland of the lemon curd) is something in between - sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly calling for unsalted butter for baking and deserts.
Yes, here in the UK salted is only marginally more common than unsalted. Salted is often cheaper in practice, because the budget range doesn't include unsalted.
@ChrisH When I was a child (born in 1958) unsalted butter was a speciality item (just as in much of the US now).
I disagree with Stephie's answer above. I find using salted butter does not give a perceptively salty taste but instead helps to bring out the lemon flavour. A pinch of salt or salted butter is recommended in The Kitchen Magpie and Guardian perfect lemon curd.
Of course, as Luciano says, if you use unsalted butter you have more control, but I don't think it is necessary to buy it specifically for lemon curd.
In response to a comment: this is based on using salted butter with 1.7g of salt per 100g of butter.
The Guardian recipe doesn't mention salted butter, in fact it says to add a pinch of salt.
It seems there’s no consensus even amongst UK chefs and bakers. I found Gordon Ramsey recipe calling for lightly(!) salted butter, a Jamie Oliver one stating unsalted and two Mary Berry ones, one with unsalted, one with just “butter”. So I guess it depends on a) the saltiness of the butter, which may differ between brands and locales, and b) the percentage of butter in the curd. Plus probably c) personal preference. There’s no harm in adding a pinch of salt to sweet recipes, in fact, it’s quite common. Whether this warrants using salted butter right from the start is another question.
@Stephie A pinch of salt is nothing compared to the amount of salt in salted butter, generally speaking of course since it depends on the brand.
The only salted butter I encountered was so salty that I can't believe it wouldn't cause a perceivable saltiness. Can you share how much salted was the salted butter you were using? Range of saltiness seems to be from 1% to 3% in the off-the shelf salted butter in my country.
@Stephie you can sometimes get semi-salted butter in the UK, so perhaps that's the "lightly salted"
For cooking in general it's usually better to use unsalted butter. You can always add more salt if needed (and in the correct amount) but it's not easy to control the salt properly if you have to add more butter. So your lemon curd could be ok but it might taste slightly funny, depending on the amount of salt in your butter.
Butter can be frozen for months, so if you don't want to use unsalted butter all the time you can just defrost the amount you need before using.
For most recipes always assume it uses unsalted butter, unless specified otherwise. Specifically sweet recipes, where salt is not always required.
It depends on how much butter the recipe calls for relative to other ingredients--and what those other ingredients are.
Amount of butter: How much butter matters? Usually if the taste or texture of the final product is buttery then there's enough butter in it that the salted-ness of the butter matters. On the other hand, if the final product does not obviously contain butter, then the total amount of salt from the butter will be less important. For lemon curd, there's usually no butter flavor or texture in the result.
Other strong flavors: If you have other strong flavors, they can mask the salt. (In this case, the lemon and sugar are both going to be really strong.)
Amount of added salt or salty ingredients: If the recipe already calls for added salt, you can reduce that to compensate for salted butter. Or if there are other salty ingredients, then a little more salt from the butter will be less noticeable.
Conclusion: For lemon curd, you're probably fine with salted butter, just reduce any salt that's added in the recipe.
Bonus suggestion: If it's just butter that's expensive in your area, there are recipes for vegan lemon curd (no butter, no eggs) or dairy free lemon curd (vegetable oil or coconut oil (tastes like lemon-coconut)) that you could try instead of a traditional recipe.
Salt can have a physical effect on certain ingredients. Some fruits and vegetables start to lose their water through osmosis when they get in contact with salt. Depending on the recipe, additional moisture in the pan might or might not be desired during certain phases. This can be a reason for specific instructions regarding when to add how much salt to the dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.727691
| 2019-12-16T05:46:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104129",
"authors": [
"Chloe",
"Chris H",
"JAB",
"Luciano",
"Martin Bonner supports Monica",
"Max",
"Megha",
"Mołot",
"Stephie",
"Z4-tier",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"kitukwfyer",
"user29568",
"user428517"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105929
|
How does one alter a recipe that calls for one fruit with another fruit of differing water content?
For example, I often make banana bread. I'd like to effectively keep the same recipe but use pumpkin instead. Bananas are ~72% water while pumpkins are ~90% water, and roughly a 20% increase in water content seems substantial. (I actually have a loaf of apple-bread in the oven; and apples are about 80% water—we'll see how it goes. :D)
I wouldn't be surprised if there were other things I'm not taking into consideration (e.g. - chemical composition of fruits) that affect any substitutions I make. This being said, is there some heuristic I can use when substituting fruits in baking? Or are the differences between fruits enough to warrant totally different approaches when going from fruit to fruit?
How did the apple bread go?
can't you find a proper recipe for pumpkin bread or apple bread ?
@Max Yes, but I already know how to do that—which is why my question isn't "How do I find a recipe for bread with another fruit in it?" :P
@anotherdave It came out excellently! Surprisingly, it cooked for less time than the bananna bread before it was ready (I eyeballed the apples vs. banannas, so I may have put too few apples), but it was delicious none the less. :) Pumpkin's next.
There's no trick, there's math. 100g of banana is about 75g of water (1g of water is 1ml, so easy to measure), 12g of sugar, and 13g of fiber and other stuff. A pumpkin is about 92g of water and 3 grams of sugar, leaving 5g of other stuff.
My banana bread recipe calls for 2 medium bananas, that's about 250g of banana. That's 188g of water and about 30g sugar. If you add 250g of pumpkin instead that's 230g of water and about 8g of sugar, so pumpkin would add 42g of water (42ml, a bit less than 1/4 cup), and take 22g of sugar. That's enough of a difference to really throw your recipe out, so you'd want to remove 42ml of water, milk or other liquid and add 22g of sugar (4g of sugar is about 1 tsp, so 22g is about 5.5 tsp, or just under 2 tbsp).
Seems like an excellent starting point. The new measurements may or may not need additional tweaking.
Baking is part science, part alchemy, and part luck. There are so many variable you can't control when you bake that you really need to use your senses and instruments to determine when something is done.
If you are substituting in a recipe, you definitely want to account for the water difference, so this is an astute question.
If you can estimate how much additional water is in the substitution (or how much less), then you can adjust for that with other ingredients. Sometimes you can add in juice or water or milk, but keep in mind that it's not only the water you're changing when you alter the recipe. You are also altering the sugar content which can affect a bake, and adjusting the amount of milk in a recipe to account for water difference in fruit is also altering fat and protein.
Many recipes are fairly robust, and you are fine making these changes and may just need to adjust the cook time to make sure the product is not over- or under-baked.
I'd suggest thinking through the alterations you want to make and do your best to make appropriate adjustments and then see how it comes out. Is it baked well? How is the crumb? Did it not rise as much as normal or too much? Is it too sweet? You can then make other adjustments the next time you bake it to account for these side effects.
What's great about baking is that it's like working in a lab and experimenting, and in the end you get to eat pumpkin bread. And even if it's not perfect, it's probably still pretty good. And you have an excuse to make it again.
Hi. Thanks for the answer. :) You say "Sometimes you can add in juice or water or milk..." and (if I'm reading you correctly), this is what one might do when they're moving from e.g. - a fruit with lots of water to a fruit with less water, right? Is there a counter-ingredient one can use when moving from a fruit with less water to a fruit with more water (outside of, as you suggested, baking for longer)? (In other words, I wouldn't know, for example, what to adjust if my bread came out too mushy because the fruit I used had a lot more water. More flour, maybe?)
Sorry for the confusion, magical fishy. :o) I was trying to answer more generally. For substituting a wetter fruit you may need to remove liquid elsewhere. Depending on the recipe there may be an easy choice (like milk) or not. If removing milk you could try half-and-half (10% fat) or cream (36%ish). You could also parcook the food to remove moisture before adding. You may need to cool first so you're not activating your baking powder etc. I've baked pies with apple where I parcook them to get the moisture content right before baking. Corn starch can also be used to soak up water.
Ah! Excellent. Thank you for both the specific and general advice. :)
I'm sure that there area a zillion recipes for both breads. I found a recipe for two 9x5 loafs.
Pumpkin bread using One 15-ounce can pure pumpkin puree.
Banana bread using eight very ripe bananas (unpeeled, about 32 ounces?).
Most of the ingredients are similar, but the seasoning varies. I assume that the desire with the pumpkin bread recipe is to have the pumpkin bread taste something reminiscent to pumpkin pie.
+--------------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+
| | Pumpkin + Banana +
+--------------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+
| cups all-purpose flour | 3 1/2 | 4 |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+
| cups sugar | 3 | 2 |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+
| cup vegetable oil | 1 | 1/2 |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+
| large eggs, lightly beaten | 4 | 4 |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+
| cup water | 2/3 | |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+
| teaspoons baking soda | 2 | 2 |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+
| teaspoon baking powder | 1 | 2 |
+============================================+=============+===========+
SPICES / SEASONINGS
+============================================+=============+===========+
| teaspoons fine salt | 2 | 2 |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+
| teaspoon ground nutmeg | 1 | |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+
| teaspoon ground allspice | 1 | |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+
| teaspoon ground cinnamon | 1 | 2 |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+
| teaspoon ground cloves | 1/2 | |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+
So the pumpkin bread uses about half the fruit, and actually adds water.
About 1/3 of the weight of a banana is peel, so eight bananas is about 21 ounces (compared to 15 ounces for the pumpkin). I wish we had more answers like this that quantitatively compared different recipes.
@MarkWildon - I already figured weight of unpeeled bananas. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/57784/40279
Cooks Illustrated solved this problem in their pumpkin cheesecake recipe by removing the water from the pumpkin puree. They simply spread the puree on a towel or paper towel.
another method for completeness that also uses math:
try to match the target water percentage
subtract water: weigh out pumpkin weight of (banana recipe grams of banana) * (.90/.72) and dehydrate to reach that weight
likewise for fruit with less water
if the substituting dried figs at about 24% water, weigh out
figs = (banana recipe grams of banana) * (.24/.72)
water = (banana recipe grams of banana) - (figs weight)
mash that weight of figs into that amount of water. with figs and water, finely chop the figs, add water, and leave covered in the refrigerator overnight for the figs to absorb the water, mash until it's a consistent mush, ends may not rehydrate, so discard any remaining hard bits
you're right on the other parameters
between different fruits, there may be difference in acidity, as in pH not sourness, that will affect how much baking powder is needed
sugar content can be adjusted similarly to the weight method above
etc.
here's the big one, though: flavor. pumpkin, like apple, is relatively a much weaker flavor than banana. to get the same amount of flavor, you'll want to add more pumpkin that's more dehydrated, but that will definitely affect the way you calculate the amount of water in your final recipe that will take some data gathering:
how much weight in water is lost during baking a normal loaf of banana?
how much more reluctant to giving water up is pumpkin than banana? (affects cooking time and temp, so cook to minimum internal temp, but at a lower cooking temp so the crust is still edible)
etc.
matching the flavor concentration of banana bread may not be achievable without seriously negatively affecting the texture of the loaf, so that's when you start to consider other ways to add more pumpkin flavor, like pumpkin flavor extract. but again, this sometimes leads to qualities that "just don't seem right" after you've smeared butter on a still-warm slice from the loaf.
at no point in that answer does "banana grams" appear
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.728603
| 2020-03-21T17:51:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105929",
"authors": [
"AmagicalFishy",
"Mark Wildon",
"Max",
"MaxW",
"anotherdave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"myklbykl",
"pleasePassTheCheese"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95207
|
Does Simmering peppers in oil bring out more flavor?
If I simmer a melange of sweet and hot peppers in peanut oil, will it bring out more flavor? Chemically, what is the result of gently simmering veggies in oil?
My intuition is to first brown onions, garlic, sweet peppers and various hot peppers in bacon grease till aromatic. Then add the mixture to simmering peanut oil and simmer for a long time (several hours). Then let cool and refrigerate for long time (over night to 2 weeks). I'd think this would create a deliciously flavorful and spicy oil.
Maybe even strain out the peppers and blend the peppers to make into a hot sauce? After this simmering process, will there be any interesting flavors left in the peppers?
Capsaicins boil at 210 to 220 °C (410 to 428 °F) I've gotten them that hot, and it leads to evacuating the house. Use some caution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsaicin
I went ahead and did this and it is delicious (and hot!) I left the peppers in for now, but tasted a few and they were great as well. By accident I was out of the house doing work, so never found out if the fumes were unbearable. Maybe it wasn't that bad since there were a lot of sweet peppers as well?
-You pretty much have to walk out of the kitchen with the burner on high for 8 minutes to get oil that hot. At 410°F, most oils are smoking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.729358
| 2018-12-29T02:38:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95207",
"authors": [
"Hasselhoff",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71710"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121575
|
Pickled shallots fermenting?
Hoping someone can advise, on a whim I thought I'd try and pickle a couple of jars of shallots. I used the same recipe as for onions malt vinegar (5%), salt shallots over night (dry), spice vinegar - let that go cold and top up a couple of jars to the brim, shallots covered.
Checked this morning after four days and one jar has a fair amount of gas - looks like fermentation, the other has some activity, possibly air bubbles (?)
Haven't seen this before, I'm assuming that this isn't normal (and jars should be discarded) as I've used vinegar ?
Ingredients and method from https://www.sarsons.co.uk/recipes/pickled-onions :
You might include the recipe here (requests for recipies are off topic, but "what went wrong following this recipe?", with recipe details, is on topic.) And I can't imagine it would be safe for onions, either, if as described.
Pretty much as above peel shallots, cover with salt, leave overnight. Wash off following morning, pat dry with kitchen towel. Pack into jar (sanitised using protocol as for homebrew), cover with spiced malt vinegar. https://www.sarsons.co.uk/recipes/pickled-onions
Based on the recipe provided and assuming ingredients were weighed, the shallots had viable Lactobacillus/Lactoplantibacillus plantarum, one of many lactic acid bacteria (LAB), and began fermentation.
Typical lactic acid fermentation, like with sauerkraut, goes through the following (simplified) process [1]:
Added salt inhibits some spoilage organisms, pathogens; draws out water and some sugars to form brine.
Leuconostoc mesenteroides (LAB) begins fermentation, produces carbon dioxide and lactic acid that further inhibit spoilage and pathogen activity.
Lactobacillus brevis, plantarum and others continue producing lactic acid in the conditions prepared by L. mesenteroides.
Enough lactic acid is produced to slow some LAB activity and make the food shelf-stable, pH ~<4.6.
Activity will continue until all sugars are consumed or pH reaches <3.5. L. plantarum is highly acid resistant, able to survive to pH ~3.0 and is the primary LAB active at this point. [1,2,3,4]
By using malt vinegar, you effectively skipped steps 1 to 4 with added acidity lowering the pH to the point where only L. plantarum was active. One study [5] stated that onions do not have the LAB needed for fermentation, and other studies [6,7] were able isolate LAB on shallots - alliums in general produce varying antibacterial compounds, and this may explain why your batch for onions didn't ferment.
Regarding safety, malt vinegar does have a lower acidity than regular distilled vinegar - the total acidity is made up of a range of food acids and is labelled simply as acetic acid %w/v - but this difference is nearly negligible in its effect on pH:
Table of retail vinegar acidities and pH values - from Comparison of α-amylase, α-glucosidase and lipase inhibitory activity of
different types of vinegar [8].
You would need to dilute the vinegars in 99 parts of water to increase the pH value by 1 - and even then, malt vinegar at pH ~2.9 would increase to ~3.9, still far more acidic than what C. botulinum and other foodborne pathogens are generally inhibited at. Of course, malt vinegar pH values will vary between manufacturers, though with the label claim of 5%, and from actual dilution conditions using shallots and onions, this is still far from a 99-part dilution:
Onions, white, raw, per 100 g: 91.3 g water, 5.76 g total sugars - https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/1104962/nutrients
Shallots, raw, per 100 g: 79.8 g water, 7.87 g total sugars - https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/170499/nutrients
...meaning that for the 500 g added allium, you're adding ~455 g water from onions and ~400 g water from shallots, both of which dilute the 600 mL vinegar by less than 1 part, less so with shallots. The higher sugar content in shallots also means more acid production from fermentation, if pH was not a limiting factor. Add to that the osmotic stress from 5% w/w salting, far higher than used in sauerkraut, and the concern for pathogen activity is negligible.
Now, for whether or not it's desirable for L. plantarum to be present, you can refer to the shallot fermentation studies [6,7] regarding probiotics, antioxidant production, and improved texture. If you do want to stop fermentation, you can simply pasteurise your jars in a water bath or microwave oven, stirring regularly, until the temperature at the very centre and throughout the container go above 63C, then loosely cover and allow to cool.
[1] Applications of Biotechnology to Fermented Foods: Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Board on Science and Technology for International Development - 5: Lactic Acid Fermentations. Keith H. Steinkraus.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234703/
[2] Acid Tolerance of Leuconostoc mesenteroides and Lactobacillus plantarum.
L.C. McDonald, H.P. Fleming, H.M. Hassan.
https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.56.7.2120-2124.1990
[3] Quantifying Variability in Growth and Thermal Inactivation Kinetics of Lactobacillus plantarum.
D. C. Aryani, H. M. W. den Besten, and M. H. Zwietering.
https://doi.org/10.1128%2FAEM.00277-16
[4] High tolerance of wild Lactobacillus plantarum and Oenococcus oeni strains to lyophilisation and stress environmental conditions of acid pH and ethanol.
Eva G-Alegría, Isabel López, J.Ignacio Ruiz, Julio Sáenz, Eva Fernández, Myriam Zarazaga, Marta Dizy, Carmen Torres, Fernanda Ruiz-Larrea.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1097(03)00854-1
[5] Lactic acid fermentation of onions.
J.S. Roberts, D.R. Kidd.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2004.05.007
[6] Isolation of lactic acid bacteria from Allium
cepa var. aggregatum and study of their
probiotic properties.
Nannu Shafakatullah, M. Chandra.
http://www.ijpsr.info/docs/IJPSR15-06-04-052.pdf
[7] Technical Factors Affecting To Pickle Shallot (Allium
Ascalonicum) Fermentation.
Nguyen Phuoc Minh.
https://www.jpsr.pharmainfo.in/Documents/Volumes/vol11issue03/jpsr11031938.pdf
[8] Comparison of α-amylase, α-glucosidase and lipase inhibitory activity of
different types of vinegar.
Yasmin, F., Abdul Razak, K.N., Abdul Samad, N., Widyawati, T. and Yusoff, N.A.
https://doi.org/10.26656/fr.2017.5(2).565
There seems to be a "process the jars" step missing here for non-refrigerator pickling.
Salted shallots in room temperature spiced vinegar put into the fridge might work.
Boiling water bath with adequate boiling spiced vinegar to shallot ratio in hot jars for safe acidity might work.
Pressure canner might work.
Jar them and let them sit - yeah, that's a waste of shallots on a preparation that might kill you.
Dispose of with extreme care.
Thanks, confirms my suspicions. Shame as this is the method I've followed for years, actually decades with onions - but there's always the first time. This was an experiment using the malt vinegar over the slightly stronger pickling variety.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.729511
| 2022-09-05T10:55:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121575",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Jonathan Homer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117522
|
Defrosting meat in the refrigerator causes it to have dark spots
I defrost about 40g of meat a few times a day for my cat. I take the meat out of the freezer and put it into a small sealed container which sits in the refrigerator for a few hours.
Sometimes the meet has weird dark spots, but only on the inside of the bits:
What are those?
Is my technique of defrosting meat correct or am I doing something wrong?
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108742/when-we-go-to-the-butchers-shop-which-color-meat-should-we-choose-cherry-red
You're not doing anything wrong. If you kept the meat fresh, in your fridge, eventually it would undergo color changes, as well. Freezing meat and then thawing it is also a pretty major set of physical changes to it's initial state. I'd think minor changes to its appearance would be expected.
Ask USDA: Why does the color of food change when frozen?
KNOWLEDGE ARTICLE
Color changes can occur in frozen foods but the foods remain safe to eat. The bright red color of meat as purchased usually turns dark or pale brown depending on its variety. This may be due to lack of oxygen, freezer burn or abnormally long storage. Freezing doesn't usually cause color changes in poultry. However, the bones and the meat near them can become dark. Bone darkening results when pigment seeps through the porous bones of young poultry into the surrounding tissues when the poultry meat is frozen and thawed. The dulling of color in frozen vegetables and cooked foods is usually the result of excessive drying due to improper packaging or over-lengthy storage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.729991
| 2021-10-15T12:51:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117522",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117758
|
How to open this plastic cap?
How do I open this cap? It is from a bottle of Bombay gin.
(click to enlarge)
you could use a clean screwdriver to pop the plastic pouring cap off.
@Max the handle of a sturdy teaspoon is what I normally use
You shouldn't have to open it. That's a slow-pouring cap, you should just be able to pour out of it. If you can't, that's because it's broken somehow.
FuzzyChef is correct. But those things annoy me too. They are not designed to be taken out. I have done what @Max mentioned but you do risk getting shards of plastic in your bottle. So you may need a strainer, bowl and funnel once you have broken the slow pouring cap out of the bottle.
usually the plastic thingamabob just pops out. (obviously, if I feel it does not, I will not risk breaking the bottle)
rip it out with needle nose pliers if you don't want it :)
@SteveChambers I've mainly come across these in vinegar, oil etc. rather than alcohol, but they're normal rather soft plastic that shouldn't break and would take a lot of force to tear.
@ChrisH the ones in alcohol bottles are usually made from a hard brittle plastic. No idea why.
I obviously don't drink enough! I don't think there's a single one on my shelf of barely-touched spirits. I wonder if the plasticisers in the soft ones aren't compatible with long-term contact with alcohol, though I'd expect oil to have similar issues if so
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.730143
| 2021-11-06T19:47:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117758",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"CobaltHex",
"FuzzyChef",
"Max",
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"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
}
|
123820
|
How to calculate the amount of ingredients for a genoise cake and the thickness?
I'm making a Genoise cake and I want to know how to calculate the amount of the ingredients to make this Genoise for a specific tray size.
For example if we have a tray size of 60×40 or 30×40 or any size how can I calculate the amount of eggs, sugar and flour to make this Genoise?
And I want to make layers, what I mean I don't want to cut it to a layers but I want to make each layer individually so how much should be the thickness of the dough cake before cooking inside the tray: 1cm, 2cm or more?
This isn't something you can calculate, you have to arrive at it from experience. There is no calculation that will give you a correct result, the system is just too messy to be described in simple variables.
For a rough estimate, simply use a well-written recipe that specifies the size of tin in which it will be baked. Then bake it a few times and note down the distribution of heights you get. From there:
if you want a different height calculate the ratio of desired/actual height and scale the amount of your batter.
If you want a different tin size, calculate the ratio of new/old bottom area and scale the amount of the batter.
Note that this won't give you the exact new height, because there isn't a linear connection between the rise of different depths of batter, but it's a very good approximation. But with a few bakes at the new size, you will get comfortable in knowing how tall it will be on average.
Also, if a very nice and even appearance is important to you, you will likely have to shave off the cake layer's top, which frequently has doming and other imperfections. So plan for baking a taller layer than you'll actually use.
Being very exact is only possible if you manage to get your process so tight down that you can reproduce it perfectly each time. This is usually only doable if you are a bakery which makes dozens of cakes per day, not for a home baker who bakes a cake per week at most.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.730282
| 2023-04-04T22:26:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123820",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
118162
|
What is the ratio of fat to flour in shortcrust pastry?
What is the ratio of fat to flour in shortcrust pastry? I cannot find anything on the matter, and it said somewhere that it was 4:1 but I've been told differently in the past, so I've come here to ask for different opinions.
Typical ratios are 3:2 or 2:1 (flour to fat). In fact, you can use a flaky crust recipe if you prefer, the difference is only in the mixing. I have used these ratios successfully for short pie/tart crusts, both sweet and savory, and for different types of cookie. But I must note that the textbook "The professional pastry chef" uses 1:0.88 flour to fat, with 0.38 sugar and 0.11 eggs added, as the basic formula intended "as a base for cakes and
pastries or to line tart pans [and to prepare] nothing-left-in-the-showcase cookies".
I haven't tried working with ratios outside the 3:2 to 2:1 range, but 1:4 strikes me as too buttery. It is probably not enough flour to hold together, you're more likely to end up with a stirrable roux base than a pastry crust. In fact, 1:1 is already a standard roux (although it might be a bit more pliable than stirrable if made with butter in an oven and then refrigerated).
If you meant it in the other direction, you can very likely make a crust with 4 parts flour to 1 part fat. Then it will be difficult to work all the flour into the fat, and you will have to add more water than with higher-fat ratios to get a cohesive ball. The more flour you add, the more you are leaving classic shortcrust territory and going into something else - something like a hardtack with a bit of fat.
Just to be clear, all of these proportions are by weight, right?
@Dave yes, by weight. I am so accustomed to it, that I forget mentioning it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.730453
| 2021-12-11T18:35:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/118162",
"authors": [
"Dave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16833",
"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
}
|
113904
|
My whipped cream can has run out of nitrous. I want what's inside anyway. What's the least destructive method of doing so?
I have a circular saw meant for cutting metal, I have pliers, I even have a can opener, but I'm not certain others encountering this problem and looking it up on DDG/Google may have these. So, what's the solution to a commercial can of whipped cream being unable to empty on its own? Assume that I want the cream edible but don't care anymore that it won't be foamy.
EDIT: There is concern that this might not be safe. Ensure that your answer, therefore, is safe.
I’m voting to close this question because this is asking for how to do a fairly unsafe thing, which we should not provide advice for.
@JoeM If it has no pressure, what's the danger?
@piojo Among other things? The fact that it might have pressure. Or that the method might create a very, very sharp edge. Or introduce metal filings into things, as the top answer states. The OP is asking for how to do something, that if you asked the producers of said can, they would 100% absolutely say "do not do this". I think we should concur. As a more general thing, we should specifically offer no advice whatsoever on things that could be dangerous, as they create a liability hazard for StackExchange as well as the person writing the answer.
@JoeM Sounds as dangerous as every DIY activity. Everything I've done lately has had a risk (no matter how small) of getting burned, gluing my fingers, being cut, food poisoning... it doesn't make sense to fret over potential harm, only probable harm. And even then, helpful suggestions reduce risk rather than creating it. If this topic were closed, it would cease to be a resource on how to avoid the problems you mentioned. And I'm skeptical that anyone here lets corporate liability (rather than personal risk assessment) guide their actions.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this, then; I think there's a line of 'too dangerous to be here', and this is over it. It's also of nearly no value, as it's not something anyone should be doing in general.
@JoeM Well, Hairy1's answer suggests a method for extracting the contents of the cat without causing any safety issues that I can see.
@JoeM: Rather than closing the question, it's better to post a "frame challenge" answer that explains the problem. After all, the question is perfectly valid and sensible, it just happens that we don't have a safe solution to offer. (It's not as if the OP were specifically asking for unsafe solutions.)
@ruakh I vote to close, because I think it's proper to close a question that is asking how to do something unsafe; while the top answer is basically a frame challenge, I don't think we should accept any answers on this, as several other answers below are highly unsafe.
@JoeM : the fix is easy ... the question just needs to ask 'is there a way to do this safely?'. And then downvote any answers that people give that aren't safe. (of course, then you'll also get people answering 'no it's not safe' because they can't think of a safe way to do it)
@JoeM Or why not create an answer with those warnings in it...? Can't recommend any answers on cooking in case the person burns themselves or sets the house on fire.
@JoeM: As much as I agree with not cutting into pressurized cans, your "sharp edge" argument is a bit silly when cooking has plenty of dangers wielding knives, using hot oil and gas burner stoves. If you tell me to chop an onion, you're not liable if I end up chopping my finger off. Liability really isn't a concern when OP already brought the intention to the table. This is not a "should I?" question, this is a "how do I?".
@JoeM: As to your vote to close instead of answer with a frame challenge: this just perpetuates the cycle. Answer it once with a frame challenge, and any future question can be closed as a duplicate. Remove the question from the board, and wait for it to be posted again, only to repeat the process.
To be clear: the reason to vote to close is that this is unsafe, in my opinion, to the point that we should not leave it to the will of the people: it is unsafe, and the moderators (either community moderators, or the diamond moderators) should not allow anyone to answer it. If it comes back, then it should be closed again...
Circular saw will fill it with metal filings - not great for the mouthfeel, I'd think.
Pliers aren't sharp enough to puncture.
Can opener will have no lip to grab.
Your first issue will be the container skidding out of your control - with potential for finger-loss & furniture damage. You're not going to easily find any implement you can squeeze slowly to make the first cut, you're going to have to hit it with something sharp.
Your second will be how much gas is actually left in the container & what that results in.
Messy but possible, grip it in a vice & puncture with a hammer & fine wood chisel. Then use something like aluminium sheet cutters (they're like big, tough scissors) to finish cutting around the perimeter.
Cons:-
Spray/spatter on your first puncture, assuming you can hit it hard enough to penetrate the top face without going straight through & pouring the rest on the floor.
Sanitising the tools.
I'd just bin it.
Don't most whipped cream cans have a folded lip on the bottom?
This may be the solution you’re looking for
Make sure the pressure has all been released
Lay canister on the counter with a towel underneath (or something to help keep it from sliding around). Or, place upside down in a stable container that won’t break or slide.
Use church key to puncture the bottom. (Additional leverage may be required)
Update
Because this question intrigued me, I decided to follow up on it once I had an empty container to work with.
The “church key” can opener would probably work for someone with a bit more strength than me (I’m getting closer to little old lady muscles daily), but I was able to get a nice divot.
You can see from the photos above that I was able to remove the bottom of the canister. It took several revolutions around with a can opener, each one cutting a little deeper.
Before beginning, I did make sure there was no pressure left in the container.
At no time did this process feel unsafe.
"stable container that won’t break or slide" ...I love how the example picture appears to show neither. Personally, I think I'd go with wrapped in a towel between my legs while sitting on a chair (assuming this doesn't require so much force I'm worried about hurting myself if the pointy tool slips). Although if you've got a vice handy, that would be better.
@Matthew - Debbie M, was good enough to show her solution with a fine photo. It is only fair that you take a photo showing yours, with a whipped cream container protruding from between your clenched thighs, towel at the ready.
Here you go. Alas, I have neither whipped cream nor that type of can opener, so you'll have to use a little imagination. (And I used a blanket rather than a towel, because a) it was handy, and b) I wasn't actually going to open something, so the ability to easily wash a towel was not relevant.) You can't really tell because of the blanket, but I assure you, that's between my legs. Oh, and if you have somewhere besides parts of your body you can wedge it, by all means, do so. BTW, wash the bottom of the can first!
@Willk, to be clear, I think the textual answer is reasonable. I was just noting that said text says to use "a stable container that won’t break or slide", while the picture shows what appears to be a glass container (breakable) on a tile counter (slippery) in an arrangement that looks top-heavy (not stable). Heck, if the container is sufficiently empty, just set it down horizontally on a towel (a silicone baking mat would be better if you have one) on a counter braced against the backsplash. Maybe try to puncture the side rather than the bottom, also.
@Matthew you are right. I updated the answer.
"church key" means an old style bottle-cap opener. Another option would be an old style can opener where the finger-tip is sharpened, to puncture the can. Personally I'd turn it 180 degrees and puncture the side wall not the bottom. Then use either some stout scissors or a nibbler tool to cut all the way around. This leaves a mostly smoothish edge to pour/scrape the cream out over.
@Criggie a church key is a small metal bottle opener and can opener with one end being pointed. Unfortunately the angle of the photos doesn’t show that the pointed end is being used.
@DebbieM. fair enough - just adding extra names for things. SE is global, and round here a church key would unlock a door, not open a can/bottle.
I'm actually surprised they still use 2-part cans for such as that. I'd have expected the base to be part of a single rolled form, like a coke can (hence the 'no lip to grab') in my own answer.
There are also specific tools to degass a paint can. I randomly see them at my local dollar store and its essentially a sort of clamp with a pointy bit.
The nice thing about a "church key" / "classic" can opener is that it's made to be used to open food cans. Accordingly, I would have fewer qualms regarding sanitation versus a tool not meant to be used around food. @Tetsujin, that's a fair point regarding construction, though my compressed air can also has a lip, so YMMV. Perhaps even with a round bottom, however, the top may still have a lip that would allow puncturing the side?
I suspect this style of opener is not strong enough to puncture the can, as it is designed for relatively soft cans which are not pressurized. Aerosol cans, on the other hand, are required to survive pressurization up to 130 F, which is why the steel is fairly sturdy.
Because your goals are not entirely clear, I'll assume that you are approaching this from an angle of waste reduction. Likely, you have run out of N2O on several occasions and you want to use it all up.
I think your best bet is to stop buying cans of whipped cream and start buying cartons of heavy whipping cream. It's cheaper, requires no N2O to whip up, and there is just a carton of waste when you are done instead of a can and whatever cream is trapped inside. Whipping up your own cream only requires a small amount of extra work, but you can sweeten and flavor it to your own taste!
The really sad thing is that I've already thrown away the singular can that sparked this question and started eating from the second that I got BOGO. I just wanted to know what coconut whipped cream tastes like, I got to taste a miniscule amount before I could no more, and then figured others might benefit from my question.
Heavy cream can be whipped to foamy consistency with just a mini egg beater by hand.
Place in the fridge with something holding the top down. Leave for 15 minutes. As it cools, it will suck in air. Remove from fridge and wait until it warms up. A small quantity will be released. Repeat until all is purged.
Ensure your are alone because the following would not be considered good manners.
Just like some baby bottles, suck cream from can, can above mouth. Move valve to side to open. After some cream comes out, let some air go back into can. This will give you about 5 g of cream every cycle, which is enough to go with a bite of food that tastes good combined with cream.
Another option similar to Debbie M's answer, you could use a screwdriver and a hammer to poke a hole in the side, near the bottom.
I haven’t tried it but a tool for cutting metal tubes could work. Unlike a saw it doesn’t create particles and the cutting surface is pretty clean and smooth. They are commonly available up to 35mm diameter, not sure if this is sufficient for a whipped cream can.
Some of the newer can openers that cut the side of the bead work similarly, and because of where they're cutting, there's less chance of contaminating the food. (they don't pierce all the way into the vessel, just the folded over bit). If you have one, and it'll grab onto the bottom edge of the whipped cream can, I'd give that a try. (although, I'd also make sure that I've vented it well before starting).
I'd be surprised if a food can's walls would be tough enough to stand up to a pipe cutter; there's a lot of force goes into that method & I'd expect a thin-walled can to just fold in too far for the cutter to cut.. I don't have one big enough to test, mine does copper pipes up to 22mm, same as yours.
@Tetsujin: That could be a problem but I imagine if you cut at the top or bottom of the can and start with very little force it should work.
The physics just doesn't work on a thin-walled structure. You can get pipe cutters of that type up to 45mm - still way too small for a can - but they rely on being able to apply considerable force with a relatively blunt cutting wheel. the design in your picture is also set to apply just enough more force as you turn it; one revolution of the cutter applies one revolution to the jaw adjustment. Basically, it would just crush a can until the cutter no longer made any difference & you'd just be squeezing. (I come from a family of plumbers;)
@Tetsujin: I’ve never used cream cans, I thought they had thicker walls. I trust your judgement on the matter ;) If they are that thin, I guess you could just punch through them with a knife or a pair of normal scissors and cut them open.
They're thicker than coke/beer cans, more like a strong soup can, but much much thinner than pipes.
The valve is plastic. You can puncture it by hammering a nail through there. A long enough nail will dislodge the internal straw, and allow cream to dribble out. The church key method looks good, if they still make the cans that way.
If you want the cream, and don't care if it's whipped via nitrous, I'd say you should by a mall carton of heavy cream at the nearest grocery store.
If you have a hand or stand mixer and some sugar, you can even whip it if you want.
Cost/benefit/effort/danger analysis really says don't bother trying to crack open that can.
Try grinding the bottom lid off with an 10" file. It will take about 10 minutes of filing and the lid will come off in one neat piece along with a ring of metal that remains from what used to be the lip. Or you could grind the bottom lid off by rubbing the can's bottom on the surface of a cement sidewalk like in the YouTube video "3 Awesome Ways To Open A Can Without A Can Opener"
Metal filings… not great to eat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.730653
| 2021-01-23T16:32:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113904",
"authors": [
"Criggie",
"Debbie M.",
"Emobe",
"Flater",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"JohnnyApplesauce",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Lawnmower Man",
"Matthew",
"Michael",
"Tetsujin",
"Weckar E.",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89149",
"nick012000",
"paulj",
"piojo",
"ruakh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124330
|
Infused oil from garlic *peels* - can this be done without making Clostridium growth medium?
Recently I found a book on reducing food waste that suggested making infused garlic oil from the cut-off ends and (inner, reddish) garlic peels rather than the cloves. The recipe doesn’t involve any heating steps, nor notes on refrigeration after initially infusing the oil in the fridge for a month, and it’s suggested to use the oil in making salad dressing and the like.
Now it seems to me this recipe is using the parts that are at the greatest risk for contamination with soil bacteria… can something like this in fact be done safely? Does the peels' lower moisture content make any difference? Is acidification a feasible approach or will this just end in a sad pile of wet peels and no taste in the oil?
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9451/botulism-garlic-cold-pressed-olive-oil-and-mason-jars has a very rigorous answer from an actual health inspector, i.e., a professional who deals with this kind of thing on a daily basis. In short: it's risky, and since botulism is no joke, I wouldn't do it.
Does this answer your question? Botulism, Garlic, Cold pressed Olive oil and mason jars
Thanks! I’ve been looking at related questions as well, but those all seem to concern fresh garlic cloves rather than the peels as I understand? For those I’ve seen acidification (as in that answer) or thorough heat treatment as a potential solution, but that might not be feasible with peels (there is another recipe in the book with onion peels in oil which does involve heating though)…
(I mean, the book's recipe does look somewhat like a murder attempt, I'm just wondering whether any of the techniques used to make garlic oil safe like in https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/57617/104497 could apply to something based on peels rather than peeled cloves or if the end result wouldn't be worth the effort.)
Cloves or peels doesn't really make a difference imo, if anything the peels are more in contact with the surrounding soil, where they might pick up more microorganisms, not less. Reducing food waste is a noble endeavour, but garlic is not really a foodstuff that gets used in large amounts anyway, so the "savings" are slim to nonexistent.
Yeah, the increased risk of contamination was on my mind too. I guess I was mainly angling for whether it’s „technically if you know what you’re doing and follow existing guidelines to the letter“ (as for the cloves), „technically if you etc etc but why would you, it’ll taste of nothing at best“ or „NOPE NOPE NOPE“ - I was leaning towards the last but was wondering whether I was missing something since the book was by a trained cook and educator.
If you really want to keep them from being waste, you can freeze them with other trimmings (stems, cheese rinds, vegetable peels, etc) and use it when making stock. But it’s a good idea to wash stuff that grows in dirt so you don’t end up with stock that tastes like mud
Stock was my original plan, too. Funnily enough the author doesn’t even consider that, but then suggests using the peels to make garlic tea (ditto with onions). I guess that way one has done something with the peels before throwing them out, but WHY THAT.
The approach you describe is practically a recipe for maximizing one's risk for death by botulism, while at the same time not producing particularly good garlic oil. Garlic peels/skin have very little or no flavor, may have dirt or sand on them, and the garlic "ends" are where botulism spores are most likely to be located.
While there are a number of ways you could attempt to make this more safe ... why bother? Why risk your life for low-quality garlic oil?
Yeah, I’m starting to think when the author said it was great as a gift he meant „for your worst enemy“…
"We're going to avoid food waste even if it kills you" would sum up a lot of the the "food waste" publications.
Eh, I‘ve found some sensible ones - nothing earth-shattering, but good to get an extra snack or such -, that’s why this one kind of surprised me. I probably should’ve noped out by the time onion peel tea („best before bedtime!“) was mentioned…
Onion peels are great as part of vegetarian vegetable stock though. If you use brown onions, they give it a good color.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.732093
| 2023-05-30T05:50:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124330",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"John Doe",
"KeyboardCat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126038
|
Are carob beans poisonous?
I used to pick up carob bean pods off the sidewalk.
My mother told me to drop the carob immediatly, and my mother told me that the carob beans were poisonous.
I looked up the latin name for carob beans.
The latin name is Ceratonia siliqua.
Is Ceratonia siliqua poisonous?
I saw a youtube video saying that dog treats can be made from carob.
Its possible your mother just didn't want you picking random seedpods off the ground and eating them.
I sure hope not. I eat them in energy bars. They taste like chocolate.
@DKNguyen I regularly eat kidney beans in food products. That doesn't mean they aren't poisonous to eat from the pod.
I find carob chips taste like... chocolate-dipped raisins. Both of which, unlike carob, are poisonous to dogs. Go figure. Carob is often used in dog treats as a canine-safe chocolate replacement, but it doesn't taste exactly the same.
@PeteKirkham You can say the same thing about potatoes. But you don't tell a child to immediately drop a potato because it's poisonous.
@DKNguyen the potatoes which are commonly grown for food are not poisonous, just unpleasant to eat raw, so are safe for children to handle, e.g. making potato prints. Eating a few raw kidney beans will result in vomiting and diarrhoea, so I wouldn't allow a child young enough to be at the putting things in mouth age to handle them.
No, they’re not poisonous. Carob beans are edible and widely eaten, in particular as a disappointing chocolate substitute as well as a thickener (locust bean gum) derived from the seeds. Of course, some carob beans - particularly ones not intended for consumption - may have had pesticides sprayed on them.
Your mother may have been thinking of castor beans, which are quite poisonous.
Another consideration: often the same everyday name gets used for different plants in different places. E.g. “chestnut” is used for a lot of different trees and their nuts, including some edible species and some poisonous ones. So the trees that OP knows as “carob” may not necessarily be the same species Ceratonia siliqua that commercial carob beans come from.
No, they are not poisonous.
Allow me to assume that your mother was trying to say that they could be poisonous because they grow near a road and therefore can contain lead and other toxic chemicals that can do long-term damage, but could not explain. Or maybe she really thought they were poisonous.
It could also be that she said something along the lines of, "You shouldn't eat random things off of plants; they could be poisonous," which a young mind could easily interpret as "Those are poisonous."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.732458
| 2023-12-09T17:13:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126038",
"authors": [
"DKNguyen",
"GentlePurpleRain",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Matthew",
"PLL",
"Pete Kirkham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91020"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124663
|
Allergy to dill - but only in USA
I’ve consistently gotten a bad reaction to fresh dill (lip/mouth/face swelling, itching/burning sensation) so after a few occasions like that I am very careful to avoid it.
Recently while traveling in Europe, I accidentally had a dish with dill and... nothing happened. I was curious enough that I bought dill from the store and tried it directly, still absolutely fine.
The only explanation I can think of is that my reaction is not to dill itself but to something, probably a pesticide, which is only used in the USA but not allowed for use in Europe (EU). What pesticide could it be?
(As far as I know, it’s just dill - I may have gotten a similar reaction from mizuna once, but leafy greens like spinach, lettuce etc as well as other fresh spices like parsley, cilantro etc are fine)
Could it be possible to precise your experience about dried dill please ? Also have you tried cooking with it, thoroughly washing it under clear water before everything ?
Also I just realized you could be asking on Medical Science, they might provide more answers since it's also about your health.
@Marck please don't post answers to closable questions, especially those which require medical advice. The question would also be closed on Medical Science Stack Exchange, for the same reason - they don't provide personal advice about one's illnesses.
@rumtscho okay my bad, sorry, and thanks for the advice, I will keep it in mind. (I'll delete this exact comment in about an hour since it is not asking for clarification)
@Marck it's OK; I now realize that you're quite new here and may not know the somewhat arcane list of on-topic and off-topic areas. It's summarized under https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic. We are the strictest with health-related advice, since we can't ensure that the answers (or the votes on them) are correct.
@rumtscho I fully understand, it makes total sense. I read the linked article in your comment, thank you for the information !
I disagree with the reason for closing: the question is about food (and possibly food contaminants), not about medical advice or nutrition. Medicine is obviously not a fit since the question is about chemical use in farming, not about disease per se. If there was an agriculture stack exchange, it might be a perfect fit for that. Since there isn’t, which stack exchange do you think is a fit?
tbh, this isn't answerable anywhere. All we have to go on is an unresearched hypothesis as to a cause. Until you have actual clarification as to the cause, from a proper medical authority, then trying to figure out which pesticide is used where simply isn't an answer to your underlying issue. It may turn out that two continents just grow different strains of dill, like they do apples, or potatoes.
@AlexI on our site, questions of the type "what causes my symptoms" are something we close, because we can do no better than guess, and we refuse to guess when it comes to somebody having medical symptoms. What headline you give to these questions is immaterial. The pesticide angle is accidental, and also off topic for Cooking. I don't know of any agricultural site on the network, and if there was one, it probably wouldn't answer list-type questions, since they are forbidden on the whole network.
@rumtscho The question is not “what causes my symptoms” but rather “what pesticides are only used in the USA but not EU” (and likely to remain on dill but not on other greens). Discussion about symptoms is only there by way of background; it may be important to me but certainly was not part of the question. Sorry if that was unclear. In any case, it seems like you’re not interested in talking about pesticides here, so I won’t try to force the topic although I completely disagree with the reasons for the closure.
It’s possible that there is more than one plant known as ‘dill’. (Eg, mexican ‘oregano’ vs Greek ‘oregano’, or ‘Ceylon cinnamon’ vs cassia ‘cinnamon’). I believe that American wheat has been crossed with some sort of grass to make it easier to grow, but may be the cause of the prevalence of wheat intolerance issues (along with lack of significant fermentation time as we moved to faster rising methods)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.732710
| 2023-07-07T09:37:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124663",
"authors": [
"Alex I",
"Joe",
"Marck",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21633
|
Replacing cream and butter in a carrot casserole/pie
Casserole from pureed carrot (it may be a "pie" rather than a "casserole" though - my footing in Anglo cooking terms isn't very strong, feel free to edit) is a traditional Finnish recipe.
Essentially, it consists of cooked and pureed carrots, cream, butter, eggs, breadcrumbs, syrup, and salt, baked in the oven for about an hour. Sometimes, some rice is added as well.
You can imagine what the dairy products add to the dish - they emphasize the delicious carrot taste, and make it rich and heavy.
I'm not a hard-core vegan, but I'm curious what vegetable based alternatives could work to replace them. I'm sure olive oil wouldn't: it has too strong a flavour of its own. Other vegetable oils would add the heaviness, but I find there is something unique to what cream and butter do to such a simple dish, something that no oil known to me can.
Are there other ingredients that could work here? Preferably something that is readily available, as opposed to complicated and expensive vegan "xy replacement" products.
@rumtscho both very good points, hadn't thought about either! I'll give Cremefine a try, thanks.
A mixture of almond milk and silken tofu (1:1) will yield an inexpensive half and half replacement, top with earth balance margarine as necessary. For baking, flax or Chia eggs or commercial egg replacer should fit the bill. If the baking time is not too long you can incorporate tapioca flour in slurry for a creamier texture and extra thickening, our just use a corn starch slurry.
Soy yogurt will add some creaminess and also a nice tangy flavor that goes very well with carrots. If you purchase whole fat coconut milk, you can skim the heavier cream layer off of the top and use that in place of the dairy cream as well.
Coconut fat off the top is a good way to go for that straight cream effect, makes a great frosting too
Some food replacements for vegans are indeed rare and expensive. But for butter and dairy cream, there are easy replacements. Their unique texture and mouthfeel are due to the fact that they are emulsions of saturated fats. They are among the few naturally occurring such emulsions, but industry methods for creating emulsions are widespread, and manufacturers create these en masse with cheaper fats such as refined vegetable oil, and sell them for low prices in all supermarkets.
The substitute for butter is the well-known margarine. It is not perfect, and won't behave like butter in all settings, but it mixes very well with mashed vegetables, so it is very good for your use case. You can probably find several brands even in a small grocery store.
For the dairy cream, you can substitute plant-based "whipping cream". Depending on the legislation in your country, it can use the word for "cream" in its title and only note that it is a vegetable oil product in the fine print on the back, or will have a name different from "cream". The most popular such product here is the Unilever-manufactured Rama Cremefine (which comes in different variations, formulated specifically for cooking or whipping), but I guess this will vary by region. They are usually sold in the supermarket, stocked near the real dairy cream.
Just because a product is based on a plant oil, it doesn't mean it is always vegan. Sometimes producers add other ingredients, and you can't know if they are animal-derived. For example, Vitamin D is added to many margarines, and it is derived from wool fat, so vegans consider it an animal product. For each product, look for an assertion that it is vegan-suitable somewhere on the package, or contact the manufacturer. If the normal margarines and creams in your supermarket are not truly vegan, look at the organic brands, it seems they have a better chance of being vegan.
This post is an extension of what used to be a comment to the question.
Hmmm, I don't know many vegetarians that would use margarine? It's got "chemicals" in it!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.733076
| 2012-02-23T10:08:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21633",
"authors": [
"Aaron H.",
"George G",
"Hans Gruber",
"Haoyang Feng",
"J Bok",
"Pekka",
"Sabrina Spelman",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48127",
"mfg",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77733
|
Veggie burgers that Bleed
I have found these veggie burgers that bleed; but as we can see the price is hefty (~$62 for 5 lbs). I want to replicate them at home. They would have to be very convincing - ideally, the person eating them will not recognize that they ate a plant product and not meat without being told.
What techniques and (vegetable-derived) ingredients can I use to imitate a real, bleeding meat burger?
Hi Liam! Unfortunately, recipe requests are off topic here, so you might consider rephrasing your first question... your second question is a poll question which is not really allowed anywhere on Stack Exchange.
I'd try making a veggie burger (which is a bit of a pain for just a few), but also mix in bread that had been soaked in beet juice. But I'd also advise finding out if he has any allergies before you do it. And there are some groups that forbid or avoid consumption of certain vegetables. (Indian castes that don't eat onions or garlic; curly parsley and cauliflower aren't Kosher, as are a number of vegetables if not processed properly; etc.)
well, actually, I probably wouldn't bother making a veggie burger for this. If I knew the person didn't have any food restrictions, I'd make a veggie-heavy meatloaf in burger form. (finely dice some carrots, onions, bell pepper, maybe some mushrooms ... saute or sweat them down, add some spinach (I'd buy frozen, and thaw & drain it.), then put it over low / medium-low heat 'til it's dry ... let cool, then mix w/ the ground meat and some seasonings .... and then form them into patties.
It is a very valid question about a technique to achieve a certain appearance, texture, taste - not a recipe request.
Hello Liam, your question was very far from our format, and got several close votes. We don't take questions which ask for generic ideas - you have to know what you want to do, and can come to us with questions how to achieve it. Also, as others mentioned we don't swap recipes. If you want to engineer your own recipe, then we can certainly help you with pointers what to try (as the existing answer does) and with troubleshooting along the way. So I removed the distracting background story and the open-ended request and left the answerable part.
Oh, and there is something confusing me - I understood your original question to mean that you found somebody else creating burgers which really exude something blood-like when bitten. The ones you linked don't make such a claim. Is this something you have seen, or heard of, or is it just something you came up with? Is the link relevant in any way, if it does not represent your end goal, or did I misunderstand you and you don't expect them to look like "bleeding"?
@Joe parsley and cauliflower are Kosher, they're just better at hiding bugs (which aren't Kosher) than other veggies.
@JAB : True ... if they could be cleaned of bugs ... but all of the vegetable guides that I've seen have said there's no accepted ways to clean them at home to be sure they have no bugs. (There are a couple of brands of frozen cauliflower that are certified kosher, though). Some say that curly parsley can be used to flavor soups if it's put in a cloth bag so the whole thing can be removed (insects and all) afterwards. And my understanding (as a non-jew), as that there was debate on if 'young grains' applied to that grown everywhere or just in Israel.
The ingredient list on the commercial product already gives you several pointers to work with in building a recipe:
A legume protein is used, with additional binders (tapioca starch). Probably not in plain flour form, since that would result in more of a pancake than a meat like texture.
beet juice and paprika are used both for a reddish colour and to get some of the adstringency/earthyness of meat juice in there. Also, one can assume the end product to be relatively acidic (despite there being an alkali - potassium bicarbonate - present), otherwise beet juice would give you a blue off colour.
At least two layers of smoke flavor - mesquite powder, hickory smoke extract - are used
shiitake and yeast extracts - umami sources
an iron compound - probably not just for enrichment, iron-adstringency is a flavor component in meat taste...
Most impressive!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.733419
| 2017-01-23T23:03:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77733",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"JAB",
"Joe",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77987
|
What is the proper way to eat lychees?
Not long ago, my parents purchased a tin of lychees. They tasted ok when eaten straight out of the tin, but I was wondering: Is there a proper way to eat them (like rhubarb needs to be eaten in a crumble with custard) ?
Oops, I always enjoyed rhubarb crumble without custard. Silly me! Good nobody caught me making such a grave mistake...
I enjoy rhubarb without crumble, sometime raw, sometimes cooked.
Me three for the rhubarb without crumble.
@leftaroundabout heretic! :D
Just as you've seen with rhubarb, and pretty much any food, there's no one way. So this is unfortunately in one of our common off topic categories. ("proper way" is just asking for things to make with it, plus inviting opinions)
No special way.
You can eat them right from the can; they should be already peeled and without the big seed.
You can add them up to a salsa, or a fruit salad; or even cooked dishes (curries).
In the most lychee famous story I know, it is eaten fresh, carried over distances by courier at great expense:
Lychee was a favorite fruit for Yang, and the emperor had the fruit, which was only grown in southern China, delivered by the imperial courier's fast horses, whose riders would take shifts day and night in a Pony Express-like manner, to the capital. (Most historians believe the fruits were delivered from modern Guangdong, but some believe they came from modern Sichuan.)
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Guifei
In more recent news, do not allow malnourished children to eat lychee on an empty stomach. This has resulted in deaths that have just been explained.
If you're going to quote anything, quote it correct (emphasis mine): "...a surprising culprit: the lychee fruit itself, when eaten on an empty stomach by malnourished children...".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.733778
| 2017-02-01T15:06:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77987",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Mark Gardner",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54213",
"leftaroundabout",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73422
|
Why does water leak from a refrigerator?
My Whirlpool refrigerator is leaking water. I was using the the highest setting #5. My landlord said I probably froze something behind the unit (it is not a freezer that ice builds up in and you have to defrost); he claimed that the temp should be 50F-55F. As I see it, this is not true; 35F-40F is a safe temperature. We are going to defrost the unit for 24 hrs, then adjust the setting so it is 40F degrees and see if water keeps leaking in the fridge. Does anyone have any advice for me? Does anyone know why water would be leaking in the fridge part?
You say it's not a freezer, but does the fridge have a freezer unit on top?
Also, 50-55 is way too warm. You're correct that it should be 40 at the highest.
it is a Refrigerator with a top freezer , freezer has no temp control , only the refrig,, water is leaking in refrige is it b/c it got frozen ? my landlord wants to defrost everything for 24 hrs then turn back on , but I will need to put it at at least # 4 which makes the temp 40 Degrees do you know about refrigerators ??
Many fringes are frost free, so they have a short defrost cycle once a day. The drain from that usually goes to a small pan beneath the fridge, where it evaporates. If the hose leaks, or the pan is out of place, the water will exit to the floor. One other possibility is a leak in an automatic ice cube maker.
See what @Optionparty said. Except for ice makers, the refrigerator does not use water. It will condense water onto cold parts. Frost free models melt and remove this but if their drip pan is out of place, the hose leaks, or the pan overfills, it will spill. Very old models can have exposed condenser coils that can condense ice and then melt, but I have not seen a running fridge do that in years. Only other source I can think of would be spillage inside that is leaking out. Verify you do not have a pool of liquid in the bottom, say under draws that is leaking out.
And yes, 50-55 is way too warm. Normally you should be in a reasonable temp range with a middle setting. If you must take it to the highest to get to the 35-40 range the fridge probably needs to be recharged or replaced. Older units low in coolant will not hold temp well so will end up freezing and thawing your food as the condenser tries to keep temperature down.
Y'all, if you want to answer, please write answers!
Have you looked behind the fridge? Pulling it out and taking a look? Older fridges (and upright freezers) had coils behind them, and if you pushed them too close up against the wall so it couldn't get the proper airflow, bad things would happen. (I don't think icing up & dripping while thawing would've been an issue, unless it was in an unheated space in the winter, though)
Internally there are evaporator coils that produce the cold. Condensation will build up on them. There is a drain to the bottom. Often so little water is built up that it evaporates and you never need to empty the drain pan. That drain pipe/tube may be blocked. If the drain is blocked the water will drip into the refrigerator (by design). A fan may have gone out and the coils are iced up. Defrost the whole unit is worth a try - the drain could iced over or the tube could be iced.
A freezer with defrost cycle would not eliminate chance of a drain tube icing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.734055
| 2016-08-25T01:54:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73422",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Optionparty",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"nancy",
"zoned post meridiem"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74045
|
Mayonnaise gets too thin after adding solids
I make a mayonnaise by slowly whisking a cup of extra light olive oil into two eggs yolks and a tablespoon of dijon mustard. The mayonnaise is not as thick as store bought mayo but it is thick enough to spread.
However, when I stir in solid ingredients to make an aioli the emulsion suddenly becomes very thin. It doesn't break, but it turns into a liquid. This has happened with minced garlic and with chopped clams. Sometimes after stirring in the solid ingredients it looks as if there are bubbles coming out of the emulsion.
What causes this, and how can I prevent it?
Removing all the discussion of terminology. (And James, feel free to call it whatever you want to call it; there are regional variations in usage of "aioli" and none is more right than any other.)
You're not adding any acid?
I usually add around a teaspoon of white wine vinegar or a few squeezes of lemon juice at the end
@James Cameron the acid should be in there from the start (then the oil added gradually while blending) - it's necessary to form the emulsion correctly and isn't there just for taste
@Niall could that be why it gets too thin when I add things later? That could be the problem, thanks.
@James Cameron - pretty sure it's a problem with your mayonnaise recipe/technique rather than what you're adding. Adding the acid at the end is one problem but it could be other things - oil quantity might be a bit low and/or not beating it hard enough (try immersion blender).
I'm going to step out on a limb based on experiences I've had. I suspect that adding garlic and or chopped clams after you have emulsified your other ingredients is simply adding moisture and making your mayo/aioli thinner. (Especially since you said that it doesn't break.)
I would suggest putting your garlic or clams in at the beginning with your other ingredients before you emulsify with the oil. If you still find it to be too thin you can whisk in another whisked egg yolk or a little more oil to get your desired consistency.
Re the comment about acid, I don't use any. Also there would likely be vinegar in the Dijon mustard, so you are not sans acid.
I'll try that next time and see what happens
Yeah i have the same problem with mayonnaise for potato salad... when i add other things to it, like spring onions, a bit of feta, or dill, it goes really really thin. Last time, it actually complete separated... wasn't too appetising having potatoes sitting in a pile of oil!
It's heartbreaking when you've waited overnight while potatoes cool and what was a perfect looking mayonnaise is completely destroyed :/ Have been reading a bit about it, and I think "cold" might be a problem. Also different mustards make a difference to the emulsion... one site reckons whole grain is the best to use as the emulsifying agent is most prevelant in the husk of the mustard seeds (i.e. in the "whole grain"). Dijon was a close second.
But for me i think i might have my fridge too cold... I usually keep the mayonnaise in fridge overnight and ice crystals might be forming. Or I keep the spring onion and other ingredients in the fridge, so they too might form ice crystals.
As a side note: I wouldn't use olive oil for mayonnaise, it's far too bitter but I think I might be especially sensitive to bitter tastes (e.g. i think the world is weird for liking beer ha!)
Different olive oils have different flavors. And as the standards for labeling of olive oil is much more lax in the US, there have been stories of importers sending low quality (and possibly rancid) oil to the US, but labeling it 'extra virgin'. You should also beware of rough agitation of olive oil -- what might work fine when hand-whisked might be bitter and foul if put in a food processor or blender.
I also notice a big difference between “extra virgin” and “extra light” olive oil— the extra light works ok in mayo, but extra virgin does not imo
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.734346
| 2016-09-18T22:47:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74045",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"J Cameron",
"Joe",
"Niall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113807
|
If roasting meat doesn't generate much juices, why do gravy recipes assume it does?
The accepted answer to this question states that you shouldn't expect a roast to generate much in the way of juices left behind in the pan, and that accords with my experience (which admittedly has always been very small roasts).
But if that's the case, why do (British) gravy recipes very commonly expect you to have significant quantities of meat juices to start to make gravy with? For example, here ("up to 200 ml meat juices") and here (unspecified amount of juices and "2 tbsp meat fat").
It feels like I'm missing something obvious that these recipe writers expect readers to understand. Any thoughts?
@moscafj Thanks for the edit but I think 'much juices' is correct here. The term 'meat juices' is what I commonly see to refer to the liquid, and I've never seen 'meat juice' so even though it sounds odd I'd prefer to keep it as it is. :)
It's "many juices" or "much juice"...but, whatever you like.
They may or may not assume a significant amount of pan juices and there are quite a few ways to get more than “just a bit”. Including low-quality meat, bad temperature control and other ways to extract the water from the meat. Unfortunately most are also ways to get dry meat, especially in lean cuts.
Fattier cuts are usually cooked a bit longer and to hotter temperatures in comparison, which will give the collagen time to “melt” and also create more juices as a side effect. The drippings will also contain more fat, than can be used for the roux to thicken the gravy.
There are also lots of recipes that “top up” the pan juices with stock, water or wine (your links both add stock), and small but concentrated amounts of pan juices can bring a lot of flavor to a gravy - just add liquid and boil all bits off the roasting pan, don’t just pour the liquid out of the pan. And finally there are also many ways to “cheat”, from simple box mixes to separately cooked sauces or jus made from bones and scraps.
It’s notable that the recipes the OP is looking at are British, a cuisine (historically) without much appetite for rare meat. “Roast at low heat until grey and safe” leaves you with plenty of juices for gravy, and an acute need for said gravy.
@Sneftel That’s not the only cuisine with that attitude!
Meat drippings are more evident in fatty cuts than in leaner cuts. Also, a lot of grocery stores sell meat that have been soaking in water for a long time, making them seem heavier. These factors go into play when wondering whether or not to expect meat drippings.
At my house hold, we used to buy meat from a local butcher. Stir-frying the meat didn't produce much liquid, which was optimal. Nowadays, we buy meat from big-brand grocery stores, and when we stir-fry the meat, boy does the added water flow!
They don't "soak it in water" the water is actually injected into the meat on a conveyor belt with a myriad needles.. EU rules specify a maximum 10% added water… so that's what they all do. That's why EU meat won't fry properly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.734695
| 2021-01-18T18:54:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113807",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105027
|
What would "Disintegrant", "Ammonium", or the units of measure "glass" or "gl" mean in a non-American book?
Just purchased a baking cookbook online which, while written in English, is clearly from a country outside of the U.S. Units are metric, which is fine, but there a couple of terms with which I am unfamiliar. Could anyone give me a clue about 'disintegrant', 'ammonium', or the units of measure 'glass' for dry ingredients or 'gl' for liquids? Thanks!
Thank you very much for the responses, much appreciated!
In response to your comments, here is a pic of the cookbook and a pic of a sample recipe using 'dintegrant'.
Thanks in advance for your interest!
Could you share one of the recipe with those terms (either type it or take picture) ? context is important. What cuisine type is it ?
+1 to getting an example recipe. Also, knowing what the cookbook is might help folks track down more info, or trigger some additional connection that might help with answers.
I wonder if it was translated by a machine (eg Google translate or the like). If so it may just be the incorrect word. And as you are eating the results of these recipes I would be very careful.
in the book, "Tararushki on Kefir" seems like a good origin clue. look at an english translation of https://povar.ru/recipes/blinchiki_na_kefire-9908.html for similar measures. guessing these recipes are translated Russian or one of the old USSR satellite states. Any Russians around to comment on bags of baking soda or conditioner?
"Ammonium" is probably "baker's ammonia" or "ammonium carbonate" -- this is an old-school leavening agent, which has mostly been replaced with baking soda & baking powder in modern cooking.
A "disintegrant" is the opposite of a binder. Without context, knowing what it is specifically talking about is hard to say. In pharmacology, a disintegrant is used in oral tablets to make them rapidly break up when they get wet. Most "chewable" oral tablet medicines have a disintigrant to help them quickly break up when you put it in your mouth.
Edit: Based on the example recipe that you added, I'm going to guess that it's also reference to some kind of leavening agent. Whether it's intended to be baking powder, baking soda, or is also a reference to baker's ammonia, I'm not sure. Seems like it would be necessary to experiment a little bit to determine--but I think it's safe to say it's probably one of those leavening agents.
I presume that "gl" is an abbreviation for "glass" and both refer to the same unit. This other question indicates this is a common Russian unit of measure (is your cookbook Russian?). There is no accepted answer on that question, but the answers there all indicate that it is somewhere between 200ml and 1 cup.
Edible HMX would certainly qualify as a "disintegrant" :)
In the UK - 1 cup/1 glass of something would typically be 250ml
Yeah, I'm really guessing that this cookbook was originally Russian, and was automatically translated. Look at the other strange wording in the recipe instructions.
Given the recipe, a very likely guess for "disintegrant" would be some leavener, preferably baking powder. The reason I am suggesting this is that cookie recipes without leaveners are rare, and this one looks like it would have a good chance of turning out doughy if no leavener is added. The "1 bag" measurement supports this theory - in many European countries, baking powder is sold mostly in single-use sachets formulated for roughly 500 g of flour.
I have no idea what linguistic misunderstanding is needed for getting the word "disintegrant" placed where "baking powder" should have been. But it is a logical ingredient from the recipe point of view.
I was thinking along the same lines. Something very much like baking powder is used in Alka-Seltzer as a "disintegrant". Wouldn't be the weirdest result of generalizing a translation.
@Sneftel yes, this kind of mistranslation is what I suspect too. I even came up with a far-fetched theory about a possible cause: if the original used a generic term for "soda" (intended to be understood as baking soda), which can be related to "soda caustic", or lye, to which the word "disintegrant" fits well. The problem with armchair linguistic theories is that, when tested, they frequently turn out to be untrue.
"disintegrant" is probably dough conditioner, though "1 bag" is odd.
elsewhere in the book, "Disintegrant - 1 bag (10 g)" appears in a recipe with "Flour - 2 glasses 250 g" so it's in the same proportion as the Apple Cookies recipe (1:50 by weight, or 2%)
that 2% is right in the middle of the range that dough conditioner would be added
so "Disintegrant - 1 bag" is 10 g of some unknown dough conditioner that was available in an unknown place somewhen between 1950 and now
[edit]
a simpler answer is baking soda or slaked soda, though it doesn't make any more sense in the context of "1 bag"
Baking soda and salt. "In the early 1900s it was discovered the use of calcium chlorid [sic], ammonium sulfate, and potassium bromate halved the amount of yeast needed to raise dough." (conditioner)
if "bag" is a translation-and-back of "sachet" it makes much more sense
Gl likely" gill" if a liquid measure. Unfortunately Wiki lists two kinds : British gill = 142 ml . American gill = 118 ml. Go figure .
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.734961
| 2020-01-28T20:13:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105027",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"FuzzyChef",
"Gamora",
"Kate Gregory",
"Max",
"Mazura",
"Sneftel",
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"pleasePassTheCheese",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128812
|
What are the different types of instant coffee?
What are the commonly available different types of instant coffee, and what's the difference in each of them?
I'm currently living somewhere without a way to make coffee, but there's a few dozen options of instant coffee available at the market. The most obvious difference that I can see in the different types of instant coffee is that some are granulated and some are not granulated, but I'm sure there's other differences as-well (which I simply cannot see just with the naked eye).
Granulated instant coffee is visibly different from non-granulated instant coffee -- you can see the large grains with the naked eye (source)
I've tried searching the 'net for this, but all the results that I come-across describe the difference between instant coffee and non-instant coffee. I'm asking here only about the difference between different types of instant coffee. I'm not asking for a comparison of different brands of instant coffee. I'm asking about the different types (of manufacturing of) instant coffee.
What are the most common types of instant coffee, how are they made, and how does each compare?
See also https://coffeestrides.blogspot.com/2014/09/how-its-made-instant-coffee.html
Instant espresso powder does seem different - just about good enough to use in baking. But I don't know if the process is significantly different to normal instant. Then there are the instant types that have a bit of extremely finely ground coffee in them as well. More expensive, not really much better.
I'd guess that they all use more or less the same process and the differences are entirely down to how finely they break up the final product - wikipedia tells me some are freeze dried and others spray dried, which would give final grain size differences. It might well come under the heading of "industrial secret" as I'm sure you would need to ask the manufacturers as to how they actually do it.
@SnakeDoc While comments are used for some less-directly-on-topic purposes, they are not a place for extended discussion, nor do they constitute carte blanche permission to go as off-topic as you like. Specifically, the OP very clearly chose to ask an informational question about types and attributes of instant coffee, and our job is to respect that and address it, not to try to judge the overall quality of instant coffee or discuss other types of coffee. I'd suggest stepping away from this question.
paging @tetsujin, who seems to know quite a bit about instant coffee
@j4nd3r53n, I sometimes use instant coffee to make cold coffee, no boiling involved: dissolve the powder/granules in tap water, add milk (or cream or half-and-half), stir. Granted, I do have the means to make coffee from ground coffee, but my point is that this does not necessarily follow from my ability to make instant coffee.
@j4nd3r53n information about non-instant-coffee is off-topic. This is exactly why I created this question, because it's extremely hard to find information only about instant coffee. Please stay on-topic.
Any discussion of instant coffee is incomplete without this SNL commercial for Foldger's Crystals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmVnbIwBsfU
@MichaelAltfield "paging @tetsujin" just wanted to let you know that users (and even mods/staff) cannot ping anyone who hasn't commented on the post. You might either ping/invite them from the chat (kind of acceptable), or comment on any of their post directly (very discouraged).
So we're just not going to select an answer out of spite now?
The options I'm aware of:
freeze-dried (which typically results in the "granules") - frozen,
then placed under vacuum to remove the water
and
spray-dried (which is more just a fine powder) - liquid sprayed at the
top of a column where warm dry air is being (rather gently) blown in the bottom and
the droplets are dried to specks of powder as they fall.
Freeze dried is generally considered to be somewhat better (since less heating of the coffee is involved), as instant coffee goes. But as a matter of taste, try and see which you prefer, that's what actually matters to you.
Within each process type there may be differences you taste due to bean selection and how the coffee is roasted and brewed at the factory, or process parameters of the drying process. That tends to be submerged in a tide of marketing, and not really divulged in any detail; so listen to your own taste with regards to "better/worse." Most of "dozens of types" is really multiple brands (some probably made by the same company in the same factory - and possibly only the labels differ) of the two types.
I've wiped the comments. Please be kind, as the rules request, and in particular if you think something is wrong with the question don't take it out on people writing answers.
Your answer could be improved by focusing on the attributes in that paragraph about what people often consider "better." I think it's probably mostly just a matter of connecting the dots a bit: less heating of coffee means... more original flavor preserved?
Good answer +1. An important aspect of instant coffee is whether it is made from arabica or robusta coffee; personally, I find arabica by far the better, but it is a bit more expensive.
Sometimes what is sold as "instant espresso" or whatever might already have added sugar or powdered milk, so beware of that.
for sure you have to taste it to see what you like. I personally prefer a brand of instant coffee that's spray dried over the common freeze-dried ones I've tried.
A slight issue is that there is also agglomerated instant coffee, in effect spray-dried coffee powder stuck together into small lumps to make it look a little more like freeze-dried coffee. It may also affect the flavour slightly.
I wonder if the method of drying accounts for the only practical (that is, measurable or visible) difference I've found between various brands or types: how well they dissolve in not-hot liquid. Which method is typically used for instant espresso? That type usually dissolves fairly easily in cool liquid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.735385
| 2024-07-15T19:02:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128812",
"authors": [
"Andrew T.",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Edheldil",
"Esther",
"Henry",
"JPmiaou",
"Marti",
"Michael Altfield",
"SnakeDoc",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85536",
"j4nd3r53n",
"manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126544
|
Trade-offs of round vs square food storage containers (Cambro, Carlisle)
What are the trade-offs between using round vs square food storage containers?
I'm looking to buy a supply of several sizes of commercial-grade (eg Cambro or Carlisle) food storage containers. I'm debating if I should go all-round, all-square, or a mix of the both.
Round Food Storage Containers
Square Food Storage Containers
For example, if the material is the same thickness, then I'd guess that round food storage containers would objectively take up more space yet be more durable (due to physics). But are there any other less-obvious trade-offs?
In practice, what are the pros & cons of using round or square food storage containers in the kitchen?
When it comes to freezing, containers that tesellate (nearly) make far better use of space. This is also true whenever space is at a premium, but seems worse in a freezer where things are packed in for long term storage than in a fridge where you tend to have enough free space to shuffle containers around. Of course getting the right size is also important for efficient space-filling.
If you're serving directly from them, maybe round looks nicer, and if you're spooning from them, corners can be limiting.
I have both, and use the round ones much less often (so I don't have many of those). Strength is rarely an issue, so long as they're designed to last.
For the sake of completeness, I'll list three more points. They have a rather minor practical impact though.
It's easier to pour liquids out of square containers without spilling, because the corner can be used as a spout.
If you're blending directly in the container with an immersion blender, the square one gives you better blending. This is very nitpicky, because you probably won't blend in these anyway, and blending still works in round containers, just a tad less efficiently.
If you're washing by hand, the round ones are quicker to get clean.
If you're directly drinking from the containers, a very narrow round shape is the most convenient one.
In general, I see round containers as a nod to tradition. In earlier centuries, most containers were round because of the limitations of container-producing technology (glass blowing, basket weaving, wood carving). Also, if people didn't use different containers for storage, cooking and serving, but just had "bowls", the round shape is more practical for cooking. I haven't encountered functional advantages in a round container when used for storage only.
"the square one gives you better blending" - I find this counterintuitive. (FWIW, I find Chris' point about tesselation the most compelling by far; I like being able to fit multiple such containers neatly in a cupboard, for shelf-stable dry goods.)
@KarlKnechtel it's related to the physics of blending. If you have a round vessel, you get a well-shaped vortex, and the pieces of food tend to ride along endlessly, without really getting into the blades. They do get sucked in eventually, and with an immersion blender, you can chase them, but still, the uneven flow in a square vessel helps create more mixing, speeding up the process.
I'd add to that that irrespective of the outline (round or square/rectangular) one also needs to consider the "draft" i.e. the angle of the sides that make them easy to remove from the mould during manufacture. A pronounced draft makes packing less efficient, but reduces the risk that things could freeze together.
I switched to round restaurant deli containers years ago and haven't looked back. There is a reason round containers are practically an industry standard in the restaurant world.
Round containers are much easier to clean by hand. And unless you are using glass, you want to wash them by hand as older dishwashers eventually gunk up plastic and make them cloudy if your water is hard.
Also, they break far less often. I think I've had two break on me in three years. Before I used square and rectangular containers and I broke one about once a week (because the freezer makes them brittle).
"I broke one about once a week" Good grief! The only reason I'd invest this much money in food containers was specifically because I wanted them to last generations (and, yes, I was planning on using them in freezers). Is there any option besides stainless-steel that won't become brittle from repeated freezing?
For freezing I generally just use bags. They're certainly not as reusable (though they can be reused to some extent), but they cost pennies each.
I don't think the breaking is related to the shape. It's much more likely to be about the exact molecular structure of the plastic (which a consumer can't recognize beforehand). Also, I don't remember any dishwasher ever ruining my clear plastics, even though I always wash them in it - I have had yellowing problems after deciding to run non-kitchen-items through it, like a phone holder. My guess is that your first containers were made from a badly chosen material.
@rumtscho what material should be used for rectangular containers that go through daily freeze/thaw cycles and need to last multiple generations?
@MichaelAltfield forget “generations” when you mean plastic. That’s just not possible.
@MichaelAltfield There is no simple answer to your question. How the material was processed matters just as much as what it is. Imagine that three bakers would sell you a rectangular slab "made out of wheat", but one would turn out to be shortbread dough, the second a slice of ciabatta, and the third a piece of boiled seitan. You couldn't predict the physical properties of the product just based on the information "made out of wheat", you'd have to go to the baker who promised you that his product is intended for use as a pie crust. It's the same way with your freezer container - you (cont.)
(cont.) have to find a manufacturer who sells containers intended for freezing, and trust him that he made them properly. Saying "I want containers from polypropylene" won't guarantee you having long-lasting containers, even if there are long-lasting freezer polypropylene containers out there. And as Stephie said, "long-lasting" here means several years, if you're lucky maybe a couple of decades, but not generations.
TIL you can buy gastronorm stainless steel pans with 200 mm depths (sizes 28 liter, 12L, 7.5L, 5.2L, 3.2L, 1L) and fitting standard-sized stainless steel hermetically-sealed lids (with a silicon gasket) that would make great freezer-safe food storage containers that should last generations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastronorm
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.735873
| 2024-02-01T19:33:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126544",
"authors": [
"Karl Knechtel",
"Mark Morgan Lloyd",
"Michael Altfield",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87594",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126435
|
What are the food saftey requirements to can beans in glass following the hot-fill-hold regulations (USDA)?
What are the specifications required to can beans in a glass jar following the hot-fill-hold regulations from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)?
The way that most industrial food manufacturers safely can pickles and tomato sauce is with a carefully-controlled sterilization method known as hot-fill-hold. When I've researched this method, I mostly find information only on acidic foods.
A typical pickle jar sold in the US is safely canned following the hot-fill-hold requirements of the USDA. Credit: Dom Dada
But what about canning non-acidic foods with hot-fill-hold? I can only find information on the USDA's website about meats, but I'm trying to find information about plant protein sources: legumes.
Where can I find the USDA regulations that specify the requirements for canning beans using the hot-fill-hold method?
If boiling water canning were sufficient to safely can low-acid foods, why would anyone bother with a pressure canner?
pressure caners are used for small-scale home canning. Industrial-scale food producers do not use them.
Of course they do. They're called "retorts" in an industrial setting, and they're much bigger and more complex than home pressure cookers but they operate via the same principle.
Hot, fill, hold is usually used on acidified foods. That is why you find it being used with pickles. Green beans or any other low acid food would need to be pressure canned. Using the hot, fill, hold method on low acid foods does NOT mitigate the risk of botulism. Statement from USDA.
Do you have a reference that you can link-to directly from the USDA that says this?
@MichaelAltfield...added.
thanks. sorry, but the links you describe talk about small-scale at-home canning. How do the industrial-scale food manufacturers can beans?
@MichaelAltfield pressure canning.
Sorry, I don't get it. How could pressure canning work on an industrial-scale continuous conveyor processing tens of thousands of cans per day?
@MichaelAltfield https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx7qV9YI39E
Thanks, but I still can't wrap my head around it. How can a hermetically sealed metal can release air under pressure?
@MichaelAltfield If you have a question about how retorts work, you should ask it as a new question. Briefly, though, it's not necessary to release air if the pressure outside the can is kept similar to the pressure inside the can as the temperature changes.
And when canning in glass jars, well, the air is still released. You can do that with regular glass jars if the lids have been tightened to precisely the right degree. The lid-and-ring design of mason jars is for those of us without lid-tightening robots.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.736470
| 2024-01-22T00:05:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126435",
"authors": [
"Michael Altfield",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97547
|
Why is it faster to reheat something than it is to cook it?
In my experience it takes less time to reheat a cooked item than it does to cook it. This is true for every single different "type" of cooked item I can think of. (Meat, soup, pasta, beans, etc etc).
It's quite common for me to use the microwave to reheat things, and that might lead me to be biased in thinking that it's faster because the microwave itself is often the fastest way top reheat something, but this observation isn't true just for microwaving. It doesn't even seem to matter on the method of reheating, as I can reheat something faster if I use the same method of as I did to cook it (e.g. by frying).
Note that I always check the temperature of something I've reheated via a food-probe, so I'm also not making a mistaking of cooking something to 70C and then reheating to 45C etc.
So:
Is it always faster to reheat something than it was to cook it, or are their exceptions?
why is food faster to reheat? What's the food-science behind it?
Note: Googling this question just results in endless results of people asking how to reheat food X. I don't know if I'm a google bubble or if no-one out there has asked this question before? If I were to guess I'd say it's because you need more energy to do whatever it is that happens to proteins/starch when they cook, and one that's done you need less energy to simply heat it. Or something?
"Cooking" is often a chemical process. Denaturing proteins, gelatinization, causing chemical reactions like browning, or even causing state changes like evaporation.
In many cases for these reactions to happen, we need to overheat the food. (Cook it and let it rest to cool off back down to undo some of the changes that were made and/or bring it back down to a reasonable temperature to eat). This is true when grilling meats, frying, baking bread, and lots of other types of cooking.
Other times, we need to bring something to temperature and hold it there for some period of time. This holds for extracting collagen, starch gelatinization (eg, cooking pasta, potatoes, etc.) but also just waiting for flavors to transfer in soups and similar dishes.
With warming, you're just adding enough heat to it to move it a few degrees, but you're not typically trying to change the state of the food, so less total energy is needed.
Now, it is always faster to reheat vs. cook things? For the most part it's true, but I suspect that there would be an edge case out there. Something that's cooked from room temperature, but then stored chilled and the chilling causes issues (like retrogradation in starches, maybe?) that make them more resist than reheating.
I think your fourth paragraph should be highlighted more. That's the real answer to the question. Some of the heat energy is going into state changes, so it's not all being used to actually change the temperature of the food.
To add to the last point, consider that reducing 100ml from a 1L pot of liquid requires evaporating that much water. Evaporating water requires an enormous amount of energy - for 100ml it works out to 226kJ of energy. If you were reheating the 900ml of liquid left, from 4C in the fridge to 70C (65C delta-T) for eating, you require 4.2J/gC, or about 250kJ. So reheating 900ml of cold soup takes the same amount of energy as reducing 100ml from 1L of soup which has already been heated to 100C. State changes consume large amounts of energy and cooking is all about state changes.
In addition to the fourth paragraph, (usually) when you cook some water will evaporate, meaning that when you reheat there's less water to warm up than when you cooked it in the first place, making it even faster to reach the temperature required.
Ice is simpler example of state change. It takes more energy to turn 0C block of ice into 20C water compared to turning 0C water into 20C water
@J...: are non-water state changes in cooking usually also endothermic? Maillard reaction? Breaking down collagen? Reactions can be exothermic but still not occur at room temperature (e.g. oxidation/combustion of wood), so requiring holding at higher temp doesn't prove that heat energy is going anywhere except being lost to the surrounding air / room, and carried off by evaporation except in a covered pot. Your example of reducing a liquid is a great example of a clearly endothermic process that's common in cooking, though.
@PeterCordes I'm sure you could find a token example of an exothermic reaction in cooking, but I'd bet they're rare and certainly won't contribute any significant amount of energy to the cooking process. If such a thing existed you would have dishes that only needed energy to start cooking but could then be removed from the heat source and would produce their own heat energy while the cooking occurred. I'm sure we can all agree from experience that such dishes are not commonly encountered.
@J...: Only if the reaction was fairly strongly exothermic and fast (like flambe in alcohol driving off the alcohol as it heats the food). Compared to the amount of power it takes to keep food / a cooking vessel at temp in air (convection) and touching a surface (conduction), most cooking reactions other than evaporation are probably slow enough that their energy balance is unimportant. The whole point of holding food at temp for extended times is that the reactions are slow, so even if they are endothermic the heat they suck up is probably negligible.
@PeterCordes Agreed. Putting a lid on the pot goes a long way, for example. Just containing the heat lost due to evaporation (and some negligible radiant cooling) you can leave a stew simmer on very low heat where it would have needed medium heat without a lid - clearly it's not the cooking reactions that are consuming the energy, as you say. I think it's probably safe to say that most energy lost in cooking is due to water evaporation, simply because water is ubiquitous in food and its enthalpy of vapourization is so ridiculously high.
@J...: Yeah. That first first comment about energy going into state change of the food doesn't deserve that many upvotes. That's a negligible amount of the total energy, or quite possibly negative. (I'm not counting the side effect of evaporation when grilling/pan-frying for example, only evaporation when that's a part of the desired effect. Although sometimes it's desired because we have to compensate for it, by making bread dough wetter than baked bread. But that lets it rise while it's wet and soft...) Anyway, I think it's misleading to imply all state changes cost heat.
@PeterCordes It's the universe. Everything costs heat here.
Your first sentence uses “often” rather than (as I'd have said) “always”. Does cooking (as opposed to boiling, heating) not by definition always involve a chemical reaction? Can you give a counter example?
@Konrad : there are the cases of assembling things, where you're reducing chaos but not necessarily applying heat. Some people consider it to be 'cooking' while others don't. (Is making salad 'cooking'? What if you wilt the greens, or toast nuts for it?) There might be other examples, and 'always' seemed too extreme a position to take for this.
This is because when you're cooking some foods you're not just heating it up. A lot of foods are boiled, not because they need to be heated up, but because they need to absorb water. We just boil the water because that makes the hydration go a lot faster (the high temperature is also needed to break down some of the starches, for more info, see here).
With soup it should take about the same time, if you don't care about dissolving/softening the vegetables into the soup. That also takes time, with vegetables the chemical reaction involved is mainly breaking down the pectin that holds the cells of the vegetable together.
With meat, dissolving/denaturing the collagen (stuff that holds everything together) into gelatin also takes time. Also you want a different temperature for reheating than frying because with meat you want a nice crispy brown outside (Maillard reactions), and for that you need far higher temperatures than the inside of your meat.
Because heating up is merely rising the temperature of a body and how much its temperature change depends on its specific heat. The sane is for the complex mix of the various items in the pot as we are speaking about kitchen.
Cooking involves a number of physical and chemica processes, each of which takes time. Is this taking time the major difference, that is why I've decided to add this answer alongside the others. They aren't wrong at all, just in a way incomplete. Cooking must be accomplished, and that will be the case anyway, see just here below.
Most of these process require heat as well, that is energy must be given to the system. So the pot must stay on stove (or the meat on the grill, etc.) longer.
Independent of this energy requirement, which for some chemical transformations can be even positive (ie the process releases energy and not vise versa), chemical reactions go faster higher the temperature is.
For instance, pasta could be cooked at lower than boiling point, just it will take longer. This is why pressure cooking is somehow faster as well less energy consuming.
edited.
Specifically to question number 1, yes is at least in principle possible that a cooked item takes longer to be heat as compared to heat the original item. If cooking involved water intake, the specific heat of the cooked item might be bigger, for instance. An example is likely pasta. I would expect that it takes longer to bring a cooked spaghetto to 100 °C than doing it with a raw one. But this analysis is certainly out of the kitchen (fine measuring, ad hoc experiments, way of heating....), as probably we never put raw vs cooked spaghetti on a hot plate and measure how long it takes for them to reach the wanted T.
[the other answers] aren't wrong at all, just in a way incomplete I agree, but I also think your answer is incomplete! :) Is it possible to give some examples of a physical of chemical process that happens when cooking, but not when heating? e.g. converting raw chicken protein into cooked chicken protein?
Pod. Happy that you get my point. The only thing that I don't understand of your comment is that I do not see how to get into heating without starting cooking as well. I could well denature egg proteins, or even an egg, but this happens from a certain T up. As far eadible items are taken as a whole, cooking requires heating, which can be semantic. Cheese affinage it is something else. I am satisfied that you understood the nuance, but @Echox say the same although in a more spartan way. I go up voting his/her A too. Tell me if I misunderstood your comment.
It doesn't even seem to matter on the method of reheating, as I can reheat something faster if I use the same method of as I did to cook it (e.g. by frying).
Note that I always check the temperature of something I've reheated via a food-probe, so I'm also not making a mistaking of cooking something to 70C and then reheating to 45C etc.
That is not strictly possible. If you are imparting the same amount of heat energy to the same thing at the same rate in the same controlled environment, then the resulting temperature must necessarily be identical.
If you are ensuring a consistent overall temperature resulting from the same source, then the time difference arises because you are heating different things.
One likely culprit would be water that escaped as steam during during cooking or evaporated during/after, which reduces the mass you are heating the second time around. Water is also one of the slowest things to heat, because it has one of the highest specific heat capacities amongst common substances. This alone would result in a very noticeable difference in many types of food.
Is raw chicken the "same thing" as cooked chicken?
Nope. I would hope they're pretty easy to distinguish, otherwise you may get salmonella.
Does this question really call for a scientific explaination ?
To cook, you heat something and let it stay hot until it get cooked.
To heat, you just heat it a bit until you can eat it.
So even it you want to eat it as hot as its cooking temperature (which you won't in most cases, with a good 100°C margin), you just ignore all the "cooking time" after you reached the right temperature.
When you mention a 100C margin, I think you're talking about oven air temperature, not food temperature. If you stick a probe thermometer in your food and heat it to ~140 Celsius, you'll drive out all the water by boiling it off on the way to that temp, and proteins will break down leaving any meat basically inedible way beyond the point of overcooking to a crumbly dry disaster.
Does this question really call for a scientific explaination ?. Yes, as that's what I'm interested in. Otherwise I would have asked "How do I heat up food?????".
What I mean is that your original question can be translated as "Why is something that I heat for a long time takes longer than something I heat for a short time" and doesn't need any kind of physical or chemical explaination. But maybe what you really wanted to know is what happens when you cook something and why does it needs to stay at a certain temperature for a long time but then your questions would need editing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.736707
| 2019-04-18T13:21:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97547",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Aubreal",
"GentlePurpleRain",
"J...",
"Jemox",
"Joe",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Matthew Read",
"Peter Cordes",
"Pod",
"aaaaa says reinstate Monica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74186"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109082
|
What if I microwave Beyond Meat?
I have a bag of Beyond Meat crumbles. Before reading the bag, I microwaved the crumbles in a bowl until they were thoroughly heated.
...Then I noticed that the bag says "DO NOT MICROWAVE". Is there a health concern with microwaving the product, or are the directions intended to ensure that the product is as enjoyable as it can be?
Did you microwave the crumbles by themselves, or the bag as well? Did anything unusual happen?
@Phil Crumbles in a bowl with a bit of spaghetti sauce. We ended up reheating them in a skillet according to the instructions.
It's also quite likely that the group of likely people to want Beyond Meat could include many people not liking microwaves or even thinking they are harmful. By positioning the product as one "not made for microwave" you reinforce this customer base. A win for the marketing Department. And pragmatically, the company knows that people who microwaves stuff, will anyway.
@jeffrey I would call that a realistic amount of cynicism. I have also tried to microwave similar products that disintegrated into mush, so I buy the answers below about texture changes.
There are no health concerns with microwaving food. Microwaves excite water molecules to heat food, they don't change food or make it dangerous. When a product says do not microwave it means one of 3 things:
The packaging is not meant to be microwaved: heating some types of packaging can cause bad tastes or smells in food, or cause the packaging to release unhealthy chemicals. Putting the food in a microwave safe dish solves this problem
Microwave heating causes undesirable texture changes in the food. Microwaving can sometimes cause a rubbery texture, or make it soggy
As @fraxinus rightly points out some foods can explode in the microwave, especially food with a shell or airtight covering of some sort like eggs and potatoes. Heat causes pressure to build until the shell or covering fails, causing a 'rapid unscheduled disassembly' as they say in the aerospace industry when something blows up
Number 2 is the most likely reason the package said do not microwave.
... and 3. Some foods explode when microwaved. Eggs are notorious example, but the problem is not limited to them. Sometimes the explosion is desired (e.g. popcorn), but in general case is not.
Good point, and added @fraxinus
Thank you. My concern was internal temperature etc. I understand that microwaves aren't "scary radiation", but that is always a relevant point to remind people of.
@Tashus, you did ask about health concerns, but in any case I try to cover many angles when answering a question. How was the taste/texture after being microwaved by the way?
@GdD Yes, my health concerns were with different cooking methods more easily reaching minimum internal temperatures. I do appreciate the reminder that microwave heating is not fundamentally different in terms of effects on food. They tasted just fine, although I think they would have had a better texture had we skipped the microwave. Cheers!
From the context, I'd say that Number 1 is also a concern, since it said this on the bag. Some food packaging is designed to be microwaved in the bag, so this warning may be placed on items where it isn't. The OP said they heated it in a bowl, though, so it should be okay.
Not sure if you were inclucing it under point 3, but you also have the possible effect of grapes causing "heat spots" causing plasma and sparking.
I think #1 is by far the most likely: the packaging is not microwave safe.
@Dragonel root vegetables too. I well remember the first time I microwaved a plate of chopped cooked carrots and parsnips for my baby
I'm a bit disappointed that your second point did not say that it might change the texture beyond recognition :-)
@JohnEye, I have a reputation to maintain.
I think there's also a 1/3 hybrid: the packaging might be microwave-unsafe for reasons of physics rather than taste/chemistry, potentially causing explosions or other detrimental phenomena.
Just as a nit pick, "rapid unscheduled disassembly" predates SpaceX link
Duly noted and edited @CharlesBamford
#4: The food may produce plasma, sparks, or ignite, possibly damaging the microwave
Couldn't there be another reason: the food is unsafe to eat if raw or not properly cooked, and microwaving it will not "properly" cook it?
No @a3nm, if that was the case it would explicitly say the food must be cooked. Microwaving will certainly cook it, just not necessarily in the way you want.
Oh OK -- I wasn't aware that microwaves could "cook" any food in that sense.
On the Beyond Meat website there's no mention either way of microwaving (other than the section that reproduces the packaging you've already seen), however searching their tweets reveals that they concede it's possible, though undesirable, to microwave the stuff:
https://twitter.com/BeyondMeat/status/615620476862230528
while you can microwave the #BeastBurger, we always recommend grilling
for the best taste, texture and experience!
https://twitter.com/BeyondMeat/status/424243984341684224
most of our fans eat them [Beyond Chicken Strips] out of the box, we
recommend pan frying them, but they are totally microwave safe!
Health related concerns are off-topic here, but pretty much anything that can be cooked on a stove can be heated in the microwave, whether the food is then palatable is another issue. There are a few things that are worth considering:
Microwaving food cooks differently to on a stove in that the water in the food is heated by the microwaves, this can lead to unpleasant textures in some foods
Similarly, microwaving some items has a burning risk if they are a dry food like bread - the inside browns before the outside (reverse toast anyone?) and could potentially catch fire without warning
Cooking on a stove usually means adding some other ingredients such as oil or water to help heat it, which alters the taste and can enhance flavour; you might not get this with food heated directly in the microwave.
The help center says food safety is on topic.
@user2357112supportsMonica "Is this food considered safe according to food safety regulations" is on topic. "Is this healthy/good for me" is not, since healthy is not well defined and depends on individual factors.
This seems much more like an "is this safe" question than a nutritional advice question to me. Maybe "health concern" specifically refers to the second category to you, but that's not universal.
@user2357112supportsMonica our site doesn't work with a universal/commonly held understanding of the term "food safety" mostly because the most common one leads to unanswerable questions. The food safety questions allowed in the help center are tightly restricted to a quasi-legal definition: we just tell you what are the food safety rules (as published by governmental agencies such as the FDA in the US) that apply to a given case. This is usually about how long food can be stored in a given environment. Technically, this also covers toxins that contaminate the food, so I think your...
... question is on topic. But there are two caveats: 1) since this kind of thing is not explicitly mentioned in the generic food safety regulations I know, it is unlikely anybody will be able to give an answer about that, and 2) the manufacturer can have health concerns. So if heating produces a substance which is considered "unhealthy" (such as a carcinogen) but is not seen as "unsafe" under food regulations, we have to tell you that the food is safe, without discussing that the manufacturer considers it unhealthy. That is admittedly a somewhat contrived scenario, since the main problem is...
... that if this is the case, none of us has a good way to recognize that, or to know which substance might be meant. Also, we have no good way of excluding that this might be the case. So while I think your question is on-topic, I don't believe that we can know the answer - and if we did, site rules might prevent us from giving it.
By "health concerns" I was wondering about things like internal temperature, etc. So "is this safe".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.737997
| 2020-06-16T01:14:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109082",
"authors": [
"Alex M",
"Angew is no longer proud of SO",
"Charlie Bamford",
"Darrel Hoffman",
"Dragonel",
"GdD",
"Jeffrey",
"Joe M",
"JohnEye",
"Phil",
"Robert K. Bell",
"Tashus",
"a3nm",
"fraxinus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"rumtscho",
"user141592",
"user2357112"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82174
|
Why using low temperature cooking for potatoes?
I saw somewhere a recipe for using souse vide at 90C for potatoes. I understand low temperature/long time cooking technics are for tenderizing meat. What is the rationale of using low temperature cooking with potatoes?
You are assuming there is one. 90C is the max temperature of most sous vide machines, if you are going to cook sous vide potatoes that's the highest it will go.
Cooking times are related to the type of tissue. A potato is a part of a plant, but an unusual one, an asexual bud.
A potato is not a stem or leafy part of a plant, so it's not a vegetable. It contains no seeds, so it is not a fruit. It lacks the protection of an external fruit sheath, and it isn't a fertilized ovum, so it isn't an underground seed like a peanut (legume) even though it can grow into a plant separated from it's parent. It isn't a thickened root like a carrot. It's a thin-skinned tuber with a very high and available starch content and low cellulose content compared to vegetables, fruits, stems, root and seeds.
The low cellulose content means that less heat is needed to break down the cell walls. The high starch content means that there is a short time between the cell walls breaking down, the starch quickly becoming available in large quantity and the starch binding with water to link into longer molecules, the reverse of what happens to meat protein that is gradually broken down during cooked.
Lowering the cooking temperature increases the cooking time and the brief window of opportunity for removing the product from heat at the desired texture.
Would be good to have some quantitative information about the temperatures and time window you mentioned for potatoes
Really interesting. More quantitative info, would be very appreciated.
It's all because of the starches and sugars. This site has two different ways to cook them with helpful explainations on why
http://modernistcuisine.com/2013/04/mastering-creamy-pureed-potatoes-no-fat-required/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.738699
| 2017-06-05T00:02:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82174",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"emanuele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86712
|
Roast Turkey - How to get the meat to fall off the bones
Roughly, my procedure for roast turkey is:
start with a frozen turkey
a couple of days of partial thawing in the fridge
soak in brine for 12-24 hours to complete thawing and get it more-or-less brined
cook for 1 to 1.5 hours at 450
cook for 4 hours or so at 275
The resulting turkey is always good, but sometimes it results in a very "loose" bird with the meat falling nicely off the bones. The meat-falling-off-the-bones bird doesn't look as nice for presentation, but I don't care about that. I find it way easier to process.
So I'd like to achieve that meat-falling-off-the-bones state every time, but I don't. I feel like my process is close enough to being the same every time, but I never know if I'm going to get the desired results.
Yesterday's bird was not as desired, and I noted that it had been brined for only about 12 hours. This made me wonder if longer brining helps achieve what I'm wanting. Other times I've just thought it needed to cook for longer, but doing so didn't seem to help.
I would assume that cooking at low heat for a long time would help get the right texture, kind of like how cooking a pork shoulder for 8 hours low and slow turns it into pulled pork. You might also want to add some liquid for your turkey to braise with - If it doesn't have enough moisture, the meat will tighten up, dry, and contract. If you braise it, it will absorb some cooking liquids. Not sure if braising a turkey is a great idea, though.
For a large bird. Fall of the bone. Try this. Get largest bird you can. Thaw. Wash out insides. Spice inside bird. Place on rack in roaster pan. Breast side down. Have rack 1 inch above the bottom of roaster pan. May need to add blocks or such to get that high of bottom. Add 1/4 inch water. Place lid on roasting pan. Cut 1 long strip of 12 inch tin foil in 1/2 long ways. Wrap around roaster pan at lid. Press tight around lid. like a seal. Repeat with other piece. Double seal. Bake at 350f for 1/2 hour a LB. This will steam & slightly pressure cook bird. Remove from oven Have big forks ready. Open lid. remove bird to flat pan small lip around it with rack. Breast side up. Put in oven at 450f. to brown. Pour of liquid in roaster for gravy or stock. For American bird pen raised you should have 3/4 inch of broth in pan. Ground raised bird 1/2 inch. Bird should be moist inside fall of the bone tender. Buy cheapest & largest bird you can find for this. Not a self baster!Young birds will be fall of the bone. Older yard birds middle age will be tender & moist. Older birds will need steamed in pot a extra 30 minutes. You do loose some flavor from the bird this way. But gain broth. I use this method on ground raised peacock. But have done turkey this way American birds.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.739003
| 2017-12-26T19:28:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86712",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24147
|
How do I calculate the nutritional values of a recipe?
I love to cook and experiment with recipes. While I'm aware that calories are not a perfect measure of what makes you gain weight and what doesn't, I would still love to have a rough idea of the energy values of the dishes I'm preparing, and ideally be able to fiddle with the ingredients just to see what happens to the calorie count.
How would I best approach this?
My vision is that of a tool that
lets you enter a recipe's ingredients and amounts, and can calculate an approximate calorie count for the most common ingredients
ideally, lets you add other ingredients and their energy values?
I know for a fact there is software like this, but all the good products I've seen are for professional diet advisors, nutritional consultants and the like, and tend to be very expensive.
I guess the basic functionality could be achieved with an Excel sheet, but where to get high-quality nutritional data from? Are there industry-standard databases for this?
This question matches mine in the title, but seems to be more about the calorie differences between cooked and raw food, which is not my concern.
Wolfram Alpha has high quality nutritional data , with common ranges, not just absolute values. It will gives amount per 100 grams, or per cup etc.
Load it into a Google Docs Spreadsheet (or Excel) and go crazy. Feel free to share your Google Docs Spreadsheet when finished :-)
Calories are a very good indicator of excess food consumption. Eating more calories than you need will stuff you or the loo up
The cheat sheet is:
- Carbohydrate 1 gram = 4 calories
- Protein 1 gram = 4 calories
- Fat 1 gram = 9 calories
- Alcohol 1 gram = 7 calories
E.g.
50 g slice of bread has around 70% carb & protein, and a little fat,
so ~140 calories
Glass of wine (150 g) at 13% alcohol has ~130 calories etc.
Some starter spreadsheets
calorie-tracker.thelongmores
choosemyplate.gov/SuperTracker
nutritional_calculator_spreadsheet
Lose It!, a free weight-loss site, has this feature. To use it I think you need to start an account. To access it, you hit the Settings tab and then select Recipes in the left-hand column. Then select "New" and follow the prompts. This calculator allows you to enter the ingredients of a dish you are preparing. Most common ingredients will pop-up in the site's list with their respective caloric values. You can also manually enter in the values if you know them or if the ingredient is not in their list. You then set the "serving size" of your dish as its total volume. Then, when you enter in the amount you are eating into your daily food log, the site automatically shows you the caloric value of your portion.
The fifth screenshot here, shows you what it looks like.
Tool calculation:
alacalc.com - vast database of stock ingredients and some branded, professional results outputs. Even has a function to 'nudge' ingredient quantities up or down and watch the key nutrition values go up or down.
Lab calculation:
Make your dish, send it to a food testing lab, wait a couple weeks and get your results
Manual calculation:
*Do this calculation for every component you wish to know the value (e.g. calories/protein/carbs/etc). Get the data from USDA SR26.
( (<component quantity of ingredient 1> x <quantity of ingredient 1>) + ... + (<ingredient *n*> x <quantity of ingredient *n*>) ) x (<weight after cooking> / <the total weight of all ingredients>) x 100 x <portion size>
How could I find a food lab to test my dish?
The USDA provides the data you want, but you'd have to roll your own software. You can currently download the data from here:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=8964
That's Release 26; they do update the database, so if the link breaks or this post is old, you may want to search for the current version.
They provide the nutrition values per 100 g of ingredient. The last few columns of the excel sheet have translations from common measurements (e.g. 1 cup) to grams.
There is a simplified excel table and a more comprehensive raw ascii relational database. The excel version documents fewer nutrients and only gives the first two "weights for common measures".
You can explore some of the data online through this page:
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/
(It also links to the full database, currently via the About the Database link in the top nav bar.)
HappyForks's Analyzer is a tool you are looking for.
It's designed to copy-paste list of ingredients. Sometimes manual corrections are needed, unfortunately it's not 100% automated.
Detailed report, you can know what you want.
You can combine several recipes, also mixed with individual products/ingredients. So you can add ingredients to existing recipe on your list and next go to report.
Analyzer is not required, you can manual add every product/ingredient to your list and go to report.
It's possible to see nutritional values of individual ingredients: analyzer -> [add to list] -> open saved recipe -> go to bottom and see links to ingredients
It's free and you don't need to create an account.
Generally, it's easy to make changes on products/ingredients list and see how nutritional values are changing.
I use this for personal purposes, but I would not risk to use it commercially.
http://www.rippedrecipes.com allows you to build a recipe ingredient by ingredient, it calculates all the nutritional information automatically, it also allows you to search for other recipes by nutritional goals (300-500 calories, at least 20g of protein etc...).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.739253
| 2012-06-01T13:15:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24147",
"authors": [
"ABIM",
"Arsak",
"Backyard Chef",
"David St Denis",
"Donne Puls",
"Fay Wells",
"Hawk",
"John Ryan",
"Joshua Dance",
"Kim",
"Kort",
"Loreen",
"Martha",
"My Veg Blog",
"Spammer",
"cheezypandesal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99412"
],
"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
}
|
20084
|
Pumpkin rotting, need to process it now - any ideas with a long shelf life?
I bought 7 huge pumpkins from a gardener two weeks ago. The idea was to store them in the basement, and eat them as soup during the winter.
However, sadly, they have started to rot. (I asked a related gardening question here, it seems to be a fungus from the field.) I need to cut them up, remove the rotting parts, and do something with the good parts right now, otherwise they will be lost. I know no pumpkin-lovers to give them away to, so I would like to continue to store them somehow.
I have the possibility of putting them into cold storage at about 7°C (ca. 44°F). However, I fear that even there, they will go stale relatively quickly if I just cut them into pieces and do nothing further. I have very little space in the freezer, not nearly enough to take them all.
Is there anything I can do with the good pieces that lasts a long time either in cold storage, or (ideally) at room temperature? I'm open to everything, any kind of processing into whatever.
One thing I thought about was pesto - I've seen some very oily pumpkin pesto recipes that actually work with the pulp itself, not only the seeds like most recipes. I'm not sure about the resulting product's shelf life, though. Would the oil make it last longer?
Suggestions would be very welcome, as it would be a shame to let these beautiful vegetables go to waste.
What about just roasting, pureeing, and freezing or cubing and pressure canning as described here? Unfortunately you can't puree and can as a home cook because of the low acidity.
@justkt pureeing and freezing might end up being the best option after all, yeah. I forgot to mention that I don't have much freezing space, but I'll try to find some more. I don't have the equipment to can it, but thanks for the link, interesting reading!
You can cube them, and then can that... http://nchfp.uga.edu/how/can_04/pumpkin_winter_squash.html
I think once the outer skin is compromised, your room temperature storage options go out the window.
Your best bet is to puree the pumpkin pieces, and freeze it. Not ideal, I know, but if you don't want the pumpkin to go to waste, that's probably your option.
Thanks, yeah, this sounds sensible. I forgot to mention that I don't have much freezing space (except for the 7°C cold storage I have access to), but it looks like it's the only option so I'll have to try and find some more
@Pekka I would add that it would be beneficial to dessicate them somewhat or otherwise try to reduce the moisture (e.g. roast and drain) to (a) minimize volume, and (b) reduce risk of freezer burn. In most cases with the puree, you can use heat, or I typically just use a coffee filter in a colander.
Other ideas instead of freezing:
Do some pumpkin jam: I usually use 300-400g of sugar for 1Kg of pumpkin. Procede as for a normal jam, add the juice of a lemon (and zest if you wish) and a pinch of nutmeg.
Candied pumpkin. This is a classic recipe from Southern Italy, used in many cakes (e.g. cassata siciliana). 1:1 pumpkin:sugar, and you procede as you would normally do for any candied fruit.
Pumpkin chutney. I've done pumpkin/apple/vinegar and pumpkin/ginger/raisins (plus various spices of course, be creative!)
I've seen recipes for pumpkin hummus, but never tried it myself.
Note on pumpkin - don't treat as shelf-stable, as it is too low acid for this.
Chutneys generally have quite low pH, and are shelf-stable provided that they're in sterilized jars. You can also preserve pumpkin in vinegar. Candied pumpkin has a shelf life of years.
Pumpkin is low acid, but it can be canned using a pressure-canner. Alternatively, add citric acid to the pumpkin to increase acidity.
I know this is late, but in case anyone else has the same problem in the future : pumpkin pickles.
There are plenty of recipies out there, but the important thing is that you want to make sure that the slices are thin enough that the heat during canning process will penetrate sufficiently into the pumpkin. The vinegar in the brine will allow them to be shelf stable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.739739
| 2011-12-30T19:20:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20084",
"authors": [
"April",
"Audrey Davis",
"Jaraiya",
"Mary Butler-Sisnroy",
"Pekka",
"Shalryn",
"Vernal",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"justkt",
"mfg",
"mystarrocks",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20649
|
Baker's Math Formula System - Why Isn't the Flour Mass in Corn Bread Formula 100%?
I am currently in the middle of a challenge to bake every formula in the Bread Baker's Apprentice book (BBA). This book describes a principal called the Baker's Math Formula System where all ingredients are compared to the total flour weight in the formula as a ratio. (BBA referes to recipes as formulas.) By definition (or so I thought), the ratio for the total flour weight in a given formula is always supposed to be 100%.
The author includes this analysis for each formula in the book. Just last night, I looked at the Baker's Percentage for the Corn Bread formula in more detail and found that the ratio listed for the flour is actually 51.1%. How could this be if the total flour weight is supposed to be 100%? Would this have anything to do with the fact that this is a chemically leavened bread?
thats my least favorite recipe in BBA
I decided to try to e-mail my question to the author, Peter Reinhart. As it turns out, there is a typo in the book!
"Together, the flour and cornmeal should equal 100%. It's the flour %
that's listed wrong, not the cornmeal, because the total is 14 oz and
the flour is listed as 8 oz. If you divide 8 by 14 you get 57.1%,
which means the cornmeal is correctly listed at 42.9% So change the
flour percent -- that's a typo I can see can easily happen since 1 and
7 are kind of similar looking and easily overlooked."
Awesome! Nice job emailing him.
I believe its expressed as a percentages of the all purpose flour, the cornmeal, and the chemical leavening. I'm not sure why the leavening appears to be included, but for the cornmeal and the flour - they're both elements that would provide the same role as flour in a traditional yeast recipe.
The cornmeal and flour together seems to be somewhat common as I found at least one more that expresses them together for 100.
Either way, if it makes it easier you can always scale all the numbers up so that the flour equals 100.
I agree those components add up to 100% (if you round up 99.76). It would make sense to me if the cornmeal and the flour equaled 100% but including the leavening doesn't make sense to me based on the definition.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.740098
| 2012-01-21T01:28:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20649",
"authors": [
"Laura Kane-Punyon",
"Mike",
"Tom Reynolds",
"callyalater",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45391",
"javabeano",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119778
|
Why can I cook well but not identify flavours?
I'd like to say I'm good at cooking. I understand each element of the cooking process well, I can imagine flavours and how ingredients will alter the flavour of a dish. I believe I can put together really flavourful meals and (not trying to humble brag here) receive a lot of compliments for my cooking. However, I would say I'm pretty bad at identifying flavours. If someone presents me with a dish and asks me to identify the ingredients, I can get a few of them but in general I miss a bunch.
Why would it be the case that, being able to understand how ingredients change a flavour, I cannot identify the ingredients that produced the flavour? That is to say, how can it come about that someone can be a competent cook yet not pick out flavours from a plate? And how can I improve this skill?
Welcome to SA! Your question is interesting but it's a bit vague. Can we narrow it down to one specific thing you want to know? For example, if you want to identify ingredients by tasting better, that's something people can answer. But "why can't I taste the notes in wine" is probably not.
@FuzzyChef I suppose it's a bit more of a meta question in the sense that I would like to know how it can come about that a person can become good at cooking without being able to pick out individual flavours from a plate. I suppose it's like a guitarist who can't read music. Is this type of question not allowed?
"I can never pick up the 'notes' written on the bottle" Most of the time those are publicity bullshit, or at the very least too diluted and weak to properly identify individually for most people anyway.
It potentially is on-topic, but your question text above asks 4 or 5 different things. If that's your real question, please edit so you ask it clearly.
Constant tasting while making things ( making sure you do what is required to make it safe to taste) helps a bunch, you learn what effects everything you are adding is having. But this is one of those things where some people are just much better at it than others
@FuzzyChef edited for clarity
I think there’s a question on here about how to train yourself to taste things better, but my attempts to locate it aren’t working as I can’t remember how it was worded
Being able to identify flavours is, as you have described, a separate skill to being able to produce tasty food. Someone could have both skills, they could have the former without the latter (for example an expert taster employed by a food science factory), the latter without the former (like you), or neither.
Rough analogies could be in music, art or writing: most good musicians can produce beautiful music but only a few have perfect pitch, the ability to name a note from hearing it. Relative pitch (being able to identify the intervals between notes) is much more common but is still not necessary to produce music. An artist could produce a beautiful painting or sculpture without having the skill of identifying a type of paint or construction material by sight. A writer could be write excellent prose but wouldn't necessarily be able to tell you about parts of speech, or what feature of a particular sentence made it so good. These aren't exact analogies but hopefully they convey the broader point.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.740315
| 2022-02-08T00:14:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119778",
"authors": [
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"e god",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97800"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120747
|
How do you choose whether to roast or fry a vegetable?
What are the differences in flavor and texture when using the different techniques? Do some vegetables call for one technique rather than the other? Assume you oil the container you roast in.
Fry as in deep fry or stir-fry (in a wok or a frying pan) ?
@Max Fry as in stir-fry (in a frying pan), but an answer about frying in woks would also be interesting to me. I'm especially wondering about what happens if you chop vegetables sufficiently small when you stir-fry, so you don't have to worry about the inside not cooking (fast enough).
Stir frying in a pan or in a wok (it's more or less the same thing) is and should be done on high heat and should be a quick operation.
Raw vegetables need to be cut into small size to be cooked as quickly as possible. If you use large pieces of vegetable there is the risk of moisture leeching out and reduce the pan temperature and it will start to boil or steam instead of frying.
In some instances, some vegetables can be par-boiled or blanched in advance to speed up the stir-fry process.
In the case of roasting, it is different, it is a longer process and you can use larger pieces of vegetables; the heat is not that intense and will come from all around the food; not just an intense heat from the bottom.
The oven heat will take care of removing the humidity/moisture from the vegetables.
Oven roasting will also help creating different flavors in vegetables (browning) ; it will usually accentuate the sweetness of most vegetables.
2 different applications, 2 different end results.
Thank you for your answer, which is useful! I think what I understood is the following-- if you have bigger pieces, you can cook vegetables longer without them breaking down into mush. If you cook vegetables longer, you can get accentuate the sweetness of vegetables. On a pan, you can't cook bigger pieces because it will boil instead of frying. Honestly, I don't fully understand the last part, and why you can't cook on a pan at a low temperature for a longer time. Why should moisture behave differently in a pan and an oven if you maintain the same temperature?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.740611
| 2022-06-03T08:49:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120747",
"authors": [
"Altricono",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99453"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120794
|
Simple Vegan cookies recipe
I am trying to make a recipe with the following ingredients.
2 cups blanched almond flour (240 grams)
1/2 teaspoon baking soda (4 grams)
1/4 teaspoon sea salt (2 grams)
1/4 cup melted coconut oil (54 grams)
1/4 cup maple syrup (85 grams; at room temperature)
1 teaspoon vanilla extract (5 grams)
1 teaspoon apple cider vinegar (5 grams)
1/2 cup mini chocolate chips (88 grams)
Does any one see a problem with me switching the almond flour with regular all purpose flour?
If switching is okay, then how would the other quantities change.
Hi! Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Unfortunately recipe requests are considered off-topic / against the rules for this site, so your question will likely be closed. If you have an existing recipe and need help with substitutions, modifications, or "fixing" something that doesn't turn out, that is an acceptable variation that would be well received here.
Woops, sorry about that. Let me rephrase the question. TY
Are you trying to swap almond flour for wheat flour in a recipe written for wheat flour, or the other way around? Your wording is ambiguous.
@FuzzyChef I am trying to swap almond flour for wheat flour in a recipe written for Almond flour.
You cannot just swap almond flour for wheat flour and expect a recipe to work. The properties of the two flours are far too different. Likely the cookies would end up as hard rocks. You could play with butter content and several other things, but it doesn't seem worth the effort.
I strongly suggest starting with a recipe for regular wheat-flour cookies instead; there are many such vegan recipes.
I agree that it is not trivial to substitute one flour for another. But since AP flour will give some gluten development and is lower in fat, I doubt if the cookies will melt into a puddle any more with AP flour than almond flour.
It seems like you confused the question: OP has a recipe that uses almond flour, and wants to use AP flour instead.
That's absolutely not clear from the question; it could be read either way. The OP needs to clarify.
Either way, though, the swap is a bad idea.
@FuzzyChef I said "Does any one see a problem with me switching the almond flour with regular all purpose flour?:......I did make it absolutely clear that I have a recipe that uses almond flour and want to use AP flour instead.
Updated answer to take this into account.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.740794
| 2022-06-10T13:32:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120794",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Esther",
"FuzzyChef",
"Mark Wildon",
"Mars Sojourner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99536"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105301
|
Dragon Beard caramel too soft
I had a few attempts at making Dragon Beard candy, and I can't seem to get a handle on the consistency of the caramel.
Here's the recipe I use:
200g sugar
13g dextrose
1g lemon juice
130g water
- mix ingredients
- heat up to 135°C
- immediately remove from heat
- pour into silicone containers
- let cool until solid
Now from my understanding, there is quite a bit of chemistry involved, so the ingredients have to be measured precisely and the target temperature is very important, as it decides on the hardness of the caramel when solid. Too soft and the dragon beard will fall apart during pulling. Too hard and it will break.
I had a few previous attempts that turned out fine, so I thought I had the temperature figured out for this recipe, but recently another batch failed (too soft). I am using a digital thermometer, but it's a hand-held device, so I can't control precisely whether it touches the bottom of the pot or not, which might be a problem.
Also I wonder whether the time until the temperature reached is important. I am aware that the temperature plateaus for a time while the sugar does its transformation thing, and then starts to go up again, but I might be losing too much water during boiling if I wait too long.
There seem to be multiple factors that could potentially fail the process, so can anyone with experience on the matter help me out? Are there any tricks I may be missing?
The time to reach the given temperature is not particularly important. When making sugar candy like this, the target temperature determines the amount of water remaining in the mixture; as long as it gets to the target temperature, it doesn't matter what it did along the way. (With one exception: If you cooked it to too high a temperature, letting it cool back down won't bring the water back.)
It's probable that you're seeing the results of a temperature differential. I'm not sure what you mean by "it's a hand-held device, so I can't control precisely whether it touches the bottom of the pot or not" -- can't you just hold it so it doesn't? -- but if you were measuring the bottom of the pot rather than the syrup then the readings will be inaccurately high, and you're likely to get a result that's too soft.
EDIT: So, I should mention one aspect of time/temperature that might matter to some candy-making. If you were to heat a mixture of white sugar and water to 135 degrees extremely quickly, the mixture would be likely to crystallize rather than remaining as a syrup. Heating it slower would allow the sugar time to split into fructose and glucose (known as "invert sugar"), which would not crystallize. In this recipe, though, the lemon juice accelerates the inversion, and in any case the dextrose will prevent crystallization. So while there is a bit of chemistry going on, the precise measurements are not especially important and most of what's happening is just physics. (The temperature is very important.)
Thanks for the input! I can try to hold the thermometer so it doesn't touch the bottom of the pot, but even though I use a small pot, the amount of syrup does not leave a lot of wiggle room. In any case that would explain the result being to soft. I think I'll try to get a candy thermometer which has a spacer built into it to prevent precisely this problem. Thanks as well for all the details, which resolve a lot of factors that I thought could be part of the problem. I'll try this again and attempt to hit the temperature more precisely.
Personally, I much prefer a good digital thermometer (I use a Thermapen) to a candy thermometer. Remember, with a digital thermometer you don't need to be checking the temperature constantly, because readings settle quickly. Just take a look a few times a minute, each time holding it above the bottom. Tilting the pot will make the syrup deeper and help you position things.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.740984
| 2020-02-13T11:52:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105301",
"authors": [
"Cerno",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81104"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105643
|
When do you add bok choy when cooking stir fry
When do you add bok choy when cooking stir fry? Other ingredients are mushrooms, carrots, red peppers, broccoli, green onions. This is my first time cooking stir fry and I'm not sure of the order to add them.
Compared to what? In stir fry, the other ingredients are important so that one can serve a final dish with all of the components cooked correctly. So, we would need to know all of the ingredients to answer.
Leaves or stems? I cook the stems for a while. Leaves get done and limp in only a few minutes.
One thing to know about stir fry - it's all in the timing. This is dependant on several factors. Size of wok, amount of heat, size of ingredients.
The second thing to know is that if you get it a bit wrong the first time, it's easy to fix for the next time. It's a very short learning curve.
The hardest part about stir-fry isn't this part, it's bringing together all your components at the same time - noodles, dumplings etc, all of which take about the same time to cook as the stir-fry, so you've got three pans on the go at once.
You can cheat & just do rice, or supermarket fresh noodles which can go in the microwave ;)
If you have a wok big enough to toss everything round properly without it flying everywhere & if we're talking 'supermarket plastic box of pre-prepared stir-fry', it can all go in at once, so long as you've enough room to keep it moving.
If you prepped it yourself into 'prettier' proportions than supermarkets do, then I'd get carrot & broccoli in first, follow with mushrooms, pepper, green onions & the bok choi stems. Add the leaves last; one final stir & it's ready to go. Total cooking time should be how long it takes to soften the carrot & broccoli; the rest you don't really need to get much beyond 'hot'.
As Max says, the green ends of the leaves will sweat as they cook down - you can use this to your advantage if you are going to drop a sauce at the end, anything with cornflour in it that would benefit from a 2-minute simmer with the lid on. That 2 mins will be enough to finish the bok choi too, so it can go in simultaneously.
Bok choy should be the last ingredient you stir in; it is the ingredient that take the less time to cook.
but,
I would do it in two steps.
Stir fry the bok choy first, set aside and stir fry the other ingredients and add the bok choy back at the end to bring it back to heat.
The reason I would do it like that, is that bok choy will release lot of humidity when cooking, you do not want to start steaming ingredient.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.741392
| 2020-03-02T23:23:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105643",
"authors": [
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107113
|
Can tested yeast be used for anything?
I tested my yeast using the method explained on this video: https://youtu.be/p8ydC1Of_Zw (go to 2:05 min)
Here is the method in case you can't access the video:
1) dissolve 1 tbsp of sugar in half a cup of warm water
2) add 2 and 1/4 tsp of dry yeast and stir
3) wait 10 min
4) if foam rises to 1 cup mark yeast is good. Otherwise it's not.
It turned out to be good.
I don't like to waste food or ingredients, so I was wondering: can I now use that mixture instead of yeast in any recipe that requires yeast? Can I use it in place of a sourdough starter maybe?
If yes, how can I best store it to save it for future recipes?
Thanks
Can you add the method to your question? Links can die, or be restricted in some regions.
You can certainly use it immediately in the place of yeast in a recipe - you basically have done a pre-activation of the yeast. This is a common part of many recipes.
You should also be able to store it in the fridge for at least a few days and then add it to a bread recipe without any problems. Yeast are quite hardy and will survive fairly well over that time.
You could also dry it down in parts onto sheets of foil, wrap them up and use them to inoculate a new mixture, you can then expand this mixture to propagate them indefinitely - free yeast!
Yeast can most definitely be used if it's alive. Just be aware that you will need to keep feeding it or it will die. If you put it into the fridge that will slow down its metabolism. Yeast is all around us and you can make starter easily with no yeast simply by adding water to flour and waiting (yeast is already in the flour and in the air and crawling up your backside). The main thing to keep in mind is that if you're making something like bread that is pretty forgiving of amount of yeast used, you really just have to monitor the progress of the prove(s), so that's a great way to use your yeast. If you're making a recipe that's more exacting of amount used and is perhaps baked straightaway without proofing then you may want to add the amount stated in the recipe. Also, in your testing method you added sugar. Some of that sugar will still be in your solution and some will have been metabolized and converted to alcohol. Depending on your recipe and the amount you're making the added sugar could affect browning, texture, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.741643
| 2020-03-28T18:23:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107113",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107189
|
Low-calorie alternative to Lao Gan Ma spicy chili crisp?
I've become obsessed with Lao Gan Ma brand chili sauces. This "Old Godmother" brand sauce is apparently a phenomenon in China and feels like it's about to break out in the export market similar to the rise of Sriracha.
With its signature red label featuring an image of its unsmiling founder, each jar of Lao Gan Ma contains a mix of chili flakes and onions soaked in soybean oil and some combo of garlic, fermented cabbage, mushrooms and black beans, depending on the varietal.
Lao Gan Ma is less of a hot sauce, more of a slightly tingly umami flavor. Salty and savory. The large crisp chili flakes also provide a satisfying crunch.
I would put it on everything I eat. The only problem is that the first ingredient is Soybean Oil. A typical serving, in the way I want to eat it, will be hundreds of calories and many grams of fat.
By contrast, the Nutrition Facts of many other chili/hot sauces such Huy Fong Foods Sriracha and Chili Garlic Sauce are 0 calories, 0 fat.
Are there any condiments that give the tingly/salty/fermented/umami flavor of Lau Gan Ma but without the oil?
I'm not really sure how to answer this, but the yt channel Chinese cooking demystified has a recipe video for this stuff and they talk about the different flavor elements. https://youtu.be/nkTQTS2RSCU maybe it's helpful?
btw, zero calories zero fat is a get around the food laws. They're not really zero, they're <0.5g per whatever they consider to be a serving. Check the figures for 100g not per serving for something closer to the truth.
@Tetsujin fair enough, but there's still going to be a huge difference between chili oil and vinegar-based sauces. 60g of LGM is marked as 422 calories and 41g fat, vs. ~100k 1g fat for 100g of sriracha.
Also, soybean oil is a polyunsaturated fat. Not proven that it's "good" but certainly proven that it's not bad.
Fermented chopped chili (duojiao) or pickled pepper (pao jiao) would be a good alternative in terms of flavor: spicy, tingly, salty, umami. The two are prepared using a very similar recipe, with the former the Hunanese variant and the later the Szechuanese varient. The usage, however, is very different from that of Lao Gan Ma: Lao Gan Ma is usually added to stir fries, but pao jiao/duojiao require a longer cooking process (e.g., steaming, braising, stewing) for the flavor to be fully released.
Fermented chili/pickled pepper is extremely easy to make: the main ingredients are red chili peppers (perhaps chopped), some sugar, salt, garlic and ginger (and Szechuan peppercorns, if you are making the Szechuanese variant) to taste, and (imporatantly) rice wine. The umami flavor comes from the fermentation process, while the wine contributes to an esterification process that adds more flavor to the completed dish.
Thanks for these recomendations. I will look into finding and tasting some of this. Do you happen to know of any brands/types of condiments that can be added to any prepared food, rather than ingredients that really need to be cooked into the food itself? That's what makes LGM so great.
@pkamb Duojiao is actually already quite amazing as a condiment, just that cooking makes it even better. Pickled pepper is always an ingredient though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.741855
| 2020-03-31T20:56:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107189",
"authors": [
"Raydot",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83025",
"kitukwfyer",
"pkamb",
"xuq01"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125026
|
Black silicon spoon slotted paddle
I am looking for the pictured kitchen utensil. Black silicone slotted paddle or spatula. 11 Inches long overall. I have no name on handle other than "CHINA". Tried Google and Amazon.
This looks like a nylon spatula from the picture, not silicone, but I can't tell for sure without holding it in my hands. See How to distinguish between silicone and nylon spatula and judge their quality for hints how to distinguish them.
See Where can I find this exact spatula, with a short handle and asymmetric head?
@Joe it's literally the same image, looks like an exact duplicate
@Esther good point. And I think that it’s been asked other times, too. (A few people attempted to ask again on that other question)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.742114
| 2023-08-20T20:23:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125026",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125458
|
has microwave safe plastic plate gone bad
I used my microwave oven to reheat Vermicelli.
The plate was hot and the plate's centre side got bulged up a bit ( i mean noticeable level ), I never saw this before.
I used microwave safe plastic
I'm wondering the vermicelli heated up due to microwave cooking and because the vermicelli is hot and plate started heating up and the microwave safe plastic plate got bulged up a bit.
Plenty of times I've heard microwave-oven causing cancer. But I just want to be sure.
Should I ever reuse the plate ? or should I ever not reheat a vermicelli in a plastic plate ? or Can the above scenario is injurious to health.
Microwave oven was on for just one minute only
Update:
please find some of the other plastic based microwave safe products that I use below
FYI:
This is the microwave oven that I use
To get one thing out of the way, there is not a single case of a microwave-oven having caused cancer on its own. Ever. It's just not how microwaves work. At the frequency that the electromagnetic waves are emitted by the ovens, it's not possible for it to cause cancer even if the unit were defective and leaking. Furthermore, there are no lingering microwaves or radiation on the food (well, apart from what was already there) that could cause cancer because, again, that's just not how microwaves work.
This is a myth that has been perpetuated for decades that has no basis in reality (likely because some scientist made the mistake of saying it operated using "micro-wave radiation" in public during the time when everyone was paranoid of nuclear war). The worst thing that can happen is you can get a severe burn if you were directly exposed to the microwaves for too long (which you would definitely notice).
Now, as far as the plate is concerned, I'm assuming that this plate is one of these Signoraware plates on Amazon. The description says they are made of polypropylene (confirmed by the recycling ID code 5 on the plate), which is said to be microwave-safe at temperatures up to 250 °C before warping. It's possible that the steam formed from surface water trapped under the vermicelli in contact with the plate super-heated to those temperatures which caused the warping.
From this point, I'm going to separate my answer into the objective and subjective sections as I'm having troubles finding any definitive answer one way or the other:
Objectively, there is likely nothing wrong with the plate - it's just a bit disfigured. The only real danger is that, if it continues to warp multiple times, it can become brittle leading to surface cracks and, ultimately, breakage. But for the time being, as long as the warping doesn't bother you too much, you can just keep using the plate as normal. In the future you should create a well in the center of the food you are reheating so as to limit how much heat can build up in one place, and that should help keep this from happening again.
Subjectively (and take this with a grain of salt because, again, I cannot find a definitive answer on this from a reputable source), I would throw it out. When plastic warps, it's often a sign that it has begun to break down, and from that point on it can leech into whatever food it comes in contact with. I have no idea if polypropylene follows this trend and to what degree, but a recent study has found that it has a tendency to leech microplastics into warm/hot beverages, so I imagine the problem is exacerbated when the polypropylene has been heated to the point that it has begun warping. I'm not sure I would trust the plate any more than I would trust a Teflon non-stick pan that's been destroyed by the frequent use of metal utensils over time.
I'd be more concerned that the plate would warp further and even crack, making a mess.
@FuzzyChef That's also a distinct possibility, though I would think that the plate would get visible surface cracks long before it actually snaps in two, which would be a clear indication that it's time to stop using it. YMMV, though.
@Abion47 - Thanks for the answer, It helps. One thing what material should we use for reheating ? when it comes to plate , So far whatever Items I buy , I check and see if it's microwave safe then I buy. I'm not seeing any guidelines on how to use it.. less there should be less water or something like that
@Abion47 - I have updated my question with some of the other microwave safe products based on plastic. Could you help me understand the healthy way to use these products inside microwave oven.
@Vivo I'm hardly an expert on the matter (as evidenced by my disclaimer in my answer), so I can only make educated guesses. I'd wager that anything made out of glass or ceramic (assuming stable dyes/enamels were used) would be fine to use in the microwave since it would take temperatures far hotter than a microwave was capable of putting out before they started to break down. And in the unlikely event that trace amounts do get in your food, they are basically harmless. (Trace amounts of glass not to be confused with shards of glass, mind you. I'm talking about microscopic amounts.)
Thanks , that's helpful
Now there's evidence that microwaving food in plastic containers releases quite some microplastics into the food https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c01942
@FuzzyChef with some plastics, cracking is quite likely after deformation, but PP isn't that brittle at or above room temperature. It does become brittle in a freezer, so reusing thin PP takeaway containers for freezing leftovers eventually breaks them
@Abion47 Ceramics in the microwave are a complicated topic (I'm a potter). TL;DR is that some are OK and some aren't.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.742218
| 2023-10-05T13:32:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125458",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Luciano",
"Vivo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125541
|
Food tracking and nutrient differences in "as packaged" vs "as prepared" meal kits
Quick Summary
I'm logging what I eat and gamifying it to some degree.
Why do carbs and protein in "as prepared" meal kits consistently get reduced from "as packaged" in the nutritional information?
Which should I log for consistency?
Background
For health reasons I am now tracking calories, macronutrients, and micronutrients in the food I eat. Generally speaking I make a "recipe" in my app and put in the raw ingredients to calculate all of these. I am not holding too strictly to reported calories because I always try to give myself a buffer. But macronutrients are important for me and it's a bit harder to buffer those. I hate seeing my "budget" go in the red on those so I treat it like a game of sorts.
After a couple of months of doing this, for inspiration, I have subscribed to a meal kit service that provides the ingredients, recipe, and full nutritional information. What is confusing/interesting is that the micro- and macro-nutrient information is provided both for the raw/packaged ("as packaged") ingredients and the final result ("as prepared").
In some cases it's pretty obvious why there is a difference - we supply our own olive oil, salt, etc. so fat and sodium are normally higher. But in almost every recipe, the carbohydrate and/or protein numbers for "as prepared" are reduced from "as packaged" even when the recipe does not call for trimming any proteins or discarding significant amounts of carbohydrates.
Examples
A fish and pasta recipe has carbs go from 59 to 57g
A Mediterranean bean recipe goes from 84g carbs to 82, and 35g protein to 34
A beef and rice bowl recipe goes from 74g carbs to 72 and 53g protein to 52
The bean recipe does have you wash the beans. There's no trimming of meat or anything obviously reducing the protein content in the beef and rice bowl.
Questions
What might be going on?
Which one is more consistent/accurate for food logging purposes? It's double-edged because I am trying to eat more protein and fewer carbs, so a reduction in both will affect my numbers in a good way (carbs) and bad way (protein). Per the third link below, it's probably looking for too much precision, but I still have to pick one to log and one some days it will affect whether I reach my goals.
Related Questions I've Reviewed
nutrition facts: what does "as packaged" mean? - does not seem like it's describing exactly what's happening here?
How to calculate the calorie content of cooked food? - not as concerned about calories
Recipes - Adding up calories and nutritional info? - this describes what I do for "normal" recipes (log the raw ingredients) but I'm curious/unsure about it with the meal kits
Edit: What the company says
I asked the meal kit company for an explanation. They did not address protein but had this to say:
The total amount of carbohydrates as packaged may be higher than the total amount of carbohydrates as prepared. The carbohydrates are reduced when the meal is prepared due to trimming of produce to yield only the edible portion.
The total caloric values listed ‘as prepared’ reflect nutrition information for the meal, including ingredients intended to be added during cooking (e.g., calories, fat and sodium from added salt and oil used), as well as any fats that may naturally cook off during the cooking process. ‘As packaged’ reflects only the caloric value of the ingredients that are packed in the box and the resulting ‘as prepared’ values may be higher or lower to reflect changes and additions during the cooking process.
In general, when food has been cooked, the nutrient values may change. Our ‘As Prepared’ nutrition data takes that into account.
I am not sure the carb answer is reasonable. One recipe has no cutting or prep of produce, one involves only removing the very tip of zucchini, and one involves removing just the bottom root of bok choy.
Isn't this something you should ask your meal kit service? It's their description, after all.
@Sneftel Good question! I asked and have been awaiting a reply from their culinary team. I figured that "As packaged" and "as prepared" are FDA standard terms and there might be some explanation that applies more generally.
I think the answer from the first linked question is relevant here. The meal kit service is likely taking into account nutrient degradation from long term storage and/or the cooking process. Ultimately, though, the exact answer will have to come from them, as we wouldn't be able to do much more than speculate. As far as your second question, though, I'd say to use the "as prepared" numbers since that presumably reflects the food when its in the state where you're actually eating it.
I think it's worth saying that the differences you're describing – while certainly a puzzle you're entitled to be intrigued by – are extremely small (2.8% in the biggest case), and are certainly dwarfed by the differences between any natural products anyway.
But my assumption is just that they compiled their 'as packaged' data from one information source and their 'as prepared' data separately, rather than trying to calculate one from the other. And difference sources will differ because, again, these are natural products.
@dbmag9's right, I'm sure. Imagine you were just frying 100g of onion. There will be measured data for the nutrients in 100g of raw onion, and in the same amount of onion after frying. But the measurements will necessarily have been taken on different samples, even if on the same day in the same lab, as the food is destroyed in the calorie-measuring process. This same natural variability means that going to more than 2 significant figures is bound to be excessive.
Wouldn’t the variability be in both directions (sometimes more carbs/protein, sometimes less) if it’s just due to natural variance in the ingredients between the two samples, and not reliably fewer carbs and protein?
@stevev you've given examples that go down, but it's not clear that that's always the case, given the rest of the question. There's another possibility: that they're assuming all ingredients (in particular categories) get trimmed by some percentage, even if that's not always true. But are you weighing every ingredient yourself? Because the portions supplied won't be accurate to the gram anyway
I looked at 12 recipes and all either had the same number or reduced number for as prepared in the carbs and protein category. It’s usually reduced but not always. I agree I’m not going to get a truly accurate number and that it’s really about macronutrients and calories over time. I do think this is weird though. I usually log the as prepared numbers for reasons echoed in comments.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.742666
| 2023-10-13T15:07:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125541",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"Chris H",
"Sneftel",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613",
"steve v"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128506
|
Can you cook tomatoes in water without leaking/bursting them?
I want to fully cook tomatoes to their center without causing the internal gel or seeds to be leaked.
I have noticed that if you try to cook a tomato to its center by grilling you will burn the outside first, so it won’t be well done. Frying will cause it to leak/burst, releasing the gel.
Provided you cut the tomatoes up into slices and use the oven or microwave this seems to be the best option with dry heat methods.
My question is regarding wet heat methods(steaming/boiling). Can you get the tomato to be fully cooked or cooked well, like sliced tomatoes in the oven/microwave, without releasing the gel or seeds?
I would imagine no, since if you put them on as slices, the steam/boiling water would cause the gel to leak out, and if you steam or boil them whole, by the time the center is cooked they would already have burst or leaked the gel.
Would I be correct, or is there a way to ensure you get well done tomatoes while preventing the gel from leaking out/off from the tomato using wet methods? Am I right in thinking that slicing, then oven or microwave is the best for dry heat, although in the case of microwave I notice it can leak gel more easily.
Thanks.
Anything that brings the internal temperature to 100°C will cause steam, which in turn will cause the skin to break.
You could try to simmer it for longer if you can control the water temperature, it doesn't need to get to 100ºC to fully cook it if you leave it long enough.
That said, I'd suggest (if you can) to sous vide the tomatoes at around 131°F (55°C). I just found this guide / recipe and that's what they do there. They are using cherry tomatoes in the recipe, so if you plan to use larger tomatoes you will have to test increasing the time so the center of the tomato gets to the cooking temperature.
This other link suggests 150°F (65.5°C) for tomato sauce, so you could try that temperature as well if you want a softer texture (in the recipe they blend the tomatoes first then cook the resulting sauce).
Sous vide is gentle enough, there's not much agitation and the temperatures are quite low so the tomatoes might not burst.
FWIW some InstantPots have some measure of sous-vide capability.
I can think of preventing bursting in two ways:
start the tomato in lukewarm water, not boiling. That way the inside can come up to temperature with the surrounding water.
Puncture the tomato with a small paring knife, or remove a small part around the top middle where it attaches to the stem.
Note that some recipes that call for peeled tomatoes use boiling - technically blanching - to remove the skin from the inside of the tomato, so boiling it might cause the skin to easily detach from your tomato.
I do think experimenting with single tomatoes is not prohibitively expensive though, so you might as well try.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.743159
| 2024-06-07T09:07:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128506",
"authors": [
"Cris Luengo",
"Italian Philosopher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73999"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56004
|
How do I cook these two items in the oven at the same time?
If I need to cook salmon in the oven at 375° for 15 to 20 minutes and crab cakes at 400° for 20 to 25 minutes, what do I do?
Can you tell us what you're cooking? You definitely have some latitude to overlap two items at the same time, but what they are will help dictate how you do it.
Do you have a regular or convection oven?
Set shelves high and low.
Preheat to 400.
Put in the crab cakes for 5 minutes on top
Turn down to 387.5 ;-)
Put salmon in on lower shelf.
Check in 15 minutes.
Most ovens are not all that precise, really, and most recipes allow for that (your 5 minutes of variance on each item.) The top of the oven tends to be hotter than the bottom, so this works that by putting the cooler item lower.
For more drastically different items, you cook one, wrap it up, set it aside to hold, cook the other. You might undercook the first a touch before holding it and put in back in the oven briefly before serving, you might not, depending what it is and how much "hot out of the oven" is an important part of serving it well.
And in some cases, large chunks of meat should be rested after baking, which gives you a chance to finish baking things that need to be cooked higher or put under a broiler.
Heck, I'd just leave it at 400; the typical variation in oven temperatures would render such a small difference moot. Gets my +1 for general tips.
I agree with @logophobe I would place the salmon in the oven 5 to 10 minutes after the crab cakes, but I would wrap the salmon in a tin foil "boat" still exposing the top of the salmon creating a vent, allowing the steam to escape.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.743452
| 2015-03-23T22:05:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56004",
"authors": [
"Akshay Kunkolienkar",
"Catija",
"Chef_Code",
"Claire Babbage",
"Dereck Babcock",
"Gayle Watson",
"Jason Schock",
"Joe",
"RAY FURZE",
"Sharon Harmon",
"carl simons",
"david palus sr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jessica singleton",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61555
|
When spicing rice, should you add the spices in the water beforehand or after the rice has cooked?
Newbie cook here. I use a small inexpensive rice cooker to cook my rice.
Are you supposed to add your various spices to the water when you put the rice in the pot? Or should you add the spices in at the end when the rice is fully cooked and stir them in?
Does it matter what kinds of spices you are using?
Edit: Please explain why. Is this only for aesthetics or does it actually affect taste?
I can only answer from a perspective of the Indonesian kitchen, and my own personal experience, but in general the answer is:
In the water, with the rice
I quite often use saffron, turmeric, cloves, daun salam (The English Wiki entry links to bay leaf, which, completely, utterly, is not the same thing), and lemongrass, and they all go in while cooking the rice.
Possible exceptions would be green leafy herbs, (coriander / cilantro for instance), which you put in the end. Not so much to flavor the rice, but more to "scent" the bowl of rice.
[Edit]
In answer to your edit:
There is no preferred way. The preferred way depends on the herb, as observed by thrig in his/her answer. Going by experience, and the herbs I use myself, the answer is in the water with the rice. Putting a bay leaf in after the fact, is not going to do much for a dish. Putting it in while cooking the dish is. This goes for a lot of herbs: Turmeric, ginger and laos (galangal?) can flavor rice, but not if you put it in the end. On the other hand: Putting cilantro while cooking the rice will just destroy the cilantro, and leave nothing to show for it. I lack the knowledge of what is water-soluble, and what is fat-soluble, but as a general guideline I use my highly personal "is-this-going-to-survive-the-15-to-20-minute-cooking-process-or-not?" guideline, and the even more personal "did-it-work?" guideline.
In addition, and perhaps also supporting thrig's answer, Indonesians are not shy of cooking their rice in santen (again: English wiki does not do justice, creamed coconut is not quite the same), adding a mildy greasy layer to the grains, aiding in flavor absorption, although I have to say it's not a common practice, but more often used for festive occasions.
Your answer already answered most of it :).
@Willem van Rumpt -- A few weeks ago, I put cilantro in the water before cooking, and it turned out awful. It tasted funny, and turned mushy, to a dark green color. Learned that one the hard way.
I think a good rule of thumb is whether or not the spice is dried. For example, dried Rosemary will soften to the texture of the rice if cooked in the water with the rice, but will be crunchy if added after. However, fresh Rosemary can be stirred in after to add flavor.
Welcome to the site. I've edited your answer to keep the good advice about dried vs. fresh spices, but the rest doesn't really work as part of an answer to the original question. Have you taken our site [tour] yet? It has helpful information about how the collaborative Q&A format in StackExchange sites works.
Probably depends on whether the spices are water-soluble or fat-soluble; if fat-soluble, and the rice is being cooked without fats, then there's probably little point in adding them to the rice cooker.
"On Food and Cooking" (McGee) has notes on the spices, what chemicals they contain, and more (see: chapter 8). Notably, "oils and fats dissolve more aroma molecules than water during cooking, but also hang on to them during eating, so that their flavor appears more gradually and persists longer." (p.399) Alcohol is also efficient, but has an evaporation problem (and sometimes cultural issues, see e.g. the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution). Another method besides the already mentioned steaming or frying in oil is to dry roast whole spices (e.g. mustard), which should mellow their effect (and, bonus: no oily pan to wash).
For fat-soluble, you often cook them in a bit of oil then put the oil and spices together into the rice.
@thrig -- Like Willem van Rumpt wrote in his answer, I do not know which spices are water-soluble and which are fat-soluble. Do you have a ground rule for the distinction?
Not without nosing through McGee...
For a rice cooker of average size, add cumin seeds (1 tea spoon), cloves (4-5), mace (1 piece), cardamom (1-2 pods) and a pinch of salt at the beginning of cooking to get fragrant rice (e.g. for biryani). Add finely chopped mint and coriander leaves after cooking to get the best results. This is a fail-proof recipe to make Indian rice. As you are using rice cooker it will always come out well.
Quantities and timings of adding ingredients DO matter. For example, cumin et al will give out essential oils in the water bath when boiled throughout. Mint and coriander will add nice green colour and fragrance when added just before serving (but will turn black and the fragrance will be lost if added any earlier).
Enjoy :).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.743759
| 2015-09-07T14:38:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61555",
"authors": [
"Carol Wolf",
"Dries Burume",
"Erica",
"Gail Melanson",
"Jen Zauner",
"Kyle",
"Markus Matthews",
"Megan Owen",
"Melissa Allen",
"NadjaCS",
"Shawn Sipman",
"Terhi s",
"banavalikar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39136",
"michele dyson",
"sharon godwin",
"thrig"
],
"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
}
|
83559
|
Overnight storing of raw fish
I discovered that I love raw fish. I'm planning to buy a sushi-grade fish to make myself a sashimi or poke but I wonder if there is method of bringing it for lunch to work after preparing it day before.
Is it possible to store a prepared raw fish (poke/sushi) in fridge/freezer overnight or is this a safety hazard and it needs to be eaten soon after preparation which includes thawing.
EDIT I mean fridge at home then at work. I live 5-10 minutes from work so if isolated it should not change temperature significantly, I think.
Grocery store sell it in a refrigerated case.
You're never going to remove all of the risk, but the standard recommendation for keeping raw fish for a day is placed on crushed ice, and kept in a fridge.
As the ice will melt, you also need to make sure that the fish won't end up sitting in water. So, what you want to do:
Find two identical plastic containers that when stacked together have a bit of a gap between them, and are tall enough to fit an inch or two of crushed ice, plus the fish, without it coming into contact with the lid.
Punch holes in the bottom of one of the containers, and set it in the other one.
Fill the perforated container with crushed ice, and then place the fish on top of it.
Drain the water and replace the ice in the morning, then place in an insulated container for transport.
Place the container in the fridge when you get to work.
For Poke, I'd place it into a sealable plastic container that would loosely fit into another sealable container, so that you can pack crushed ice between the two. Ideally, I'd look for an insulated tiffan-like container (wide mouth thermos, sometimes sold as a 'bento jar'), and then:
Put into a suitable small sealable container, pack in crushed ice, and place in the fridge. Pack the outer transport container with crushed ice, and place in the fridge with the lid off ... or place in the freezer with the lid off. (we want to chill down the inner surface).
In the morning, pack the outer container with fresh crushed ice, and set the poke container in it, and pack with additional crushed ice. Seal, and place into an insulated container for transport to work.
Once at work, move the containers (so you still have crushed ice around the inner container) into the fridge.
You might want to look for poke recipes that are especially salty, as it will act as a preservative. If there's any acid in it, you may want to wait to add it just before eating, so you don't end up with ceviche.
Keeping it in a regular refrigerator should suffice for most situations even for a couple of days, but for longer periods freezing is probably recommended.
As for transportation to your workplace I'd recommend a thermal bag, or insulated bag, or any type of insulated plastic box or container should do the trick well.
Your first sentence goes against standard food safety rules: The fish might not spoil overnight, but it is certainly no longer safe. Please see our canonical post for details. We have the rule that we only recommend in accordance with established safety rules. Everything beyond that happens at the reader's own risk.
For the reasons behind that policy, see this Meta post.
Thanks for pointing it out, wasn't aware of those. Rephrased the answer, do you feel it is acceptable now, or should the first sentence be removed entirely?
Room temperature for > 4 hours = no longer safe. Please only recommend what is considered safe. For the difference, you might also want to read this Q/A, it is about cooked food, but the same principles apply for raw protein.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.744475
| 2017-08-07T17:46:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83559",
"authors": [
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112532
|
What are those spices?
I was organizing and labeling my spices cabinet when I run into those two spices that I cannot recognize. I'm assuming one of them is fenugreek. I'm quite sure I bought them when I had 'Indian cuisine' phase.
Cropped & sharpened
Original - click for full size.
The left item seems looks and feels like a chopped peanuts or bark. However it has a onion-like/garlic-like smell with some earth or bark component.
Why not taste them?
@Sneftel because I haven't used them in long time so I don't know how to recognize them by taste?
Rather than taste (many spices don't taste how good expect in isolation), better to crush and smell them. Apart from taking a picture that's in focus, a ruler to give an idea of scale would make a big difference
Could you post another photo? A clearer image and placing a pen near the spices will give us an idea of the size of it.
@ChrisH I could not recognize them by smell either (kind of like bark, earthy something).
Can you tell anything else about the item on the left? Is it oily, like a chopped nut, or more leathery like a dried fruit? If all else fails, you can try grinding some up to smell it, or even taking that ground up powder and putting it in some water or milk to try tasting it.
Agree that stuff on the right is fenugreek.
The stuff on the left is asafoetida.
source
Asafoetida is a resin and is sometimes sold in chips as depicted. It smells strongly like onions or garlic which would not be true for any nut.
Damn, should have thought of asafoetida, that could well be it.
It is quite hard to tell as the photo is blurry. The one on the right could well be fenugreek, it should be a blocky irregular shape with a division on it somewhere.
Edit: with the sharpened photos:
It looks like a nut of some sort, possibly peanut because of the presence of what looks like a plumule (see 5th figure down page) in the flake at the bottom middle.
I can't make out the one on the left, but it might be coconut flakes or possibly something like liqorice powder or even garlic flakes.
I think you're right on fenugreek, even though it's darker than I usually see. I think on the left could be just about any crushed nut.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.744787
| 2020-11-08T07:09:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112532",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Maja Piechotka",
"Nav",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102328
|
Can I separate garlic into cloves for storage?
I bought jar for garlic but it can store only two bulbs with most place being wasted. Can I separate bulb into cloves and store them? Or will it significantly shorten the lifespan of garlic?
EDIT To clarify - this is jar made out of ceramic with holes in the bottom for ventilation.
Alternative suggestion: get rid of the jar. Garlic bulbs come with their own packaging.
Can you provide a picture of the jar? I suspect most people are assuming glass, but I've seen stoneware vessels sold for garlic storage (which helps to regulate the moisture issues they're worried about).
@Joe It's ceramic with holes for ventilation. Supposedly it's for garlic/ginger/shallots.
Traditionally (at least in Spain) garlic was kept in a braided string, hung in a dry place, so that they could last until the following season.
Separating them in cloves will cause them to dry prematurely.
My mom and granma has always kept them separated (but with the skin) in a sealed, opaque jar, usually multiple heads of them at once (3-4), and never had problems. Both in Spain, BTW.
@Darkhogg braided garlic (ajos en ristra) last from one year to the other if placed in a dry place. Whole heads or individual cloves don't last so long. Anyway, a dry place is a must to store garlic and avoid spoilage.
Most advice I see is to keep the head whole, keep it in the dark, and avoid moisture. This will allow you to keep garlic for several months.
In my kitchen, I go through several heads of garlic over the course of just one month, so long term storage is not really that critical for me. I suspect, technically, you would shorten the life span a bit. Whether or not that matters depends entirely on how quickly you work your way through your garlic stash. I would say you have little to lose.
Break them apart (keep the skin on the individual cloves intact), and try it for a few weeks (though, this seems like extra work to me). If it turns out you use them too slowly, purchase less garlic and keep it whole. Alternately, store the rest of your whole garlic in a dark, cool, cabinet.
If you live in a place with winter, the heads will dry out substantially over a couple months of zero humidity, if you just leave them sitting.
You can separate them and cut off the end and freeze them. We do this all the time. I use a garlic press to use them when needed even while it's frozen. They seem to last forever.
As I read it, the OP wants to separate the head into cloves, but leave the skins on the cloves, and store them in his garlic jar.
@moscafj That's how I read the question, too, but I don't see anything wrong with suggesting alternative ways of achieving essentially the same thing. (And, interpreted literally, the question is just asking if it's possible to store individual cloves of garlic, and Cece has certainly answered that.)
@DavidRicherby it's one thing to add an alternative once one has directly answered the question, but if every question were answered with alternatives only, things could get a bit messy. Alternately, one could do as FuzzyChef did above in a comment...but that is just my opinion...cheers!
@moscafj You'd already directly answered the question. There's no point duplicating that.
@DavidRicherby...again, my opinion, but in that case the alternative could be tacked on to the correct (or most direct) answer as a comment.
Doesn’t this make your whole freezer smell of garlic? I’ve found that strong smells can even penetrate plastic containers.
@Michael I've kept peeled cloves in freezer for several months with no bad effect on freezer odor. The cloves are a bit mushy when thawed, but perfectly usable. Chopped cloves are may be a different matter, but a couple gallons of frozen pesto cubes does not wreck my freezer either.
@moscafj No, because comments are for requesting clarifications and suggesting improvements. This isn't doing either of those things; it's suggesting a solution to the underlying problem that the asker has. That makes it an answer. And I note that what is currently the highest-scoring answer also only suggests an alternative method.
Breaking them apart to put in a jar - I see several issues.
You will almost certainly break through the skin on a good percentage of them as you separate them into individual cloves, meaning they will have lost their protective layer.
Unless the jar has some kind of desiccant, there is potential for the garlic to sweat & go off rapidly. The air inside the jar, if anywhere near a source of sunlight, will also be warner than its surroundings, accelerating this still further.
They will all be touching, meaning if one goes bad, the rest will follow in short order.
There is often good, tried & tested sense in traditional storage methods.
The Spanish tradition of weaving them into plaits* is more than decorative - not only does it allow air to circulate to keep the bulbs dry, it also keeps them physically separated in case one goes bad - it's not going to directly contaminate its neighbours.
*My British father used to do exactly the same with brown onions, so they would last until next year hanging in an outhouse. I doubt he ever saw a garlic bulb in his life.
It should be fine if you keep the individual clove skins on, the way I see it the outer skin doesn't really add that much extra protection compared to just the inner skin as long as it is not for very long periods.
The bigger risk would be drying out, and it will dry out faster, but the inner skin should suffice as protection almost as effectively as the whole head, so for short periods it should not be very significant.
In my kitchen we even peal individual cloves ahead of time and keep them ready for use in a small jar in the refrigerator. These keep well for a few weeks at a time.
There may be slight loss of taste over long periods, but I have never seen any go bad.
An unglazed ceramic vessel should help to regulate the moisture issues that many of the others have mentioned (which would be true in a glass jar).
Glass jars are also problematic as they act as small greenhouses, with the light warming the jar which can cause it to spoil faster.
I would recommend that you fit what garlic you can into the container as whole bulbs/heads, then add your remaining garlic broken up into smaller bits (unpeeled cloves or clumps of cloves). As you use the garlic, use the fragments first, then break into the whole bulbs.
But the more important thing is to only buy as much garlic as you're going to use in a reasonable amount of time. If you're not using up your garlic within a month or so, you should probably be buying less garlic each time.
The whole/fragmented method should allow you to tell your older garlic from more a more recent shopping trip -- empty the jar, put the new garlic in as whole bulbs, then break the older garlic apart and fill the jar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.745020
| 2019-09-15T20:31:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102328",
"authors": [
"Darkhogg",
"David Richerby",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Maja Piechotka",
"Michael",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"moscafj",
"roetnig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17351
|
How long will previously-frozen vacuum-packed chicken last in the fridge?
A similar question about fish was all I found, but fish is not chicken and they have different considerations.
I buy chicken from Whole Foods that comes already sealed, and is labeled as "Air Chilled". It is not frozen when I buy it, although I am not sure if it has ever been frozen and thawed before.
My question is how long will this last in the fridge? I buy them in large quantities and freeze them to be eaten over the course of a couple weeks, occasionally I will thaw one (still sealed) and not eat it for a couple days. Is this safe?
My answer to the other question still applies: vacuum packing will not prevent most foodborne pathogens from multiplying. In the case of chicken, it will stop campylobacter (which needs small amounts of oxygen) but will not stop salmonella or listeria.
Here's how you can determine if thawed, previously frozen chicken is still safe to eat:
When freezing, marking the freezing date on masking tape and stick it on the package
When thawing, mark the thawing date similarly
To determine if it's still good: subtract the freezing date from the original expiration date, and see if it's been that many days since you thawed it
This method works because spoilage is halted by freezing... but not reversed. Once you thaw, the process picks back up where it left off. A few days in the fridge after thawing should be fine, assuming you don't wait until right before expiration to freeze the chicken.
How about '21 days' for vacuum packed foods, or does that only apply to cooked foods?
@BaffledCook: Where are you drawing the "21 days" figure from? I could see it applied to cooked foods which are almost immediately sealed and fast-chilled. It would make sense, as the food has spoilage microorganisms killed by heat, and without exposure to air, they can't repopulate. Fast cooling can greatly extend fridge life of foods, and a hermetically sealed pack can be fully submerged in ice water for maximum cooling.
Must have been a sales talk :) and here
@BaffledCook: My guess was almost spot on. 21 days makes perfect sense, based on your link; you're talking about sous-vide cooking food, followed by "rapid cooling" (probably an ice water bath). It's like canning or pasteurization, where bacteria are killed by heat, and not allowed to re-contaminate the food.
I posted this link on a different post previously and it should give you some ideas.
Safe Thawing
FSIS recommends three ways to thaw chicken: in the refrigerator, in cold water and in the microwave. Never thaw chicken on the counter or in other locations. It's best to plan ahead for slow, safe thawing in the refrigerator. Boneless chicken breasts, bone-in parts, and whole chickens may take 1 to 2 days or longer to thaw. Once the raw chicken thaws, it can be kept in the refrigerator an additional day or two before cooking. During this time, if chicken thawed in the refrigerator is not used, it can safely be refrozen without cooking it first.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/Chicken_from_Farm_To_Table/index.asp#13
More reference.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/Chicken_from_Farm_To_Table/index.asp#26
If you do this regularly it seems you ought to know by now. Does it smell funky, get slimy? There are a number of factors at play that no date will tell you.
Was the meat contaminated with salmonella previous to packing? If yes, then zero days is the answer.
Was it frozen, thawed, refrozen? It'll have bad texture, would add more unthawed time to it, wouldn't last as long.
Vacuum sealed in a brine? Is there some clear liquid around it? Then it'll last longer as that usually means a preservative was added.
This question comes up all the time about different meats. It'll vary, often with the same brand it'll be different. But you, as a human, were built with senses to detect spoiled meat. Smell it, feel it. If still in doubt cut off and cook a small piece and taste it, if bad spit it out. Otherwise, there is no magic date, no exact number of days that anyone can tell you absolutely one day or five. Longer if marinated or brined. Only once in ten years has some chicken smelled and felt fine, I made the dish, tasted it and threw it out because it was spoiled. Seeded vegetables are much much more likely to carry salmonella and I don't see many questions about how long people can keep a tomato or cucumber.
Smell and taste are absolutely not reliable ways to tell if something is dangerous. Certainly if it smells or tastes bad, you shouldn't be eating it, but bacteria doesn't always make bad smells or tastes before it makes the food dangerous. Most people who get food poisoning haven't eaten anything obviously bad.
Jefromi I see your point but those food poisoning cases are almost entirely from prepared meals whether from restaurant or canned food. Not single ingredients and mostly not from meat. I looked through FDA and CDC records to verify that before posting. I didn't say if "food" smells okay it's completely safe, I was referring to a piece of raw chicken.
But I think we can agree, as was most of the point, that if it does smell bad it's probably bad. Also that there are no guarantees. And that we do have senses to detect spoilage but not all contaminants. Time itself is not the answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.745592
| 2011-08-31T04:41:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17351",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Belczyk",
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"Hebekiah",
"Miss.Mme",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24222
|
Can I add extra eggs instead of xanthan gum?
I want to convert my grandmothers pie crust recipe.
The whole recipe is:
3 cups flour
1/2 tsp salt
3/2 cups Crisco (butter flavor)
1 egg
1 tsp vinegar
5 Tbsp cold water
Mix flour, salt and Crisco till pea size pieces. Beat the egg, add the vinegar and the cold water to it. Add liquids to the flour mix & blend, handling it as little as possible. Refrigerate for several hours.
I want to use coconut flour instead of regular flour.
Can I add extra eggs instead of xanthan gum?
Please list the recipe here, it is very hard to know it like that. In most cases, no, but maybe you can just tweak it for a pie crust.
3 cups flour, 1/2 tsp salt, 1&1/2 cups Crisco (butter flavor). Mix to pea size mix. Beat 1 egg, add 1tsp vinegar, 5 TBS cold water. add liquids to flour mix & blend, handling as little as possible then refrigerate for several hours
Where is the xanthan gum in that recipe?
The recipe does not call for xanthan gum.. That isthe recipe I wish to convert using coconut flour
That is the original recipe that I wish to convert using coconut flour.
Are you trying to make a flaky crust? If yes, you can't make it withoug normal flour, because you need gluten. If shortbread, the coconut flour might work, but I don't see what you would need eggs for.
If you want a flaky crust: No, you can't. A flaky crust is made from small pieces of gluten sheets formed when part of the dough reacts with the water, separated by melted fat blobs. The idea of making a crust with coconut flour instead of normal flour is already risky: it will give you some kind of crust, but nowhere as good as a normal flour crust. Maybe it is worth doing it in the case of food allergies, but not just for the flavor.
Provided that you want to make a flaky crust, you need the non-fat dough part to stick together well in sheets, and the fat dough part to form an uniform soft paste. If you use coconut flour, you need a protein to make the non-fat dough part stick together. As the wheat flour is missing, you can't use gluten. The only substitute I know of which indeed does make something sheet-like is xanthan (also, it does bind, but not as well as proteins do). Other proteins, like the ones in egg whites, will indeed bind your coconut flour, but the amount needed will be so high you will have dominant egg whites creating tough, leathery "layers", not crispy at all, and tasting very much of eggwhite. And I say "layers", but they won't be layers the way you would get them with flour, it is more likely to disperse with the fat part in irregular shapes, not flakes. This is if you only use egg whites; yolk will make the matter worse here.
The fat part of the dough will be even worse. The coconut flour won't absorb the fat, building a smooth paste. It will mix with the fat, but will stay in its way when it melts, preventing it from creating the very thin pockets needed for flaky crust.
Conclusion: I doubt that you can make any kind of flaky crust without flour. Xanthan may give you a not-so-good approximation; just eggs will give you nothing.
If you want a shortbread crust, you are better off. You don't need the gluten structure in the water part and the smooth starch of the fat part. There are lots of shortbread recipes which include substantial amounts of nut flours for flavor, although they tend to stop at 1:1 nut flour to wheat flour at most. I guess that you can go with nut flour all the way if you must, but then expect a crust even more crumbly than usual. Xanthan is a good ingredient to hold it together in this case, although it won't give the texture of a wheat crust. Additional eggs will work too (slightly beaten, but not whipped), but they will make it less of a crust, they will wet it a lot and push it in the direction of batter. Try using whites only, and drop the water altogether. For better, more tender texture, add starch, for example corn starch. And because you are already moving into batter direction, you are risking a dense, soggy crust. Add just a little big of baking powder to prevent it (not the same amount as for cake, maybe 1/4 of it), this will make it a bit more bisquit-like.
Thanks so much. I appreCiate the details you went into for each alternative. I will keep looking for good alternatives, but will probably stick with the regular pie crust for now.
you can certain convert the recipe uscing coconut flour, but remember that the coconut flour is "wetter" the the other, so you can use coconut flour but perhaps you should add less butter, or less water... and why vinegar? i have never known that we can use vinegar in dessert recipes..
sorry for bad english, but i'm italian!
I disagree that coconut flour is "wetter".
coconut flour is not really a flour, it's coconut flesh in small pieces..
I have to disagree because last time I used it I was making granola bars and they just fell apart. when I usually make them they stick together really well and the only thing I changed was using coconut flour instead of regular flour
I don't know the purpose of the vinegar put the pie crust is really good.
@Teresa The vinegar will help your gluten a bit. Also, it is normal that flour binds and coconut flour doesn't. It doesn't have anything to do with wetness. Giuli: It is made from dehydrated coconut flesh, not fresh one, so it is not wet.
i gave you that reply beacuse once i was making a cake without eggs, and i used coconut flour instead of normal flour.. but the cake was orrible..
the next time i will add the vinegar! i wanted to give you some advice, but you gave my a good suggestion!
otherwise you can put the same amount of normal flour and add an egg; this way helps you to combine the flour..
This isn't a cake recipe, this is a crust recipe for a pie. It is very different. And less fat will not help in any way
@Sobachatina "The hydration capacity of gluten is increased with increased hydrogen-ion concentration until a pH of 3.0 is reached. With a pH lower than 3.0 the hydration capacity is decreased. Gortner and Sharp have shown that the various acids produce a maximum hydration at pH 3.0.
". A teaspoon of vinegar won't bring the pH below 3. Then vingegar is intended for better gluten in the sheets between the butter blobs, resulting in a flakier (but indeed less tender) crust. Giuli: don't use it in a cake, you don't want gluten there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.746026
| 2012-06-05T16:52:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24222",
"authors": [
"AngryHacker",
"Brian Noad",
"Giuli",
"HRSE",
"Mien",
"Rabin",
"Rebecca Cupp",
"Teresa Ritter",
"cdignam",
"gaurus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55097",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44360
|
Emulating Starbucks Frappuccino Cream Base
At Starbucks, the "Cream Based" (no coffee) frappuccinos all use a proprietary syrup base which I would like to emulate to be able to make a reasonable facsimile at home.
When the baristas make a "Vanilla Bean" frappuccino, the process goes something like this:
Add a measure of whole milk.
Add an appropriate measure of ice.
Add 3 pumps of aforementioned cream base syrup.
Add a few scoops of vanilla flavored powder.
Blend.
The milk/ice ratio I can play with, I've found a replacement for the vanilla powder that works well, but I'm stumped at re-creating the cream flavored syrup, which unfortunately, is absolutely key to getting the right taste and consistency.
I see some folks selling jugs of the stuff on ebay, which I can only assume is pilfered stock because Starbucks does not sell it retail. Fortunately, there are pictures of the ingredients label on the jug, which gives me a good starting point.
The image of the base is below.
The ingredients are listed as:
Water
Sugar
Salt
Natural and Artificial Flavor
Xanthan Gum (E415)
Potassium Sorbate (E202)
Citric Acid (E330)
I would like some suggestions for what kind of cream flavoring I should use to create my own. Whole milk powder? Coffee creamer? Something else?
Have you played with sweetened condensed milk?
Xanthan gum and potassium sorbate are just emulsifiers, and citric acid is common enough. It's going to be the mysterious "natural and artificial flavor" where all the magic happens.
My guess would be either vanillin powder or castoreum (aka beaver butt juice, no, seriously, it tastes significantly more like vanilla than vanillin powder at incredibly small amounts). I'd lean most strongly towards castoreum, it's usually present in a product with a vanilla taste that doesn't spell out all of its ingredients. Castoreum doesn't look good on ingredient lists because people freak out over it.
@Jolenealaska I have not. I've played with some mixtures of milk powders and sugar. But this will be my next test.
@Matthew The vanilla flavouring isn't really the issue. I've played with a few things, such as vanillin, vanilla sugar, extract, etc, and while none of them are exactly like the original, the vanilla sugar is pretty close, and works quite well. I'm more concerned with the flavouring in the "cream flavour" syrup shown above.
@Jolenealaska I've played with sweetened condensed milk - it was no good. The end result had far too much of a "milky" flavour. The actual drink has a very creamy flavour, like drinking ice cream, very little of the milk flavour comes through. I would imagine that this is because sweetened condensed is made from whole milk, thereby increasing the ratio of milk flavor to cream flavor in the drink. Acting on this, I decided to replace the sweetened condensed with just a few dallops of whipped cream, and this was closer to the original... So now what should I try, a sugar/heavy cream mixture?
Yep, I would try that. You might want to heat the mixture a bit while stirring, just until the sugar is melted. Don't let it cook, 'cause then you'd be starting to make something similar to sweetened condensed, which you have said doesn't taste right. Heavy cream is probably more fat than you actually need, light cream or 1/2 & 1/2 may actually work just fine without all the fat.
Well I tried a mixture of whipping cream and confectioners sugar, which also helped with keeping the mixture together when it was blended, and it tasted quite good, but still not quite the same, still very "milky". I managed to acquire a jug of the cream syrup to test with, and it kind of tastes like extremely concentrated artificial whipped cream, like cool whip or something, with just a hint of vanilla. 1 tbsp of this syrup is enough to completely eliminate the "milky" taste & smell from a drink containing about 1/3 cup of milk, and leave only a creamy, ice cream like flavour. Still stumped
Rumor among my Sbux barista coworkers was that the cream base was actually maple flavored, but I don't know if this is real or just something somebody made up or thought it kind of tasted like.
I can't comment yet...but if I could, I might suggest using or swapping a portion of your sugar for liquid invert sugar, instead of caster or white granulated, in conjunction with the afore mentioned artificial flavorings, and possibly some more milk protien like sodium caseinate. Invert sugar is often used in candies that must maintain a soft creamy liquid center (like those queen anne cherry bon-bon things), and I think it would positively alter the end-texture. I bought some in Austin at a local cupcake/candy bakeshop that wasn't very expensive.(www.allinonebakeshop.com call them, the website doesn't reflect all of the cool products they have).
Hansson et al experimented with different sugar compositions for their beverages and noticed that there was a greater release of specific aromatic compounds using invert sugar. They posited that the glucose-fructose ratio that liquid invert sugar possesses, causes the water molecules to be more structred, thereby decreasing the amount of free water around. Hyrophillic(water loving) flavors in the mix are then more concentrated in the available free water, waiting to be tasted. The hyrophobic( water-hating/fat loving) flavors like to stick with the fats, so using a very good emulsifuer to effectively distribute/suspend the fats through the rest of the mix will be important for the end flavor profile.
doi:10.1016/S0308-8146(00)00243-0
I might even add some turmeric to your mixture when you heat it (be aware of some yellow color transferrence), since the curcuminoids (bioactive ingredients in the turmeric rhizome/powdered spice) decompose into a few compounds like vanillin and ferulic acid when heated (longer the incubation = more vanillin as a result of its degradation). Here's one research paper doi:10.1016/S0731-7085(96)02024-9 I'm happy to provide additional peer-reviewed sources if desired.
One last thought on flavor additions...if you dont mind artificial, this is a gluten-free butter flavor: http://www.shanks.com/product-category/extracts-flavors/imitation-butter/ It almost goes without saying, that only a VERY small amount would be needed(maybe a drop or two at most to really round out that creme profile).
I know if you're into this type of thing that using a vanilla flavored whey protien powder can come close to the texture, it's a little fluffier and tends to make a couple ounces more than intended. But I would use a high quality one as I have not had good results with lower quality ones, i.e. the cheap ones. Or even like a breakfast replacement shake works well for the texture.
i don't know if anybody is still interested in this but, being addicted to matcha frappuccino and living in a country where we only have ONE starbucks in milan, i put my brain at work and made some experiment to reproduce the frappuccino base. what i've done is basically a 62brix sugar syrup (this way you don't need to add any kind of preservatives) mixing together 100grams of water with 165grams of sugar (i prefer brown sugar because i like its aroma with matcha but white sugar will work just fine), then i added one tablespoon of vanilla paste and lastly 5grams of xanthane gum (is really easy to find either on amazon or in some health food store because is widely used in glutern free baking) emulsify everything with a stick blender and store it in an air tight container. the consistency will be thicker than the original one but u wont need to add any more sugar to the final product.
hey, OP here, thanks for the reply. this is very cool. I just started thinking about this again a few days ago so it's interesting that you would post an answer now. I'm going to give this a shot! I'll let you know how it works out.
Xanthan gum is the secret. It's a thickener and is responsible for the creamy texture you're looking for. I've read instant pudding powder or soft serve base are good substitutes.
As a Starbucks employee, I know that base is extremely important. If not added, it can make the frappuccino separate and taste terrible. Base really is only a super thick, lightly sweetened liquid that acts like glue to give you a nice creamy, smooth frappuccino. The sweetness is really not the point of this ingredient, just the texture. You can try using simple syrup as a starting point.
You're right that the base is essential for the texture of the final beverage, so I'm not sure why you're advocating using Classic/simple syrup. The texture benefits of Frappuccino base are from the emulsifiers in it (xanthan gum and potassium sorbate). Simple syrup doesn't have those in it. If you haven't already, try making a Frappuccino with Classic substituted for the base - it doesn't work.
I just found this Big Train Vanilla Bean Blended Creme Frappe Mix and I'm hoping that it will be the answer. It's found on Webstrauntant Store. I know that it isn't a homemade product but I think it will produce what you're looking for. I'm going to try some.
Old thread but if anyone is still searching for the key, binging with babish on youtube has a video where he makes the "orange mocha Frappuccino" from a certain movie, which was disgusting, but in the process of making a good tasting drink he showed how to make the Frappuccino base. Xantham gum is in fact crucial. As it says on the label, the last two chemicals are preservatives and absolutely not needed for home made (be glad you don't need them) and "natural and artificial flavors" can be whatever you want...I believe starbucks uses a combination of natural and artificial vanilla flavors. seeing as this thread is so old I doubt anyone will find this but just look for that video on youtube, babish is awesome. xantham gum is a strange powder.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.746654
| 2014-05-24T02:09:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44360",
"authors": [
"A_S00",
"Aaronut",
"Gandujen",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mari",
"Matthew",
"Max",
"Paige Fossheim",
"Tia P",
"angi ra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"jesse_galley",
"scottb"
],
"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
}
|
41483
|
How to open a can of olive oil?
I have a 900 ml can of Saloio olive oil. I lack any idea of how to open it.
The top of the tin is more-or-less seamless (see photo), and lacks any sort of indicator as to how this may be accomplished. At the rim, the metal on the top folds over the outside of the tin, and I've tried wedging flat instruments of all manner in there to no avail.
So, I'm wondering: what is the best way to open a container like this?
Back in the days when motor oil came in metal cans, they sold spouts that would punch a hole and clip onto the side so you pour easily ... I have no idea if anyone made food-safe ones. It's possible that the company that canned the oil also sells a way of opening/using it.
I have the same tin - it's a fantastic olive oil - but mine has a plastic pulll-out spout. Check the bottom of it for a red octagonal plastic piece - this is the pull-tab to pull out the spout, and it's attached to the spout cap. You'll need to pierce the spout once it's out and uncapped - squeeze the can to get the oil out.
Please also note - the oil will go rancid if not used quickly, and will have the potential to make a mess if the can is mishandled. Once open, the oil should be transferred to a tinted glass or a stainless steel container designed to store and dispense olive oil.
Thanks for the idea, but unfortunately no spout! Just metal all the way around...
I would suggest using a can punch. Punch a hole on both of the shorter sides on top, one to pour with and the other to allow air flow.
If you are unsure what a can punch is.... here is a pic
Hope this helps.
Growing up, we always called them churchkeys. No idea why
@AdeleC - they're most common use until around the 70s was for opening beer cans. For some, that's a religion.
I find that using the corner of my clever nearest the handle to make small holes on two of the corners of the can is best, for me anyway. You can control the size of the holes and make for a more controlled pour. By the way, the churchkey is called that because the pointy end pointed up looks like a steeple.
Is there some reason you can't just use a normal tin-opener?
I mean one like this:
You can take the whole top off the tin that way or use it to make two small holes on opposite sides for pouring / letting air in.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.747400
| 2014-01-27T03:17:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41483",
"authors": [
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"Jacqueline Chavira",
"Joe",
"Linda",
"Marlhan Fulgencio",
"Pete Becker",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Slz2718",
"Spammer",
"Thomas Klomparens",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96821",
"jkjenner"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.