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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
83081
|
Can sauerkraut be prepared with open lid?
If the cabbage is successfully kept with weight, under the brine, all the time.
I use a glass paper weight as weight. Can mold also form on the weight, on the portion which remain above the brine while using a closed lid or an open lid?
Thanks.
Making sauerkraut does not require a lid. As long as the cabbage is submerged (and you have the proper brine) it will be fine. Any mold that forms on the surface or the weight can be removed.
Then what is the reason, most people and internet, tell to use close lid or airlock jar. My knowledge and as you said, as long the cabbage is submerged under the brine, sauerkraut should be prepared successfully. Because bad bacteria or mold shouldn't form under the brine. Also in an open environment, the gas formed can easily escape, which doesn't happen in a closed jar.
@RajeshMarndi don't know. I've never covered. I use a food grade, plastic, rectangular, 7.5L Cambro container for my veg. and brine. I weigh it down with a water-filled smaller Cambro, which fits inside. No cover necessary.
When I made it, I found you need to remove some moldy bits from anything on the surface whether the cabbage touches the surface of not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.788222
| 2017-07-19T09:33:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83081",
"authors": [
"Rajesh Marndi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59299",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59187
|
Spearmint kinda Musky
So, I recently bought some Spearmint plants, and the yield has been pretty nice. However, I've hit a bit of a snag. I've tried a few different Drying and Brewing methods, from Oven drying to Air drying, from loose leaf in a kettle to in a coffee maker (both Fresh and dried), and it seems that I just can not seem to get a good flavor out of them.
Ya, I know Spearmint has very little Menthol (if any, depending on the variety). Normally it has that spearminty leafy green flavor, but no matter what I do, I can't seem to get rid of this Musky flavor and smell. I'm working with Smooth-leaf Spearmint atm.
Anyone know what I might be doing wrong?
I wonder if you might get better answers at http://gardening.stackexchange.com/. This question kind of straddles the line.
@Jolenealaska It's squarely off-topic on [gardening.se] since it isn't asking about growing or harvesting the mint; it's asking about how to prepare or preserve it. Please see our help center for more information.
@NiallC. : of course, it's possible the mustiness is a problem w/ the growing. And even if it's not as noticeable when fresh, it might have been masked until it was dried.
Never noticed musky flavor in my Spearmint plants. I tie stems together, and dry in a cool basement. Perhaps a different cultivar is all you need to solve your problem. While you are at it, buy some Orange-mint too. Dried, it makes a very tasty tea.
When processing leaves into tea, there are three important steps:
Withering: this happens in the shadow or in the sun depending on what tea you want to make. In your case, I think sun-drying is proper. The goal is to allow the leaves to dry and soften a bit.
Rolling: after withering, you can roll the leaves, to squeesh the flavor from the inside to the surface.
Fixing: after rolling, you need to intensively dry the tea, for example in the oven. This is important to stop the oxidation process and reach a water content level below 5% (otherwise mould will develop later).
So if your tea tastes off, you have to check which step wasn't properly done. Since your tea was musky, it might be that the last step of fixing, wasn't done properly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.788351
| 2015-07-19T17:21:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59187",
"authors": [
"Angie Leyshon",
"Carolyn Huang",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"K J",
"Marina Perkin",
"Niall C.",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"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
}
|
128329
|
Unable to understand the second rise
Novice here，not able to understand why second rises are neccessary.
Some says that second proof can make the bubbles distribute more evenly but ,say,if I knead the dough properly and it has a nice gluten structure to hold the bubbles,would the proof still be necessary to make a well aired bread?
Also,won’t the bread taste less ‘sweet’ if the yeast eat up most of the sugar in the flour?I ‘ve tried searching and as far as I could find,article s explaining this are scarce but on the other hand many recipes state that second rise can largely enhance the flavor and taste.
I know there are possibly a lot of misconceptions above, (and I will keep learning,)so any related fact or material is strongly welcomed .Thanks a lot!!!!!!
edit:in this sense then Let us assume that we knead and shaped the bread before the first rise
Make a batch of dough. Split it 2 or 3 ways; form one into a loaf immediately and bake when risen. Give the next one a second rise. If you do 3, give the third a 3rd rise. Taste, feel, etc. for yourself. They will all be bread. There will be some differences. You can decide which you like better, or what matters to you, based on your own experience. There is, IMHO, an excess of "The One True Way" dogma in bread books (websites, videos, whatever...)
Thanks a lot！！But I‘m still wondering if there is any special mechanism behind this mysterious second rise technique..I saw a lot of experienced bakers use it with those big-air-holes french loaves but can't see why…By the way，as for the experiment，I failed，it is hard to tell if there is any perceptible change at all …indeed my baking skills need urgent improvement；）
That's not a failure. That's an indication that not worrying about it is fine. The differences are slight enough that you're noT noticing any, so it doesn't matter. Indeed, having made the experiment, take some pictures of the cut loaves and post an answer.
My understanding of yeast mysteries comes from baking, brewing beer and running a craft distillery. All these involve maximizing flavor from yeast fermentation.
Yeast has 3 completely different metabolic states:
1) Dormant. The dried yeast in your fridge is dormant. No metabolism happening.
2) Growth. If yeast is put under good conditions of temperature, moisture and nutrients, it reproduces as fast as it can to take advantage of the nutrients before competing bacteria get the upper hand. Basically, yeast takes sugar and turns it into more yeast. Yeast divides every 2 hours, whereas bacteria divide every 20 minutes, so yeast needs to really work at keeping ahead of the bacteria. This growth phase is when yeast makes all those flavorful chemicals which bakers, brewers and distillers seek. For instance, one of the chemicals yeast makes is Isoamyl Acetate which gives bananas their aroma.
3) Fermentation. Once yeast has reproduced, it switches to turning sugar in its environment into ethanol (booze-type alcohol) and CO2. This strategy accomplishes two things: it denies sugar to competing bacteria and it poisons the bacteria (which are less resistant to ethanol than yeast are). Once the alcohol level has risen to around 7%, the bacteria can no longer grow. The yeast can then leisurely metabolize the ethanol as food, with the end product being water and CO2.
To make flavorful bread, you want your yeast to spend as long as possible in the growth phase so it makes yummy chemicals. There are a number of ways to encourage this:
Use a recipe that relies on a poolish. This is a little bit of yeast, allowed to grow overnight. 16 hours (8 doubling times) will allow each yeast cell to become 256 yeast cells.
Add 1/2 tsp of olive oil to the poolish. Yeast requires oil to make cell membranes when growing. Oil is often the rate-limiting nutrient.
Let your dough do its first rise overnight in the fridge rather than for a shorter time at room temperature.
After the first rise, punch the dough down and let it rise again. More time, more growth phase, more flavor.
To make bread fluffy, you then allow the yeast to ferment remaining sugar and the ethanol it has created itself. This produces CO2 which is necessary to make light bread. Thus the rational for punching down the first rise: it gives more time for the yeast to grow and increase flavor.
After cutting into shapes the CO2 gas produced during the fermentation process bleeds out, which will make a significant crumb crush in size, so some time is given to the cut portions to rise in volume again so that we get more openness to the crumb.
The simple logic behind this is that gas needs to accumulate in between the gluten strands which force the mesh structure to leaven, so we get a eye catching finished product otherwise in some cases breads become cakey!
Great questions! The second rise, also known as the final proof, is crucial for several reasons, and I'll address your concerns point by point.
Even with proper kneading and a strong gluten structure, the second rise helps ensure that the gas bubbles produced by the yeast are evenly distributed throughout the dough. This is important for creating a uniform crumb structure. After shaping the dough, the second rise allows it to relax and fill with air again, leading to a more consistent texture.
During the second rise, the yeast continues to ferment, producing not just carbon dioxide but also alcohol and organic acids, which contribute to the bread's flavor. This extended fermentation time helps develop more complex flavors. Without the second rise, your bread might lack depth in taste.
It's true that yeast consumes some of the sugars in the flour during fermentation, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The byproducts of this process are what give the bread its characteristic flavor and aroma. Additionally, most of the sugar is consumed during the initial rise. The second rise primarily allows for further development of the dough structure and flavor.
Bread Sweetness: While yeast does consume sugars, the second rise doesn’t significantly reduce the sweetness of the bread because most of the sugar consumption happens during the first rise. Any minor reduction in sweetness is offset by the improved texture and flavor.
Second Rise as Optional: Skipping the second rise can result in a denser, less flavorful loaf. The second rise is what often separates a good loaf from a great one.
Assuming you knead and shape the bread before the first rise, you might end up with a denser loaf. The dough needs time to relax and expand after shaping. The second rise provides this opportunity, ensuring that the bread will rise properly in the oven and have a light, airy texture.
while the second rise might seem unnecessary at first glance, it's essential for achieving a well-structured, flavorful loaf of bread. It helps with even bubble distribution, flavor development, and overall bread quality. Keep experimenting and learning, and you'll see how these steps contribute to better bread-making.
Please don't post AI-generated answers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.788833
| 2024-05-13T10:38:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128329",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Rita",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"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
}
|
128783
|
Does the oven temperature for a lasagna really matter?
Of all the things that go into my oven, a lasagna is one of the more "wet" or saucy dishes. When a fully baked lasagna comes out of the oven, it still has quite a bit of water content remaining.
So, this made me wonder if it is true that, during the baking process, most of the lasagna (ignoring the cheese layer on top which does undergo browning) likely never exceeds 212 F / 100 C in temperature (boiling point of water)? And if this is true, the oven temperature doesn't really matter as much as the cooking time does (i.e., it takes the same amount of time to cook in a 400 F oven as a 325 F oven since the core temperature of the lasagna is capped at 220 F). Is this true?
If this is the case, then could you reasonably cook a lasagna at an oven temperature below the Maillard reaction (say, 275 F) and simply broil the top for a few minutes at the end to brown the cheese layer - and still achieve a similar result as you would get for a regular oven temperature (say, 350 F)?
I've never tried it myself but I've got recipes for lasagne in slow cooker books. That suggests you could cook it very low, but it seems rather pointless to them have to brown the top, and lasagne sheets don't fit well in a slow cooker
While the core temperature will be capped at or around boiling, adding additional heat will increase the rate of boiling, if not the overall temperature while it cooks. Water takes ~40 kJ/mol to convert it from 100 C liquid to 100 C gas, so inputting more heat will increase the rate of that effect.
Consider the following - if you placed your lasagna in the center of the sun, you’d expect it to be incinerated fairly quickly. As such, there exists some range between “cooking slowly” and “cooking quickly”, determined by the oven temperature. Additionally, you're not really getting the majority of the food anywhere near boiling, since the target internal temperature is around 160-165 F. So while you're limited to around 212 F by the water content, the majority of the dish won't reach that temperature.
To summarize, I would expect that you could probably cook it at a lower temperature then broil for a similar result, with a caveat. If you maintain the same cook time, you should expect to have more water content in the final product and a possibly undercooked result. See here, for a little more on baking at a lower temperature. Oven temperature is critical to determining cook time, rather than being irrelevant
Using astronomy in the answer brings to mind Nuclear Pasta
You can see the differences between slow and fast cooking already within the temperature range of the oven. If you were to put the oven at 105C it would cook the lasagne eventually, but by the time the center is cooked through the edges will be totally overcooked (but not burned). If you put the over to 250C the lasagna will cook much faster but be burned on the outside. Somewhere in between is the good spot for perfect lasagna.
@quarague Your comment should probably be an answer :)
This is funny, but fails to address the core question. Despite the differing limits at zero and infinity, it's possible that there is a broad region where varying temperature changes little about the process or only changes something like total time that OP wishes to ignore.
I can't quite tell the upshot of this answer. It's written in such a way to suggest that the temperature does matter, but also sort of argues that the lasagna will simply cook faster in a hotter oven but not really much differently. It doesn't really address whether you can cook a lasagna at 250F or 450F and get a similar outcome just by adjusting the cook time.
@Xerxes The OP actually explicitly asked if the cook time remains constant regardless of temperature in the middle paragraph. I don’t know enough about cooking lasagnas to say exactly what would happen at 250/300/350/400/450/500 °F, respectively, but can disprove the assumption that the cooking temperature is irrelevant if it’s above the boiling temp of water. You’re right that there’s going to be a range of usable temps, though.
My hunch is that the latent heat of vaporization is the key. If you have water at 211 F and raise it to 212 F it then needs a lot more heat to actually boil - i.e., more than just one more degree's worth to get to 213 F (steam). A quick search show 1 BTU per lb. per degree F to raise the temperature of liquid water and 970 BTUs to boil it, and similar numbers for C and Joules. So all that "extra" heat in the oven is going into the water in the food, but it still takes a long time to actually boil.
@fyrepenguin You're correct in that I should have better worded my question. Naturally, a higher oven temperature gets a lasagna up to temperature faster. What I really meant to ask was: "Once, the exterior of the lasagna reaches 100 C, is the remaining cook time roughly constant?" since you have the same temperature gradient across the lasagna regardless of oven temperature. Or more precisely stated, "if you pre-heat your lasagna to 200 F for a long enough time and then crank up the oven to 300 F / 400 F - is the remaining cook time the same?"
@XYZT hmmmmm. If you did that, you’re basically just going for the broiling/browning on top, right? Since slow cooking it until it’s internally ~165°F is enough to get it “cooked”, the final cook stage you’re talking about is mostly flavor and aesthetics. That final cook time would certainly be shorter than if you started the oven at 400°F and kept it there, and 400°F should brown faster than 300°F
@fyrepenguin "you're not really getting the majority of the food anywhere near boiling, since the target internal temperature is around 160-165 F." Why is that?
Smeg's new center of the sun oven ..
The short answer to your question is "yes", you can use a low oven and broil the top. That is my preferred method...lower oven temp, covered lasagna, remove foil and broil. The physics is more difficult to wrestle with. First, there is a lot of evaporative cooling happening around your lasagna (or any food in your oven), which results in temperature around your food far lower than the oven temp., and because lasagna is wet, it will take a while for that temperature gradient to change. Here is where covering will help. Also there is wide variability in oven temp vs. oven setting on most ovens. That makes any sort of precision almost impossible for most people. Finally, lasagna is generally not a dish that requires cooking precision, and it is probably better to reduce liquidity in the construction step, rather than rely on evaporation in the oven. So, in short oven temperature in the range you are specifying probably doesn't really matter in any practical sense (There might be a small time savings...but a significant one?). One is generally just looking to heat through and melt cheese (if included). So, covering with foil is your friend here. If you desire a browned top (and why wouldn't you), use the broiler to finish.
My guess:
Heating of the center of the lasagna should be determined by a diffusion behavior, i.e. the energy flow is roughly proportional to the temperature difference of outside and center. The temperature of the wet sauce on the outside will be around boiling regardless of oven temperature, so the center cooks at a similar rate.
Less fluid would raise the temperature, if there isn't enough water/liquid to evaporate and cool the solid bits.
The cooking time also depends on stacking height and dish size.
The tastiness of the outcome is determined by what happens to the outer section of the lasagna after the water has evaporated and until the center is cooked.
Yes, the oven temperature matters.
It takes time for the oven's heat to reach the center of the lasagna, so depending on the oven temperature, the temperature gradient inside will vary.
I never cover lasagna with foil. Usually doing that means it ends up too wet. This especially applies to vegetarian lasagna, as typical minced beef replacements (zucchinis/mushrooms/eggplants/spinach) have more moisture in them than the beef does.
Large temperature gradients might mean the outer edges become hard and/or burnt.
Small temperature gradients usually mean the opposite, and you end up with a soggy, sloppy mess. Lower temperatures also means the lasagna has a longer time to firm up; you'll draw moisture from it more evenly. Go too low, and you can't get a crust on top, however, you can fix that if your oven has a grill by grilling for 5 minutes after the dish is cooked.
Typical lasagna oven temperature ranges from 160-200C (320-390F), and baking times range from 25-75 minutes. You can always lower the temperature to 150C if the lasagna browns but is still undercooked inside upon inspection.
Things that change the optimal temperature:
Pasta type
Pre-prepared store bought lasagna tends to cook quicker.
Dried pasta sheets tend to be middle of the road.
Using fresh home-made pasta makes things take longer.
Fillings
Spinach/Tomato combinations are the most liquid.
Then using firmer vegetables.
Meat tends to be driest.
The thickness of the béchamel can be adjusted for these (use extra flour/butter when using both spinach and tomato sauce).
Size
The bigger and blockier the lasagna, the longer the time and the lower the temperature. I wouldn't make more than about 8 portions in one huge oven dish; better to make multiple smaller dishes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.789417
| 2024-07-09T22:01:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128783",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Fattie",
"George Menoutis",
"Ivana",
"Nuclear Hoagie",
"XYZT",
"Xerxes",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88031",
"manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact",
"mishan",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129009
|
All-round, vegetable-focused, up to date food science book with recipes for home cooks
I am a home cook and want to get more serious about cooking. We have books by Ottolenghi, Meera Sodha, and Alice Zaslavsky, and can handle the complexity of these recipes, but what I would like to improve on is understanding why things go wrong when they do, what the role of certain ingredients / methods is, the results of different combinations of flavors, etc.
For example, Meera Sodha wrote on one recipe that a little acidity in the form of lemon / lime juice can help reduce spiciness and now I use that elsewhere when the spiciness got a little bit out of hand and yogurt or coconut milk are not available / don't fit. However, overall, the books we have are recipe books and the focus is not on a better foundational understanding.
For baking, we recently got Nicola Lamb's SIFT and it is absolutely great. It is half recipes, half encyclopedia, and the two are cross-referenced. The reference section is full of information about how ingredients react to each other, the application and uses of different methods, etc. You can pick a recipe and first read the handful of reference sections relevant to it. This makes it possible to understand why the recipe is the way it is, so you actually learn something. At the same time you are learning by example, so it's not as dry as a textbook. I'd love to have something like this for cooking.
I have looked around, but have not been able to find something yet. My wishes are the following (I'd still be interested in books that don't fit all these points):
Should have information on methods, explaining when they are used and what can go wrong.
Should have information on ingredients, explaining their role in dishes (and, perhaps, replacements).
Should have explanation about flavors and textures, which combine well together (and why).
Should be vegetable-focused – we are vegetarian. If <20% is dedicated to meat/fish that would be acceptable, but more than that would be a waste. If there were sections on replacing common non-vegan products with vegan alternatives, that wouldn't go amiss, too.
Should be all-round in terms of scope of the reference sections and cuisine in the recipes. Ottolenghi's Flavour has detailed explanations about a couple of preparation methods and ingredients, but is limited in scope and the selection is rather arbitrary. According to some GoodReads reviews, Nik Sharma's The Flavor Equation is good but many recipes are from Indian cuisine.
Should be up to date: this is why I'm not sure about Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking (1984, revised 2004). The 2004 edition is a massive update, but is 20 years old again, and a lot has happened in that time (especially in the vegan/vegetarian context).
Should have recipes. As explained above, I think this is great about SIFT. I am not ready to sit down and read a textbook cover to cover, but I would like to pick recipes one by one and learn from the relevant reference sections as I go along. (Another reason to avoid On Food and Cooking.)
Recipes should have photos. If the reference sections don't have photos, that's acceptable, but I really prefer to cook something if I can see what it is supposed to look like in the end.
There can (should) be some chemistry, but not too advanced: I know what pH is and that a protein is long, and such things allow me to understand on an intuitive level how air can get trapped in an egg foam, for example. But I'm not ready to go beyond that intuitive level and learn the exact chemical formulas.
I have seen some books that also go into details about the history of methods and ingredients. This does not have my interest, but I would accept it if there are some remarks on it as long as it is not the book's primary focus.
Is there something similar to SIFT for cooking?
(I know that "shopping questions" are generally discouraged, but have tried to ask this following the guidelines in the cookbook tag wiki.)
I like the website cookwell.com by Ethan Chlebowski with a lot of explanation/linking to the effect/role of certain ingredients. However, it is a website, not a book.
If it explains the science, it should give you enough information to substitute ingredients, so you can then turn a recipe vegetarian if it isn’t already. And although our understanding of the science might change over time, the science itself doesn’t, so the information in it should still hold up even in older books.
@fxm that looks great, thanks! You can post it as an answer, even though it's not a book.
@Joe maybe, and like I said, it doesn't hurt if a part of the book is on meat/fish. I have the intuition that there are a number of techniques specific to meat and fish, and that creating a dish around meat/fish is really different from creating one around vegetables, but I have only ever cooked vegetarian, so I may very well be wrong.
You could try the books Food Lab By J Kenji Lopez-Alt or Salt, Fat, Acid Heat by Samin Nosrat
Oh, I completely forgot about this ones. Look up How To Cook Everything Vegetarian: Completely Revised Tenth Anniversary Edition by Mark Bittman and The Complete Vegetarian Cookbook by America's Test Kitchen. Both are very thorough and technique and in the case of ATK science based.
I'm greatly enjoying Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat, thanks! I still have to get started on the other ones.
The website cookwell.com by Ethan Chlebowski
This is, in my opinion, a great resource for a combination of recipes and further information on the effect or role of certain ingredients. It highlights why an ingredient is important here and often gives substitutions or alternative versions of a recipe.
Two caveats
it is not only vegetarian recipes. However, I cook mostly vegan myself and while some recipes are very specific to the meat that is being handled, often it is easy to substitute. Especially because there are many vegetarian recipes as well (so you can mix-and-match) and precisely because the role of ingredients is explained it is easier to find a substitute.
it is a website and not a book. I'd prefer a book myself, but do find the click-through and pop-up style of the website enjoyable as well.
I don't know if that is relevant here, but I am not affiliated with this website in any way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.790266
| 2024-08-13T06:54:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129009",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"fxm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user65560"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129012
|
how to make fudge less melt-y in hot weather?
so, i'm making fudge for a family reunion soon, and i happen to live in a very hot, humid climate. the recipe I use is just condensed milk and chocolate since i'm pretty new to candy-making, but unfortunately it tends to get melty and sticky when taken outside (which is kind of inevitable when camping at a family reunion).
any advice on how to get it to stay firm? (and as a small bonus question, any neat flavor recommendations? i love weirder flavors a whole lot :] )
The heat shouldn't have much too effect, but the humidity will. This depends on the temperature and exact recipe though.
Traditional fudge is essentially finely crystallized sugar, while some other recipes have more water and are more like a partially solid solution - common with condensed milk fudge like you have.. The former aren't affected by heat (melting point of sugar is quite high), while the latter can be.
The melting point of chocolate is slightly below body temperature, so keeping the fudge cool should help - wrap the container in damp paper or cloth and top up the water as it dries, keep in the shade too. Evaporative cooling should help keep the fudge solid.
Humidity is the bigger killer here I think. The water in the air is absorbed into the hygroscopic sugar and causes it to liquify. To prevent this you need to keep the fudge in a well sealed container with as little air as possible. One way to do this is to have it inside a sealed plastic bag - ziploc style for my preference. You can squash the bag down to eliminate air, or even use the suction from a pump to remove excess air. Storing small lots in individual containers might also help - open one as wanted and eat, aiming for no left-overs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.790746
| 2024-08-13T20:24:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129012",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83059
|
What can be added to non dairy milks to extend shelf life?
I'm not sure what's going on but the last two batches of homemade cashew and sunflower seed milks went bad faster than usual i.e. 1-2 days.
What can be added to make them last longer? Both artificial and natural preservatives are ok for me.
are you making this yourself or buying something prepackaged from the store?
Blender unclean and contaminating the product? Spoiled nuts or foreign matter in the raw material? Unclean containers? Fridge failing? ...How does it spoil anyway? Blanket preserving against an unknown spoilage reason is probably going to be hard without altering the taste drastically (eg by adding large amounts of salt, acid or alcohol).... Most neutral tasting things that kill anything that moves tend to know that you are also moving and alive.
Would pasteurization cause the milks to split? If not, try that, but make sure to put it into sterilized containers.
You might want to see this question as well, which suggests you can freeze it: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65929/how-can-i-preserve-refrigerated-cashew-almond-milk-by-at-least-2-months?rq=1
This question has two facades:
First get rid of the already-there spoilage microorganisms.
Before blending the nuts, I soak them in vinegar for a while and rinse thoroughly. And always using sanitized equipment and boiling the water (and sugar if you're adding) is quite a good practice to kill the microorganisms you might have in your ingredients.
Prevent (or at least postpone) future spoilages.
If you have a sous-vide setup, using the lowest pasteurization temperature at 54C you can try to pasteurize. Please check some charts on this. It's hard to give an estimate without knowing your container sizes.
Some nut-milk can handle acidity, some can't you can experiment with that as well.
Roast your nuts first in the oven.
Use water that's been previously boiled.
Ensure all containers and tools are sterilized.
Add a pinch of salt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.790920
| 2017-07-18T12:20:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83059",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Jesse Cohoon",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81336
|
Is raw quinoa milk safe?
I've read about saponins in quinoa, some say you need to thoroughly rinse it while others say you don't need to since they have already been washed at processing plants.
Say I rinse it to make sure saponin's gone, would it be ok to just soak it overnight and blend it into milk without cooking?
Edit: Since posting the question I've also been researching on it. I can't find any resource saying if uncooked quinoa is poisonous or not. I'm not only referring to saponins but also starches and other compounds found in quinoa, saponin probably is the least of concerns. But I found this page that says you can just soak and blend quinoa into milk while many others recommend cooking it first.
Yum Universe Non Dairy Milks
I was having about an ounce of raw quinoa milk and it was ok but later I had about 2 or 3 ounces and it felt like mild food poisoning. It maybe just me but thought whoever reading this should know that
The issue with quinoa being soaked and rinsed is not a safety concern. It is more a matter of flavor.
It is not dangerous. Some people just find un-rinsed qinoa to be bitter.
In fact, for the most part, that bitter flavor is the majority of the interaction these saponins have with the body.
This article goes into some more detail:
Questionable Quinoa: Perfect Plant Protein or Poison?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.791108
| 2017-05-01T17:49:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81336",
"authors": [
"Marina Dunst",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41531"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68747
|
What's the point of "cheese alternative" that has dairy in it?
I was at Trader Joe's again, and I bought this cheese alternative. Being hungry out of my mind, the thought to check the ingredients never crossed it. Now I, a vegan, am stuck with having to eat a "cheese alternative" that contains the following (lest a portion of my finite grocery budget be spent in vain):
Almond base
Filtered water
Crushed organic almonds
Casein
Milk protein
Expeller pressed canola oil
Modified potato starch
Natural Parmesan cheese flavor (adds a trivial amount of lactose)
Parmesan cheese
Pasteurized milk
Cheese cultures
Salt
Enzyme
Water
Salt
Xanthan gum
Vegetable glycerin
Sodium phosphate
Sea salt
Citric acid
Psyllium husk (a plant fiber)
Calcium phosphate
My question is this: What is the purpose of a cheese substitute that contains dairy? It's not suitable for people allergic to or otherwise averse to dairy Apparently it is, to an extent. So what's the thought process behind the development and release of this product?
My newborn son (apparently) has issues with dairy, so my wife has gone milk-free. What we understand from the Internet is that it's the casein that's mostly at fault when it comes to milk allergy (rather than lactose intolerance). This question was highly relevant to my current interests :)
As someone who has a bad reaction to both gluten and dairy, I just don't shop a Trader Joe's. Their labelling of things is incomplete at best, and deceptive at worst. If you can find a local organic/health foods grocery store, that will help a lot with maintaining a vegan diet. There are definitely cheese substitutes that are 100% dairy free and taste acceptable - particularly cultured nut products.
Perhaps, it is cheaper than the real cheese?
"Cheese cultures" are not a dairy product. They are actually bacterium or mold.
Apart from allergy considerations – I don't find such a product a totally unreasonable choice if it tastes better than any true vegan alternative, yet contains significantly less milk than real cheese. I'm not a vegan but somewhat lean towards flexitarianism on ethical grounds; if that stuff tastes good then I could well see myself using it to reduce my environment foodprint a little. (Unfortunately I also love good real cheese, but find most alternatives a heck lot less satisfying; I rather doubt I would like that particular product much.)
FYI Trader Joe's will take back any item for any reason, no questions asked. I have returned several items and have never been given any trouble at all. I usually say I just didnt like the item and they gladly take the amount off my current bill, so at least you could get something else. they dont ask if you dont offer a reason..they may ask if you opened the item but thats because they do something different with the item if you haven't. They may even give a cash refund, but I've never tried.
@OpiesDad Good to know for the future, but I'm not gonna drive all the way back and spend more in gas and time than I did on the not-quite-cheese. Thanks for the tip, though!
I guess I'm confused about the question. The answers are mostly spot on, but did the product identify itself as being vegan? If not, bad on you for assuming such. There are many food-alternatives that still contain non-vegan ingredients. What made you assume it was vegan in the first place?
@JesseWilliams The fact that it claimed to be a mozzarella-styled cheese alternative. I agree that I should have looked at the packaging more closely; however, I was very hungry at the time and was more concerned about making delicious pizza bagels.
Lactose intolerance (which is different from a milk allergy, which is a smaller group) comes in varying degrees, so this may be useful for people who can have a bit of lactose (who can process casein fine).
For example, many lactose intolerant people (who often avoid dairy) can handle non-dairy creamer fine (and varying amounts of cheese), even though it has casein. Many cheese substitutes still do use casein.
The parmesan adds glutemates to the mix, while casein gives a lot of structural properties to cheese (like melting ability for real cheese).
Huh. Guess this isn't a simple an issue as I thought it would be. Thanks!
AFAIK most cheeses contain little to no lactose at all.
Theres a decent amount of range according to this page: http://www.stevecarper.com/li/list_of_lactose_percentages.htm. I'm not lactose intolerant so I've never had to worry about it
Milk allergy does make a smaller group worldwide but regionally may be as large as or even larger than people with lactose intolerance. In my country, the majority of the Malay people here have mild milk allergy that is most severe in children. On the other hand the Chinese people here tend to have lactose intolerance.
There's almost no lactose at all in that product - hard cheeses like parmesan have nearly none, and casein itself is of course lactose-free.
It's cheaper to produce than actual cheese. In fact, some years ago, technology in Eastern Europe caught up with the world but legislation didn't - and suddenly there was a scandal when people realized that what they are being sold as "cheese" is in fact something else. Even after the change in legislation (which required labelling of non-cheese alternatives as such) there still was a large market for the alternative, as a large proportion of the population is too poor to buy anything but the cheapest food, and for them it is the only way they can afford to eat cheese (or something which tastes like it).
Some people are intolerent to the fermentation process used to make the cheese (intolerent to some sort of bacteries I gess)
Some other people just don't like the taste of cheese, but like the other dairy products (e.g. yoghurts, cream)
In both case, these cheese alternative are fine for them, and they can use it to cook meals that normally use cheese they wouldn't be able to eat.
Among my coworkers, I know one person in each case stated below.
They don't like the taste of cheese (which alone is funny enough – I can't even see what could be meant by “the taste of cheese”, since different cheeses tend to taste completely different), and yet they want something that's similar to cheese? I can't help finding this a bit weird.
I know right ? But that's what he told me, and he is not the first one to say that to me (althought they are very few). Worst part of it ? We are both french.
In reply to your question - "So what's the thought process behind the development and release of this product?" Answer - to trick you into buying their fake product by implying that it is vegan and doesn't contain dairy. I have noticed more and more fake vegan products coming into the supermarkets that all have some kind of animal by-product in it. Even though they don't directly claim to be vegan, they imply so by using the language of 'meat free' but are not ethical because they are made with caged produced eggs. And then there is also the 'soy cheese' that has dairy products in it. I got caught out with that product thinking it was vegan and bought it a few times before I realized it wasn't.
If the "cheese alternative" that you bought contains parmesan cheese and milk products like you named in the ingredient list then "cheese alternative" is false labeling because it has cheese in it and is therefore not a cheese alternative because it is cheese. There is absolutely no point to buying or eating this product.
How can a product be "fake vegan" if it's not labeled as vegan? If you're going to be on an extremely restrictive diet, you should know how to read labels and look for ingredients you do not wish to eat... or look for a marker that specifically says "vegan".
I think he has a valid point: Somebody that wants to do a vegan a favor might buy it and create a rather awkward situation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.791261
| 2016-05-03T05:35:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68747",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Catija",
"Enivid",
"Jesse Williams",
"JesseTG",
"Joe M",
"Matthew Whited",
"OpiesDad",
"Todd Wilcox",
"User1000547",
"Vulpo",
"Wayne Werner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45540",
"leftaroundabout",
"rackandboneman",
"slebetman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122987
|
What is this freaky knife for?
It's long and skinny, like a bread knife. It doesn't show well in the photo, but there's a tiny fine serration on the edge of one of those pointy things…? I've asked the 2 chefs I know, and neither one of them even had a guess!
Can you give us an idea of scale? It could be either of two knives depending on how large it is.
A photo including the handle might be helpful.
I added another photo that shows the handle. The knife including the handle is about 13 inches. I can't wait to hear how this bizarre knife could actually be multiple different things depending on exact length and handle shape! I sense some arcane cooking knowledge about to be imparted!
@VeryAmateur (responding to your deleted "answer"): I'm just good with internet search tools. Anyway, post the other knife as a new question ... but like this one, include a picture of the whole knife as well!
A lot of professional chefs are just sour on the whole idea of serrated knives in general, probably because they're much harder to keep sharp. Of course for something like a bread knife there's no need for it to be all that sharp.
looks like an fish itself :O
This would be a better question with a more specific title, like "What is this freaky knife for, with 2 points at the tip and a serrated edge?" That would help future readers find it with text searches. I suggested an edit to change that, but you rejected it for some reason. Mystery titles are not a good thing.
It's good for cutting bread that is still frozen.
It's a serrated carving knife. In fact, that particular knife is a Kitchen + Home Carving Bread Knife – 8” Sharp Stainless Steel Serrated All Purpose Kitchen Knife available from WalMart for $13USD.
The forked point is for skewering and serving slices of meat after you've carved them (see photo on listing).
If the knife had been much smaller, it could have been a tomato knife. It still could be, if you have really big tomatoes.
I have a very similar knife to this. I remember when I bought it it was called "The Edge" so I'm pretty sure that this is it (not exactly the same as yours, which has already been linked to). What I will say is that I've had this knife for about 30 years and never needed to sharpen it. I mainly use it for cutting bread rather than meat, but it is excellent.
I'm giggling madly at "really big tomatoes".
Any idea what the hole near the tip is for? The Walmart page doesn't seem to say. (Although it does mention cutting melons, which would be about the right size for this!)
@user3067860 Generally speaking, a hole in this location would be for hanging the knife on a nail or hook, such as with a traditional cleaver. It's debatable whether this hole would actually be useful for that purpose or is merely decorative.
Sometimes holes are used to help prevent what you're cutting from clinging to the blade.
I think the hole, per Bloodgain, could be best described as a "bad idea". Either that, or they wanted to make the end of the knife look more like a fish. It is a Walmart knife, don't assume that a lot of thought went into the design.
The brass band used to have one like this, it was left behind after a street fest. I always called it "the fish knife". Eventually someone else (or the original owner) decided they liked it and it disappeared again. Excellent knife, by the way.
Weird that it's called a "bread knife" when it's obviously meant for meat, not for bread.
@Stef: Why do you say it’s obviously for meat not bread? To me, it looks very practical as a bread knife (I’ve used a similar knife for bread in the past, I forget where), and similar to most breadknives I’m familiar with — long blade, medium width, large-scale serrations. The only differences from standard breadknives are the forked tip (which is just as useful for picking up bread slices as meat) and the complicated pattern of the serrations (which doesn’t seem to have any advantage for bread, but also doesn’t cause any problems).
really big tomato
"Any knife can be a tomato knife if you believe hard enough in it."
@FuzzyChef I vote +1 because that very big tomatoes is just flawlessly hilarious. and I mean it does answer the question too 8) with surgical precision* (pun intended)
1 - I don't think it is a Walmart knife. It is not available in stores, only online and not sold directly by Walmart. That doesn't mean the product is good or bad, but in this case "Walmart" is just the web site selling it - similar to Amazon. 2 - When I saw the picture in the question, my first thought was "it looks like a fish" because of the hole (eye) and the forked end (mount). Sure enough, the Walmart pictures show fish being cut - perfect!
The hole can be useful in some kitchens to hang the knife on a hook instead of putting it in a drawer. Due to the shape of the knife, it may not fit into a universal knife block.
@SeanDuggan just reminds me of trying to slice tomatoes when every knife in the house is dull...
It doesn't look much good as a bread knife. It looks like the cutting edge is fairly thick with lots of spikes for tearing flesh (possibly frozen). Using that on bread would result in a pile of crumbs and you'd be unable to cut a thin slice, although it might be ok for some kinds of bread eaten in chunks.
I have the same type of knife, and we've always used it to slice/cut bread! It works surpringly well as most "serrated" knifes I've used for bread, are not usually sharp, but these serrations are sharp, which would work well for meat. I've used it for frozen food and it's okay, but I rarely do this.
I always thought that the tips where meant to serve meat, but whenever we cooked a big piece of meat to be sliced afterwards (like carne a la sal), we (my house) use a slicing knife (jamonero knife), the one that you would use to cut jamón. Maybe in other countries they use the serrated sharpy knife!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.791905
| 2023-01-10T23:39:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122987",
"authors": [
"Bloodgain",
"CitizenRon",
"Darrel Hoffman",
"FuzzyChef",
"JPmiaou",
"Mark Dominus",
"Marti",
"PLL",
"Peter Cordes",
"RedSonja",
"Sean Duggan",
"Stef",
"Stuart F",
"Very Amateur",
"William Martens",
"bornfromanegg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98590",
"ikegami",
"manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact",
"metamagikum",
"rtaft",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122112
|
What went wrong with my choco-chip cookies?
The first time I made this recipe written recipe here a few months ago, it worked perfectly. But I've tried making it again two times after that, and it's failed both times.
The first time, the cookie was perfect - great texture, great taste, and amazing gooey pockets of chocolate. It looked exactly like the recipe. The second time, though, it was a disaster. They were totally flat and had spread a lot. They were also super, super greasy, and made my belly hurt. The third attempt had basically the same issues, just not as extreme. They had spread a bit too much, and were more flat and dark around the edges.
Something I noticed while making the cookies was that my ice cream scoop was able to push out the dough from the first batch quite easily without deforming it. The next two batches, though, didn't quite like the scoop pushing them out. I managed still using it for the second batch, but I decided to form the dough from the third batch with my hands. The scoop I have is made of plastic with a lever that basically pushes the cookie dough (or ice cream) out.
The only thing I did different from the recipe was the brown sugar - there's no such thing as brown sugar where I live, so I added 2 tablespoons of molasses in addition to the 220+100 grams of sugar, all three times.
Another thing to mention is that I've been having some problems with my oven recently. It's really only about half an year old, and I've been having problems ever since I've got it. In the beginning, its temperature seemed off, but I think it's fine now. Then later, a small part of the grey coating on the bottom heating wore off, giving way to the silver metal below. Recently, it's time dial stopped ticking and moving back to zero, and a recent batch of peanut butter cookies I made had a clear gradient of less browned on the left side and more browned on the right side.
One thing that makes all this really confusing is that my first batch, even though I made them all exactly the same way, was perfect. I don't understand why the dough would be any different at all the next two times - so why was it?
3rd March, 2023:
After many times having the oven repaired but finding no difference, I lost hope in the bad oven idea.
But on a hunch, I bought a good oven thermometer, and turns out my oven was 70℃ too hot! The problem was the oven after all.
Thanks everyone!
Any chance you missed some key ingredient on the latter 2 batches, like only including 1 stick of butter instead of the 2 prescribed?
This, to me, is an unusual recipe on at least a few counts. One suggestion: the next time you make them, measure the flour per the recipe then weigh it. If the cookies are satisfactory, use the weights instead of the volumes each time you make them. If not, adjust the weight upward and try again. But first I'd get the oven replaced.
@Dennis I never use volumes, always weights. I am trying to get the oven looked at, and I'll try increasing the flour if the oven doesn't turn out to be the problem.
@Seth No - I just looked over the recipe, and I'm fairly sure I didn't miss anything.
If you're seeing gradation in the oven, my best bet would be that one of the elements or the fan (if it is a fan oven) have died. I guess my first bet would be to get an oven themometer. Get the oven up to temperature, and then move the themometer around, see if you can work out where the cold zones are.
@lupe It does have a fan, but it has a mode with the fan on and a mode with the fan off - and I've never used it with the fan on.
Adding molasses shouldn't be a problem, it's a common addition when brown sugar isn't available. It sounds like your oven's broken, and not heating up properly. Cookies spreading out too much is a sign your oven isn't hot enough, and if you are getting a bad stomach from them they are likely coming out undercooked. I suggest you get an oven thermometer and test its internal temperature. In any case it sounds like your oven has at least two other issues, hopefully it's still under warranty as you should get it fixed.
https://www.kingarthurbaking.com/learn/ingredient-weight-chart
Gives 213 grams for "brown sugar, packed, 1 cup"
So 220 grams of white sugar PLUS 2 tablespoons of molasses (42.5 grams per the above chart at 85g per 1/4 cup) is way off at 262.5 grams total. About 23% excess.
170 grams granulated sugar plus 43 grams of molasses would be a closer substitution for 1 cup brown sugar. 199g + 14g might well be closer yet, per comments below.
I don't think you can do a conversion from molasses -> sugar like that, you would need to subtract the water component and work out the sugar content. Wikipedia tells me that the sugars in molasses are 29% sucrose, 12% glucose and 13% fructose - for a total of 54% sugars (75% total carbs though). Which would make it 220 g sugar + ~20 g molasses for about 240 g total, or about 10% over. Might need to reduce the water component a bit though.
@bob1 - brown sugar is white sugar sprayed with molasses. It has the molasses water content in it. If it dries out too much it becomes rock-hard and needs to be remoistened. Since the reference provides a mass for brown sugar, that mass is what to aim for in making a substitute with white sugar and molasses. Notably, the mass for 1 cup brown sugar packed is more than 1 cup granulated white sugar.
Huh, I had brown sugar down mentally as partially refined (which I see is the "natural" variant) rather than refined and added back. Wiki tells me that brown sugar is 3-6% molasses, which is much less than the addition here of about 20%. I guess it should be 14 g/2 teaspoons for 6% in 210 g white sugar.
@Ecnerwal The cheap stuff is, yes. Demerara (partially refunded cane sugar) is also brown but has a noticeably different flavour.
I'm very aware of that, though Demerara is hard to come by here - but that's not what brown sugar in an American recipe (which this seems to be - things measured by volume in cups and tablespoons) typically refers to, since it's hard to come by here.
@Graham as Ecnerwal says, in American recipes Demerara would have to be specified, and generic "brown sugar" is refined white sugar + molasses.
Is it possible your butter or other ingredients were warmer the last two times? I have found when cooking with butter, if it's too soft, the cookies will spread more and are greasy.
I have also read up on this and found evidence that dough that is made with overly soft butter will create frothy air bubbles that will collapse when baked, resulting in heavy, dense, and flat cookies.
That would have been my thought, but the recipe the OP posted says "Bring the butter to a boil".
The second batch did have slightly warm butter, but it was cool the third time - though warm butter may have played a role, that's definitely not the only problem. And the butter is liquid in this recipe - so overly soft isn't even possible.
Not enough flour?
My go-to is the toll house cookie recipe.
This recipe calls for 1 3/4 cups of flour and 2 sticks of butter. Toll house chocolate chip cookies have 2 sticks of butter also but call for 2 1/4 so 1/2 cup more flour. Toll house cookies can be kind of bready and it sounds like you need more of that.
Toll house cookies have no water in them. The 2 tbsp water this recipe has you add to the butter (why?) will still be in the cookies. Water in the molasses will also still be in the cookies.
You could try to salvage your cookies by adding a half cup more flour. I dont think it matters bread flour or all purpose flour.
Alternatively you could add molasses to the hot pan after you brown the butter to drive off some of the molasses moisture, and forego the added tablespoons of water - just let the butter & molasses mix cool.
The water is added to the butter (in this recipe) to replace the water that was boiled off.
I made a bunch of cookies back in the spring of 2020 for my parents' bakery. I found that the texture of the cookies depended a lot on how thoroughly I mixed the batter. You don't want to over-mix it. They might get better volume and retain shape better if you mix it less next time.
It sounds like you're already having problems with the oven anyway, so borrow a friend's oven and try the exact same recipe again. If it works there, you can be pretty sure your oven is to blame.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.792549
| 2022-10-26T05:41:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122112",
"authors": [
"Dennis Williamson",
"Ecnerwal",
"Esther",
"Graham",
"Seth R",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99822",
"just-a-hriday",
"lupe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46863
|
How long Pasteurized Eggs can be refrigerated?
I routinely pasteurize eggs in batches of 12 so if I don't have time for a full breakfast in the morning, I crack a few open in a glass of milk with some protein powder.
The approach I've been using so far is like so:
To pasteurize large eggs, place them in a saucepan filled with water and fitted with a digital thermometer.
Turn on the heat and bring the water up to 140F.
Keep the water temperature at 140F for 3 minutes (and no more than 142F), reducing the heat on the burner if necessary.
Remove eggs from hot water and rinse thoroughly with cold water.
Store in the refrigerator until needed or use right away.
Jumbo sized eggs need to 5 minutes in 140F water.
I've been doing this for several years now, and haven't had any issues. It also lines up with the method proposed in other similar posts on Cooking.StackExchange.com. Additionally, I bring the eggs up to the target temperature of 142F slowly over the course of about 15 minutes, using a simple dairy thermometer to keep track of the temperature. My theory is that if the eggs reach the target temperature slowly, it gives more time for the temperature inside the egg to match the temperature of the hot water, so the thermometer reading is indicative of the actual temperature of the inside of the egg.
How long is it safe to keep pasteurized eggs (using the method outlined above) in the fridge before I should toss them out? I've kept them in the fridge as long as six days prior to drinking them. Most posts I've read on cooked eggs suggest eating them within a couple days, but I don't know how that applies to heat-pasteurized eggs, since they aren't technically "cooked".
References
How to pasteurize eggs at home, Accessed 2014-09-03, <http://bakingbites.com/2011/03/how-to-pasteurize-eggs-at-home/>
What's a good technique for pasteurizing eggs?, Accessed 2014-09-03, <https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4265/whats-a-good-technique-for-pasteurizing-eggs>
"I crack a few open in a glass of milk with some protein powder." You have eggnog for breakfast?
The lower bound seems to be at 2 to 4 days in the fridge. The upper bound is probably at 7 to 10 days in the fridge at less than 4°C (32 F) 1
1 Source: Swiss journal about poultry farming. This information refers to the storage of whole eggs. Two sentences before, the text says that cracked eggs stored at 4°C must be cooked within 48 hours to be conformable to Swiss law. I am not sure whether the information about pasteurized eggs is coverd by Swiss law or is just a recommendation of the article's author.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.793207
| 2014-09-03T23:57:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46863",
"authors": [
"Alan Wheeling",
"Eduardo Garcia",
"JAB",
"Jeanette Still",
"Larry Louie",
"Spammer",
"Terry Toth",
"Tim Harvey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"user113019"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20551
|
Salad onions -- any way to make them sweet but not soft?
Possible Duplicate:
How do I tone down the intensity of raw onion?
I like the taste of caramelized onions (I think Ruhlman's book had mentioned it was removing or changing the sulfur), but they are sometimes too soft for salads. What are good ways at lessening the sharp taste of raw onions for salads? I've tried soaking them in water, but it didn't seem to make a large difference -- they were less sharp on the outside, but once you bite into them, they had the same "harsh" taste.
(Also, I've mostly been thinking of red or vidalia onions...)
A nice trick is to soak them in a mixture of balsamic/water/sugar for a few hours. They take on the flavour of the balsamic, the sugar helps to lessen the sour and the water just makes the cost of it all a little less. The onions should remain somewhat crisp but if you leave them in too long then the vinegar will start to do it's job and soften them up. You'll have to find the best time for you.
I love pickled onions in salads. Pickling an onion involves slicing the onion thinly and soaking it in salt and an acid. It takes just 5 to 10 minutes. Balsamic vinegar works great, but you can use different acids depending on what you are using them for. For example, you could use lime juice for mexican meals.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.793481
| 2012-01-18T07:20:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20551",
"authors": [
"Keao",
"Resa Gilbert",
"Tirth Patel",
"eiridoku",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45256"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58376
|
Do Liquor Based Extracts Require Sugar?
I have made my own vanilla extract, without sweetener and I am interested in making others like hazelnut, almond, lemon, mint, etc. The recipes I have found call for vodka and sugar, honey, simple syrup, sweetener, etc.
Is sugar a required ingredient for effective extraction? I assume the sweetener and its amount should be the responsibility of the recipe calling for said extract. Then again, I do not know, maybe the sweetener is added to the extract to off set known bitters?
This Question and Answer leads me to believe that with liquor based extract adding sugar may be a bit of folklore?
This answer suggests exactly the opposite conclusion: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/50226/25059
Its the last paragraph of that answer that makes me question the sweetener's effectiveness: There's almost no alcohol inside the fruit, so alcohol's presence outside the fruit will force water out of the fruit, carrying flavors along with it.
It's been a while since I did the research before writing the answer you quote, but based on my recollection (and what I know about the science) is that sugar is not required.
Sugar is mostly used to maximize flavor extraction in some cases where a sugary final product is desired, as in traditional production of some liqueurs. But since extracts are not generally "sweetened," there's no sugar requirement.
However, it may serve various functions when present, perhaps including:
speeding up the extraction
balancing flavor of the extract (as you suggest)
slightly changing which flavor components get extracted or their proportions, due to varying solubility in a sugar solution (though I imagine this effect is quite minor except where there is a large amount of sugar involved)
increasing the amount of extracted flavor overall (this is particularly useful in situations where the ingredients have a high water content, such as fruits; in other cases, the effect is likely small)
A quick web search brings up a number of recipes for the kind of extracts you mention which involve no sugar. So it's definitely feasible.
On a related note, most commercial liqueurs are generally manufactured by steeping the other ingredients in alcohol first, then adding sugar after steeping and straining. (There are various processing and convenience reasons why this is done, and the minor flavor extraction loss is generally not considered significant enough to require sugar to be used in the steep.) So it's definitely possible and common to extract significant flavor without sugar, even if you planned to add sugar later.
Will there be some flavor differences in the resulting extract? Possibly, but the extract should still be fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.793644
| 2015-06-19T21:23:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58376",
"authors": [
"Dave Oker",
"George Culver",
"Jonnybojangles",
"Margo Blake",
"Teresa Carter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8060",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129611
|
Can I put an induction stovetop on a regular stove?
I have an oven with a gas stovetop. Can I close the lid and place an induction stovetop on it, or does the induction stovetop need to be on a different (non metal) surface?
EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm referring to a stovetop that is meant to be portable. I can see several manufacturers have such models, usually with only one or two heating surfaces.
Stand-alone stovetops I’m familiar with want to be supported at the edges, basically hanging in a hole above the oven (or whatever). I would be surprised if they could be damaged by being placed directly on a flat surface, but it is possible that doing so while actively using them would hamper cooling.
I would suggest looking at the installation manual for the particular stovetop you’re thinking of. Specifically look for required bottom clearance. If it’s more than the depth of the thing below the countertop, then you’d be using it in a way it wasn’t intended to be used… it might work or it might not. If it doesn’t require a certain clearance distance on the bottom, or if that distance is just the distance from the lip to the lower extent, then you’re presumably fine.
Incidentally, there are induction cookers which are explicitly standalone and intended to be placed on a flat surface. You’ll recognize these by how they come with plugs fitted, don’t have a flared top surface, and have rubber feet on the bottom. I would suggest looking for one of these.
Re the last paragraph, that's exactly what I do, with a single burner induction hob on a glass "chopping board" on my gas hob (to make better use of solar electricity). The downside is that anything with a plug is quite limited in power (3kW where I am) so you're talking 1, or at most 2 weak, rings
I don't love the idea, but you could do this. You'll want to build a supporting frame for it to sit on, for the following reasons:
Every induction cooktop I've seen has fans on the bottom for cooling, or an air intake for fans blowing out the sides so if you place it on a flat surface you'll be blocking the airflow needed to keep the appliance cool. You would need something to put space in between. This doesn't have to be a frame, you could do it another way, you'll want a frame for other reasons
The metal on the bottom of these appliances tends to be thin, it's not designed to take the weight of the appliance and pots. These appliances are designed to sit in a hole in your countertop, it's the frame around the edge that has structural strength, so you need to make something that's going to support it's weight around the edges
The bottom of the appliance is smooth, as is the cover of your stove (probably), so it would have a tendency to slide around - not good if you have a big pot of boiling water on the stove! A well designed frame will keep things in place
The cover of your stove may not be designed to take the weight of your induction top, and the pots, water, etc. you will be putting on it. Most of the covers I've seen are glass, which could shatter, or thin metal, which could bend. This could ruin your day. A frame would distribute the weight to the counter, which is designed for it
You'll want to consider whether the extra height of the appliance on top of the stove would work for you before you do this.
"You'll want to consider whether the extra height of the appliance on top of the stove would work for you and anyone else you share a kitchen with before you do this." (I do something similar; it works better than standard height for me but is a little too high for my daughter)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.793892
| 2024-11-21T10:58:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129611",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36908
|
How long can boiled eggs be stored in the fridge?
I boiled some eggs one week ago and forgot to eat them, so they stayed in the fridge. How long will they stay consumable in there?
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14287/are-refrigerated-hard-boild-eggs-really-unsafe-after-a-week
And also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35920/how-to-store-hard-boiled-eggs-that-are-peeled-so-to-avoid-moisture-build-up
The USDA recommends storing hard boiled eggs, whether peeled or not, for 1 week. I personally have kept & eaten them after 2-3 weeks. I have also cracked one open that was no longer edible & believe me - You will know when that happens! The egg will will smell rotten & you will have no question as to whether or not to eat it!
Some additional Info on storing eggs:
Eggs should be stored in a refrigerator at about 40 degrees F, mainly to reduce the chances that any bacteria on the shell will multiply and cause a risk of illness.
Buy refrigerated eggs and store them in the refrigerator as soon as your get home. However, even under refrigeration, eggs slowly lose carbon dioxide, which enlarges the size of the air cell and causes the yolk to flatten and the white to spread.
**Storage Times**
Fresh Egg - Refrigerated raw shell eggs will keep without significant quality loss for about 4 - 5 weeks beyond the "sell by" date or about 3 weeks after you bring them home.
Fresh egg whites - 2 to 4 days
Fresh egg yolks (unbroken and covered with water) - 2 to 4 days
Deviled eggs - 2 to 3 days
Leftover egg dishes - 3 to 4 days
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.794204
| 2013-09-18T18:48:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36908",
"authors": [
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67235
|
Edible straws that look like plastic ones
I'd like to make some root beer float cupcakes. The recipe suggests garnishing them with a decorative (non-edible) straw. But I'd like to kick things up a notch: is there such a thing as an edible straw that looks sufficiently like a drinking straw (i.e. same width, preferably striped like an old soda fountain straw)?
I know there are various edible straw-like things available, but they all seem noticeably wider that a drinking straw. I don't require that they be hollow inside, but the width is my main concern.
What is it about the thickness that's the problem?
I should clarify that by thickness/width (I just changed it to width in my question) I mean the outer diameter of the straw-like object. I just want something that looks like a drinking straw and not, e.g., a tubular biscotti-like thing.
I always used Red Vines/Twizzlers for straws but they're still wider in diameter. But they're more colorful.
Does it have to actually be a straw? I know one of the shops near me sells chocolate cigarettes, which might work (depends on the ambient temperature), but you'd have to add the stripe yourself.
That might work. I'm not sure about pairing chocolate with the root beer, but I know those cigarettes also come in generic sugar flavor.
How long do you intend the fake straw to last? Almost everything edible+solid is water soluble.
It doesn't have to last more than a few days.
Stick candy would be an option. They even usually offer it in many flavors including root beer or sassafras. Obviously, the root beer flavored ones are sort of boring looking but the other flavors come in many beautiful color combos.
They may be slightly wider than what you want but they're pretty close. They're similar to the wider straws for shakes.
I couldn't come up with the American term, but as the OP appears to be from the US that should do the trick.
I was thinking vanilla flavour might work of you can find it. It would have that artificial vanilla ice cream flavour that would go with root beer.
This is what I went with. They have several flavors (with corresponding colors) at Cracker Barrel.
You could sand them down if size is a big concern, not too easy though
Pirouette cookies (here by Pepperidge Farm) are rolled wafer cookies. The inside is stuffed with chocolate, chocolate hazelnut or vanilla.
Here's a recipe that includes a picture using them in a manner similar to what you're asking.
You could follow the recipe, but tweak it to look more like a straw and with colors and flavors that suit your purpose.
This is what our local soda fountain gives us in our shakes. They don't work very well as actual straws, but visually they give that appearance - so perfect for something where they don't need to be actual straws :)
Thanks -- that was one specific thing I was thinking of, albeit one that I think is too wide, but couldn't remember the name of.
Making them to look like straws and with a flavor that goes with your theme could be a really fun project :)
In the comments on the question, the OP seems to not want a cookie-type thing, though I may be misunderstanding.
The only problem I have with cookie-/biscotti-like treats is that they're fairly wide.
@echristopherson Would you consider making them?
@Jolenealaska Possibly, but for this project I've finally picked something out.
Pocky is probably about the right diameter, but doesn't have that spiral of color that would really look like a straw.
Candy Sticks look right, but the available flavors might not be a great match for your root beer cupcakes.
Wow -- if there's something like the Bogdon's sticks without chocolate covering, that would just about do it. It's not optimal that the stripes are lengthwise, but that's OK; real straws usually have those stripes now.
I think Pocky is definitely the way to go. They come in quite colourful version, such as banana (yellow) or strawberry (pink) which should make quite a convincing straw.
@echristopherson If I was just making it for me, I'd lick the chocolate off... but that really isn't an option when cooking for others :)
Upvoted because Pocky is the right answer for everything
I was considering rolling chocolate or fondant and lo and behold some googling turned up these fondant straws made for use atop cupcakes, along with instructions on how to make them:
https://bakearama.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/pink-lemonade-cupcakes/
The short version: Twist together "snakes" of red and white fondant to make straws. They will harden as the fondant dries.
A C, welcome! Have you ever clicked on a link and received a "this site no longer exists" message? That's exactly why we discourage "link only" answers here. Could you please at least paraphrase the main steps, so in case of link rot your answer stays useful? That said, you might want to take the [tour] and visit our [help] to learn more. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
From experience making candy-cane shaped cookies ... make both snakes a little thicker than your intended final diameter. Place the two side by side and roll them around until it looks like it's once stick (not just two things twisted together). As you're rolling, occassionally push one side while pulling the other to get some twist into it. Once it's well bonded, adjust the twist (as best you can, it takes some practice), finish rolling out to the desired thickness, and cut to length.
It looks like a product called "lollistraws" by squire boone village might work. They're lolipops shaped as drinking straws.
I do wonder if you can take some homemade candy cane or lolipops, dip them on a lubricated/foiled dowel and then pull out the dowel. Or more insanely, a small cylinder of ice.
Note: Lollistraws are wholesale only. They look good though.
Yeah. But I'd guess theres someone who resells them.
Yeah, I realized that just after logging off. Yes, there are retailers with them.
It's the wrong flavour but something like a candy cane with the curved part cut off might look the part.
I've seen many flavours of seaside rock sold in some shops, I think including the thin type about the diameter of a straw. This is in the UK, I'm not sure whether you can get it where you are.
Anywhere calling itself an "old fashioned sweet shop" or selling fudge cut up to order would be worth a try. A quick look online didn't show sensible quantities.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.794386
| 2016-03-08T16:38:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67235",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Dawn Jackson",
"Erica",
"GdD",
"Heather Asker",
"Joan Wagner",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Joe Trierweiler",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kevin",
"Mark Johnston",
"Nira Towles",
"Patricia",
"Qc James",
"Robert Hayman",
"Sandra Thomas",
"Sandy Strand",
"Shirley Brown",
"Stephie",
"That One Actor",
"drat",
"echristopherson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77380
|
Ran out of salt can I use MSG (monosodium glutamate) instead?
I can't read in local language and was looking to buy some salt, so I went to local shop picked up what looked like it (white crystals in plain plastic bag without much colour and decoration). I tasted it and it did have 'salty' feel to it, so I bought it... I then went home and ran EAN barcode check and it turned out to be monosodium glutamate (MSG).
I am to lazy to go back to shop and willing to compromise on taste this time...
Can I use monosodium glutamate instead of salt?
How are you going to use it?
@JohnFeltz throw it in water and cook some noodle like things, also rub chicken drumsticks in it with spices.
It is completely different from salt. See Monosodium glutamate.
Use salty ingredients that you already have ... soy sauce, brined pickles....
Sure you can. It will not taste salty, but it also will not taste bland, it will have a "seasoned" taste. Will you like it that way, or miss the salt? That's not something we can predict (or you, for that matter, if you have not tried it before). You have to taste it so you can know if you personally enjoy eating saltless, umami food.
When trying, make sure that you are using very small quantities. Measure in knifetips, not in teaspoons, add one at the time and stir well. You can easily overdo it, and there is no way to go back. Pay speciall attention to the feeling of "It's not good yet" - it can come from "not enough seasoning" or from "not enough salt", in the second case adding more MSG won't help.
Hi rumtscho, exactly what I did, reasoning was if I ruin it by using MSG instead of salt, I have to go to shop, or I have to go to shop get some salt... It didn't came out exactly 'salted' but it did have that additional flavour, so I was quite happy with outcome. One additional thing to note it enhances flavour more than salt so put only about half the amount of salt I would put into pot.
The simple answer is no.
The mouth feels five distinct flavours. Salty (from salt) is one of them. Umami (from MSG) is another.
They are not the same flavour at all, and cannot be directly substituted.
Also, MSG is not hygroscopic in the way salt is. It won't "pull the water out of" meat or vegetables the way that salt does.
While to a certain extent the notion of 5 (or maybe 6) distinct flavours is true, in reality it isn't quite as clear cut as that. Salt flavour is triggered in varying ways not just by sodium chloride (ie table salt) but also by other chlorides (eg potassium chloride, often sold as low sodium salt) and other sodium compounds (eg sodium acetate, the flavour in salt and vinegar crisps). I don't know about MSG specifically but would be surprised if it didn't trigger salt receptors to at least some degree.
Some time has passed and you might have already bought salt but maybe consider this next time. In dry-pan frying you can use lemon juice. If for example you are frying thin cuts of meat (works on chicken) you can squeeze some lemon juice directly into the pan. You can immediately smell the saltiness. Otherwise, you can salt through sallty condiments such as soy sauce and others.
Hope this helps :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.795052
| 2017-01-12T03:00:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77380",
"authors": [
"John Feltz",
"Jules",
"Matas Vaitkevicius",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"rackandboneman",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64678
|
What is a substitute for milk when making ham balls?
I'm making ham balls (with ground pork and ham), but I need something to substitute for milk. This is because of allergies, not just lactose intolerance: lactose-free milk still causes allergy problems.
2 lb. ham, ground
1 lb. pork, ground
2 eggs
1 c. bread (used corn chex due to gluten allergy)
1 c. milk
1 Tbsp worchestershire sauce.
Mix and roll into balls
Sauce:
1 1/2 c brown sugar
1 Tbsp dry mustard
1/2 c. vinegar
1/2 c. water
Pour on ham balls. Bake at 350 for about 1/2 hour.
Maybe posting the recipe would prove me wrong, but it sounds like the milk is just acting as a liquid. You don't give any idea of the quantity but assuming it's small you could try apple juice/cider (a nice pairing with pork if not too sweet). Alternatively beaten egg might work or might make them too firm. You couldquite possibly use a non-dairy milk (almond/soya/rice) though these won't always substitute for real milk.(Comment rather than answer due to not knowing proportions/recipe)
Is the milk by any chance being mixed with bread or breadcrumbs or crackers or some other kind of starchy thing?
Is this meatball-like (ground meat as the main ingredient), or is it more like a bechamel-based croquette (meat encased in a starchy layer)?
Oh ... and it's possible that the person in question has a reaction to casein, which is still present in lactose-free milk, yogurt, and hard cheeses.
That seems like an awful lot of milk for that recipe. 1c milk plus 1c bread/chex? I would expect more like 1/4c.
@ChrisH We used apple cider, Honestly, I think that is the best answer in this situation, partly because they are supposed to be sweet.
Is this a real recipe? I'm having a very hard time picturing how on earth these ham balls are supposed to be used.
They are all cooked now.
As ChrisH said in the comments, probably all that matters is that the milk is a liquid. If the end result is supposed to be something solid, there can't possibly be that much milk in there, and the fat and flavor of the milk are pretty small compared to the meat.
So, just use another liquid. If you're not worried about flavor, water would work. Stock/broth might be a nice small step up. Or if you want to tweak the recipe, you could take the opportunity to add other flavors. There are plenty of flavorful but mostly water things you could try - think of things like worcestershire sauce or soy sauce (though I'm not sure what'd go with your recipe).
If the recipe calls for the milk to be mixed with bread or something else starchy (like this recipe, for example), that's called a panade, and it indeed works with all kinds of liquids.
Thanks, there is already Worcestershire sauce in the recipe. As you said, the milk is just supposed to make them a little softer.
We used the apple juice and that seems to be working based on preliminary tests.
@HarlanNelson Yup, that's also mostly water - compared to the milk, it's going to be a lot sweeter, but not necessarily a bad thing.
Coconut water may add some nice sweetness depending on your other seasonings.
If you want to closely replicate the water/fat/sugar content of milk, you can use the following (originally from this other question):
200 mL water
2 tsp pure fat (e.g., cooking oil)
1 tbsp sugar
That will produce the equivalent of 1 cup of whole milk. You can substitute the water for some other flavorful liquid (e.g., stock or juice), but you will need to adjust the fat and sugar accordingly.
Note that the bread and milk in the original recipe are used to form a panade: The liquid activates the starch in the bread to form a gel, acting much like a fat to lubricate the protein fibers in the meat and help prevent the meatballs from being hard. Substituting a corn-based product for the bread might not have the same gelling properties. If you require the balls to be gluten free, then I would suggest trying finely milled oats.
My wife and daughter can't do dairy and we regularly substitute almond milk or coconut milk for regular milk in recipes. It almost always works fine. I'd probably go with almond milk for this recipe.
Almond milk sometimes has a different reaction in baking than dairy milk, but that should be irrelevant here (no baking soda/powder). This would be my approach, too :)
(This is an expansion of my comment -- both more general and more specific)
In many recipes that use milk, the milk is just there as a liquid. Replacing it with a suitably-flavoured liquid is often appropriate (though in the presence of other dairy ingredients be cautious before adding anything too acidic).
You don't give any idea of the quantity but assuming it's small you could try apple juice/cider (a nice pairing with pork if not too sweet). Now when I say cider I mean the alcholic sort ("hard cider"?) -- it's less sweet than cloudy apple juice. If you also want to avoid alcohol, a variation is juice with a few drops of cider vinegar. The flavour is different but can be good with pork. With other meats white wine can work.
In some cases adding (more) beaten egg in place of the milk might work, but some things would become too firm. Given that there's rather a lot of milk in this recipe, replacing it with egg would make change both the texture and the flavour too much.
You could quite possibly use a non-dairy milk (almond/soya/rice) though these won't always substitute for real milk. Again, when they will work is when the milk is being just a liquid. Long, gentle cooking of recipes with milk in often means that non-dairy milks won't work so well. You'd also need to consider whether the flavours work, in particular sweetness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.795579
| 2015-12-22T15:29:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64678",
"authors": [
"Anita Wassell",
"Barb VanHaitsma",
"Cascabel",
"Chloe Yang",
"Chris H",
"Erica",
"Escoce",
"Fred Perlmutter",
"Harlan Nelson",
"Henrik Broberg",
"Jane Furner",
"Jim Basara",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Johnny Navarro",
"Kim Lewis",
"M H",
"Pam Spedus",
"Scott Campbell",
"Spammer",
"Vilma Stasko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"sylvia heim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129788
|
What are examples of stones that can be used in cooking?
[This question might be better suited for geology.stackexchange].
The use of rocks (outside of salt) in cooking (making direct contact with the food) is documented in Mongolian cuisine and Native American cuisine.
I wanted to get a list of all the possible rocks/stones I could safely add to a dish while cooking.
As an added bonus:
It's become recently well known that using a cast-iron pan or adding a block of iron while cooking soups and stews can raise trace iron levels in food.
I am curious if for the suggested stones/rocks a list of trace elements can be mentioned. That would be interesting to know (ex: is there a rock that releases trace amounts of zinc while cooking with and is safe to use in food).
I guess a starting answer would be trying to classify what kinds of rocks/stones would ancient Native Americans or Mongolians encounter in their environment and likely use for cooking. Native Americans in particular were known to use clay balls fashioned for the purpose of being heated up and used to boil stews.
I suspect that the answer will be "whatever was on hand". Highly unlikely that they found that certain rocks gave trace elements and subsequent improvement in health in some way. Would also depend on the style of cooking - earth ovens will just use whatever, but dropping rocks into dishes to heat - you'd want clean, hard smooth stones so as to not waste food by it getting caught in a rough surface on the rock and hard so that they don't drop grit on heating (i.e. no sandstones or mudstones).
I can see components fitting more into the History SE rather than Geology, though the trace elements certainly fit in Geology; but are easily searched once you know rock types.
I’m voting to close this question because it asks for a list of answers. As most Stack Exchange sites, we don't accept big-list type questions.
FWIW, the forms in which dietary minerals are present in rock tend not to be the forms in which humans can metabolize them. You could boil a bunch of iron ore in your soup and the soup would contain a lot of iron, but that iron would mostly pass through your body without being absorbed.
In contrast, plants are great at absorbing these minerals (they do live on dirt, after all), and even at converting them into bioavailable forms. Eat plenty of those!
@rumtscho is there an option to open this as a community-wiki?
@SidharthGhoshal that use of community wiki has been discouraged for over a decade. Really, it is a fun question, and I hope you can find out the correct answer - I'm afraid we're just not equipped to arrive at that answer
For the community wiki policy, see https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/08/19/the-future-of-community-wiki/. It clears up that it's explicitely not meant to be used on questions which are otherwise closable, and there is a strong recommendation against using it for questions at all. This has been established in 2011, and has worked well ever since.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.796051
| 2024-12-17T00:56:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129788",
"authors": [
"Sidharth Ghoshal",
"Sneftel",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79530
|
How long is yogurt good after the best by date?
I have a large, unopened container of yogurt that is a couple weeks past the best by date and I wondering if it is safe to eat. It still smells fine. How long past the best by date is yogurt usually still good?
I don't know that we can really answer this... we tend to toe the line of "when in doubt, throw it out" and "read the expiration date"... there's no way for us to guarantee that your food is safe. You don't even explain whether it's a single-serving, unopened yogurt, or if it's a larger container... at the very least, you'll need to limit your variables.
@Catija I don't think that's entirely true - there are tons of things all over the site saying that expiration dates are about trying to guarantee good quality, not just safety.
People often cite stilltasty.com, http://www.stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/18717 , for specific common sense ideas about this topic.
Yogurt was originally a food preservation vehicle.
It is quite acidic and if unopened and refrigerated it can stay good for a very long time.
The pasteurized, inoculated, milk is allowed to ferment in the container.
Foreign bacteria don't have much chance to get in and if they do the yogurt culture crowds them out and the acidity kills them.
Greek yogurt, with its lower moisture level, stays good even longer.
I have had very old yogurt from time to time (months past the expiration) and it has only ever gone bad in one of two ways:
Either it went moldy or the yogurt's own bacteria was allowed to work for too long and the yogurt was too sour and not creamy anymore.
If the yogurt isn't moldy then it is probably fine. If it has continued to ferment then it will be more sour and possibly broken but not unsafe.
If you have any publicly accessible scientific sources saying that (safe if no mold, period), they would be great to link here :)
@rackandboneman - I didn't notice the duplicate- which I also answered. The link I provided there says that e coli can grow if the milk wasn't pasteurized which yogurt always is. Otherwise it is difficult for anything to grow in that acidic environment. Though unlikely, it is possible, so official sources can't say that it is perfectly safe. I've not seen any source that talks about the likelihood of commercial yogurt being contaminated with harmful, acid tolerant bacteria. I agree it would be nice to have a solid, scientific answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.796313
| 2017-03-30T22:56:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79530",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Lorel C.",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75016
|
When's the best time to buy a Thanksgiving turkey?
I know this is about buying, not cooking, but gathering your ingredients is the first step, and right now this is the one worrying me most.
I'll be cooking the Thanksgiving bird this year, due to my wife's work schedule. I know that in the past she's had issues with getting to the store after the entire selection is picked over, and having trouble finding any left that are the right size.
The tempting thing to do is just go buy one now and stick it in the freezer, but this early I'd worry about it getting frostburn in the intervening month.
So when is the best time to go pick out a turkey?
If you have any farms near you, ask around. You order the bird well in advance (so they have a cutoff when they've allocated all of the birds). The only problem is that 'right size' issues -- you don't know exactly what size you'll end up getting. (I think my step-dad was trying to get a 20lb turkey. As he was one of the last to pick up, what he got was a 28lb turkey. Luckily, he was smoking it, as I'm not sure if it would've fit in the oven.)
@Joe - There will only be 4 of us this year, but we are all serious turkey lovers, and look forward to leftovers, so I don't think its possible to get "too large". Well...it does have to fit in the freezer and fridge I guess...
There are a few very good reasons to buy a frozen turkey for Thanksgiving. According to Alton Brown, "Since a frozen bird is about as pliant as a bowling ball, it doesn’t get bruised on its way to the supermarket." In addition, as turkeys are generally frozen shortly after slaughter, they are often actually "fresher" than fresh birds. Finally, frozen turkeys are usually much less expensive than fresh birds. See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51751/can-meat-freeze-from-the-inside-out/51753#51753
Most turkeys sold in the United States for Thanksgiving are frozen. It simply is not feasible for meat processors to process the huge spike in turkeys for the holiday and provide everyone a fresh turkey. Expect to pay a premium for a fresh turkey over a frozen one.
If you buy a frozen turkey, from a quality standpoint it does not matter whether you buy a turkey a month out from Thanksgiving (now) or wait to buy the turkey later. You will basically get the same product.
Thank you. This is the information I was looking for. I guess I'll go get one this weekend at the latest then.
It all depends what you want:
Best quality: Fresh, organic, heritage turkey. Order now, pick up maximum 1 week beforehand
Good quality, reasonable price: Frozen organic turkey. Buy now
Good quality, normal price: Fresh turkey. Order now, pick up maximum 1 week beforehand
OK price: Frozen turkey. Buy now
Best price: Buy a large chicken and tell everyone it's a small turkey! :-)
When buying fresh, store in the coolest part of the fridge.
I don't know if I'd say organic is the distinguishing factor - it's certainly associated with a lot of good farms, but it's not the only thing. Organic certification requires ticking a lot of boxes, and a farm might use a lot of the good practices without getting the certification, so a free-range non-organic turkey from a good farm might well be as good as or better than an organic one from a less-good farm.
@Jefromi: sorry, forgot the word "heritage"... ;-)
Upvoted, because this is all very good info. Since this will be my first crack at cooking one myself, (thus I'm likely to screw up a bit), I don't think spending extra for a better quality bird would be sensible, but I do hope to get there one day.
Side note: for all fresh turkey: order now, pick up later ;-)
+1 for pointing out that you can order/reserve a fresh, fresh organic, or heritage turkey.
I go for frozen, but someday when money if falling out of my ears, I'll pay $50 for a heritage bird to see what the difference is.
Hopefully you'll get a gold populist badge out of it. That always takes the sting out of it for me.
Beyond what others have already mentioned, I'll add to it that I've worked before at cold storage (warehouses) in the United States where they quite literally spend all year adding inventory of frozen turkeys just to prepare for Thanksgiving. The vast majority of Thanksgiving turkeys are frozen, and those aren't just magically processed in the weeks coming up to the season either; it takes all year to build up that inventory.
For that reason and in addition to what was already stated, when you buy it is much more of a question in convenience to you of when you buy a frozen turkey. If you want a fresh turkey, that of course you should pre-order and pickup no earlier than a few days before you plan to prepare it.
You can eat turkey any time. Buy the proper size frozen now. Look for a fresh turkey a few days in advance. If you don't find a fresh turkey the proper size then put the frozen the fridge to thaw.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.796541
| 2016-10-25T22:00:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75016",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Fabby",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Stephie",
"T.E.D.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"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
}
|
121878
|
Why did the juice start coming out of the jar as soon as I lifted them out of the water?
I was water bath canning tomato juice. I filled them within 1/2" from top and put the lids on. The juice wasn't scalding hot but hot enough. When I was lifting the wire rack out all of a sudden the juice starts coming out from under lid and ring. I wasn't pressure canning and I don't know the temperature of the water bath canner. Do i need to reseal the jars or put them all in the fridge?
Welcome to SA! In order for our community to help you, they'll need a LOT more information. What were you making? How did you fill the jars? What canning process did you use?
I was water bath canning tomato juice. I filled them within 1/2" from top and put the lids on. The juice wasn't scalding hot but hot enough. When I was lifting the wire rack out all of a sudden the juice starts coming out from under 5lid and ring.
Please edit your question instead of adding detail in the comments. Once you do, I'll flag it for reopening. Thanks!
Also, just to be clear: you were not pressure canning? Also, what temperature was the water bath?
The lids were most likely on too tight on the jars during canning, trapping the air in the headspace and building pressure. The combination of trapped pressure and agitation from lifting the jars would cause the lids to lift and break the seals.
The sudden release and rapid drop in pressure caused the juice to 'boil-over' even with the canner water being below boiling temperature, similar to rapidly opening a carbonated beverage.
To fix this, try having the rings slightly looser for the next batch.
You can find other troubleshooting tips from Clemson University Extension's page on canning.
For future batches with similar boiling-over or seal issues, you can reprocess the jars following the same processing time and standard guidelines:
with new lids immediately, optionally with new jars if damaged and with additional 1 inch headspace,
within 24 hours with new lids if the jars sealed
otherwise, refrigerate or consume immediately.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.796947
| 2022-10-03T16:15:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121878",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Tammy Dew",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101090",
"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
}
|
126049
|
Are store-bought ground almonds typically defattened?
I replaced store-bought ground almonds with almonds that I ground myself using a blender in a biscuit recipe (brünsli) and upon baking, the biscuits lost their shape, halfway melting.
The same recipe with store-bought ground almonds works without problem.
Since the consistency of the dough (pre baking) was the same in both variants, my analysis of the problem is that there was more fat in the self-ground variant, thus indicating that the store-bought almonds are somehow defattened (for lack of a more appropriate word)?
Thanks!
Just guessing: maybe the moisture content of your almonds was higher, because they are fresher.
It depends on what you bought.
You can buy simply ground almonds, which have nothing removed - neither the brown skin before grinding, nor any amount of fat.
The second possibility is that they removed the skin before grinding, but else left everything as-is.
There is also a product that has both the skin removed and some fat removed. It is usually sold under the name "almond flour" rather than "ground almonds", and is typically of finer grind than the two others.
The first type is closest to home-ground almonds, but it will still behave differently than home-ground almonds, because it loses moisture during storage. If you are making a no-flour recipe that has ground almonds only, it isn't surprising that any substitution between these three, or dry-bought-freshly-ground, or even freshly-deshelled-freshly-ground almonds, can absorb a different amount of liquid or fat, and result in bad texture.
I agree with this, my money would be on the freshly ground ones simply having more moisture, I've never heard of ground almonds having fat removed.
Thanks, the dough didn't feel much wetter before baking, but I guess it's possible for the humidity to only come out of the "grounds" upon baking, which would also result in this "melting" phenomenon I guess.
The ground almonds were those: https://www.migros.ch/en/product/105331300000 so definitely not option 2 or 3.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.797145
| 2023-12-10T07:46:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126049",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Kingsley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"vfk45"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93656
|
How to get all the rice out of the pan?
Often when cooking rice a lot of it ends up sticking to the bottom of the pan and gets wasted. I'm using a frying pan with a non-stick surface. Is there a way to get all the rice out of the pan easily?
What kind of pan are you using?
frying pan with a non-stick surface
Other things you can try:
add a tablespoon more water at the start
reduce the cook-time by 2 minutes
let the rice sit for a minute or two with the lid on, sort of "steaming in its own juices"
The idea is that if the rice is just a bit damp, it won't stick.
I do the "let sit for a few minutes with a lid on" trick, it works for me every single time.
The last point is the key one. Turn the heat off (or very low) well before the rice is fully cooked; with a lid on to keep the heat in, it will continue cooking just fine, but without further heat from the burner, there’s no sticking on the bottom. For cooking white rice in a heavy pan or a heavy hotplate, I usually turn the heat off straight as soon as the rice first comes to the boil. In a light pan on gas or an induction hob, I’d turn the heat to very low at that point, and then completely off a few minutes later when the rice is mostly cooked.
Sometimes when the rice first gets soaked, it can adhere to the bottom of the pan. If you leave them there, they won't come off without scraping even if you don't overcook it. Once the water comes to a boil, I take a fork and stir the rice briskly to make sure it's free then turn the heat down and cover.
I find that a silicone spatula is frequently better at getting the pan clean than a stiff spatula like a wooden one. If your rice is slightly burnt into the bottom, you might have to use both - scratch it off with the wooden spatula, then collect with the silicone one.
Try putting a spoon of fat (oil, butter, etc) in the beginning... it will melt and coat the rice/bottom of the pan. I used to always have some rice stuck to the bottom of my pan when I moved into my new home with gas stoves instead of electric. This trick works very well, and now my rice all comes out of the pan clean and easily.
When making sticky-rice I use a rice cooker with a non-stick surface on the inner pot. This works tremendously effectively. If you are using a frying pan with a non-stick surface then my immediate reaction would be that the contact point heat is too high. My second reaction would be to make sure you were rinsing your rice before cooking it (this helps with the extreme stickiness issue)
was going to say the same, never faced any problems with burning or sticking since I started using a rice cooker. the rice clumps together and comes out in almost one piece
Cook it in the microwave. It never sticks because the heat is applied evenly throughout.
Place one cup of rice with one cup of boiling water in a glass bowl with a tablespoon of oil.
Heat on full power for 6 minutes.
Stir the rice, add another cup of boiling water and heat for another 6 minutes. Then fluff it up once finished.
Once you cook it this way you will never go back.
I'm going to go contra to pretty much all the advice so far, but this is how I've been cooking rice for 25 years...
Clear-lidded pans make this far less guesswork.
Don't use a frying pan, use a heavy-bottomed saucepan with a tight-fitting lid, 3 times the volume of your finished rice.
Don't rinse the rice, you don't need to.
Use your coolest, most even burner - this is not necessarily the smallest. Sometimes the tiny ones generate bad hot-spots that a medium one wouldn't.
Boil the kettle.
Pre-heat the pan on high.
Add rice to your pre-heated pan. Salt as required.
Immediately add 1.75 x the volume of water, not double.
That should immediately hit a rapid boil because of the pre-heating.
Stir once, just enough to ensure the grains are separated.
Drop the heat to minimum [on gas this is near instantaneous, you might need to wait a second on electric]
Put the lid on.
The contents should foam almost to the top but not go over - lift & replace the lid if it looks like it will go over, otherwise leave alone.
Simmer at this minimum temperature for 12-15 mins [depends how low you can get the heat]
Don't lift the lid to "see if it's done". Learn when it's done by repetition.
'When it's done' btw, is when all the water is gone; you might be able to hear a slight crackle as the last bit dries.
After the required time, switch off the heat, leave the lid on.
Allow to rest for another 15-20 minutes.
Fluff briefly with your spatula; no great effort should be required at this stage.
Serve.
The rice will be separate & fluffy, none will be stuck to the bottom.
This works for pretty much any rice type - long grain, basmati, or short-grain, glutinous [short grain, of course, will not separate in the same way].
"Don't rinse the rice, you don't need to.", you buy processed rice in bag of 500gr to 1kg right?
If by processed you mean 'ordinary' rice from a supermarket, yes; in 1 or 2kg bags normally. I usually have 4 or 5 different varieties at any time & will apply this same method to all of them. I never use that peculiar par-boiled 'easy-cook' stuff, if that's what you mean.
I guess it depends on what you expect from your rice, but my recipe is this:
Heat up a pot with some (not too much) oil until the oil is quite hot.
Put some volume of rice into it, and vigorously scrape/mix it with whatever large implement you have around (big spatula).
Smell it a lot. At some point the rice will start to roast (ever so slightly), it may smell like nuts or something like that.
As soon as that smell changes, put in two volumes of cold water.
Let it get to boiling and immediately lower the temperature until it stays at an almost-boil. Stir occasionally (like every few minutes). Let it cook until the water is about gone.
For whatever reason, the rice never sticks, at least not more than can easily be swooshed off with a spatula (without any force, without getting any black burned residue).
I usually do that in stainless steel pots (very smooth surfaces). Occasionally I do it in a big wok with a noticeably rough surface, and there it works the same. So it should also work in a pan. I have not tried it in my cast iron pan.
Do what sushi chefs do when cooking rice, which is to use something like cheese cloth inside the cooking pot. I bought one specifically made for rice, it's big enough to fit inside the pot folded over the rice and the water. AS the rice cooks and the water boils away, the net catches all the rice. When the rice is cooked you grab the ends of the netting and pull the whole thing out of the pot. voila, all the rice in the net.
I agree with the suggestion of adding a very small amount of oil. I pay attention to the taste and freshness of the oil I use, however small the amount, it influences the taste of the result.
Sticking rice usually happens because of a very high cooking temperature.
Your pot should be slightly boiling with the cap closed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.797452
| 2018-11-06T16:00:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93656",
"authors": [
"Drag and Drop",
"Jane S",
"JimmyJames",
"Mah noor",
"PLL",
"Pixelomo",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70400",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65585
|
Chili ended up tasting like indian food
So I am making some chili for a work contest, and I decided to use a new recipe/approach for some reason. It was largely based on the food lab's chili.
http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/01/how-to-make-the-best-chili-ever-recipe-super-bowl.html
Here is what I did...
edit: To be clear, I did not follow the serious eats recipe. I just used elements of it and then used the steps that I have listed below.
reconstitute some dried chilis in chicken broth (and a fresh jalapeno). Blend this later to make part of the liquid base
brown some beef chuck in a dutch oven
Add some chopped yellow onion and some garlic that I grated on a microplane
add tomato paste, continue to brown for a bit
add chili broth, more chicken broth, oregano, salt, pepper, some cumin, and a single square of bitter chocolate
stew for several hours before adding some beans
The results are really just now coming together, and it honestly tastes a lot like a beef curry. That's not a bad taste by any means, but I'm wondering if it is the best thing to submit to a chili cookoff. Do you guys think there is anything that I can do to bring it slightly back to a more typical chili taste?
Cumin is a spice used in both southwestern and indian cooking, that would be the tie-in for me. It's quite possible that the cumin is coming out stronger than the other flavorings. My advice is not to worry about it - leave it alone and let it simmer, the other spices will come through later. Refrigerate it overnight and it will likely be much better.
What I wouldn't do it start throwing loads of extra stuff into it, if it tastes good leave it alone - it's your take on chili, there's no right or wrong answer.
Normally I'd post this as a comment, rather than an answer, but it's getting a bit long. The problem is, this is conjecture.
I'm guessing it's the cloves, coriander, and/or anise that might be throwing off the flavors towards Indian. You have a few options : (1) make it so so spicy that no one wants to actually eat large amounts of it, (2) smother the flavor with something else. Unfortunately, chili is so strongly flavored, this can be difficult, or (3) try to meld the flavors more.
Letting the chili sit overnight will help with #3, but you can also add more alcohol and let it cook down. Instead of going with a neutral alcohol like the recipe calls for, I'd add beer or hard cider. For more of #2, I'd also be inclined to add more tomato paste ... it might help to smother some of the stronger flavors.
You might also have to serve it with cheese & sour cream.
Unfotunately from experience, the one time I really screwed up a batch of chili, I tried all sorts of things, and the only way to save it was to eat it lukewarm (which kept you from noticing all of the flavors), but with lots of hot sauce (which kept you from noticing it was lukewarm, and covered up the flavor).
Thanks for the response! I actually just used that food lab recipe as a starting point. The approximate recipe that I used is actually laid out in my post, and it did not include cloves, anise, or alcohol. I do plan on letting it sit overnight, though. I'll check it out tomorrow and consider adding some kind of tomato product.
I'm years late with this answer… but to point it squarely at "Mexico" rather than "India" add chipotle [or at a push smoked paprika], masa harina and make sure you use real Mexican not European oregano. The two plants are not even closely related. You can add Mexican on top of European late in a dish & it will subtly change the profile.
There is absolutely no element of smokey chilli & masa harina that could vaguely be mis-interpreted as "Indian".
When you use a recipe that describes Rajma Masala with added pieces of beef and fish more than a conventional chili... from an author that tends to defy conventional wisodm with recipes that are innovative and great at the price of the recipe being idiosyncratic, fragile, and unforgiving of errors, you might end up with Rajma Masala with added pieces of beef and fish.
The whole spices in his picture are half a garam masala - toasted like you would in Indian cooking, to boot.
And then:
"Add chile puree and cook, stirring frequently and scraping bottom of pot until chile mixture begins to fry and leaves a coating on bottom of pan"
The "chile puree" is a recipe step that has spices and tomato paste in it. And is added on top of thoroughly cooked onions and ... fried. Frying tomato paste off is not unheard of, but in that context ... a masala waiting to happen.
Postscript: forgot to mark my opinion on KLA's recipes as subjective and personal - it is.
Is the phrasing you've chosen really necessary? Why use "dead cow" twice instead of simply saying "beef"...
A whole live cow won't fit most cookware, and putting it in there would luckily be against animal cruelty laws.
Add a cup of cold espresso or strong coffee. Honestly. It will give you that seared (minced) meat taste that this recipe chose to forego for the fluffy dutch oven preparation. It will not change the other spice tones, but the general impression and taste.
I understand you might be worried. Try it with a bit first. You will like it!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.798060
| 2016-01-18T23:15:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65585",
"authors": [
"Aaran Hayward",
"Ann Hanratty",
"Bill Urquhart",
"Bonnie Stockdale",
"Bronwyn Cooper",
"Catija",
"Kelly Mintz",
"Kevin White",
"Kristi FAIRLEY",
"Richard Doss",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42167",
"neelshiv",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122176
|
When making bread, is it possible to freeze the dough?
I like to make flatbreads but have minimal space for kneading/making the dough, which requires a lot of effort to move away kitchen items and machines. The recipe I usually do uses yeast with about 1 hour of proofing time.
What I would like to do is make a large batch of dough and preferably freeze them in portions to defrost, roll out and bake in a frying pan.
I figured since they are flatbreads, it might not matter that much, but what effects can this have on the dough?
Yes, dough can be frozen, later thawed and continue making bread. There is, in general, no effect on the dough/yeast once it's thawed/re-warmed. Freezing them relatively flat will help them to freeze/thaw faster than as more rounded (ball or log) shapes.
An alternative (not one I use or particularly suggest, but you might want to know it exists) is to "par-bake" breads and store them frozen. In that case you can pull from the freezer and bake, since you've already let it rise and "set" the structure by par-baking before freezing. This is common in commercial baking (for, e.g. restaurant supply) to allow "freshly baked bread" without anything other than the final baking being done on-premises. They do take up more freezer space.
Excellent, thank you so much for your answer. I usually par-bake but that isn't really viable for flatbreads.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.798518
| 2022-11-01T11:47:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122176",
"authors": [
"Fralle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101324"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122155
|
Water soluble vs fat soluble flavours - how does solubility affect taste perception
I understand that flavours are basically molecules that stimulate taste receptors and that some flavours are water soluble while others are fat soluble.
Does solubility enhance or diminish perception of that flavour? Why?
Thanks!
All you experience with your tongue is the classic sweet, sour, salt, bitter, umami. Flavour itself is a result of interaction of chemicals with receptors on nerves in the back of the nasal cavity (which is linked to the mouth).
This reminds me of the classic "What do I drink if my curry is too hot?" question.
Welcome to SA! However, you're asking multiple different questions here. Can you edit your question to narrow down what you're asking to one specific question?
@FuzzyChef : Edited and simplified. Cheers
It's not a complete answer to your question, but my answer to When a recipe asks to add spices to the oil, can you add the spices directly to the sauce for the same effect? might be of interest here
@ChrisH Thanks for the link. Indeed an interesting read. FWIW, my conclusion is that once a solvent is added, the flavours change ... Can't say whether it is enhanced or diminished because the solvent itself can overpower the flavour.
@ZaphBrox a neutral solvent won't overpower the flavour, but fats change the mouthfeel which is a closely related part of the perception. Changing the balance of flavour compounds that are delivered when eating makes a huge difference, and the solvent changes that
Thanks, that makes it answerable! It's also been asked before: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/89433/7180 Check the answer there, it's your question exactly.
@FuzzyChef Thanks for the link ... Quoting a portion of your answer from the link : "some spices spread their flavor much better in fat that in water". How about a beverage like coffee? The molecules are already in a supension ... so adding milk/cream to coffee doesn't change the mobility of the molecules so much. Yet the flavours change significantly. The taste of milk does come through also, but I wonder if there is a good experiment for this. Non-fat milk vs whole milk perhaps? But then again we may be back to "mouthfeel" rather than actual flavour.
Coffee would be water-soluble. So water spreads the flavor (compare drinking a cup of coffee vs. chewing some beans). But other things (e.g. the fat and protein in milk) do not, and may even mask it.
And yeah, mouthfeel is completely different and for that matter unaswerable; it's completely subjective unless within very narrow parameters (e.g. "how do I make the mouthfeel of this recipe less gritty").
@FuzzyChef If I'm not mistaken, some organic compounds in coffee are fat soluble.
Just in case more clarification is needed: "soluble" means that the flavor will disperse in that medium, which enhances the flavor of the spice, food, or herb, because more of it can be tasted.
I don't know if there's a word for substances which diminish, or mask, the flavor of certain things (like milk with hot peppers), but that would be the opposite of solubility.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.798664
| 2022-10-30T05:20:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122155",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Tetsujin",
"Zaph Brox",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"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
}
|
122606
|
Cooking roast potatoes with a slow cooked roast
Not very experienced cook I have mastered a normal roast where the meat is cooked about gas 6-7 for a couple of hours but I want to try a slow cooked pork roast (6 hours first hour on a high heat then gas 3).
The issue I have is that I only have 1 oven and will need to roast all my veg. Normal wisdom would tell me this needs to be at a higher heat, can I still get crunchy roast poatatoes at the lower heat, or will this need some clever timing with me starting the veg off as the meat finishes cooking and then turning the heat up as I let the meat rest?
You can actually get beautifully crunchy roast potatoes in a slow cooker [I didn't believe it either until I tried it] so you can also get them in a low oven. You just need time.
To get this to work at lower temperatures, par-boiling becomes essential [I don't always if I've got the oven at the 'right' temperature. You need to par-boil to very nearly 'done' [maybe 10 mins], then be careful as you shake them to fluff them up.
First attempt, I'd give them two hours. You can always pull them early & put back for a quick refresh if that's too long. Next time you'll know for certain based on your particular oven & can adjust accordingly.
That's really surprising. Caramelisation of sucrose starts to occur at about 160C (320F), which I wouldn't expect a slow-cooker to reach. Some web searches suggest a max temperature of 140C or at most 150C (300F). But maybe crunchiness does not depend on caramelisation ... Can you distinguish your slow-cooked crunchy roast potatoes from those baked the normal way in a hot oven?
@MarkWildon - I'd never considered the chemical process before, but wouldn't have thought caramelisation would be part of it. I found an article that explains it's the starches cross-linking then drying - https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2020/12/18/crispy-potato-tips/ and, tbh, you can make good or bad roasties by both methods. When you get it right, you can't tell the difference. I've done the slow-cooker method even without par-boiling & eventually you do get something close if not identical,
Maillard reaction takes place at much lower temperatures than caramelization, and is the primary process in browning potatoes.
Spoke to a chef friend of mine and asked him this and he confirmed that potatoes can be roasted at a low temp. His advice was make sure, as well as the potatoes being fluffed up, the oil in the pan is as hot as it can be when the potatoes go in.
And now cooked them myself, gas 3 took 2 hours or so crisped up lovely with a really fluffy interior.
Turning up the heat while the roast rests works wonderfully. When I do a roast turkey, I let it rest a full hour, which gives me lots of time (and oven space) to do the roasted vegetables entirely during that resting time.
When I do a smaller roast, that rests maybe 15 or 30 minutes, I put the potatoes in with it at a lower temperature, and get them cooked, then give them 15 minutes or so at a hotter temperature to get crispy and browned. It works great.
You don't need "clever timing". You give the potatoes 30-45 min at the lower temp, and 15 or so at the hot. Or if the meat is going to rest a long time, then just go with however long you cook potatoes at the hot temp.
But to be clear, you're never going to get crunchy roast potatoes at gas mark 3.
I work in F, but yeah, I turn it up to "good and hot" which for me is 425-450, I think that's gas mark 6 or 7. You can however get potatoes completely cooked at those lower temperatures. You just need a hot time at the end for crunchy.
Kate & @KevinArlin - you really don't. Google 'slow cooker roast potatoes'. I didn't believe it either until I tried it.
@Tetsujin Ugh, if only when we learned that the Maillard reaction only takes place over 350 degrees that could be straightforwardly true…I see some crispy photos but I don’t understand them! I guess maybe this is just dehydration-crispiness without Maillard-browniness?
@KevinArlin - see my comment & link under my own answer. I really don't know the chemistry of all this, but the article never mentions maillard, just cross-linked dried starches.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.798947
| 2022-12-09T19:07:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122606",
"authors": [
"Kate Gregory",
"Kevin Carlson",
"Mark Wildon",
"Richard C",
"Sanchises",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81113"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122668
|
How much sugar and/or milk do I need to turn 99% chocolate to 70% dark chocolate?
I ordered 70% dark chocolate from an online store but they sent me 99% chocolate. I've been trying to find measurements on the Internet on how to turn it into 70% dark chocolate, but most of the sites don't say a specific amount. As Christmas comes closer, I'm starting to panic.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Do you have cocoa or chocolate? Because cocoa powder is solids only, not cocoa butter. You might need to mix some fat in there, but I’ve never done it so have no clue what to use (butter? Coconut oil?)
What are you trying to make with it?
If it's 99% chocolate, not cocoa, please update the question. Also ... what do you want to make with it?
I edited your question to add information you mentioned on your comment, feel free to roll back if that's not correct.
For those who are asking what I'm trying to make, I'm trying to make the chocolate into a lower percentage
@Deobiff "Make it into a lower percentage" is still unclear. Do you want a chocolate bar, to be eaten on its own, or do you mean to bake it into something (e.g. a chocolate cake, or brownies) or do you mean to work it into a chocolate confection (e.g. truffles)? The chocolate bar part is impossible, but we can provide you with suggestions (and proportions) how to substitute when using it as ingredient, if you tell us what recipe you will be making with it.
If it's any help the precise conversion for any two concentrations is
C1xV1 = C2xV2
where C = concentratiion and V = volume or weight.
So, for 1 unit of 70% from 99%:
70 x 1 = 99 x V2
rearrange to make V2 the subject:
V2 = 70/99 = 0.707
So, if you took .707 g or 0.707 oz of 99% and added it to something to make up to 1 g or 1 oz, technically you would have 70%. However, adding sugar or milk won't make you chocolate that will set like a block. For that you need to add cocoa butter and likely some sugar. How much sugar would depend on the style of block you aim to make.
If you take your favourite brand of 70% chocolate and look at the dietary information on the back (assuming you are in a country with this information provided), then it will tell you how much of your 70% block is sugar, though if you are in the USA, you may need to do a little conversion from servings to percent.
The popular brand Lindt, has, according to this website 12 g sugar per 40 g serving (4 squares) in their 70% block; so 12/40 = 30%, so almost all of the remaining 30% is sugar. I don't know how much of this is natural sugars present in the cocoa to start with. However, if it is any help, the same site has the 90% as 3 g sugar/40 g = 7.5%, so less than the 10% you might expect if the sugar makes up all the additional mass.
Cook's Illustrated says you can replace 1 ounce bittersweet/semisweet (70%) chocolate with 2/3 ounce unsweetened (99-100%) chocolate + 2 teaspoons of sugar.
However, they note this will only work well for baked good like brownies. Unsweetened chocolate has more starch than sweet chocolate so it may not work as well for a cake.
Chocolate "percentages" (for "pure" dark chocolate, anyway) work as pretty much as follows:
70% chocolate is 70% cocoa, 30% sugar, and (yes, more than 100% total) a percentage of cacao butter, at least if it's the real thing.
For the real thing, the fat ratio is fairly consistent, though it may vary slightly with the raw ingredients. Two examples from a chocholic's stash.
Callebaut 70/30/38
Schokinag 75/25/40
Both are listing cacao solids / sugar / fat percentage, where cacao solids and sugar add to 100% for "chocolate percentage", and the fat relation to cacao solids is 53-54% for those examples (40/75 and 38/70)
So, assuming the cacao butter has not largely been siphoned off to the cosmetics industry, the weight of your 99% chocolate is actually 152-153% of the weight of the cacao solids in it. Further math says the cacao solids are about 65% of the combined cacao solids and cocoa butter mass, pretty much.
So if you have 100 grams of 99% chocolate, it's got 64-65 grams of cacao solids, and 26-27 grams of sugar added to that would make 126-7 grams of 70% chocolate.
It's mostly confusing because of the special way the chocolate industry uses "percentage" which is not intuitive.
Sorry, but this answer is quite confused, and arrives at the wrong conclusion. There is nowhere in the real calculation where you need to work with "more than 100% total". A 70% chocolate is exactly what it says, 70% chocolate mass, and 30% sugar. Out of that chocolate mass, some is cocoa butter and some cocoa solids (and this may differ between brands). But the usage of percentages is completely intuitive. It also lets you use a simple rule of three calculation - so you need to add 42 g of sugar, not 26.
You're quite utterly, confidently, wrong here, @rumtscho.
here a few random search engine first page results: https://theochocolate.com/blog/understanding-cocoa-percentages/, https://greatist.com/eat/chocolate-percentage-differences-explained#cocoa-percentages, https://toptierchocolate.com/what-does-chocolate-percentage-mean/. They all agree with what I wrote. Or, for a professional source, see Greweling's book "Chocolates and confections", Chapter 2, subchapter "chocolate percentages".
A chocate bar that contains 70% cocoa, 30% sugar and 38% fat does not contain 138% of ingredients. It contains 70% cocoa which is a mixture of 38% cocoa fat and 70%-38%=32% cocoa solids. The three numbers claim that 70% of the total are ingredients made from cocoa beans, 30% are sugar and 38% are fat. This is all correct but the total is still 100%.
I think you're confusing cocoa and chocolate. A bar labeled 70% is emphatically NOT 70% cocoa, it's 70% chocolate. "Cocoa" and "chocolate" are not interchangeable.
You can't just add sugar to chocolate and change the % of chocolate that way. If you have a melanger and want to integrate new suger you can, but it's not ideal, and the consistency won't be the same. Also keep in mind that the % chocolate is going to be a mix of solids and cocoa butter, and there's no way to know how much of each was used. For one thing, different beans have different percentages of cocoa butter (usually just above 50%), and also because most manufacturers add additional cocoa butter to their chocolate. Some also add lecithin and other ingredients. The best way to add sugar to this would be to find a chocolate that is much lower and combine the two and then re-temper it. You can then very easily calculate how much of the second chocolate to use based on what percent chocolate you're using to add sugar to the final blend.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.799302
| 2022-12-15T13:10:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122668",
"authors": [
"Deobiff",
"Ecnerwal",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122827
|
What is the difference between "air fry", "convection broil", and "convection bake" (all in the same oven)?
The answers to Is there a difference between a Convection Oven and an Air Fryer?
all talk about the difference between a large oven and a small appliance.
But what's the difference when it's the same oven with optional settings?
For instance, I just bought a new LG (LSGL6337) gas range (top broiler, rear heater), which in addition to the normal bake setting, also has convection bake, convection roast, and air fry.
Setting
Description
bake
Bake is used to prepare foods such as pastries, breads, and casseroles. It is normal for the convection fan to operate periodically throughout a normal bake cycle in the oven.
convection bake
For more even mult-rack cooking of pastries, cookies, muffins, biscuits, and breads.
convection roast
Combines cooking with the convection fan to roast meats and poultry. The heated air circulates around the food from all sides, sealing in juices and flavors.
air fry
This feature automatically increases the entered temperature by 50F° for optimal performance
The descriptions are market-speak, and not very useful in reality.
All four modes will use the fan, and I can of course choose the temperature.
Does air fry do nothing more than increase the temperature to more than I asked for?
That sounds like a feature the sales department requested.
And apparently, the two "convection" modes subtract 25F° from the requested temperature.
So even if the only difference between these is the pointless and confusing temperature adjustments (+50 or -25), that still doesn't explain what's different between the convection bake and convection roast modes.
What is the actual technical difference in behaviour between the various modes?
Without knowing the exact model of range and number/placement of heating elements (it could be 2 or 3), it is difficult to be absolutely accurate as to what the manufacturer means by these settings. I'm assuming here your range has just got a top and bottom element. It may possibly just have a top element and a fan element. If your range has 3 elements, hot air will also be emitted from the rear blower fan under certain settings.
As a rough outline, this is how each mode will distribute and focus the heat in a different way:
Convection bake - Bottom element + fan. Used for pies, quiches etc. that benefit from heating from below to prevent soggy pastry etc.
Convection broil - Top element + fan. Used for dishes you want to crisp up on top, e.g. Cottage pie, lasagne, pasta bake etc.
Air fry - Top + Bottom elements + fan. Used for rapid heating all round, foods such as chips, frozen nuggets, pizza etc.
Please note these are only guidelines, every oven is thermally very different and the best way (unfortunately) of evaluating each mode is trial and error.
For instance, in my oven if I were to cook a lasagne on setting 2, the top would be perfect and the bottom very al-dente, it is best for me to use this setting for the last 5-10 minutes of cooking. Yours may be very different.
For definitive answer, I'd try and source the original instruction manual online, unless it is very obscure or old. That will be your best guide.
Thanks. I've found and added more details. (Also I mistakenly said convection broil when I meant convection roast.)
I would be tempted to put your oven on the highest setting for each of the modes, and looking into the oven, see the placement and shape of the elements as they glow red during warm up. From what you are saying it sounds like you definitely have a top and bottom element, but do you have a circular one behind the fan was well?
There is only the broiler at the top and a circular opening at the back where the fan and flames are. The bottom is solid with no burner.
Our cooker has a heating element under the base which is covered as well as one behind the fan. This is different from many US versions that have an open element top and bottom. What make / model of range is it?
See also: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120390/is-there-a-difference-between-a-convection-oven-and-an-air-fryer there seems to be much confusion by the difference in definition of convection between the US and Europe.
I just noticed that the included documentation says that LG HTML Manual is "The complete owner's manual". But it still describes things in terms of what it will accomplish, not what it will actually do.
And yes, there really is no bottom element. That's a selling feature: the oven is taller (7 rack positions) and no holes for spills to get into.
Note that I've no complaints about the oven itself, I simply have a personal need to understand how things work. ¶ This reminds me of an amplifier with sound processing that I had years ago. It had modes one could select with descriptions like: "Natural - gives a more natural sound", "Realistic - produces a more realistic sound", "Straight - presents the sound as it was recorded". Great for salesmen, but what does it mean?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.799917
| 2022-12-29T00:09:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122827",
"authors": [
"Greybeard",
"Ray Butterworth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65886
|
Do tinned anchovies need to be sold cold for food safety or quality reasons?
Anchovies, tinned or in glass, is sometimes kept and sold cold. I don't see that happen with other foods. Is there a food safety reason for this? If so, does it mean that they also need to be kept refrigerated after purchase even if unopened?
The only reason I can think of is Botulism, because they can't be pressure heated because they would break? Is that so?
Can you post a particular brand? A picture of the label would be helpful. Canned hams are sometimes labeled "keep refrigerated" because they are pasteurized, not sterilized. In those cases, they are clearly labeled. That is the only canned item I can think of that isn't shelf stable, but I'm sure there are more.
I will see what I can do. But I am pretty sure the lable says nothing special
Maybe the stores are afraid of making Surströmming if they don't have good turn-over ?
@MarcLuxen Surstomming is a fermented fish dish served traditionally in Sweden.
I found this very informative article from the Crown Prince company, an anchovy canner and distributor. Apparently the reason for cold storage has to do with the preservation process and product quality:
Anchovy Handling
Anchovies are a "semi-preserved" product. This means that they are not
sterilized by either cooking or pasteurization. Instead, anchovies are
preserved by a salting process whereby salt is used to control
bacteria which would otherwise render a canned product unusable.
The anchovies remain in the salt until just before canning. Therefore,
suppliers do not pack ahead of order. Our anchovies are not packed
until just prior to shipment.
Because they are "semi-preserved", anchovies will eventually break
down and become mushy. The cans may even puff. This occurs because
there is a non-harmful bacteria that survives in salt. This bacteria
can be inconvenient because when it grows it can eventually form a gas
which will puff the can. We repeat that this is not harmful to humans,
but is most inconvenient.
Heat will hasten the growth of the non-harmful bacteria. Anchovies
should always be stored in a cool place, preferably in the
refrigerator. Their shelf life when refrigerated is about 18 months.
If you do not plan on consuming the anchovies or paste immediately
after purchasing, we recommend storing them in the refrigerator. It is
important to note that puffed anchovy cans are not indicative of a
faulty canning procedure, but rather of improper storage subsequent to
canning.
Occasionally, customers complain of a white substance in the can.
Often, salt collects around the edges of the fish. This is harmless,
as it is only salt.
Sounds like if you're not going to wait 18 months to eat them, the refrigeration is overkill.
If you call the canner/distributor's recommendation "overkill". :-) It sounds like for the best possible freshness (and not-mushiness), it's recommended to keep the can chilled, though there is no "danger" in not storing it cool, just degradation of product quality.
@KristinaLopez I'm just saying that if you're going to eat them within a week or two, and your place is ~70F, there's really no need to take fridge space - there won't be any loss of freshness or quality over that short of a period. Absolutely, if you're storing them long-term, use the fridge. (For the record, I too think that this is a better answer than Jolene's - but that does not change the fact that her answer is also an answer.)
Catija also made a great point in chat: their caution says that heat is problematic, and doesn't actually say how cool is necessary. They might just mean "not hot". So it might well be that a cool room temperature is just fine even for long-term storage. And grocery stores usually are kept relatively cool, so there may be no reason for them to sell them cold.
I wasn't part of that chat so I'm not sure who Catija's "they" is. The SE site I'm most active on requires cited sources so that's the route I went Jefromi. Crown Prince recommends keeping them refrigerated, though, yes, they also state that heat is the problem and will cause a degradation of product quality. I also found a reference from Roland Brands (from Jolene's link to Amazon anchovy products for sale) that specifically recommended they be kept between 50 and 60° F....to be continued
cont'd: The anchovy police won't arrest a store proprietor nor a consumer for not selling or storing their anchovies in the fridge but when they go to enjoy them and find yucky, mushy mere shadows of their former fishy glory, they may wish they had done so. :-) One last addendum...our refrigerators in the US are ginormous and will never not have room for a tiny tin of anchovies but I know this is an international forum and can attest my German aunt's hat-box sized fridge might have a problem squeezing items in for long-term storage.
@KristinaLopez By "they" I meant Crown Prince. The 50-60F thing would be worth citing in your answer; it's a lot more clear and specific than Crown Prince was (which is what led to my "how cool is necessary?" comment).
All anchovies I have ever seen in cans or jars are shelf stable. There is no reason to sell them cold unless there is a consumer preference for them to be sold that way. I have never seen canned or jarred anchovies in the cooler (US). There may be brands sold elsewhere that are not shelf stable, but they should be labeled as such, particularly since canned items are generally expected to be shelf stable.
Of the dozens of brands of anchovies sold on Amazon, most of which are from Italy, Spain or Morocco, all are shelf stable.
EDIT: The accepted answer points out something that I didn't know, and it appears that anchovies that are going to be held long term do benefit from being kept at lower than room temperature.
To the moderator's point, it is an answer, but the lack of cited source makes it more of an opinion that though shared by other high-score users - doesn't necessarily make right. I guess I'm more accustomed to different sites where a cited source trumps opinion and where comments that are question-related are kept conveniently with the question and answers and aren't wisked away inconveniently to the chat room, never to be seen again. Thanks for your ear! :-)
@Jolenealaska, to your edited point, a quick check on details of those Amazon listings have a note related to ideal temperature for storage and (in the case of the Roland brand anchovies, for one) they recommend: "Semi-conserved product the anchovies need to be stored at a consistent temperature of 50 to 60 degrees". My pantry is not a consistent temperature of 50-60 degrees so I would have to consider a temperature controlled environment like my refrigerator.
I've never seen unrefrigerated anchovies in Spain (yet eggs are never refrigerated, contrary to the US, for other reasons).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.800335
| 2016-01-26T10:15:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65886",
"authors": [
"Andy Walters",
"Carol Forde",
"Cascabel",
"Celiac Revelation",
"Gary Owen",
"Georgene K Wigen",
"Homer Hanna",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jonas bjørno",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Marc Luxen",
"Parnia Sheibani",
"Paul Thomas",
"Rich Reidy",
"Robert Yale",
"Ruth Dixon",
"Sally Vince",
"Sharon Layton",
"Steve",
"Steve Price",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"jinawee"
],
"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
}
|
65494
|
Eating raw fish: what are parasite infection risks really: how big?
I make sushi often, and i never use sushi-grade fish...i simply buy fresh fish from the market. I know the requisites of frozen for 20 hours etc., but I know for sure there are many restaurants in europe that certainly do not (exclusively) use frozen fish. Moreover, I ate sushi often in the years I lived in Thailand, and well...pretty sure they use non frozen either. Never a problem, but, I realise that this does not prove anything..
Does anyone have an idea of the size of the risk, i.e. the incidence of parasite infection after eating non-frozen fish raw? I am asking after research..i cannot really find it.
These articles were informative, but no info on size of risks:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3374688/
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/9/1297.full
This study gives a bit more information:
http://cmr.asm.org/content/23/2/399.full
"During 1973 to 2006, 188 outbreaks of seafood-associated infections, causing 4,020 illnesses, 161 hospitalizations, and 11 deaths, were reported to the Food-Borne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System. Most of these seafood-associated outbreaks (143 [76.1%]) were due to a bacterial agent; 40 (21.3%) outbreaks had a viral etiology, and 5 (2.6%) had a parasitic cause (Table 1)"
Now, considering this is not concentrating on raw fish only, but all fish consumption, I would say the chances of getting sick from eating raw fish with a parasite are microscopically tiny? Agreed?
Is there someone who could get me this report: this seems to be the basis of the safety measures
American Gastroenterological Association.
2000. Determination of the incidence of
gastrointestinal parasitic infections from the
consumption of raw seafood in the U.S.
[Report under FDA Contract 223-97-2328
with Life Sciences Research Office, American
Society for Nutritional Sciences]. AGA,
Bethesda, MD.
I have no idea what the risks are, but years ago, when I wasn't feeling well, I had some blood tests done, and they found something swimming in there. Of course, I not only had sushi, but also Ethiopian food. (raw beef). So it's possible that it wasn't caused by the sushi, but I'm still going to assume that there's some risk, even if it's low.
Sorry to hear that, but this sort of anecdotical one-person story is really not what I am after... unless I can have say 1000 sushi eaters and 1000 non sushi eaters and compare...is there way to do this here?
See: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76455/in-the-usa-does-fish-being-served-raw-need-to-be-frozen-first
it is very common for fish to be frozen when they are caught, so I wouldn't be so sure the fish you were consuming was never frozen.
As I explained in another question recently, there is no meaningful answer to this. There is no way to make the prediction "you have a X percent chance of infection per parasite infested meal". Instead of predicting it mathematically, we could feed people infected fish and measure it, but as far as I am aware, no ethical board will approve that experiment.
Also note that beside the type of study you found (listing every single type of infection), there are also studies which take a more epidemiological point of view. They still don't attempt to give the kind of number you requested. That's another good sign that this answer does not exist - if it did, I'd expect these experts to have found it and incorporated it in their articles.
The best you can have is circumstantial data. For example, Phan et al. 1 sampled the incidence of trematodes in fish from a certain river. You can try extrapolating a chance that a parasite is present in your fish, although of course this depends on region where the fish was caught and on treatments applied during raising (e.g. preventive medicine or food type in fish farms) and after catching (freezing the fish). I am not aware of a resource which covers parasite incidence in all types of fish, but single studies can give you a starting point. The fish investigated in Phan's study for example had trematode infestation rates between 50% and 80% for the different species (and they did not look for other types of parasite).
Another statistic you can use: the prevalence of fish transmitted infections in countries where raw fish consumption is common. That's again not a reflection of your own personal risk, just a data point. One such statistic is for example:
An estimated 20% of immigrants from southeast Asia to Europe or North America have fish borne trematode infections. In highly endemic areas, such as northeast Thailand, the prevalence of O. viverrini may reach 90% 2
A source which won't give you a numeric answer, but classifies risk as "significant" or "not" is published by the FDA. But as a consumer, you will probably not have the information needed to find out if you fall into the "not significant" category, or the equipment to do the processing recommended for unsafe fish. It is a government regulation, Fish and fishery products hazards and control guidance, chapter 53. Still, if you're looking for actual cooking practices beside the exact information you requested, it's probably interesting for you.
1 Phan VT, Ersbøll AK, Bui TQ, Nguyen HT, Murrell D, Dalsgaard A. Fish-Borne Zoonotic Trematodes in Cultured and Wild-Caught Freshwater Fish from the Red River Delta, Vietnam. Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases. 2010;10(9):861-866. doi:10.1089/vbz.2009.0134.
2 Deardorff, Thomas L. "Epidemiology of marine fish-borne parasitic zoonoses." Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 22.suppl (1991): 146-149.
3 FDA. Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance. Gainesville 2011.
I know it's more of a related question, but is there a meaningful answer in the context of sushi-grade fish or sushi restaurants? Seems a little more possible to study, and a little more reasonable for agencies to care about.
@Jefromi see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/723/what-exactly-is-sushi-grade-fish?rq=1. "sushi grade" is a marketing term. The procedures for making fish sufficiently safe for the FDA are outlined in the regulation I mentioned. They are more of the "if there is more than zero chance of parasite, freeze and then eat the fish including the now-dead parasite" kind. They don't care to put a number to the chance of getting ill after eating unsafe fish.
Thanks for this excellent answer. Iam still digesting and thinking, will come back to that.I am not so much concerned about my personal safety, but more about the rationale behind those safety measures. In the EU, and even more in the US, we have become risk-avoiding to the extreme, for which we pay a high price in terms of money, time, and freedom. If eating raw fish result in one in million consuption in a perfectly treatable infection, those measures are over the top. If it results in 1 in 1000 in a life threatening infection, they are not. And I just dont have the knowledge to decide..
updated the information in the question. Would love to hear your opinion..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.800925
| 2016-01-16T16:42:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65494",
"authors": [
"Antoin Kiely",
"Cascabel",
"Casey",
"Dawn Converse",
"Hennie Joubert",
"James O'Byrne",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marc Luxen",
"Vivian Reed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"janet steven",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83283
|
Rye bread: proof until soft
I see this instruction when making rye bread: let it proof until soft. How can I tell when it's soft? I keep baking Jewish rye and letting it proof longer and longer and it certainly starts to feel pillowy and smooth (not sticky) but I don't know how long that should go on for. I ask because my bread is splitting down the sides which suggests to me that it's under-proofed. It tastes good and isn't gummy but the loaf is flat(ish) and splits.
I wonder if it's worth mentioning that I'm proofing this loaf in a parchment paper 'couche' supported by kitchen towels. I pick up the paper and set it on a baking sheet that goes into the oven. The paper is typically at least a little stuck to the sides of the loaf when it goes in.
Could we get pictures of the loaf, please?
@Stephie I don't have any handy but I will try to get some.
@Stephie Picture added.
Having your bread split isn't necessarily a sign that your dough is underproofed. Many breads get considerable oven-spring, that is expansion due to the expansion of air and last gasp of yeast from the heat of the oven. If your crust hardens before the oven spring is complete the loaf may split to release the pressure. There's a couple of ways to prevent this:
Slash your bread more deeply before baking. The goal of slashes is not just cosmetic, it allows the bread to expand
Introduce moisture into the oven to keep the crust from hardening too quickly. A pan of water works well for this, you put enough water to last for the first 20 minutes of baking. After 20 minutes the oven spring should be done and you'll want the crust to harden. You can also bake the bread in a closed pot in the oven for the first 20 minutes to trap moisture, then take the lid off for the rest of the baking
I have been meaning to try deeper slashes. I'm misting the oven pretty heavily just before it finishes preheating and then again when I put the bread in which I would think should be enough. The crust is not nearly as hard as it might ought to be.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.801769
| 2017-07-26T13:56:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83283",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42637",
"sirdank"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67401
|
Will storing salted steak overnight ruin the meat?
I've salted the steaks, but I can't get the grill going. If I store them in the fridge and cook them tomorrow, will the fact they are salted already ruin the meat?
As long as it hasn't been over 2 hours in the danger zone (cumulatively,) it is fine, and that makes this a duplicate of: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/34671/24248 where you can find your answer
Possible duplicate of How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
I'm primarily concerned about the salt, not the temperature. They were only out 15 minutes or so. Sorry I wasn't more clear.
It's quite possible that meat might even be improved. From an article at Serious Eats :
Indeed, the absolute best steak I had was one that I had salted on both sides then allowed to rest on a rack overnight in the refrigerator uncovered. It appears to dry out slightly, but it's only superficial—the amount of drying that occurs from an overnight rest (about 5% moisture loss) is negligible compared to the amount of moisture driven off during cooking anyway (upwards of 20%, even more in the hard-seared edges). As the salt makes its way back into the meat, you'll probably also notice that it becomes a deeper color. That's because the dissolved proteins scatter light differently than they did when they were still whole.
The 'uncovered' is important in the discussion of 'dry brining', as you want the surface to dry out without needing to blot it (which would remove salt with it) ... it doesn't have to be completely uncovered, but whatever cover it has should allow sufficient air flow for it to dry out.
Thank you - I did wrap it but will uncover it now.
You weren't intending on removing any salt while cooking immediately, so the amount you have salted should be enough for eating it now or later.
If you're worried about being too heavy handed with the salt, you could always rinse it off and then wrap it in paper towels to dry in the fridge overnight. Or wipe it off with a paper towel.
Accurate salting overnight (not too much) should result in a better sear, as the salt draws the moisture out of the meat.
Thank you. I wrapped it in freezer paper but will unwrap it and cover it lightly with a paper towel until I cook it tonight.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.801973
| 2016-03-14T00:58:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67401",
"authors": [
"Edward Chancey",
"Elizabeth ",
"Jeremy Karpel",
"Leah Schneiderman",
"Ming",
"Pamela K",
"Pat Hoffman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44211",
"t chew"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67656
|
Multi-step Programmable Comercial Convection Oven
I have some Turbofan convection ovens which I use for baking. They have a program mode but it only supports one time and temperature setting. What I really need is to be able to create a program with 3 steps: hot, warm, hot, with tight control of the fan speed, time and temperature of each step.
There seems to be a new version of this oven which has a touchpad for programming up to 5 steps, although it only has a two speed fan, not a variable-speed fan like the old model.
Do you have any experience with the new version of the oven and does the fan speed pulsing feature make up for the lack of variable speed control?
Or, can you recommend another oven which supports: at least a 3 step program; preferably variable speed fan control; is value priced?
Or, have you hooked an arduino up to your manual oven and have plans to share?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.802189
| 2016-03-21T22:02:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67656",
"authors": [
"Angela Graham",
"Caroline Cox",
"Steve Mohammed",
"Todd Pennington",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162434"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67895
|
Can I do Chow Mein without rice wine nor substituting it?
I mistakenly bought "rice wine vinegar" instead of "rice wine". Now I am missing this ingredient from the recipe but I still want to do it. I could replace with red wine but I guess it's not a good substitute. I don't have any of the common substitutes for rice wine (gin, sherry, apple juice...).
I would say, yes, you can make chow mein without wine of any kind. I say that without hesitation because the first four recipes that come up on a Google search for chow mein (all highly rated) don't call for wine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.802394
| 2016-03-30T21:18:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67895",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77939
|
Are there any advantages to freshly ground salt?
Recently, I've seen salt grinders sold in stores. I understand that freshly ground pepper has a plus over pre-ground pepper in terms of freshness and strength. However, salt to me seems like a mineral, as opposed to pepper which is, well, a pepper from a plant.
So, is there any plus in terms of taste and freshness to using freshly ground salt out of a salt grinder?
(I am obviously not talking about special flavored salts which contains other spices and herbs which would benefit from being freshly ground)
I'm going to leave this here because I think it's a near-duplicate, but it doesn't seem exact for some reason. This question seems to be asking about "freshness" which seems to be discarded by the older question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3720/what-is-the-point-of-a-salt-mill?rq=1
Since salt cannot go bad no freshness factor that I am aware of.
It's for texture. Coarse salt flakes just look and crunch and taste awesome on some things.
In my experience the grinders help a lot in making my food too salty.
@CountIblis please do not add opinions on the healthiness of food or other nutrition related topics, neither in comments nor in answers. This is strictly off topic.
Not really in terms of flavor, no. Salt doesn't have a substantial number of volatile compounds that are released by grinding, in contrast to something like whole peppercorn, which releases a range of aromatics when the outer hull is breached. Even specially-sourced salts which contain a range of flavorful minerals don't really release them into the air, they dissolve into the foods they're added to instead, and/or are picked up by your tongue as you eat.
One advantage grinders offer is that a lot of them are adjustable, and can be tweaked for everything from a very fine grind to large crystals. This can be helpful depending on the effect that you're going for - seasoning popcorn with very fine salt vs. garnishing a steak with large crunchy chunks, for example. Smaller crystals with more surface area will generally tend to be perceived as saltier due to more taste bud contact, and will also dissolve into liquids (i.e. soups or stews) more quickly. I like using larger crystals sometimes for flavor/texture contrast and visual appeal for some dishes.
Another advantage mentioned by others is that finely pre-ground salt may also contain anti-caking agents to keep it from clumping together. If that bothers you, a grinder gets around this because larger pieces won't stick together as much before being pulverized by the grinding mechanism.
Some producers package salt in disposable grinders just as they do with pepper, and they share the same problems: cheap grinders simply aren't very good at getting a consistent grind size, or they have mechanisms which wear down quickly. Reusable grinders are often much better, and as you've seen they're getting very easy to find even in non-specialty stores. I like ceramic grinding mechanisms personally, because I feel that they get a better "grip" on the particles and are better at consistency, but good steel mechanisms will do well too. Here are some suggestions for care to help you get the most out of them.
Does the rougher shape with more surface area, compared to more consistent crystals from table salt, make a difference?
@Jefromi I suppose the difference is mostly one of using the salt for texture vs. flavor, right? Fine salt provides an even coating and lots of taste bud contact, hence more perceived saltiness; coarse salt would give less salt flavor but provide a noticeable (and presumably pleasant) texture contrast. Overall consistency is then important because without it, you can't control the extent to which you get one effect vs. the other.
I wasn't talking so much about fine vs coarse as rough vs smooth. anderas' answer suggests there's something to that.
The body of your answer is great, but the opening “no difference in flavour” is a little misleading as a first impression. As you say, the only difference is in grind size/shape, not from degradation of flavour chemicals or similar in the salt itself. But grind size/shape often can have a big effect on the overall flavour of a dish.
Jefromi, yes. This is why "kosher salt" is preferred by cooks, for instance.
I personally like having a salt grinder for popcorn. When I salt my popcorn, I want the crystals to be totally pulverized with a much more fine grind than is available in the box.
Finely ground salt tends to cake without additives, so putting rock salt in a grinder will give me pure salt dust with no additives.
Seems harder than just buying a thing of popcorn or pickling salt.
@Batman popcorn or pickling salt is not available locally in all areas (I guess depends how popular popcorn is in the area). I know I'ld have to order it online. Which is a harder than grinding it myself.
@LyndonWhite - Strange. I've lived in several big cities and rural areas in the US, and I've seen one or the other at a grocery store.
tldr: other countries are different from even rural America.
I imagine popcorn is much more popular in the US than in Australia (where I'm from) -- certainly fits the stereotype I see on TV :-D. Also out supermarkets are just plain worse all round AFAICT from everything I've read on this site (I also can't get pickling vinegar or cherry flavoring no matter how I try, for example). I've literally never seen popcorn salt. Theoretically some stores sell it. I certainly doubt it is available in the small town where I grew up.
Another good reason for having salt grinders is that they are FUN!
Perceived quality definitely affects our enjoyment of food and drink, plenty of research has shown this.
But another factor in meal enjoyment is how fun it is to eat. Many ways we eat involve doing things that are not strictly necessary for flavor, but still make the process more enjoyable. Kids walking around gnawing on giant turkey legs understand this. It's more fun than eating from a plate. It's not just the food, but the experience of eating it.
At the dining table, there are many simple procedures the diner can use to transform the food in some minor way at the table.
Dipping chips in a bowl of cheese, loading up your fondue fork and dropping it in the pot, sprinkling some cheese and red pepper on your pizza, composing your own salad at a salad bar, even things like adding sugar to tea or coffee, all provide an opportunity for the diner to influence the final product.
That guy who always puts salt on everything? It's only partly about the saltiness, it's partly about the ritual.
Underrated answer. For showmanship and giggles. I do feel slightly more accomplished grinding salt into a dish, as opposed to shaking it in.
Salt kept in a coarse form can be stored without needing any anti-caking or similar additives (check the ingredients list on a pack of table salt, there are often other mineral additives for that purpose), since caked salt is a non-problem with a grinder (unless it is wet).
And as mentioned above, being able to control the fineness of the grind is advantageous, and allows you to only store one style of salt and having it available ground as needed.
The main point for me is missing from the other answers:
Very finely ground salt has a larger surface area (due to the smaller particle size and irregular surface) than "normal" table salt. This makes it dissolve more quickly.
When completely dissolving the salt (e.g. in a soup), there will be no difference between finely ground salt and coarse salt. But if you use a grinder to add a bit of salt to your dish at the table, you will need less salt for the same taste. And also, depending on the grinder, be able to distribute the salt more evenly.
Verifying what I just said is pretty easy: Taste a grain of coarse salt and the same amount of finely powdered salt. The coarse salt will taste less salty but for a longer time and the finely ground salt will have a really strong taste but be gone more quickly.
+1 for mentioning that sometimes very finely ground (finer than table salt) is exactly what you want, eg on some styles of french fries!
Yeah, this is pretty much what I was going to say. I know I can just upvote but I think this is the best answer.
If your home is humid, the salt will start to clog. This makes it more difficult to serve properly.
Grinders solve this issue.
No, if the salt in my grinder gets damp the grinder bungs up and I have to take it apart and clean it.
The easy answer to damp fine salt is a few grains of rice in the salt shaker.
Style points! I would also guess you might buy higher quality salt to go in the grinder.
That aside, if it's a good grinder, it will allow you to select the grind size, which you might want to do to add a bit more/less crunch to your salt.
There should be no difference in freshness or taste.
A lot of disposable grinders have a possibility to select the size of 'grind'. Possibly a lot of people like to have a 'nice' grinder on the table opposed to 'Walmart' stamped across it. But at the end of the day, salt is salt.
What would low-quality salt be like?
@JDługosz Out of personal curiousity, I did some salt tasting a while back, and while I had a really hard time identifying those characteristics that people often talk about of sea salt (deep, rich, briny, umami, mineral, whatever), I had no problem picking out the iodized salt with an anti-caking agent. It has a bitter off-taste that I find unpleasant. That's what I consider low quality salt.
Salt is salt, and as you said the granule size isn't important if you're cooking with it (usually). It matters when you add salt at the table, though, where a finer salt is normally preferred.
Especially, the size does make a difference to how the salt soaks up humidity from the air. The finer the grind, the faster the salt will become "wet" and start to stick. Coarse salt can last for months and years with no issue, but fine salt can start to clump after a few weeks in a humid climate (like where I live).
To solve this issue, the manufacturers put an anti-caking agent into the finely ground salt, which the coarse salt doesn't need.
Some people (myself included) prefer not to eat the anti-caking stuff. To solve the problem of humidity, we buy coarse salt and use a grinder to get fine salt on demand at the table.
It's not about being freshly ground, it's about making high-quality salt which comes in large crystals useable at the table.
I'm sceptical about that too – salt should be salt IMO, nothing else and nothing you could really call “high-quality”. A problem that definitely exists though is fine salt which has too much anti-caking agent in it, but I prefer slightly rougher salt anyway (which stays usable forever without any additives).
@leftaroundabout There are different salts. It's certainly up to the taster to decide quality. They definitely don't all taste the same. I use a solar-evaporated unrefined sea salt which comes in large, hard crystals in my salt grinder. This stuff isn't just sodium chloride.
Salt varies in the trace minerals found with the sodium chloride, which is why you will notice slight differences in flavour with sea salt vs. rock salt and the various different coloured salts (eg pink Himalayan salt), as the same minerals which give the salt its signature colouration change the flavour slightly. It should however be noted that most humans are not capable of distinguishing such small variances in flavour unless they have put significant time into learning to do so (or learning to discern subtle flavours in general)
@Cameron well, stuff like pink Himalayan salt or “black lava salt” are of course a different story, these probably have their use but you wouldn't use these as you everyday all-purpose salt – they're meant to achieve a special effect, not to just salt something. And Fleur de Sel can be delicious, but I would never put that in a grinder – its natural consistency is just right for only crushing and distributing it with your fingers.
I think this is the correct explanation for the popularity of salt grinders. Larger crystal salt may or may not taste better, but the popular opinion is that it is higher quality indeed. So yes, if we assume that the eater prefers to eat large crystal salt - and most of them do - then freshly ground salt has an advantage.
@leftaroundabout, I did not say anything about whether you should grind these different salts or use them like regular salt, I was simply explaining that the trace mineral content is what makes the difference with specially sourced salts in response to your comment that salt should be salt.
My thoughts on the actual differences have already been detailed in other answers. But I actually wished I had one handy a few days ago, so I wouldn’t have to buy a box of “table salt” (fine powder) which I hardly ever use. What’s left in the formal dinnerware’s shaker is all I have. Just grinding the kosher salt flakes, if easy enough, means not needing that.
Oh, there might be a difference: I recall seeing a show on candy where different rock salts were used as they have different flavors. Having your choice of that, in a powder, would be available with a grinder.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.802514
| 2017-01-31T14:11:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77939",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Beanluc",
"Cameron",
"Cascabel",
"Chloe",
"Eleanor Zimmermann",
"Frames Catherine White",
"J K",
"JDługosz",
"PLL",
"Pieter B",
"Raydot",
"RedSonja",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"leftaroundabout",
"logophobe",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user207421"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121483
|
Cleaning with baking soda stains?
I cooked some ribs and used a baking sheet under my rack.
Later I cleaned the greasy bits by soaking the baking sheet and rack in a baking soda solution until the water was gone. Then I added vinegar and scrubbed it. The rack is stainless steel and is doing great.
The sheet seems to be aluminum and has visible baking soda stains on it(even minimal powdering). I added more vinegar and scrubbed it but it persists.
Is there a way to clean the baking soda stains?
Aluminum is attacked by alkalies - while lye (typically from automatic dishwasher detergent) is the more common issue, baking soda is a weak alkali and will have the same issue.
Other than re-polishing (to physically remove the corroded layer on the surface), I don't think you can "remove" the stain. You can choose to live with the staining (it's only cosmetic.)
The point about it being only cosmetic is a good one. Short of doing some really crazy stuff, pretty much any aluminum compounds you manage to produce on the surface of a pan in your kitchen are going to be both non-reactive and relatively strongly bound to the pan, even at typical cooking temperatures. It takes really nasty stuff (like elemental mercury for example) to damage aluminum in a way that’s more than just cosmetic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.803481
| 2022-08-28T17:33:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121483",
"authors": [
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68823
|
How should soda made with "ginger bug" smell/taste?
I recently fermented a ginger soda using a ginger bug that I made. The bug seemed good to me - no funky mold growing on it, and it fizzled when I stirred it. The soda I made was good, but tasted extra "yeasty" and had spots on top that I couldn't differentiate between fizz or small colonies.
Is this how a fermented soda using a ginger bug should taste, and if not any suggestions on what went wrong?
Ginger bug
250 mL (filtered) water + 3 tablespoons grated ginger (skin on) + 3 tablespoons sugar
Contents were mixed in a jar, with a lid placed on top but not screwed shut. Left at room temperature for 5 days, with daily feedings of 1 tablespoon ginger and 1 tablespoon sugar, as well as frequent mixing.
Soda
120 mL ginger syrup + 240 mL filtered water + 1 tablespoon ginger bug liquid
Contents poured into swinglock bottle, left at room temperature for 2 days. Bottle was "burped" after 1 day to relieve pressure.
if it tasted extra 'yeasty' you're probably just fermenting too far. try starting with less of the bug per liter of liquid, and stop the fermentation sooner.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.803616
| 2016-05-06T05:55:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68823",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123055
|
Too much nutmeg?
Short version:
Is about 3 g nutmeg too much for a single meal?
Long version:
This evening, I prepared 2 big dishes of spinach lasagna. I like to eat rather spicy, but I overdid it a bit this time, putting about 50-60 g (bought ground).
I usually cook big quantities like today, and freeze it to eat it during the following weeks. Normally, I would do about 20-24 portions out of those 2 dishes
Taste wise, it's still good (a bit less nutmeg would probably have been optimal). However, I realized afterwards that the amount of nutmeg might start to be unhealthy (about 2.5-3 g per portion).
Is it still safe to eat my lasagna? If so, should I make sure not to eat it too often (for example: max once per day, or per X days)? Or should I in addition do smaller portions (and just plan to have a starter and desert to get enough for a full meal)? Or should I trash the whole thing?
For now, what I found was mainly information that it starts to get toxic around 5g or 10g. For now, the only "scientific" study I found is not giving much details on doses (focusing on symptoms), but report symptoms for 10 spoonfuls and for 25 g.
EDIT : I ended up making it 32 portions (I did them a bit smaller than usual, I will just eat them if not very hungry or if I have some desert in addition). So it should rather be 2-2.5g per portion. I froze them, so I can easelly let some time between portions (I was going to freeze most of it anyway, as I can't possibly eat 20+ portions alone before it spoils)
Isn’t 3g almost half a nutmeg seed? How does it not taste horrible with that much nutmeg in a single piece of lasagna? Especially since it will be much more concentrated in your Béchamel sauce layers.
Yes, I think it's about half a seed (even if from what I understood, whole seeds have twice the taste). But not, it's not horrible. I eat one portion of the lasagna before starting to ask myself questions, and it was still good (even if I have to admit that a bit less would have been better). When I did the same recipe several times a few years back, I used generally about half that amount.
"I like to eat rather spicy, but I overdid it a bit this time, putting about 50-60 g (bought ground)." I find it hard to sympathize. Isn't that, like, an entire container?
Yes, it's a bit more than one container (40g). When tasting the bechamel alone, it was still ok, so I supposed that once the bechamel in the lasagna, it would be fine.
Maybe your nutmeg was old--that would reduce the flavor (but maybe not any other physiological effects). If you want it particularly spicy it might be worthwhile to get whole nutmeg and grind it.
I think (pending a bit more digging through the literature) that for an acutely toxic dose you would need to be consuming something in the order of all of the nutmeg you put into your whole dish before you experienced the effects of consuming "too much" nutmeg. Death from nutmeg seems to be incredibly rare and usually accidental, though there are no shortage of people using it as a recreational drug.
Nutmeg contains the psychoactive compound(s) myristicin, amongst which is myristic acid. These can result in hypertension (high blood pressure) and tachycardia (fast heart rate), as well as psychosis and a range of minor symptoms. To reach these sorts of effects you (assuming you are an adult, with resultant body mass etc.), you would need to be consuming about 30-50 g in a single session, as suggested by this case report from the British Medical Journal, which states:
Some 50 g of commercially available grated nutmeg were blended into a milkshake, the patient drinking three quarters of the amount.
A friend of mine, who is a doctor, once told me of a case he had in his hospital work: a patient had tried to poison themselves by nutmeg. The person only had one nut, which was too little, and they survived. But the doctors judged that it was close, and two nuts might have worked.
@phipsgabler the paper I linked says that there are only 2 cases of death from nutmeg ingestion in the literature. For what it's worth, I have been told the same story as you by various doctors and other non-medical professionals, so I suspect it is one of those urban myths. Check out this abstract at pubmed about amounts needed for intoxication.
From SWIM's experience, I can attest that even five nutmegs (powdered) ingested together in short amount of time are not deadly by themselves to a young healthy adult without any additional conditions etc. But yes, they are definitely both intoxicating and psychoactive. I'd honestly say it's not worth it since basically makes you a dumb person for some hours, and then you vomit (not unlike alcohol). A couple of grams are basically not psychoactive or toxic any more than the alcohol in kefir or ripe fruits is.
That's really up to you and your risk tolerance. As you've correctly assessed, there aren't many studies on toxicity levels of nutmeg, particularly not of toxicity when cooked in food. As such, the 3g/serving you have could be borderline risky or completely safe and you just don't know.
Questions to ask that would help you decide this, based on studies and internet references:
Are you or anyone in your family pregnant?
Were you planning on serving this to children?
Is anyone in your household taking any of the drugs that interact with nutmeg?
Do you have any existing liver conditions?
To answer your questions : I will be the only one eating from it (adult in late 20s, without health issues, not pregnant, not taking any drugs, normal weight)
@Sandro I personally would split this meal in two parts. One meal for now, one directly into the fridge to eat the day after tomorrow (so you have one day break between nutmeg doses).
@Hobbamok : I might not have been clear enough : I have enough for about 20-30 meals, not just 2. But keeping a day between each time I eat from it seems reasonable
20+ portions means you're freezing them, so you can leave a longer gap than that (I would anyway, to avoid boredom)
Yes, I'm freezing them. So indeed, no problem for a longer gap.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.803738
| 2023-01-16T21:35:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123055",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Hobbamok",
"Karl Knechtel",
"Michael",
"Sandro",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91386",
"phipsgabler",
"user213769",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123225
|
Was our chicken the correct temperature?
I heated (in a 900W microwave) some pre-cooked, shop-bought barbecue sauce-covered chicken wings. Unfortunately, instead of doing so for the required two minutes and thirty seconds, I only heated them for 1 min 40 secs. When we started to eat them a few minutes later, they were noticeably lukewarm. We didn't eat much at all, but I am worried about food poisoning. Are we likely to fall ill?
There's no need to shout :)
Shout toned down.
It's perfectly safe. If it's pre-cooked then it is safe to eat cold, hot or lukewarm. It's true that room temperature is the happy range for the microbes that cause foodborne illness to grow, but that takes at least a couple of hours to develop. Just nuke it again until it's hot.
Since the chicken was precooked, the likelihood of illness is very slim even if you consumed it cold.
I read somewhere that unless pre-cooked meat is reheated to 75 degrees, it can be dangerous to eat. I am not at all sure that it had reached that temperature, hence my concern. I missed the advised heating time by 50 seconds, which is quite a lot when it apparently needed 150 seconds.
@FOODIEDUDIE I read somewhere that you shouldn’t believe everything you read somewhere.
Yeah that's not true. In general you shouldn't be reliant on reheating in order to prevent foodborne illness. It's not going to get rid of any toxins produced by pathogens anyway, so you can still get sick if the meat hadn't been properly cooked to begin with. Also, think about it: if you eat meat then you have definitely eaten cold pre-cooked meat before, say in a salad or on a sandwich. What's important is that it was cooked (and then stored) well to begin with, not any reheating.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.804208
| 2023-01-31T20:42:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123225",
"authors": [
"Deko Revinio",
"FOODIE DUDIE",
"Mark Wildon",
"Ruben van Bergen",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126238
|
Why is my lobster bisque white?
I cooked a few living Atlantic lobsters in water for 2-3 minutes. Before cooking they were bluish, after cooking red, as normal. I halved and fried them in butter, then served them. We had a bucket with ice and water on the table, where we discarded the shells and left them overnight. Next morning, there was still lots of ice left in the water. I took the whole bucket and started cooking it to make a bisque, adding only a few bay leaves and celery. After cooking a few hours, I started reducing it. In my experience, this should turn out an orange-colored sort of reduction. However, this one became totally white! It looks like milk but tastes like lobster. Can anyone explain this? Could it be it safe to consume?
When cooking lobster or other shellfish, proteins in the lobster meat and shells denature and coagulate, releasing color and flavor into the broth. However, in your case perhaps a different process might have occurred:
The brief 2-3 min boiling time may have led to incomplete release and breakdown of the pigments (like astaxanthin) that give lobsters their red-orange color. When you placed the lobster shells in ice water, the rapid cooling could have caused fats and proteins to solidify and coat the shells, encapsulating some of the pigments and flavors.
During the prolonged cooking of the shells and subsequent reduction, fat from the lobster meat and any remaining in the shells could have emulsified into the broth. This emulsification process can create a white, opaque mixture similar to what happens in making a creamy soup or chowder, where fat droplets are evenly dispersed throughout the liquid, giving it a milky appearance.
The prolonged exposure of the lobster shells to ice water could have also leached out some pigments and other soluble components, resulting in a weaker color extraction when you boiled them to make the bisque. The white appearance suggests that fewer pigments remained available to impart the usual orange hue.
Astaxanthin, the pigment responsible for the red color of cooked lobsters, is heat-stable but can still be influenced by how it is extracted. If the initial cooking and subsequent cooling in ice water altered the state of these pigments, they might not have been extracted as effectively during the bisque-making process.
This study determined that the best conditions for extracting astaxanthin from shrimp shells involved using a solid-liquid ratio of 1:7, an extraction temperature of 50°C, and an extraction time of 20 minutes. So some of these factors might have impacted your results as well.
Yes, it is safe for consumption, however, lobster bisque is made by boiling the lobster whole, which would change the color. Also, the better bisque recipes add a bit of tomato paste, as well as a nice Sherry, further changing the color. The link below is very educational, the only recipe I use. Hope this helps!
https://www.freshseafood.com/blogs/fresh-blog/how-to-make-lobster-bisque-from-shells
You do realize that your own link contradicts your claim that one needs to use the whole lobster?
Here's a quote from my link... "If your lobster is already cooked, separate the tail meat from the shell and refrigerate the shell meat until it’s ready to be added to the bisque.
If your lobster is not cooked, bring lightly salted water to a boil and add the lobster. Let it boil for approximately 5 minutes before removing.
Save the water used to boil the lobster. This water might look dirty, but it’s not! It’s actually full of nutrients and flavor that should be used for a seafood stock that will be the base of the bisque."
Stephen, your are incorrect. Read the link, more thoroughly.
And the bisque is then made from the shells, with the lobster meat as optional add-in.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.804391
| 2023-12-30T14:46:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126238",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"Vicki Croan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42569
|
How can I reduce the heat output of this heating element?
I'd like to add a Brinkmann 1500 watt element to my Bradley smoker to bring my temps up in cold weather.
I'd like to limit the amount of heat it puts out, is there a voltage regulator or resistor I can use to drop the heat? Something variable maybe?
Can you use a grill blanket (I am not making that up) to help conserve the heat you already have? Most smokers are pretty much not insulated at all.
Your going to need a high wattage resistor. -expensive. I suppose you could run your 1500 watt heater in series with an 800 watt heater, outside the grill. A Variac with that power output will cost an arm and a leg. Maybe a switching power supply, but solid state at that wattage will not come cheap. I'd go with a smaller space heater in series outside the unit for a cheap effective solution. V=IR and W = VI should tell you the wattage you'll need.
Use a light dimmer from your local hardware store.
First, you will want to check the wiring and fuses in your current smoker to make sure it can safely handle the 1500w upgrade.
Assuming that your wiring and fuses can handle the 1500w element, keep in mind how the system works in the first place. The heating element is controlled by the thermal measurement unit. A more powerful element would still turn off once the set temperature at the measurement unit is reached. The difference would be how fast it reaches the temperature and more hot spots closer to the element.
For the "variable" options you can alter the voltage or the current running to the heater. One issue to be aware of is that you would need to keep the power supply to the smoker's control board separated and unaltered.
Altering the voltage:
There is a power supply called a variac or variable transformer.
Pros:
Since this plugs into the a home receptacle and has a standard receptacle coming out of it, it would be safer from a wire splicing perspective. Keep in mind, you'd need to acquire a variac that can the wattage.
You will look and feel like a cold war submarine commander when adjusting the voltage on this kind of equipment so this is a high testosterone solution.
There's conversational value here for parties.
Cons:
A potentially fiery death. Playing with high wattage hacks requires strict attention to detail and close supervision of the device.
Cost. The price ranges for these seem to be $180-$400ish in the 2000W range. This could significantly increase the overall cost of your smoker setup.
The control board of the smoker can certainly cope with some range of voltage under the usual 120V, but it may not operate at the lower voltage
Even after everything is working you probably don't want to invite your fire insurance provider over for dinner if you like your current insurance rates.
Altering the current (by adding resistance):
You can add a variable resistor. Just like the above solution you'd need a higher wattage rated device.
Pros:
It would indeed adjustably control the amount of current flowing through your element.
Cons:
A potentially fiery death.
This resistor would be handling some serious current and it doesn't have any housing as-is. You wouldn't want your cat to brush against this.
This solution require wire splicing and would be inherently less safe for anyone not very familiar with electric systems.
Cost. This is in the $350ish range
This could heat up depending on the setting you choose.
Summary:
Both of these solutions are costly compared to most smoker's retail value. These higher power devices require alloys that are expensive to produce.
The variac would be my preferred cooler and safer solution out of the two, but keep in mind that the smoker control board wants plain old 120 line voltage. It will not operate very far out of the 120 volt range and, even worse, could malfunction and not turn off the element.
Regardless of any solution,If you do proceed you will be hacking a 1000+ Watt device please be very careful.
Who the heck beside me has a variac ?
You have to be a maniac to use a variac when you can just use a triac and a diac. If you're careful with my.hack you won't be pushing daisies or any lilac.
You could use a Sous Vide controller. Normally these are intended to drive a heater such as a crock pot, but I don't see why it wouldn't work here. Their website says it will output up to 15amps at 120V which is 1800W. This drives the element by having it be on at 100% for only some partial amount time, rather than driving it slowly at all times, but you should be able to achieve your desired result.
Dork Food Sous Vide Temperature Controller
The temperature range of a Sous Vide controller might not go high enough to be useful to smoke. That model you link to will only go up to 200˚F. But maybe some others are more adjustable?
Using two formulas can help with your decision:
V=IR, Where V=Voltage, I=Amperage (this is what will trip your breaker) and Resistance;
P=VI, where P=Power(watts), V= Voltage and I=Amps
If you use a variac, you can reduce the voltage which in turn reduces the amperage in the circuit. In this case you have a constant which is R. To keep numbers simple, let us say you have a 1000W heater:
1000w=120v x 8.33A ---> No alterations to the circuit (this came from the second equation listed)
From the above information we can determine the resistance of the heater using the first equation;
120V = 8.33A x 14.4ohms
IF you reduce the voltage with a variac down to 60V, and knowing in this case resistance is a constant:
60V = 4.167A x 14.4ohms; 4.167A x 60V = 250W
IF you follow the advice of adding resistance into the circuit in series (extra lights or extension cords), the following becomes true (keeping in mind that extension cords will also drop voltage, but produce heat and not in a good way when you introduce more distance - definitely not recommended):
For this example let us add in 4x 100W bulbs (still using 1000W heater) in series.
120V = .2A x 590.4ohms (I calculated this resistance separately)
24W = .2A x 120V
Basically turned your heater off and are dissipating heat through the bulbs.
You could wire in the bulbs to be switchable in a combination series/parallel circuit, but for this you will need to be quite comfortable in you electrical skills.
PWM and PID controllers are quite often utilized for controlling temperature in a somewhat cost effective way. You may want to consider these. Simple Google and YouTube searches can explain these in great detail (even how to build them cost effectively).
A couple low-tech options:
A long extension cord will drop the voltage at the element and therefore its power output. E.g. a 50ft 18-gauge cord will reduce the voltage ~10% when used with a 15A element. You could chain a few together to get a larger drop.
You could get a mechanical light timer (make sure you get one rated for 15A), which will can be set to turn the element on and off. Many timers have a resolution of 15 minutes which may be too long for you, but I have one that has 5-minute increments.
Yeah, if the OP wants to use extension cords to drop the voltage, I would recommend 1) not coiling hundreds of feet up in a giant hot ball, 2) not leaving the contraption unattended. But let's put this in perspective: the heating element itself is clearly a lot more dangerous than the extension cord.
The device you want to use, IF no thermostatic control is desired, is a burst control dimmer rated for the power. A phase angle dimmer at that wattage will be an EMC liability, a resistor will be very energy inefficient, huge and a fire risk, and a variac is bulky and expensive.
Note that common household light dimmers are a) phase angle designs and b) too weak.
However, using some kind of thermostat that switches in the heating if more heat is needed and switches it off when it is getting too hot might be the more desirable solution.
For a VERY simple power dropper (also inefficient, but safer than a resistor) put very high powered incandescent lights (maybe a few of them paralleled), like construction lights, in series with the heating element. Set them up so they operate safely, these lights get hot too!
Some kind of overtemperature cutoff device in the smoker would be very well advised unless the whole smoker design is inherently, absolutely impossible to set on fire, even if the element was running at full power - which is a possible failure mode in case your method of heat control fails - and it will if you expect it not to.
If you have any doubt about your design being safe, consult a professional electrician.
Phase angle heaters work fine so long as they are correctly rated. They can handle quite a bit if power.
You can find Variac's at ham radio shows or electronic surplus places, most are bulk or without a case. Check a place called "Circuit specialist" They have models built in a case which is a safer unit, keep it out of rain. One I saw a 20 amp for $89. The element is an inductive load, you can google for a 1500-2000 watt electronic controller. Another way to look at this problem is thermostat the element with a temp controller thermostat one rated at 1500 Watt. Ebay has electronic temp controllers digital read out for $15, it controls 10 amps, add a relay maybe 39 amp relay. This way the element will come on when its needed, it don't matter if it is 1500 watt, it will turn on and off frequently but only if needed.
That's awful cheap for a 20 amp Variac. I'd carefully check reviews before buying.
WARNING: If you have no electrical experience, especially with main voltages, you can seriously injure or kill yourself. You should seek help from someone who's experienced.
Your best bet is to purchase a triac-based light dimmer rated for at least 2000 watts. To be on the dafe side, always get one that is at least 30% over the maximum wattage of the heating element. The one pictured below, the Leviton RNL06-10Z, is rated at 20 amps, which is 2400 watts at 120 (P=VxA), which is more than enough.
For safety, you should also purchase a plastic enclosure to protect it and yourself. You can use a metal enclosure, but make sure you ground it for safety reasons. The one pictured, also made by the same manufacturer, should work fine. You'll also need some 20 amp power cables, cable glands to secure cables power to and from the box and a face plate. You might have to cut the plug from the existing cord and wire it to the dimmer since it has a connector to the heating element.
Is this the most accurate control? No, but for a smoker anything more is overkill.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.804846
| 2014-03-05T22:38:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42569",
"authors": [
"Hank",
"Jaded ROBERTS",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Tony Brunke",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"blacksmith37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99448",
"programmerRaj",
"user148298"
],
"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
}
|
66197
|
Fried Chicken Thigh skin always ending up soggy? Why?
I am making Japanese style fried chicken, so I'm using chicken thigh with skin on, bone out. My problem is the chicken skin on the fried chicken is always ending up soggy. I've searched the web for some info, and some says it is because the oil is not hot enough. Or could it be that my cooking time is not enough, making the skin soggy?
My chicken thigh are as follows:
Sliced into 2 inches cubes.
Not battered, just starched with sweet potato starch (unsifted) after marinated for 30 minutes to 1 hour. Marinade used is salty, 2 tablespoon soysauce and 1 teaspoon salt.
Is at room temperature (not coming from the fridge) when fried.
My usual method involves frying 4-6 pieces at a time on 330F for 1-2 minutes placing them on a cooling rack to settle down. Afterwhich, I fry again a second time on 356F for a minute or so until it's golden brown placing them back on a cooling rack. Cooking time is suggested in one of the recipes I found online.
I tried experimenting with 350F initially for 1-2 minutes, and second fry at 360-370F at a minute or so. Somehow this improved the crispness but still not quite as expected and somehow the outer layer tastes like burnt starch but not really burned (outer color is dark golden brown). Any deep frying expert here can shed some light? I'm at my wit's end.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. If there's more you need to copy from there - or if someone else wants to be helpful and edit - it's all there! And if there's further discussion it'll be much easier there.
Take a look at this from Saveur. Similar but different. I have not tried the Japanese version, but I love the Korean version, and that recipe is pretty close to what I have done.
Tried making another batch today and here's what happened:
First Test: I used potato starch (was finally able to get hold of the starch), and used that instead of sweet potato starch, true enough the result was perfectly crisp and crunchy similar to that of potato chips!
Second Test: Used the same old starch (sweet potato starch) and skin turned out soggy like before.
Third Test: Mixed potato starch and sweet potato starch, it improved the crunch but still skin is soggy due to sweet potato starch.
Conclusion: The starch and not the marinade is causing the chicken skin to become soggy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.805651
| 2016-02-04T11:58:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66197",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Charul Joshi",
"Dawn Marie DEmidio",
"Derek Suttle",
"James Fox",
"Jesica Mosbauer",
"Jolenealaska",
"Maxine Cranfield",
"Richard Porada",
"Shaun Morrison",
"Simone Ken Rohla",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"nabil ghon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68868
|
How long can a vinaigrette last if emulsified with raw egg?
Started a new job and walked in to some vinaigrettes that are 2-4 weeks old, some of which contain raw egg. Obviously, I'm a little concerned. How long can a vinny last with raw egg?
I'd recommend only keeping vinaigrette for 7 days or less (refrigerated, of course). It's not that difficult and you'll be avoiding a lot of quality and safety issues.
Another thing you need to be aware of is that raw garlic can cause botulism, which can result in hospitalization and death. I think close relatives of garlic, such as shallots also contain botulinum spores, as well as honey. If they sit in an anaerobic medium (oxygenless), such as oil in a vinaigrette, they can start to grow and produce deadly toxins.
Also, after a week I feel like fresh ingredients such as herbs will start to go bad. And olive oil can definitely go rancid after 4 weeks!
Discuss your concerns management and if they don't listen then I'd email/call your local health department and I am sure they'd help you make sure everything is safe. Best of luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.805873
| 2016-05-07T18:17:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68868",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69121
|
What is the most energy efficient way to cook meat on an electric stove?
I have a reduced sense of taste and smell; so when I cook, things like preparation times, cost of ingredients, energy efficiency, healthiness and to a small extent novelty of the dish play a slightly more important role than taste or even texture (for taste I usually just add some bitter Marmite or some extra hot Chakalaka). There is one taste that I do not like and that is the greasy taste.
Thus I sometimes find myself cooking some cheap cut of meat to put on bread. So I am asking how do I make my cooking more energy efficient? Here are the constraints: it should not be mince (unless that answer can be easily tacked on), the precooking preparation time should be most 10 minutes (the actual cooking time does not matter), it should use a minimal amount of oil (if at all), the meat should be well done and I am cooking in a stainless steel pot on an electric stove.
Should I cook the meat quickly or slowly (higher temperatures lose more heat per second, but cook the meat faster)? Should I cook it in water or fry it (for cooking in water, more heat is transferred to the meat, but energy is lost due to evaporation and it takes energy to heat the water)? The only thing that I am certain of is that I must cook with the lid on.
I am also interested in the science behind it.
If you don't care about taste, then is it an option to cut up the meat before cooking? Doesn't have to be ground for that to help. Or I guess you want the texture of the whole piece?
@Jefromi I suppose that I am only interested in the physics and chemistry of it, is that on topic? If it is not, then I will edit my question to be more specific to how I cook later.
If you are talking about pure energy efficiency of heat transfer then that's one thing. I'd suggest that cooking in the way that will give you the best taste and texture is the most efficient, otherwise you waste all the energy that went into the production and transportation of the meat in the first place.
@GdD that is an interesting way to look at it.
Ethiopian food has some raw meat dishes (gored gored; kitfo violates your 'no ground meat' restriction). There's also Italian carpaccio. I don't know if there are any non-seafood ceviche-type dishes : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/23238/67 . Oh, wait .. those would violate the 'really well done' part.
A microwave oven apparently uses 1/10th of the energy of a stovetop, so you might consider that option: https://blogs.sierraclub.org/greenlife/2012/09/microwave-or-stove-whats-efficient.html
As @Jefromi says, there is no simple answer. Also depends on your definition of "cooked".
For water vs oil, most likely oil is more energy efficient. Frying a 16 oz steak takes only ~5/10 minutes, whereas boiling 16 oz of meat in water will take at least double that time, even if you use exact same pan and exact same stove. If you cut the meat more strategically, you can save some energy, which brings me to 2nd point.
The shape of the meat will have a big influence. For example, a 1 inch thick tenderloin will take considerably more energy to "cook" compared to 4 tenderloin steaks of quarter inch, assuming you can lay all 4 steaks in a pan together.
There is a saying that in ancient China, stove fuel was hard to come by, thats why they always used to cut the meat as thin as possible so that the dish finishes cooking fast with minimum stove-time. Don't know if its historically accurate, though :)
Water doesn't have to mean boiling in water. As I said, you'd want a little but not too much. It does work better than oil, because oil only makes the heat transfer from pan to bottom surface better, while a little water to fill the whole thing with steam gets you good heat transfer everywhere.
I think you're on the right approach w/ Chinese cooking -- my understanding is that it was intended to minimize fuel use. (although, it's possible that if you had remnant heat from some other cooking, that maybe the high temps aren't as necessary).
Answering more as a chemical engineer - we study heat transfer.
A lid clearly reduces heat loss. A lid also turns the pan into an oven - you hold the heat and use it on the non burner side.
A little bit of water will put more molecules in the vapor phase for more heat transfer but dilutes flavor. More than little bit is waste. Steam is 1000 x the volume of water. My mom will steam sausage links to cook them a fast but I think it kills the flavor.
Oil increases heat transfer on hot side but too much oil just makes it taste greasy. It basically increases the contact area. Oil does not vaporize nearly to the extent of water so not doing much on the non heat side.
A pressure cooker on low to medium heat is going to be most efficient. A maximum amount of heat stays in the vessel. Let it build some heat and then turn off the heat and let it finish. You don't concentrate flavor. What goes in comes out.
I doubt there's a simple perfect answer. You'd want to cook it hot, but not too hot, and with a little bit of water water, but not too much. If you cook too hot you're wasting energy, since it takes time for the heat to propagate to the center of the meat. If you don't cook hot enough to at least keep everything at 100C, you'll be wasting more energy over time. If you don't have any water, then even with oil, you'll be cooking mostly just from the pan surface instead of all around thanks to the steam, while if you have too much you'll waste energy heating it.
So add enough water to fill the pan with steam until it's done cooking, perhaps half a centimeter or so, then heat it as fast as possible to get it completely hot under the lid, then reduce heat but leave it hot enough to stay like that. Might not be perfectly optimal but should be pretty good.
If on the other hand you had ground meat, you can cook it as hot as you want, and probably don't need to add any water since it'll release some. As long as you spread it out well, it'll cook much, much faster than a single piece of meat with the same weight.
One consideration that hasn't been mentioned in your selection of a pan. If you use something like cast iron, you require some time to heat it up, but it will continue to cook the meat even after you've turned off the burner.
A thinner pan will require leaving the burner on the whole cooking time.
Personally, I'd look into slicing the meat thinly so that you make the most efficient use of the surface area of the pan. Normally, I'd sayd that you'd want a little bit of space between pieces (1cm, 3/8") so that moisture will evaporate and you won't end up steaming the pieces too much, but in your particular case, vented steam is lost energy.
Personally, I'd probably consider cooking in the oven, under the broiler -- you're heating from the top, so the heat goes into the meat first, not the pan. Normally there's a little bit of pre-heating time, as you want the elements to glow red to get a good sear, but there's nothing preventing you from starting the meat in the oven when you're heating the elements.
If you have the opportunity to swap our your stove, you should consider getting an induction burner -- they're much more efficient in transferring heat to the pan than resistive electric burners.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.805990
| 2016-05-20T03:23:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69121",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Júlio Reis",
"Strategy Thinker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87598"
],
"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
}
|
123349
|
Heat retention of parchment paper vs aluminum foil vs oven bag
Let's say a pepper is completely but loosely wrapped in either tin foil, parchment paper, or a Reynold's oven bag. Let's say the oven is maintaining a relatively constant temp.
Which would cook the food faster? Also, which would take faster to get up to the temp matching the oven temperature?
If you need to cook food fast, you shouldn't be choosing a recipe which involves wrapping it up and placing it in the oven. The whole point of these methods revolves around cooking slowly.
In all 3 cases, we are talking of something with a very high surface to volume ratio, not of bulk materials. Any heat exchange will be affected by the large exposed area and the relative little mass that needs to undergo that heat exchange.
The little differences due to the mass and heat capacity of the 3 materials might be computable but hardly appreciable in a cooking setting. I suspect we are talking of at most, to be generous, a second difference in cooking time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.806581
| 2023-02-11T01:00:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123349",
"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
}
|
123481
|
how to unseam - or otherwise safely open - steel olive oil cans
Is there a simple household technique to undo the seam of olive oil cans?
Olive oil is sold in 3L metal cans. They might have a shoebox profile - are brand names OK? Filipo Berio brand. There are smaller volumes as well. These metal olive oil cans are seamed in some specific way, similar to other cans. If the can could be "opened" the way modern-era "can openers" do - leaving no sharp edges, the can might be put to new uses around the kitchen or beyond.
I have tried an Oxo modern-era "can opener" that leaves no sharp edges - but this makes a mess of the can. I have a 6-inch hand seamer that will not work. I have tried a cold chisel and this has some promise but also makes a mess of the can.
I have looked for unusual tools and found out about can seamers, jump shears, or other things. There was an artist on public television showing how she undid certain metal cans with a pedal-driven shear. One day perhaps I might get such a tool but for now I am looking for easier/simpler methods. I might ask about this on Arts and Crafts Stack Exchange, but figured to start where the olive oil can came from - the kitchen. Perhaps if I know what to look for, it will help - for instance, the type of seam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can_seamer
... but even if I "open" the can in an ordinary fashion, it would be interesting to know the precise process that introduces the seams.
Are you talking about the cans with rounded rectangular lids?
FWIW, the “modern” can openers you’re talking about don’t unroll the seam. They just cut it in a way that leaves less jagged edges.
updated - thanks @Sneftel.
Just to be clear ... you're not talking about unseaming it to get the olive oil out, you're talking about doing so in order to re-use the can? If that's correct, you might also try one of the crafty SEs, who might have more tool suggestions than we do.
Whatever you find that works, I would recommend investing in a deburring tool to clean up the edge afterwards.
I re-use large soda and beer cans, my guidance is not to try and undo the seam if you can avoid it because then there's a relatively sharp edge you have to deal with. The seam is blunt, you don't have to worry about people cutting themselves on the top. A can opener with a deep reach is best for this, don't worry about the edge it leaves because you can soften that using a file. You may have to hunt around one that's got the depth.
If you do decide to get the bead off you can do it by filing the very top of the bead. Better yet use a rotary tool with a metal cutting disc to carefully grind it off, it's much faster.
how about an angle grinder - overkill?
An angle grinder is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, it would be very difficult to control. You'd end up taking off half the can!
A mini rotary tool like a dremel with a grinding disk would be perfect, though.
How about using those side cut can openers that leave the seam with the lid rather than with the can?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.806696
| 2023-02-24T15:33:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123481",
"authors": [
"Bryan-StackExchange",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"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
}
|
68606
|
Cooking chicken breasts in Buffalo sauce, cast iron
I really like to cook chicken in my cast iron skillet and I cook it down with butter and Texas Pete Sauce (my mother does the same, but in Teflon).
My issue is that it takes about 20 minutes to cook the chicken and after about 8-10 the sauce begins to dry up and I have to pour more sauce in to keep the chicken soaked the way I would like (spicy). By the end my chicken is perfect, but I've used a ton more sauce than I believe I need, the kitchen smells like a cayenne pepper farm, and there's a thick layer of dried sauce on my pan.
Any ideas on how to save on sauce or to keep it from drying so quickly?
Lower temperature?
More butter?
Not possible?
I would prefer to continue using the cast iron, thank you.
Update:
Used a smaller skillet (8 in), turned to medium heat, added red wine vinegar for extra liquid.
You could just add water instead of extra sauce. The water will cook off just as much as the sauce would have, leaving you with essentially just sauce by the end. If that's not spicy/saucy enough for you, then it means you did actually need some of that extra sauce you've been adding.
Alternatively, you could try lower temperature. If it's all cooking down and drying, you're presumably boiling it, but it only needs to be simmering to cook the chicken. If you're trying to get some browning, you can always increase the temperature at the end. It will probably take a bit longer to cook this way, though.
All that said, I know you said you want to use this pan, but it also kind of sounds like the pan might be too big. Extra surface area means liquid boils off faster. If it were crowded with chicken and sauce in the gaps, then it wouldn't boil off as quickly, and there wouldn't be room for sauce to dry onto the pan.
I have a smaller cast iron pan. I'll try that tonight and get back. Thank you
The smaller pan was perfect. Really makes sense now since my mother uses a bigger pan but its filled full with chicken while I was using cooking less chicken. My 8" cast iron did the trick.
First of all, there's no reason why the sauce would dry up faster simply because you're using cast iron instead of a teflon pan. So, you might wish to reexamine your mother's technique to see if there's something else you're doing differently.
That being said, there are a few things you can try.
Cover the pan, for at least some of the cooking time.
Lower the temperature, so the sauce just simmers and doesn't boil.
Add more liquid (e.g.: stock, wine, or even just water)
Add something else that will release liquid (e.g.: onions, mushrooms, celery — but note this will work best only when the pan is also covered).
Thank you for the tips, I first tried the smaller pan size as recommended by the other user and it was perfect for my scenario. Happy cooking!
I have found cast iron can sometimes evaporate more liquid in certain cooking styles. I think it is something to do with teflon pans usually being thinner (thus with less capacity) and also less heat conductive. Such that the liquid heats more slowly and therefore less evaporates. Though this is only the case for short high temp cooking in my experience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.807082
| 2016-04-27T17:40:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68606",
"authors": [
"Vality",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45625",
"theblindprophet"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115315
|
Is Pad See Lew the same as Pad See Ew?
I have been looking across the Internet to see if these two Thai dishes (Pad See Lew and Pad See Ew) are the same. I believe that they are and that they are just spelled different in different regions (possibly). But I’m not sure so I thought I’d ask for some seasoned advice.
Pad See Ew is sometimes spelled Pad Siew, Pad Siu or Phat Si-Io.
Where did you encounter "Pad See Lew"? Are you sure it's not just a typo?
I just ordered it this evening at a local Thai restaurant.
Might still be a typo on the menu ;-) happens all the time.
I think that's the question @Johannes_B.
I looked at other menus online (from other Thai restaurants) and I see both spellings (not on the same menu, of course). I am leaning to the idea that it’s the same dish but there are two spellings.
I edited your question to include a link to the Wikipedia article for Pad See Ew. FWIW, when I typed "pad see lew" into wikipedia, it immediately re-routed me to the article for pad see ew. It's not definitive, but that seems to point towards them being the same thing spelled differently.
@csk Thx. Good point - I am leaning to the idea that these two spellings are for the same dish.
Pad siew = pad si ew. Never heard of the other two.
Yeah, that's why I'm leaning into "Pad See Lew" being a pure typo. Listen to Pailin pronounce it here: https://hot-thai-kitchen.com/pad-see-ew-new/ You'll hear there there's not even a hint of an "L" sound. Pad See Ew, Pad Sieu, Pad Seuwe, etc. are all fair transliterations, but not "Lew".
Maybe it’s named after a guy named Lew who works at the restaurant.
Suffice it to say that all these spellings refer to the same dish. I called the manager at a local Thai restaurant here in the Dallas Texas area who insists that he had always spelt the dish Pad See Lew and he is from Thailand. It is interesting to note that he mentioned the “L’ is silent so the pronunciation is the same as Pad See Ew.
@JW. LOL! Yeah, and his name is Lou... j/k
Well, since the dish is actually spelled ผัดซีอิ๊ว, transliterations can be fairly creative.
Ah, modern Roman typography. Why does capital "I/i" have to look like small "L/l" in so many non-serif fonts?
These are both the same dish and can go by various spellings as noted in the OP.
There is no Pad See Lew. Pad See Ew means to fry with soy sauce. In Thailand this menu is typically cook with flat rice noodle, fry with kale, egg and soy sauce.
I agree that Pad See Lew is a typo error. When I type into google in redirects me to Pad See Ew.
Credit : wikipedia
I don’t think it is a typo. I updated the OP because I have since found other spellings of this dish. I do believe this is all the same dish that is being discussed here. Thx.
I appreciate the picture btw because that is what the dish looks like.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.807359
| 2021-04-18T23:47:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115315",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"JW.",
"Johannes_B",
"Michaelyus",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"tale852150",
"vasin1987"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115274
|
What to use to tame my chicken tikka masala?
I love chicken Tikka Masala but I’m afraid it doesn’t always like me. If I cut the masala portion in half what can I use in its place? Maybe double the yogurt?
Note: The dinner is a meal kit with the masala sauce provided in a sealed packet. The sauce is in liquid form, not a powder. The amount of sauce is meant to go with 1/2 lb of chicken thigh meat. The meal kit is meant to serve two.
Another though about these kits - is it just a sauce packet, or is there a dry seasoning packet as well - I haven't done a tikka masala that way but I have had others like it. In that case a lot of the heat may be in the dry mix.
Is your problem with spices on the way in or the way out?
@user3067860 The spices are causing issues such as indigestion and heartburn.
@ChrisH The sauce is in an ‘all-in-one’ packet, in liquid form. There is no dry seasoning packet in this kit.
I would just put some yoghurt on the side, as a dip.
Are you able to tolerate other foods with lactose in them? If you're having digestive issues due to lactose intolerance, adding more yoghurt will probably just make things worse!
@nick012000 I have no sensitivity to lactose but thanks for bringing that up.
it could also be the acid. Some of the spices are acidic, tomatoes are acidic, and yogurt is acidic. I dare say you could add a pinch of baking soda
You're thinking along the right lines with using yoghurt. In fact because yoghurt is often used to tone down spice, you might find that you can use more than half the sauce, if you increase the yoghurt.
But you probably wouldn't want to double the yoghurt to make up for the missing sauce. Instead replace the sauce you didn't use with yoghurt. So if the packet contains 200 ml of sauce, and you only use half of it, you'll be short 100 ml, so use an extra 100ml yoghurt. You might find that's a little runny, so might want to use a bit less.
If you have tomato puree/paste or even passata, you could mix some of that into the extra yoghurt. Most tikka masala recipes include some tomato, so this will maintain the flavour without the heat. Puree will have a slight thickening effect compared to yoghurt, while passata will be thinner,unless you simmer it long enough to reduce.
Are you suggesting adding (maybe) tomato sauce or tomato paste to keep the sauce thick and tone down the ‘temperature’ while adding more yogurt? I like that idea!
@tale852150 not tomato sauce, but tomato paste. It will help with the thickness to some extent, but also I reckon you want to reduce heat without reducing too much flavour, and it will help there, by replacing some of the original overly-hot sauce. If there was an easy way of adding onion, that would be good too, but I can't think of one
I will try the tomato paste then. I’m curious - where in the spice-heat spectrum does masala usually fall? Is it in the ‘hot’ side of the spectrum or more so on the ‘mild’ side?
It's rather variable. It should (IMO) be noticeably hot but less than madras. But this is a UK-based opinion, and anyway perception of heat is very personal
Understood - my understanding is like yours in that in can vary but is usually on the ‘hot’ side versus the ‘mild’ side. What would you suggest as a ‘mild’ alternative - possibly a curry like Korma?
To me, korma has no heat (my daughter would agree and she doesn't do "spicy"). It's pleasant enough but a different experience. Pasanda is similar in heat but IMO often better in restaurants. Tikka masala is normally described as "medium", along with dhansak, which I'd choose in preference as I like its sweet and sour notes if I don't feel like something really spicy. A toned down tikka masala isn't a bad idea. If you start from scratch or building a sauce using a ready-made paste and fresh ingredients you can reduce just the spices to taste. It is of course more work.
I wouldn't be sure that yoghurt helps with the problems the OP asked about. Yes, it will make the spices less aggressive in the mouth, but it won't remove any of the capsaicin, so after the stomach it'll probably behave the same whether or not any yoghurt was in the food. In that sense the yoghurt might actually give a treacherous sense of safety. – However, @tale852150 you should also consider that it's maybe not the spices at all that are causing the digestion problems. It's generally difficult to diagnose what food item caused such problems, since the effects can have quite a delay.
@leftaroundabout yes, I see your point. But how else to start, how else to diagnose the culprit? It may simply be that I cannot tolerate some other spice within the masala.
@leftaroundabout the yoghurt is mainly there to replace the missing volume/liquid caused by putting less of the spicy sauce in - and that will reduce the capsaicin and any other irritating spices. If it's an issue of heat in the mouth, there's perhaps more room for balancing yoghurt vs spice than if it's digestive.
@ChrisH The issue is with the digestive part - my mouth has no issues and in fact loves it. :-)
Does adding 1/2 tablespoon of ground cumin increase, decrease or makes little difference with regard to indigestion?
That's what I was starting to assume - still, reducing the spicy sauce and building the volume back up with other suitable thick liquids is the way to go. It becomes a matter of personal experimentation, but anecdotally your choice of accompanying drink can have an effect too
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.807650
| 2021-04-15T04:41:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115274",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"CobaltHex",
"Strawberry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"leftaroundabout",
"nick012000",
"tale852150",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123767
|
Steamed salmon - loss of oil. Oil utility? Can I collect it?
What is the best way to cook salmon so that I do not lose any nutrients? If I were to steam the Salmon, I seem to be letting a lot of fluid, oil or something ooze off. Can I collect it?
Best way to cook - best for what? I like my salmon both raw, steamed and grilled depending on the occasion... Maybe you want to rephrase your question to give it more focus?
Instead of trying to collect the liquid that comes off the fish when you steam it, you may want to use a cooking method that takes advantage of this.
Two techniques that may be useful are ‘en papillote’, where you cook the fish with vegetables in a sealed pouch, and ‘mixed rice’, where you place items above a pot of a rice to steam (and then mix it together once it’s cooked).
What gets out is not pure oil, but a combination of oil and any other liquids contained in the fish, such as cytoplasm. Also, during steaming, the steam condenses on the fish and can drop back down, so there is water from the pot mixed in.
It will be difficult to collect it when using a traditional steaming method, because all this stuff drops from the fish into the water, through the steamer's holes. You can collect it if the fish is in a non-perfortated vessel, e.g. if you put it in a small pan and broil it. Pressure steaming also works in a nonperforated vessel, but I wouldn't pressure-steam salmon, out of worry that it will dry out. There are many other methods of cooking salmon which allow you to catch the drippings, you can pick any of them, there is no "best" one.
Once you have the drippings, the typical use is to make a fond. I doubt that salmon, even with skin, will yield enough oil to be used as a cooking fat.
That's indeed the salmon fat, liquifying, and then re-solidifying.
It is not useful for any culinary purpose.
Unless they’re referring to the albumin, of course. If it’s actually oil maybe they could work it into some sort of sauce? Otherwise, yeah, agreed.
I have cooked salmon fillets sous vide at 52*C. This allows the entire thickness to come to the same done-ness (is that a word?). There is no dry, over-done tail end and no sushi-like thick section. I then quickly broil one side before serving.
All the juices you describe are in the sous vide pouch. Let us know if you find a good use for them.
I've never done it, but I know people who have cooked whole salmon in a sous-vide bag by running it through a full wash cycle in the dishwasher (just the wash, not the dryer cycle). The novelty of the cooking method was the chief attraction. I was living within sight of Alaska so there was salmon begging to be cooked.
Thank you everyone you for your feedback; found them very helpful.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.808341
| 2023-03-28T23:41:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123767",
"authors": [
"8CK",
"Luciano",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124301
|
My sourdough starter is thick with small bubbles but isn't rising
I started my sourdough starter on the 17th. I was doing 1/2 cup water, 1/2 cup flour with one feeding a day, discarding half before each feeding. It rose with bubbles the first two days and then began having hooch every day. I started feeding it twice a day on the 23rd (which would have been day 6). On the 24th I switched to 1/2 cup flour and 1/3 cup water to get rid of the hooch and create a thicker consistency. Since switching to the different amount and continuing to feed twice a day, the starter is thick with bubbles on the top but still isn't rising. Should I start over? Should I be patient? Today is day 9 and I am one feeding in. Please help!
As a recommendation, you might want to try feeding it only once a day. I've done a number of starters, and feeding twice a day only makes sense if the starter is in a very warm place (26-32C). You could be turning it over so fast that the culture doesn't really have time to grow.
I will only feed it once today instead of twice and see how that works!
as an aside, sourdough starters work equally well with a tablespoon or two as with half a cup, but you waste way less flour that way.
Your problem is an American one: you are feeding equal volumes instead of weights. Since water is a lot denser than flour, this results in a very liquid sour dough.
Since it is liquid, it can't really rise, it needs to be thicker for that.
Switch to feed equal weights of flour and water, and you should get a thicker, rising sourdough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.808605
| 2023-05-26T16:03:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124301",
"authors": [
"Alyssa Gamez",
"Esther",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104449",
"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
}
|
124872
|
Why do slow cookers have such a gap between the heating unit and the crock pot?
I've had a number of slow cookers in the past and all seem to be roughly the same in this regard:
The outside of the unit is red hot to the touch when they're on
The crock pot inside the unit can actually move around. It has maybe 0.5cm of clearance on all sides from the heating enclosure.
They're not chef-grade (if such slow cookers exist), but they're not cheap (~£50).
Is there a reason for this? It's frequently said that this is an energy-efficient way of cooking food (amongst many other benefits) and I don't doubt that, but the two observations above seem wasteful in any case.
If the crock pot fit snugly into the unit then you could have more conduction rather than only convection heating, and surely the unit also could have heat better-directed inwards and reduce the amount lost on the outside of the unit? Once you've done that, you reduce the energy input from the unit to prevent overheating, and save more money. The closest I found was this but thermal expansion of the ceramic crock pot is way below the clearance given, easily evidenced by just moving the pot around after hours on the High setting.
I appreciate that this question is a mix of physics and food, but I imagine there is a practical reason for this because it seems like such an obvious flaw on the energy efficiency side, yet it's across the market - I'm surely missing another consideration.
I've often thought the outside could be a little better insulated, but all of mine, whether metal or plastic on the outside have been a reasonable temperature to handle, if briefly. So they're not getting all that hot
@ChrisH all of mine, I couldn't reasonably handle for more than a couple of seconds. That is heat going the wrong way, though, to the outside; what a waste. I'll admit that all of the ones I've used are metal, though
I don't have plans to use mine in the next few days, but I'll try to remember to measure the temperature next time I do
I've not had a slow cooker that got hot outside to the touch, either. At least here in the US it's not unusual to use the (obviously unplugged) slow cooker to transport the end product to another location, so possibly this is by design otherwise we'd all be burning ourselves and suing the manufacturer.
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas it has two handles to move, and it's not going to shrivel your skin on touch, but there's absolutely no way you could move any of the ones I had using direct contact with the outer casing. Even with "asbestos hands" there's no way I could juggle skin contact with my fingers and hold the weight. It might be a difference between US/UK here if I'm honest and manufacturers here get away with selling substandard products. They're not so common over here
If the inner pot was a snug fit, it would get stuck, possibly when full of hot food.
That's not because of thermal expansion, but assume for a moment that the inner pot goes in damp (perhaps it's just been washed and not thoroughly dried). That water then evaporates, but condenses where it leaves the outer pot. Then you have a seal, which leads to a vacuum when you try to lift the inner pot out. This would be most likely when preheating, as the moisture will be driven off eventually during cooking.
Overflowing can have the same effect (and that can be due to thermal expansion of the food). Note that the outer pot is quite well sealed on the inside, despite the dire warnings not to put liquid in it. Overflowing can also mean sticky liquid, and being able to move the inner pot around would help with unsticking.
Note that even if the inner pot is metal, which can be made to finer tolerances than ceramic, there's still a comparable gap, so it's not to slow it manufacturing tolerances.
Convective heating does at least mean quite even heating. Conductive heating would lead to hot spots nearest the element.
The heat escaping out the sides could also be reduced by a little (more) insulation, but the heat escaping from the top dominates anyway - that's uninsulated and heated by steam from the food. To make them considerably more efficient you'd need a double glazed lid (I'm used to a glass lid, though had one that was thick ceramic) as well as better insulated walls.
Overflowing was in my mind but I couldn't connect it. I've had them boil over but didn't see the reason for the clearance gap
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.808764
| 2023-08-02T17:04:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124872",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"roganjosh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124916
|
Why wouldn't a cast iron pot rust/corrode if I cook liquids in it?
Cast iron cookware newbie here. I've been told that it's okay to make soup in cast iron, but that the soup should not remain in cast iron after it's cooked, otherwise the pot will rust. But hot or not the soup remains liquid, so why would the pot only rust when the soup gets cold? Thanks!
Edit: the cast iron pot would be seasoned, not enameled.
Are you talking about seasoned cast iron (where you have to heat it up with oil to create a protective layer) or enameled cast iron (usually brightly colored on the outside)?
@Joe Seasoned cast iron. Now I edited my question to add that. Thanks.
It's actually pretty unlikely that a well-seasoned cast iron pot would rust just because you stored soup in it for 48 hours, unless the soup was highly acidic. However, there's two reasons why it's a bad idea to do anyways:
The seasoning on the cast iron is polymerized oil, which tastes like burnt oil. If the soup sits in it for long periods of time, some of that burnt oil flavor will leach into the soup.
This will also degrade the seasoning on the cast iron, and you'll need to re-season it.
It isn't so much the temperature, but the duration.
Consider what you do with stubbornly dirty pots and pans - you soak them. When you leave them full of water, it works its way into the deposits, softens them and dislodges them from the metal.
The cast iron seasoning is also a kind of deposit on the pot, and not as uniform or as well-bonded as an industrially produced enamel or teflon layer. Leaving the pot soaking in a liquid will weaken the seasoning somewhat, and the water could find its way under it to the bare metal.
Once the water is under the seasoning, it will also need some time. Rust doesn't form immediately. If you're under conditions where it needs, say, 10 hours to form, that would be 20 times cooking a batch of soup, or storing one batch for a day. Re-seasoning every 20 uses is less frustrating than every time, and if you're also using the pot for other dishes in the meantime, or if you brown onions and/or meat with each batch of soup before pouring the water onto it, the seasoning might repair itself during use already, so the rust won't even form.
I liked rumtscho's answer and duration/time should be important but temperature could be important too. The rust reaction requires water AND oxygen (see wiki for 'rust').
Oxygen is MUCH less soluble in water at higher temperatures, so as the temperature rises oxygen will start to bubble out (nice graph of oxygen's water solubility here: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-solubility-water-d_639.html.
In fact, once water is boiled, the water is said to be "deaerated". So it is a good way to get rid of oxygen.
I'm just guessing, but perhaps both the duration of time and less oxygen in hot liquids both work to protect the cast iron when making soup???
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.809180
| 2023-08-08T16:21:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124916",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"new__LocalHost"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124923
|
The cast iron pan changed color after machine-dishwashing
My cast iron pan is new, clearly black, like deeply black. In the instructions, it is mentioned that it can be put in a dishwasher (not recommended, but it could be). The first time putting it in the dishwasher, it was really catastrophic, rust everywhere, like it was covered with rust powder.
I washed it manually (using vinegar and bicarbonate powder) and re-seasoned it. But the color of the pan clearly changed to a slight gold (or maybe slight red), not really black as before.
What happened? Any way to restore the original color?
Does this answer your question? I bought a cast iron skillet and after washing it and then heating it I got a color like rust
@Sneftel No. Since I already cleaned and re-seasoned it three times, no improvement was noted in the color.
Really can't see anything vaguely useful in those tiny pictures. Have you got something with better resolution?
Many dishwashing powders are intended to scour off debris. This can damage the seasoning on cast iron pans, particularly if you have a ‘slick’ seasoning (vs a ‘hard’ seasoning)
Also, I think you learned not to put cast iron in the dishwasher.
@FuzzyChef For sure, and in the hardest way :( I also learned not to entrust blindly the instructions coming with ...
@Tetsujin All that you need is to notice the color difference. Deep black (before) then slightly tinted orange-brown (after). Sorry, the order was inverted.
Are we looking at the inside or the outside of the pan? The letters etc. confuse me?
If you have a layer of seasoning that hasn’t fully cured, it’s often an orange tinge. You typically only see this when doing the initial seasoning on new (or stripped) pans.
Continued use of the pan, as it heats to the necessary temperature, will get it to turn fully black. If it doesn’t, you can always put it in the oven to cure.
And I should mention— this assumes that you had shiny metal when you started re-seasoning it. If there was still rust, you’re going to want to strip it down to bare metal and start again
I cleaned it really hard, but the color is still slightly tinted orange-brown. Even after three times reseasonning on the oven.
And when you say "you’re going to want to strip it down to bare metal", does it mean rebutting it in the dishwasher? (or how)
Maybe it's totally normal (meaning that the color is not really coming from the rust), and all I need is just more patience to have the deep black original color. I'm confused.
@Sofiane : you want something that isn’t going to cause more rust in the process. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/11598/67
And cleaning is going to leave it orangey brown. You need to heat it to the right point to get it to turn black (but not over heat it, which will cause it to break down again)
Thank you. Any recommendation about the "right point"? I ask because I no more have confidence in the instructions coming with (since it is already indicated that it is possible to put it in the dishwasher).
@Sofiane I think it’s around 350-400°F / 175-205°C, but I’ve seen recommendations to bake the seasoning anywhere from 250-500°F, and lower temps lead to that orange-brown coating. I also don’t know if it’s a function of the type of oil used
FWIW, when I've reconditioned cast iron, I put it on my grill outside so that I can get it to 250C/500F, and then I do 3-4 coats. But it doesn't turn black immediately, more of a very dark brown.
@FuzzyChef : and it’s worth mentioning that brown and orange are related colors, only differing in intensity / subjective backgrounds: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wh4aWZRtTwU
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.809458
| 2023-08-09T13:04:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124923",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"Sofiane",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"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
}
|
126357
|
Cooling fresh-baked bread outside in very cold weather
Currently it is -27C/-17F outside.
Would putting a loaf of freshly-baked bread outside to cool off (quickly) be a good idea or a bad idea?
To clarify, this is for the purposes of cooling it down enough to eat right away, and not for some sort of flash-freezing long-term storage or anything like that.
Depends, what are you trying to do to it?
Good question -- I've made an edit to clarify; thanks.
Surely you could try it and find out? What do you think would happen?
Yes, try it. I can speculate, but experiment beats speculation.
Bread doesn't conduct heat very well. In those conditions it's possible the outside would freeze while the inside was still warm. But you might start cooling outside
Just my opinion but assuming you're asking because you don't want to potentially ruin the loaf as a science experiment, I think this is a risky idea. Bread does a lot of things as it cools off out of the oven - the crust hardens, the inside continues to cook and set, etc. It might not make it inedible to plunge it into sub-zero temperatures right out of the oven, but I'd bet it'll affect the texture of the crust and/or inside noticeably. There's no substitute for time!
Does the dish where you want to eat the bread require cold bread? Otherwise I would say you can eat the bread essentially right out of the oven. Probably put on a glove while cutting it but then the maybe 5 minutes between pulling it out of the oven to the first bite are generally sufficient to get to a temperature where you don't burn yourself. I don't think it will safe you any time to bring the bread outside first and then get it back in almost immediately afterwards.
Note that if you want to freeze the bread for long storage, quick freezing by bringing it outside can be a good idea.
Bread doesn't cut nicely until fully cooled. I slice mine to sandwich thickness in the evening, and even after a couple of hours out of the oven, it tears much more than when fully cooled. Slicing it hot is really only if you want big chunks
@ChrisH A sharp bread knife helps but you are correct that bread fresh out of the oven doesn't cut easily. Personally I consider the flavor of warm oven fresh bread easily compensates for mishapen slices but I guess that is a personal judgement.
If I want bread to eat as soon as it comes out of the oven, I make rolls.
I have an outdoor brick oven in NE Canada and I try not to bake when the temp is -20c or less.
This is for the baker not the bread .
Because of the aerated structure of bread it will freeze on the outside before it cools on the inside at -27c. I find even after cooling bread indoors if you put it in the freezer too soon the loaves will curl and collapse a bit as the air inside the loaf shrinks .
I bake until the internal temperature of the loaf is around 208f so the bread is still cooking below the crust when it is removed from the oven .Rapid cooling will shorten the time the loaf has to set internally and you can end up with a gummy middle.
Thank you for this! Very helpful.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.809894
| 2024-01-13T19:19:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126357",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"Peter Moore",
"Roger",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99813",
"quarague",
"the-baby-is-you"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32711
|
What are the benefits of making butter at home?
I've recently realized how easy it is to make your own butter at home (thanks, SA!). Are there any significant benefits to this as opposed to buying butter in the grocery store?
I do not have access to dairy cows, so I would have to purchase cream. That seems like it would mitigate any potential cost savings.
How about culinary benefits? Does homemade butter taste better?
Related: How to make home-made butter?
I would struggle to see how you could make butter cheaper, better, or with longer shelf life than a commercial churn does? It's a fun project for kids, that's all :-)
One reason to make your own butter is that you get distinctly different flavours depending on the type of cream you use.
If you use fresh cream you get sweet butter which is popular in North America, Australia and Britain, but less easy to come by in continental Europe. If you use a cultured cream like Crème fraîche you get cultured butter, which is common throughout most of Europe.
Cultured butter is slightly soured by lactic acid. It has a fuller, more complex flavour than sweet butter. If you decide to make it, be sure that you don't use a cultured cream that includes artificial thickeners. The ingredient list should read something like "pasteurised cream, lactic-acid culture" (apologies if that's not accurate; I'm translating from Swedish).
I have a couple of other reasons why I personally want to make butter. First of all my four year old son has been asking how butter is made, and this would be a great way show him. The second reason is that I'm curious as to how real buttermilk tastes (the buttermilk in the supermarkets is fermented milk). And last of all, I noticed that my beurre noir sauce was working out much better when I lived in Australia, so I'd like to do some side-by-side comparisons with European butter.
There's definitely no benefit in cost or time, the only reason to do this is flavor. Anything made fresh is generally better than what you get at the store, and you can use sea salt or spices to make it taste the way you like.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.810173
| 2013-03-15T19:02:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32711",
"authors": [
"Alex Hales",
"Aoryu",
"Donald Daly",
"Raffi",
"Richard N. Belcher",
"TFD",
"gala",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75616"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71557
|
How to spread peanut butter that is required to stay refrigerated?
I recently bought some "natural" crunchy peanut butter from Harris Teeter. Other than natural my only other description is the oil rises to the top when it isn't stirred for a while. There is a very large message on the top that says:
Refrigerate after opening
However, I mainly use peanut butter for PBJ sandwiches and I cannot spread the peanut butter while its cold. I could set it out for a while, but that seems against the message on the jar.
Is there some secret to spreading this peanut butter when it must be kept in the refrigerator?
Even if you don't have to refrigerate I would like to know how to spread it. I live by myself and it could take 6 months to empty the jar, so refrigeration would help it last longer.
Possible duplicate of Does natural {peanut, cashew, almond} butter require refrigeration?
Maybe for the second part of the question. I am still curious as to how to spread it.
If it's that hard, cut slices, like hard cheese. I also find that sturdy bread as opposed to plastic-bagged white spongy crud helps a lot. Toasting the bread also helps. Else, nuke enough for a sandwich as Catja suggests.
The easiest solution that comes to mind would be to figure out how much you need for a sandwich, remove that from the jar, set it on the counter to come to room temp (or put it in the microwave for 10-15 seconds) and then spread it when it's warmed up.
"Refrigerate after opening" doesn't mean that it must be in the fridge every second, though... so even if you left the entire jar on the counter for 30 minutes to warm up, it shouldn't pose much of a problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.810382
| 2016-07-20T19:13:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71557",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45050",
"theblindprophet"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69049
|
When slow cooking a whole chicken for curry, should I put the vegetables in at the same time or wait?
Hi guys I need some quick advice. I am about to slow cook a whole chicken and I and one question: Should I put the vegetables in while its slow cooking or will it be too mushy?
Can you be a bit more specific about your process? How long are you planning to cook the chicken? What else is in the pot? Which vegetables are you planning to use (some need to be added in stages)... All of this info will help us give you a more useful answer.
I just threw it in: chicken more or less curry powder and extra salt for flavor. I am cooking it with coconut milk and mango. I have it ad 250 but going to cook it by ear. might bump up the temp. for veggies all I have are red and yell peppers, I will add jalapeño for heat, onions garlic and I bought a can of bamboo shoot. I think my plan it to satee them sperate. Any thoughts on that?
You need to edit your question and add all of that information in so that it's easy to see.
All I wanted was advice for if I am slow cooking chicken for a few hours do I put the vegtables in with the chicken ir add them later.
We aren't really the best place for quick answers.
If you're making, for example, chicken soup, you add the "flavoring vegetables" (onions and celery, in my experience) right at the outset, with the understanding that you'll fish them out and discard them at some point, after they've given up their flavors to the broth. The actual vegetables you want to eat go in quite a bit later. I'm pretty sure the same procedure should work for your slow-cooked curry, but I've never made curry, so temper this advice with your own good common sense.
Cool. Perfect, that was all I needed
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.810545
| 2016-05-16T23:56:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69049",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"dcarney999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45809"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128165
|
Light or dark, when picking frozen abalones sealed in clear plastic?
What shade is best? Light or dark? In my village, the store sells solely frozen Australian abalone, sealed in see through plastic. I am befuddled, as advice on the Internet contradicts!
"Avoid darkened ones."
When selecting fresh abalone, it should be thick, dark, and have no off smells.
Top picture. Bottom.
When selecting fresh abalone, it should be thick, dark, and have no off smells. How do you smell something in a sealed plastic bag? Anyway found this article quite interesting: Abalone, That Delicious Rarity, Being Farmed in Bay Area
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.810715
| 2024-04-20T21:43:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128165",
"authors": [
"Vickel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90522"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128511
|
Why does chocolate spread shortly taste less good once opened?
Chocolate-hazelnut spreads are said to have a relatively long shelf life even after being opened, e.g. 12 months for regular jars on the official FAQ for Nutella.
However, I personally find that once it's been opened, a spread's taste will worsen after just a few weeks, even with the jar closed again. That is on the order of a good-quality spread now feeling like a low-price one.
I believe I've observed this many times, with various spread brands and in various places (other people's homes, etc.).
I am under the impression that it's more specifically the surface of the paste that has degraded flavor and that it has to do with it being in contact with air.
Am I mistaken in thinking that the flavor of an opened chocolate spread quickly degrades, and if not, is it because of the air in the jar?
Can you please elaborate how you store the open jar?
A shelf in my living room, no direct sunlight, temperature may vary e.g. warmer in summer, down to 16-18°C at night in winter. Edit: and of course with the lid on it.
If your winter nights are as high as 16–18°C, then it might help for you to spell out how your hot summer days are! (Where I am, not every summer day reaches 16°C, and no winter or spring days do…)
I live in France. During winter I have heating which I'll set to somewhere between 19-22°C during the day, and a couple degrees lower at night. During summer, I don't have air conditioning in my living room so temperature may range 20-35°C. My question applies to winter too.
Almost certainly oxidation to some extent, though there are antioxidants in the form of emulsifiers added to nutella. Bit of a complex question though as there are a bunch of things that go into taste perception, such as texture, which could play a role here.
I think it's more like the makers do cheat by keeping the good tasty flavor ingredients limited to the top 20% of the jar.
I have noticed the same with Nutella.
The first dozen of spoons are rich in hazelnuts aroma, but when I get to a certain depth it just turns into a flat tasting choclate over saturated with sugar.
Nutella, like similar spreads, is made in large homogeneous batches and jars are filled from that. Only a single filling nozzle is used. It would not be possible to put the “good tasty flavor ingredients” in a particular part of the jar.
@abdou I have to say I don't believe in your explanation either, but I thank you for making me not alone in having that experience! :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.810797
| 2024-06-08T06:14:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128511",
"authors": [
"Nahoj",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"bob1",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45208
|
How do I clean my cast iron grill pan?
I'm recently the proud new owner of what I appears to be a Le Creuset "Skinny Grill" which is an enameled cast iron grill pan.
I fairly new to cast iron but I'm accustomed to the no-soap cleanup and maintaining a season. This pan, however, is making me crazy. The little ridges make it difficult for me to get anything down in there. They are higher and spaced more closely together than the photograph below may indicate. I can barely get a fingertip down between the ridges, let alone a paper towel or rag. If you do manage to get something in there for wiping, little bits and fibers get torn off because of the rough surface. That's clearly not good eats.
Most of the "advice" I've read online (mostly message board conversations between folks who are facing this exact problem) say to use soap and water and scrub it down like it's any other pan. If I'm reading it correctly, the general advice on the Le Creuset website even suggests a ride through the dishwasher! I'm worried about ruining the season. It's tempting to dunk the whole thing in warm soapy water and go at it with a scrubby pad but that just feels wrong.
Incidentally, the previous owner abandoned this pan for this very problem. It "made a mess" and they "didn't know how to clean it."
Do I just treat it like a regular cast iron skillet?
It makes a tasty burger...
Edit: After playing around on the Le Crueset website a bit I'm finding separate instructions for cast iron and something they call "Satin Black Enamel." Is this not a cast iron surface? Now I'm extra confused.
Some european countries often call enameled cast iron simply 'cast iron', and they just don't typically use the type of cast iron that requires seasoning. I'd look over the instructions that came with the pan (if it was bought new) to see if it mentions how to prepare the pan for first use.
For me the kicker is "It makes a tasty burger...". Consider just how clean a pan like that needs to be. If my cast iron griddle looked like that I would warm it up, pour off excess fat then give it a rinse with cold water. The baked on cheese might need the edge of a spatula or something to work it loose.
I own a similar square grill pan and have always had luck cleaning it with a stainless steel scouring sponge and lightly soapy water. The spongy texture is very effective at getting down into the grooves. No need to be especially vigorous - a couple quick passes will take out accumulated residues, and you can use a regular sponge afterward if you like. I've no idea how they season these, but it seems to hold up quite well over time. As near as I can tell, you can also re-season these just like any other cast iron when it does degrade.
Their statements about enamel are probably referring to the outer, colored finish - I also own a Le Creuset dutch oven which has the same enameling inside and out. Care and feeding of that surface is of course totally different from cast iron.
Initially I thought the same thing, that the cooking surface of that pan is just normal cast iron. But then I read http://www.lecreuset.co.uk/Help-Advice/Care--Use/Care--Use-Cast-Iron-Satin-Black-Enamel/, and now I am not so sure.
@Jolenealaska To be fair, I don't know if it is either - I'm just speaking from my experience with a similar item. If I'm doing something wrong it hasn't caused too much damage in about 3 years of moderate use.
@Jolenealaska : my mom had a LeCrueset cast iron grill pan that was enameled on the inside ... it was rather obvious it was enameled, as it wasn't black. (I think she said it had been a wedding gift, so would've been circa late 1960s).
To the person who suggested using a stainless steel scrubbing pad on the square cast iron grill pan — thank you! I’ve tried all sorts of things to clean between the ridges (including a flat screwdriver as one person recommended, although that seemed extreme so I stopped using it). Just tried using a Scotch Brite stainless scrubbing pad (no soap, just hot water) and it worked great! Flexible enough to get down into the spaces and scrub the cooked-on bits out. You’ve now made it a much more pleasant cooking experience when using our grill pan!
This Le Creuset Skinny Grill is CAST IRON.
All you have to do is soak it in water for fifteen minutes or fill it with same.
Hot H2O will clean it faster.
Then use a plastic bristle brush to brush out the residue.
Don't even bother with soap, just plain water.
Never in the dishwasher!
And never put it away without cleaning it every time. Both sides.
Keep in mind, this is a Grill.
It gets all-mighty hot before you cook on it.
That alone will kill any bio residue which may remain.
Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. . . .
Cast Iron care is super-simple !
Good Luck.
+1 for recommending trying a plastic brush first before abrading seasoning with any kind of steel wool... and yeah, always good to keep a separate brush that is kept free of soap, for cast iron cookware, stone mortars etc...
For what it's worth, I use one of these (not filled with soap, obviously -- it's my dedicated cast iron brush), oil, and salt to clean my grill pan. I use to curse and go through lots of paper towels until I tried this, and it has worked great for me: http://www.oxo.com/p-815-steel-soap-dispensing-palm-brush.aspx
I do the same thing.
After cooking, pour off fat and brush off remaining food bits. Heat it again, and let all the grease and remaining fluid boil off. The black stuff will peel itself off. Trust me. You can help it along by taking a grill brush, and brush it like you would your grill. Rinse, heat again until dry, give it a light swipe of vegetable oil, and store.
All the information you need about Le Creuset products are right on their website.
As for their grills this product is cast iron. However, the cast iron on the outside is covered with enamel. The cooking surface is a finish they call Satin Black; it is NOT cast iron, and it's not Teflon either.
So, never scrub with abrasive products. Never use metal utensils on this grill or anything metal to clean this grill. Don't worry about using water...it's not a cast iron finish. Like most all other Le Creuset products, soak in warm soapy water, then use a plastic brush or sponge.
The website also has specific instructions for cooking that help tremendously in making sure you don't end up with an uncleanable mess. No it's not necessarily intuitive.!
Grilling instructions:
(https://www.lecreuset.com/care-and-use#ci-grilling)
Cleaning instructions (be prepared to scroll up and down to find information specific to your Le Creuset item)
(https://www.lecreuset.com/care-and-use#ci-cleaning)
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! It would be helpful if you linked the specific instructions on Le Creuset's website here so others can find them. And if there are other elements there that readers would find helpful (you mention "specific instructions"), it would be good to summarize main points here to make your answer most useful to other users. (Website links can change and webpages can be deleted, so it's always better to give a summary of information here if you can.) Thanks for the information.
I thought it was satin black but I couldn’t be sure. Looking around on their website just confused me more. Maybe it’s better organized nowadays.
When I'm done cooking I heat the grill pan until the grease is burned off. When its cooled down, I use a really big flathead screwdriver to scrape the crud between the ridges, then to scrape the ridges themselves. A small chisel might work too. Just make sure to burn off the grease and lay out a lot of newspaper to catch the scraped bits.
I have found. Including the above. That taking a lathing strip or wood shim stock. Found at hardware stores in lumber. Scrape the grill top with it. The soft wood quickly takes the shape of the ridges. So works well as a scraper. Lightly oil. Let set overnight. Rescrape & they are clean with out damage. Also works on the grill plates of outside cast iron grill plates. I like them better than the brass brush's & steelwool Others use. Boiling also works or helps. But a scraper that wears to exactly fit the groves of wood works best for me.
You may have missed that this is enameled cast iron. Scraping can be risky, it could damage the enamel (although wood might work).
Only the outsides are enameled. I said wood. A soft wood those are. They will not cause damage. Wear out fast they do. About as hard as your finger nail,
No, the inside is enameled - this is what "Satin Black Enamel" means, it is a coating used by Le Creuset which looks like bare cast iron but is in fact enamel.
I use a wad of crumpled aluminum foil. Works great. I am going to try adding salt and oil after reading these.
Use soap ( yes soap ) and a plastic stiff bristle brush.
https://lifehacker.com/go-ahead-and-use-soap-to-clean-your-cast-iron-pan-1658416503
I have a square Lodge Logic 10" Cast Iron Grill Pan, and the best solution I have come up for cleaning in between the ridges is a stiff bristled toothbrush. When I have stuck on bits of food between the ridges. I will pour off the grease (if there is any), then run under hot water while it is still hot. Then I will put in enough water to cover the ridges and immediately scrub it gently with the toothbrush, dry it with a cloth, put it on the burner for a minute to finish drying it, and then season with a bit of oil.
I saw on Rachel Ray.......wipe with Crisco and sprinkle salt all over..let sit overnight. My grill cleaned up very well.
Spray with oven cleaner, foam up ,let it rest for 10 to 15 minutes scrub with sponge with rough side,rinse, dry with paper towels, season pan put away ready for next time. I also spray lightly with Pam before I start cooking
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.811053
| 2014-06-29T23:47:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45208",
"authors": [
"AJX",
"Athanasius",
"Brady Field",
"Grace Martinez",
"HR Love",
"J Bergen",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marko",
"Negb1993",
"PHILIP CHUNG",
"Preston",
"Ray",
"Sarah Byrne",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"psorenson",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128677
|
Old El Paso Whole Green Chiles - No Water in Can
I have a can of Old El Paso Whole Green Chiles labeled Net Wt 4 oz. which is between 1 and 10 years old (don't remember buying it). The second ingredient on the label is water, but when I shake the can it sounds like dried chiles only. Almost opened it yesterday just to see but for now keeping it as a curio.
No holes, no external discoloration, the label is intact and it's been stored in a cupboard since purchase.
The stamp on the top of the can says:
12B011 then on the next line
AE 1455
Canning error? Labeling error? My error? Thanks in advance for any info.
Is there any discoloration on the bottom of the can? I once had a very old can develop a small leak and dry out like you mentioned. The hole was difficult to see, as it had rusted or something.
No way to tell without physically having the can itself and having a look at the contents. You could presumably measure the weight of a similar empty can to get a bseline and compare with the weight of your can. Measurement of dimensions would give you volume and hence a measure of how heavy it should be if full with water. Have you tried to contact Old El Paso manufacturer?
@bob1 it may have a total contents weight and a drained weight. Beans, for example, do here
"Net Wt 4 Oz." If I weighed it myself I wouldn't say "Net Wt" because l would only know the gross weight. I can darn sure tell by hand that it's not 4 oz.
Assuming there isn't a readable "best by" date on the other end of the can (or somewhere) the codes suggest production in 2011, 2012, or 2014 at the latest. so it's more curio than food anyway. I also suspect a rust-through leak given lightness and advanced age.
@JudasHeimlich for things tinned in water (or brine, oil) I'm used to seeing 2 weights like this. It's a shame you don't have the same. The labelling (assuming it's this product) is very odd - 3 servings per can, serving size 35g, or 1/3 of the net weight per serving - so not meant to be drained. The outside dimensions work out to about 180ml so I'd be surprised if you could cram 113g of chillies in there plus some water.
Rust is normally visible along the bottom rim if a steel can has leaked, but I still think that's the case. Personally I'd either open it and weigh the contents, or weigh it unopened, compare to a similar can and work out the contents weight. I'd eat tinned stuff that old if it wasn't damaged
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.811826
| 2024-06-26T18:43:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128677",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"Judas Heimlich",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128879
|
Is food safety a matter of presence or quantity? (of contaminants)
When I cook at home, I tend to be hyper-sensitive to food safety. If I am handling raw meat, and the same hand merely grazes a serving dish, I consider it contaminated and may clean it. I try my best to keep part of my hands clean, always, to turn on the sink, so I can avoid the horrifying possibility of getting the faucet handles contaminated (in which case I would be doomed to forever-contamination, as every time I cleaned my hands I would have to touch the contaminated faucet to turn the water off). When I clean a cutting board after handing raw meat, I pay attention to ensuring that every part of the cutting board gets hit with the sponge, and I worry about missing a spot. When my housemate handles raw chicken and touches, well, anything, even a little bit, it really bothers me.
This style of management treats food safety as roughly binary: either the food / tool / dish "is" contaminated, and needs to be thoroughly cleaned (and your hands with it), or it "is not" contaminated, and you can do pretty much whatever you want with it. Lots of food safety resources encourage this style of thinking by using binary language. For example, this cooking.SE question references a bowl as "is contaminated"; and this this question and this foodsafety.gov article both take a non-binary viewpoint on risk of contamination, but still consider food either "contaminated" / "spoiled" or "safe".
Lately I've been wondering if this viewpoint is mistaken, and if my food safety habits are overkill. My understanding is that the primary concern of potentially-dangerous food is that it may be hosting harmful bacteria¹. It seems natural that bacteria is not a binary risk: one hundred individual E. Coli bacteria is probably a lot less of a concern than a billion, as I imagine the latter to be a much greater load on my immune system. Is it the same, then, with food safety?
Is the light touch of a contaminated hand against a serving dish not a concern, because the quantity of contaminants moved is going to be so low as to be negligible? (Assume no time / bad conditions for the bacteria to multiply) Or is the mere presence of contaminants enough to call for a cleaning?
Similarly, it feels common to me for someone (myself, friends, TV chefs, or otherwise) to put a steak into a pan, cook it, turn it, cook it, and take it out all with the same tongs. Is this dangerous?
If it is a matter of quantity, how can we distinguish between what's negligible and what's dangerous? How much contamination is too much?
Thank you
[¹]: Although there is also concern about toxins produced by bacteria, as mentioned here
We typically talk about ‘santizing’ which is reduction of the contamination to a safe level, as opposed to ‘sterilization’. But part of the issue is that people’s immune systems vary greatly, so restaurants need to keep things to a level that’s safe for people with weaker immune systems. And contamination is bad because it might get transferred multiple times, as people don’t know that touched item was contaminated, and then have time to multiply to an unsafe level
Related (to your question about tongs): Is it safe to use the same cooking utensils for raw and cooked meat?
Purely from a toxicological perspective, dosage is everything (for a given agent, of course). A very common way to express the risk of a toxic substance is in terms of a “dose-response curve,” which might allow you to read off, for example, for a dosage of d micrograms per kilogram of body mass, the probability of experiencing a given threshold toxic effect is p.
Analogously, when decontaminating, the keys are concentration (of your sanitizing substance) and… critically! … contact time. You have to give a decontaminant the chance to work its damage on the bad bugs, to accomplish things like denaturing their proteins and breaking their chemical bonds. Microbes have evolved to withstand some pretty rude affronts, so a quick “spray on and wipe off” is very seldom an effective technique.
If your intent is merely to remove contaminants, rather than to destroy them, then you care far less about contact time and more about the specific chemical interaction of the cleaning substance your using to dislodge and wash away the bugs.
There is, to some degree, a minimum dose of poison or infectious agent which is necessary to get you sick, and of course the severity of an illness can depend on the dose.
For cooking purposes, though, that’s rarely a useful piece of information. The relative dose of E. coli on a hastily rinsed cutting board versus a fully washed cutting board can be several orders of magnitude. It rarely matters what the exact minimum infectious dose is; a given cutting board is almost certainly either definitely clean, or definitely going to get you sick. Exponential growth, similarly, means that the range of “potentially safe” incubation times is often pretty narrow.
So, yes, the presence of contaminants is sufficient for one to assume the presence of sufficient contaminants. Exceptions should be made by experienced and disinterested microbiologists, not home cooks looking at the steak on the floor and considering some on-the-spot special pleading.
Ha! Thanks for the answer. I ask not because I want to eat steak off the floor, but, for instance, because I wonder if it's really safe to be using the same tongs to take the cooked steak off of the pan that we use to put it into the pan (I feel I see that done regularly)
@Quelklef: The hope is that the surface of the steak is hot enough to kill any pathogens on the tongs (i.e., because the surface temperature of a steak that's just been seared will be pretty high). However, Foodsafety.gov still recommends using "separate plates and utensils for cooked and raw foods."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.812155
| 2024-07-27T18:43:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128879",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Joe",
"Quelklef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22246",
"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
}
|
71504
|
Do roasted almonds have similar calcium value to raw ones?
I have stopped consuming any kind of dairy so I need substitutes for, among the rest, calcium. I've been advised to eat almonds, but I dislike the taste and texture of the raw ones. When I grabbed a bag of roasted almonds in the store, I saw no calcium in the contents. Do the roasted almonds(maybe with added salt or oil) lose the calcium value? Can I roast them by my self to keep the calcium?
Looking at the USDA database, roasting the almonds does not affect the calcium levels (comparing equivalent weights). Look at the value per 100g or value per ounce rather than volume-based values and you'll see what I mean.
Raw almonds average 269mg of calcium per 100g (or 76mg per ounce).
https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3635
Dry roasted almonds average 268mg of calcium per 100g (also 76mg per ounce).
https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3637
What happens when salt and/or oil are added?
@user6251216 They're the same, but with salt and oil. You're just adding things, you're not removing things from inside the nuts. The same database says 291mg per 100g, not exactly the same, but clearly the calcium hasn't gone anywhere.
Then it's weird that all of the roasted almonds packs didn't have calcium in the content label.
@user6251216 I don't know the exact regulations, but I believe that most vitamin and mineral content is voluntary on the labels. Manufacturers have some incentive to show things, since it may make the food appear more healthy to consumers, but they also have limited space so they basically never show everything.
@user6251216 I dug a bit further, and in the US, calcium is actually one of the current required nutrients to be listed. So... I'm guessing you're not in the US, and you'd have to look up local regulations if you really want to know any more, but presumably it's optional.
Yeah, I think my country follows the european standard. Anyway, I'll try roasting some almonds myself, see how it goes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.812601
| 2016-07-18T21:10:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71504",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48126",
"liorblob"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62858
|
Mould on top and bottom of white wine vinegar
I didn't realize there was mold on the top and bottom of my white wine vinegar until I had added a teaspoon into the ingredients for Tzatziki. Is it OK to use or should it be discarded?
It depends; if it's formed a solid disk and was/is floating on top, what you probably have is a vinegar mother, not mold. It's a bacterial colony of acetobacter, and probably happened because your vinegar still had a little bit of alcohol left in it for the bacteria to feed on.
You have several options if this is the case:
You can leave it in the bottle; it will do you no harm.
You can filter it out with a coffee filter or similar and discard it. Your vinegar will be fine.
You can put it in a bottle with (perhaps not so great) wine and/or the leftovers of bottles and make vinegar.
This seems most likely. The acidity of vinegar would make it pretty unlikely to get mold.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.812777
| 2015-10-26T21:34:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62858",
"authors": [
"Howard Barker",
"Kathleen Doyle",
"Nancy Sassaman",
"SourDoh",
"catherine malalah",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863"
],
"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
}
|
88392
|
Why does the grated coconut "float" to the top of quindim while baking?
Quindim is a typical Brazilian dessert made from sugar, egg yolks, butter and grated coconut.
All those ingredients are mixed (yolks and sugar first, then the butter, then the grated coconut, in my experience), then bain-marie baked in a pudding mold or in muffin tray slots. And, somehow, the grated coconut is all at the top (which ends being the bottom) of the mixture at the end of the baking process.
Also, I've read that the quindim's ancestor recipe from Portugal, brisas do Lis, exhibits a similar phenomenon, where small almond pieces float to the top of the mixture while baking.
What causes the grated coconut or the almond pieces to move to the top of the mixture during the baking process? Does this occur in other recipes (maybe in less noticeable ways)?
(My ultimate point is to know how to cause such an effect in similar recipes.)
Not familiar with this dish, but does "float" really need quotation marks? Is it possible the coconut floats to the top of the other ingredients for the same reason wood chips float on a lake, because of lower density?
Are you using freshly grated coconut or dried store-bought?
while the mixture is raw, the coconut does not immediately float to the top. And I'm using both freshly grated ones or hydrated store-bought dried ones;
It is possible that the density of the sugar-yolk-butter mix does change during the baking process.
While the mixture is raw, the density of the batter is more or less equivalent to the density of the grated coconut, and the batter is fluid, allowing movement.
During cooking, the egg protein in the batter denatures and coagulates, generating a dense colloidal matrix that doesn't allow movement. As this process is happening, the proteins are aggregating to themselves and pushing the coconut to the top (it is pushed up since it is less dense than the newly-forming colloid).
A similar phenomenon happens with you put raisins, other dried fruit in batter (like in fruit cake or panettone), but they are pushed DOWN instead of up. Coating them in flour prevents them from sinking not because of the change in density, but because it gives anchoring points to the matrix to form around the fruit instead of pushing it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.812899
| 2018-03-16T07:16:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88392",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Lorel C.",
"Pedro V. G.",
"Rodrigo de Azevedo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48351"
],
"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
}
|
65618
|
Best way to bottle peri peri sauce?
I am looking to bottle my father-in-law's peri peri sauce and sell it at markets. The ingredients consist of fresh and dried herbs, garlic, salt, lemons and oil (sunflower, canola and olive). This is the method I used with him in the past and make to make sure it's food safe to do so. The batch is brought to a boil and simmered for 5 mins. It's left to cool and then bottled. The bottles are sterilized in hot boiling water for 5 minutes, left to dry (5-10 minutes) before adding the sauce. The caps (plastic) are also sterilized in hot water. Nothing else is done prior to storing them in the fridge, as they are perishable.
Is this a safe practice?
Sorry to rain on your parade, but unless you use an acid which you forgot to mention, this is a happy breeding ground for botulism bacteria (Clostridium botulinum).
You are creating anaerobic conditions with the oil, which means this specific bacteria are happy to multiply there.
Unfortunately, a simple boil, even for 20 minutes, won't make it safe. It will kill the live bacteria and even destroy the toxins they produced, but it will not kill the spores.
To kill the spores, you need commercial pressure canning with temperatures of 121 C / 250 F.
So you can keep the sauce for a limited time in a refrigerator (3 C or lower), but you must make sure your buyers realize that need, too.
To give you an idea of how poisonous the toxin is: 1kg is said to kill the entire human population, the lethal dose for an adult is about as much as a quarter grain of sand. And contaminated food can not be recognised by sight, smell or taste.
In general this sort of sauce is safe to bottle in sterilised containers and should keep for at least a few weeks,
Here the fat content form the oils, the salt and the acid from the lemons should act as natural preservatives and is no different from jam, chutney or any other traditional preserve.
It is best if you bottle it while still hot as this will minimise any potential bacterial growth before it is sealed and the vacuum created by sealing the contents hot will help to seal it.
This sort of bottling process has been used for centuries and so should be pretty reliable as long as you are careful with general kitchen hygiene and make sure that the sauce is refrigerated once it has been opened.
People have also been getting botulism from home-canned goods for centuries. (See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/66426/1672 if you want some serious reading.) Stephie pretty much explained exactly why this doesn't actually stop botulism: the temperatures aren't high enough to kill the spores, it takes a lot of acidity to stop them from growing, and oil just helps make the anaerobic environment that botlinum likes. If the pH is 4.6 or below it's okay, but... no idea if the OP's sauce is that acidic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.813107
| 2016-01-19T19:26:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65618",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Michael Wiedemann",
"Mohamed Amine Elhorr",
"Wendy Estes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"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
}
|
64194
|
What will happen to my Pecan tassies if I use too much butter?
When I was making Pecan tassies, I read the recipe wrong and put a stick of butter in for the filling instead of 2 tablespoons. There are two eggs, 1 1/2 cups brown sugar, vanilla extract. Will it turn out with that much butter?
I'm assuming your stick of butter is 8 tablespoons, right? So you used four times as much butter as the recipe calls for, which is probably enough to make it into a buttery mess.
I think your two best options are: 1) increase all other ingredients by the same amount and make a lot of tassies, or 2) start over.
Agreed and it's probably cheaper to start over. 2x ingredients vs 4x ingredients. Pecans are expensive.
If you start over, the ingredients might make something else - a filling for baked rolls or with flour the base of some baked goods.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.813364
| 2015-12-07T21:38:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64194",
"authors": [
"Bob Sharon McClelland",
"Escoce",
"Hector Palacios Díaz",
"Megha",
"Melanie Wycoff",
"Sharma Clemens",
"Trâm Trần",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"sister T"
],
"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
}
|
89197
|
Can you mix raw chicken and French fries dip them in the same flour batter?
I thought it was cross-contamination when you mix raw food with any food. So, can you use the same flour batter next and dip the chicken in along with French fries together and then fry them?
As long as you are cooking both, as you suggest in your question, there is no danger. Any potential hazard will not survive the heat of cooking.
It is cross contamination but if you are cooking within the safe zone you are good.
It depends if you are going to keep the batter. Yes the chicken will contaminate the batter but if you are throwing out the batter then OK. Save the batter in fridge for even a day and use is not a risk I would take.
One concern could be taste carry over. If you do the fries first there would be very little taste transfer. Even chicken first would not be much taste transfer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.813484
| 2018-04-17T22:23:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89197",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81386
|
Oven baked cod fillets get soaked in their own liquid
I baked cod fillets twice. The first batch was fine, the second had the fish soaked in its own liquid.
(Two different batches from the same shop, salted 1.5 hour before cooking, within expiration date).
I used a basic recipe:
cod fillets
olive oil
garlic
parsley
salt, pepper
Baked in pre-heated oven @ 180C/fanned air for 10-15 minutes
How can I prevent this loss of water?
Was it the same batch of fish? And how far in advance did you salt each batch?
@layna two different batch of cod same shop, salted 1.5 hour before cooking
@jan all within exp. Date
As the cod fillets were two different batches, chances are you just where unlucky with the second batch. Even within expiry-date, the amount of water food loses while cooking can vary vastly with age and quality. And even good fish shops can have watery batches at times.
To generally avoid this soaking happening, I would rest the cod on a cooking grate or - this is a personal preference - on some pre-cooked potatoes.
A small factor may be oversalting, but chances are it is actually the cod.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.813585
| 2017-05-03T09:23:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81386",
"authors": [
"Layna",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57217",
"user3639782"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107544
|
Can a beef brisket be tenderized by cooking a second time?
A neighbor gave me about 2.5 pounds of cooked brisket. He said he cooked it overnight but he did not say a temperature. I have roasted several briskets overnight in a tight roaster at 210 to 220 F and they have always been very tender. This roast looks cooked but is relatively tough. If I cook it several more hours at about 210 F , is it likely to get "fall apart" tender ?
Yes, you can cook it a second time and it may help. When you cook meat two things will happen (well, more than two...).
One is that it will lose moisture. The longer you cook it the more moisture (i.e. water) you will lose, and there's no getting it back.
The second thing that happens is that the connective tissues break down to collagen, which is what you are perceiving as being moist and tender when you cook it for a long time. If it is cooked but not to the point where these connective tissues break down then it is likely a second cook will make it more tender. It will also continue to dry out the meat.
After your second cook, be sure to let it rest. I would also suggest slicing it thinly against the grain after cooking as this will make it easier to chew, further helping with the mouthfeel.
Finally, be aware that the amount of time the meat stays between 40°F-140°F the more risk there is of food poisoning. Cooking a second time does not eliminate any toxins produced by the bacteria up to that point (it will only kill bacteria), so be sure to eat it right away as letting it cool and reheating it again introduces more risk. Guidelines say meat should be kept for only one hour between 90°-140° (up to four hours 40°-90°, but less depending how much time was spent above 90°).
He put it in the refrigerator after he cooked it so it should be no problem.
Sounds good. Enjoy, and put a comment here letting us know how it went. Nice neighbor!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.813699
| 2020-04-13T19:03:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107544",
"authors": [
"blacksmith37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"myklbykl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87166
|
Can I replace baking soda with bread flour in a cake recipe that already has baking powder?
Can I replace baking soda with bread flour in a cake recipe that already has baking powder?
Google was no help and I really need to make this birthday cake today. Buying baking soda just isn’t a good use of my time or money, and I don’t have the time anyways.
Possible duplicate of Replacements for baking soda in a cake?
The recipe calls for baking powder, but you want to use baking soda plus bread flour -- do I understand correcrtly?
@Erica The way I'm reading this Is that the recipe calls for both baking powder and baking soda. The OP wants to know if bread flour can be used in place of the baking soda.
No. Not at all.
Baking soda is a leavening agent. Together with baking powder it gives your cake lift and airiness. Bread flour is just flour with a higher protein content. If anything, it will make your cake more dense (though not in such small quantities as you would have for baking soda). If a recipe calls for both baking soda and baking powder, the recipe is balanced to rely on both and omitting one will cause the recipe to fail (to some degree). How it will fail will depend on the recipe, which you haven't included.
If you already have baking powder, and don't have the time to find baking soda, I recommend that you instead find a different cake recipe that uses ingredients you already have at home - specifically one that does not require baking soda at all. Many cake recipes use only baking powder, so this should not be overly difficult.
You may be able to replace the baking soda with baking powder at a powder to soda ratio of something between 2-1 and 4-1 depending on who you ask (e.g. two teaspoons of baking powder for one teaspoon of baking soda). Depending on the type of cake this may create off flavors in your final product. This and other possible substitutions for baking soda in cakes are discussed on this site in the related question: Replacements for baking soda in a cake?
Note, while these options are available to you, I still recommend finding a different recipe, particularly if you're not set on this specific one you're already using.
Also, since you mention bread flour, I hope you're not using bread flour for your cake instead of all purpose flour or cake flour. These three flours are quite different and will cause different outcomes if you use one when the recipe calls for another.
Your quote is about substituting in the other direction. It might still apply, but I also would not be surprised if it's possible to use baking powder instead of baking soda, since it's generally just baking soda plus a weak acid, so if you got the ratio right you'd end up with the same ingredients plus some extra acid. (I still agree about just finding a different recipe if possible, though.)
@Jefromi I edited the quote to be the correct direction, I think? The initial quote was backwards but I think this version is correct? The OP has baking powder, not soda?
There may be some misuse of "substitute X for Y" going on there? It says "convert it into pure soda", while the OP wants to convert an amount of soda into an amount of powder.
There's probably some acid in the cake to react with the soda. A birthday cake recipe I've made a few times uses buttermilk, for example. The tiny bit of excess acid from using powder instead of soda won't be noticeable, leaving us with the question of how much powder?
If the recipe specified both baking soda and baking powder because it was ignorantly written, or written with a hidden agenda (make it more reliable because many people overstore baking powder but at least one of the leaveners will work), yes.
If the added baking soda is there because the recipe also has a surplus of an acidic ingredient, it might work fine enough if you replace the baking soda with more baking powder, but your result will be slightly more acidic, which could aslso influence subtler effects of recipe chemistry, eg sugar inversion or caramelization.
No, this is not possible. Flour and baking soda in cake, each with its own usage. If you want to use another substance instead of baking soda, you should use baking powder. Of course this is not always possible. Only in some cases you can replace baking powder, which Recipe does not contain acidic ingredient(Or contain small amounts of acid such as lemon juice). Because baking powder also contains acid. And no other acid is needed to react.
source
No, baking soda and flour serve different purposes in a cake. Baking soda is a leavener: it makes the cake rise. Flour gives the cake structure.
The way baking soda works is that it is a base, and when it reacts with an acid, it creates air bubbles which cause rising. Baking powder, on the other hand, contains both acid and base, and creates bubbles when it gets wet.
Likely, the recipe calls for both baking powder and baking soda because there is another acidic ingredient (such as lemon juice, buttermilk, or dark brown sugar) to balance the acid-base ratio. You may be able to reduce the acidic ingredient, remove the baking soda, and add a little more baking powder - but I can't say for certain without reading the whole recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.813886
| 2018-01-18T21:35:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87166",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"Erica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82732
|
At what temperature does simple syrup freeze?
I would like to freeze mint flavored simple syrup into ice cubes, and store them for a while. I tried this with a 2 to 1 simple syrup and it did not freeze at all. Would this work for 1 to 1 simple syrup?
It is pure water and pure sugar (glucose+fuctose) then it will freeze at or about 22F or -5.5C. At 2:1 it will freeze at 12.5F or -11C. Use a deep freeze as a normal freezer cannot get it that cold. This is why slush is made from sugar water as at the freezing point of water the water will freeze while the sugar will not.
This seems like a pretty good answer but I would appreciate some sources for your numbers. This is partly to satisfy my curiosity.
A normal freezer should get cold enough. An ice-making compartment probably won't.
At 8F with 1:1 syrup my freezer makes the cubes firm, but not solid. With 2:1 syrup the cubes are not solid at all. Even with 1:2 syrup, the cubes are only firm and can still be dented with my finger, so popping them out of the tray is more than a little messy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.814353
| 2017-06-30T01:03:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82732",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"OrangePeel52",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51476"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81534
|
How much time does it take to boil salmon?
Most recipes for salmon soup say that you cook it in just 5-10 minutes. If that were beef or pork, I would boil it for hours. Then why do they say such a short period of time will work with fish?
I have no access to fish that is safe to eat raw so I have to properly cook it through. Will salmon really get cooked safely in just 10 minutes?
It just has to get to 145F for safety, and in boiling water that happens really fast. 5-10 minutes is totally believable. On top of that, fish is really unpleasant when overcooked, so you really want the minimum possible cooking. (For that reason, boiling is not usually a great way to cook fish - you tend to overcook it easily, especially the outside.) Note that this is the conservative, safe temperature, intended to be good even for people with weaker immune systems. Many people prefer it cooked to a lower temperature.
When you cook beef or pork for hours, it's presumably because it's a tough cut with lots of connective tissue to break down so that it's tender enough to eat. For cuts that are pleasant to eat as soon as they're cooked through, there's no reason to cook longer. You wouldn't cook a steak or pork chop for hours, and that's if anything even more true for fish.
If it is just for food safety alone, cooking times for most foods are surprisingly short.
Normally salmon soup is made with salmon cut into 1cm to 2cm cubes or similar pieces. At that size immersed in simmering stock, it does indeed only take salmon about 5 minutes to cook fully (see Serious Eats recipe, which cooks it for 3 minutes). Try fishing a piece out after that time; you'll see that it's cooked through. If you're really concerned with the safety of the fish, you could go as high as 10 minutes. If you cook the fish a lot longer, though, the salmon will tend to disintegrate into tiny fragments, which probably isn't what you want in the soup.
Also, you don't want to boil the salmon; you want it to be cooking at a gentle simmer. If the pot is at a roiling boil, the salmon will probably come apart much faster and make for a cloudy, sludgey soup.
Pork and beef have a thick connective tissue which keeps them together, and takes a long time to gelatinize so that the meat will be tender. Fish does not have this kind of connective tissue, and for that reason cooks much faster.
If you cook boil salmon you need 10-15 minutes. You can to add some spice nd dish'll be perfect. I took recipe how long to cook salmon here
//club.cooking/articles/how-long-to-cook-salmon/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.814471
| 2017-05-09T20:51:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81534",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"user110084"
],
"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
}
|
72973
|
Smelly chicken - is it unsafe?
I have a fresh raw chicken breast that has been in the fridge covered for a few days (still in date) that doesn't smell 'normal'. It doesn't smell terrible but it had some clear bubbles/dots on it that wiped away when I touched them with my finger which I haven't seen before, and I'm not used to having a smelly breast so to speak.
I've never smelled bad chicken before so I'm not sure what to look for. Obviously if the meat is spoiled I won't cook it.
Are the smell and bubbles/dots a sign it's become unsafe, or something normal and safe? I've had breasts in the fridge for longer that haven't gone bad.
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
You might get a more solid answer if you provided a clearer description (or photo) of those bubbles/dots. There's also the canonical "when in doubt throw it out" advice on this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34670/how-do-i-know-if-food-left-at-room-temperature-is-still-safe-to-eat
Regarding the bit about "I've had breasts in the fridge for longer...", there are all sorts of things that can play into the shelf life of raw meat, especially prior handling. Usually use-by/sell-by dates are a reasonable guideline, but sometimes bad handling occurs. Anyhow, if it were me, and I had raw meat with an unusual smell, I'd throw it out. Even if you cook it and it's still "safe," deteriorating meat with bad odors will generally have "off" flavors and maybe even taste downright bad.
Not trying to be flippant, but to me it is easiest to apply and old kitchen rhyme to meat: "When in doubt, throw it out."
Chicken is notoriously prone to spoilage. Having suffered from food poisoning more than once, for me it is a zero tolerance. Unusual smells on raw poultry, unexpected discolorations and such make it not for my consumption. The dots, well, I would have to see them because they could be any number of things from congealed fats to fungus. Without personal evaluation it is an unknown to me, and unknowns are potential danger in food, especially raw meat.
Whenever poultry or seafood becomes smelly, it's a sign of it being spoilt. Otherwise, it could be just due to your fridge's ventilation and other stuffs in it too. Fridge that isn't cold enough will also caused your food to become smelly easily.
One very easy way to identify a rotten chicken is by the colour, touch and smell. Usually the colour of a fresh chicken should be pinkish. If it is starting to turn brownish and dull, then it is on the verge of being spoilt.
If you ever have chicken that is sticky or smiley especially after washing, then it is on the verge of spoiling.
If they are both dull in colour, smiley, sticky and smelly at the same time, then it is definitely spoilt.
P.S : Actually the best way to keep a chicken fresh is to put it in the freezer not the chiller despite being within the date of the chicken.
Very true - in my experience, raw meats spoil quite fast even in cold storage unless put in the freezer.
AS a batchelor I have had the same problem with chicken breasts left in the fridge due to not being able to consume all at once when opened. They go smelly and slimey but if washed very thoroughly under a running cold tap and then cooked through they won't do you any harm. It's best to use what you want and then wash and freeze the remainder. (Wash the plastic container as well). In any event eat it within about five days max.
Your answer seems a recipe for food-poisoning. And there’s a serious „yuck“ factor on top. There is a reason that we as a site have chosen to follow official food safety guidelines by government agencies like the FDA. And yes it may well be that in individual cases nothing serious happened, but amongst our readers are less “robust” consumers like young children, pregnant women, people with a weak immune system or simply elderly people. What you can stomach may get them into hospital or worse.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.814698
| 2016-08-08T19:50:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/72973",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Lyall",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81059",
"sfxedit"
],
"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
}
|
16663
|
Differences between haddock and cod
I saw haddock on sale at our local grocer. It's really cheap this week. It grew my curiosity.
Are there any similarities in flavor between haddock and cod?
I often see haddock and cod interchangeably used in the context of fish and chips.
I always though that haddock was a smaller version of cod. Still, even though "Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World" is one of my favourite books, I am not sure enough about it to present this as an actual answer.
Interesting. I'll take a look at that book though. Thanks for the recommendation.
And I still haven't located 'Finnan Haddies', haddock in a can which my gran used to use to make her chowder. She was born in Simcoe county in Ontario
Haddock and Cod are two quite different fish. However, they can be used interchangeably in many fish recipes. So if you want to substitute one for the other you can easily do so. When cooked, many people can't easily tell them apart. Even large food producers and supermarkets get them mixed up.
...Three of the 59 samples purchased from Asda failed to contain the right fish.
Its cod fishcakes actually contained haddock whilst a haddock pie and a haddock fillet were made using Atlantic cod.
At Waitrose two out of 28 samples tested were mislabelled.
One of them, a mini smoked haddock pie offering ‘flaked North Atlantic haddock’, actually contained cheap Pacific cod.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380164/Mislabelled-fish-products-Asda-Tesco-Sainsburys-Morrisons-Waitrose-Lidl.html#ixzz1UCukDoa2
The main points where they may be treated differently are in long term storage. Haddock is not usually salted where as cod is. Haddock can easily be dried or smoked.
Having been born and raised in Hull, the UK's biggest long-distance trawler port in the good old days, I think most people like me grew a preference for the taste of haddock Both cod and haddock are great eats when fresh and have always been staple fish for the professional fryers. But haddock definitely has a more defining flavour. Their textures are different too; cod has a fuller flake with more of a "wet" look, while haddock has a finer flake and slightly more drier look. Useful to know if you're buying packaged frozen stuff from a major supermarket. Unfortunately today, you are more likely to get the best quality to find out for yourself by going to a good wet-fish shop or a "British Chippy" like we have here in Calgary, Alberta.
Totally agree, haddock and Cod taste nothing alike and I would always choose haddock over cod for fish and chips. Actually I'd choose haddock over cod for any application, it just so much more delicious.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.815279
| 2011-08-05T18:46:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16663",
"authors": [
"CrsOystr",
"Doug",
"Jay ",
"Julia",
"Kathryn Ginger",
"Roger Pearson",
"Spagirl",
"chrisjlee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479"
],
"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
}
|
84547
|
Is it safe to eat cod that has a pink color?
I recently purchased cod from the market and it sat in my fridge for a couple days and i'm not sure if it was spoiled before i froze it.
I left it in the freezer for about two weeks. Yesterday, I started thawing the fish and it has a pink color to it.
What causes this and is it safe to eat ?
I've touched and it wasn't slimy and it smelled like fish without any stink to it.
I plan on cooking it on high heat (400F) and cooking it through
Update:
I updated and stated that i wasn't sure if it was spoiled before i froze it.
It spoiled and then you froze it, or you froze it before you felt it spoiled? Please clarify. Freezing does not un-spoil food that has already spoiled.
I don't know if it was pink before. it was just wrapped in the wax paper. It was in my fridge from the market for two days before freezing it.
It is very difficult to tell someone else it a food item is good or safe, and the normal advice, especially with meats and seafood, is when in doubt, throw it out. In this case, there honestly is too many unknowns. The wording of the question:
it sat in my fridge for a couple days and spoiled i froze it
Sounds as if they fish spoiled, and then you froze it. Freezing will not reverse spoilage, it will only slow it. If the fish had already gone bad, it is bad.
On the pink color, you do not know if it was pink before you froze it or not. That makes it tougher still. Right off, I really do not know of a reason freezing would cause it to turn pink unless the freezing/thawing help highlight an already existing condition. I do know though of two conditions which will commonly cause a normally white fleshed fish to be more pink, spoilage, especially in a fish which was not cleaned promptly, is not stored at proper temperatures, and especially if it repeatedly goes from thawed to frozen or partially frozen and only to a soft freeze rather that recommended hard freeze temperatures. This would be a fish I would consider bad, even if the flesh remained firm with not other normal signs of spoilage. The second reason is poor bleeding at the time of harvest, which can be an issue with fish like cod. It really does not have a major effect on taste, but is considered a lower quality fish due to ascetics and likely will spoil faster than a fish which was correctly bled. These fish would normally be sorted out and sold at a lower price or to processors that will do something like make breaded fish from them.
There may also be other causes, but those are two common ones I know. Between those, it would simply be wild speculation to guess without the fish in hand to examine it.
From taking a food safety class, the food borne illnesses that you can get from eating bad fish or seafood, are actually pretty frightening. The following article refers to what to look for when preparing fish and seafood. And the best advise for questionable seafood is- when in doubt throw it out! It is not worth your health to eat something that could poison you or make you sick.
I once bought some mahi mahi and it sat for 2 days in my fridge before I prepared it. Seasoned it and grilled it and it looked wonderful. When I was about to put a bite in my mouth i noticed a distinct ammonia scent... Remembering some of our pet fish had died due to excessive ammonia or ammonia poisoning... We threw it out. Note: this was before the food safety class!!
https://www.fda.gov/food/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm077331.htm
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.815514
| 2017-09-22T14:12:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84547",
"authors": [
"chrisjlee",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35988
|
Crème brûlée without torch
Is it possible to finish a crème brûlée without a torch? Are there any other creative methods to get the sugar to crisp up on the top of this delicious dessert?
In my opinion, a blowtorch is a worthwile investment. Do yourself a favour though and buy a proper welding blowtorch in the hardware store - not one of the "cooking" ones. Mine runs on MAPP gas (which is flavourless and unscented, so food doesn't get that gas smell if the flame should go out for any reason) and crisps up crème brulée within a couple of seconds. It also works great for browning meats after cooking them sous-vide.
The classic method is to do it under the broiler (grill in UK parlance).
You have to watch it carefully, so that you can take it out when it is done but not burned, but otherwise that is is it.
But a torch is so much more fun! If you make creme brulee often it's worth getting a torch to make the torching event part of the entertainment for your guests.
The third (and really old-school) approach which some people use is a branding iron.
While quaint, the success rate is low, expect burning!
In Cambridge University England where creme brûlée was often made for the High Table the method was to heat the sugar in a saucepan until is caramelised and then poured over which set in a hard crust. This receipe also known as Trinity Creme dating back to the 1600.
Interesting ... I would think that if people are concerned with the hot sugar cooking the custard too much, you could put down a layer of granulated sugar first to help insulate it from the hot sugar. (although then the top would be thicker).
Here are some more alternatives (some really common in kitchens and some, not so much):
The broil setting in a toaster oven also works. Don't forget to ice-water bath your ramekins.
A BBQ lighter. A little slow, but gets there. The "windproof" ones are better.
A piece of red hot charcoal from the fireplace.
Hotter heat guns work, but you'll end up warming the custard with the blowing air.
CO2 Laser, so you can print Hello Kitty on the custard. (most laser engravers are FDA approved)
Make the toffee/caramel tops separately some hours earlier, and store in an airtight container
When ready to serve. Line up all the creme's. Have one person carefully placing the tops, while a second person uses the largest torch you have to just blast the middle to cause it to stick to the creme. Fifty can be done in a few minutes just before serving
It just a mater of finding 3 x 4 muffin tins or similar as molds, with the same base size or slightly smaller than your ramekins tops
For an artistic look, make large very thin sheets of toffee/caramel and shatter them into pieces. Poke a couple of large pieces just into the creme at a slight angle to the surface, and then finish with scatter of smaller pieces and crumbs. A very short blast of a large torch will set them in place. much more interesting
Or go overboard and blow some toffee/caramel balls the right size the day before, and use a hot wire cutter (used to cut polystyrene packaging) to make a half sphere to place on top, or invert and fill with creme! (store sugar balls in airtight containers etc...)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.815802
| 2013-08-12T23:11:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35988",
"authors": [
"AndreasJ",
"Barb Loney",
"Eric",
"FlyingTeller",
"Joe",
"Kathleen Collery",
"Rae",
"Shelby",
"TFD",
"Taruna",
"adebaumann",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84424",
"juggler"
],
"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
}
|
32771
|
How to cook baby octopus?
I bought some marinated baby octopus that I am cooking for dinner in about 2 hours. This is the first time that I ever bought it and have no idea how to cook it. The instructions on the packet, just say light pan fry or grill but doesn't say for how long. Can someone please help me with tips to cook baby octopus? Is the head edible or do I chop it off?
This recipe for Grilled Baby Octopus has instructions for cleaning them. You can either cut off the heads, or if you choose to retain them:
Make a shallow cut along the head, being careful not to cut too deep
and puncture the innards. Carefully but firmly pull out everything
inside. Cut the head off, turn it inside out and use a knife to scrape
away the innards.
In both cases, if a small black, triangular beak does not come out
along with everything else, then push your finger up through the
middle of the body and the beak should pop out.
As explained in this question, you will want to cook octopus very briefly so it does not get rubbery, or for a long time, to move past the rubbery stage. If, as mentioned in the question, you wish to fry them, the cooking time may be around one minute. Some recipes suggest 2-3 minutes per side.
For specific recipes, you can google "baby octopus recipe".
Thanks, I still haven't started cooking it and am looking up how to cook. Every recipe I find has different cooking times, so I am kinda confused :(
Welcome to the world of the Internet. I think your best bet would be to cut them into pieces, bread lightly, and deep fry for one minute or so as suggested in the the Serious Eats recipe for squid linked in the related question. http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2010/10/fried-squid-with-marinara-sauce-recipe.html?ref=search He tends to have very high quality recipes.
As my question says, I bought already marinated baby octopus. So, I just have to pan fry them. I think I'll just have to go with some guess work and the power of sight :)
Two hours lead time doesn't give you much time or flexibility, especially for an ingredient you have never tried before.
I know, just wanted to surprise my partner. BTW, it turned out great. I just fried it in a very hot wok with very hot oil for about 2-3 minutes and it was delicious. Thanks for your help
I am glad it worked out well for you :-)
Fry in wok or pan with sunflower oil and Panko. I can suggest this video for the technique.
rumtscho edited out the unhelpful parts of your answer - we're looking for serious answers here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.816108
| 2013-03-18T09:40:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32771",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Divi",
"Oldilocks",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Wessley",
"YQR Lynn ",
"boots",
"cellsheet",
"dosentmatter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75824"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42804
|
What variety of shrimp paste should I use for Brazilian Vatapa?
I recently saw a recipe for vatapa, a Brazilian shrimp stew that looks kind of like a curry gravy in texture. The recipe calls for a reconstituting handful of dried shrimp and then blending it into a paste. Could I substitute a jar of shrimp paste from my local Vietnamese/Thai grocery store, or would dried shrimp be the most appropriate thing to use?
Asian shrimp paste is fermented and very strong and salty — I don't think it's going to give you the same kind of flavor as dried shrimp at all.
While Asian shrimp paste might not be an ideal substitute for the reasons @Henry Jackson mentioned, dried shrimp can be often found in Korean shops since it is often used in Kimchee preparation. These will work well for Vatapá.
The vatapá we do is not exactly made that way, but don't use anything other than dried shrimp, as it will not taste like the original recipe. What you can do is to buy the shrimps, fresh or frozen, you can season a little with lemon, paprika, salt and pepper. Grill them in the pan with a little bit of oil, until they change color (this should take only a few minutes) and then put them in a baking pan and let it roast at low temperature (160°C or 320°F) for 1 hour or until they get very dry and wonderful. After cooling, shred them in a food processor or blender and use in your recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.816342
| 2014-03-16T20:14:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42804",
"authors": [
"Anna",
"Kshitij Bhoir",
"Vicente Bolea",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100108",
"spammer"
],
"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
}
|
40580
|
Can I use store-bought custard for Portuguese Tarts?
I always make my own custard when I bake Portuguese Tarts but want to take a shortcut. Can I use store-bought custard to make Portuguese Tarts? What kind of custard do I need to buy? Should it be at room temperature before I bake?
Are you asking about something similar to this: http://allrecipes.com/recipe/portuguese-custard-tarts---pasteis-de-nata/ If so, it appears to be a standard custard. While you could use a custard mix or buy a custard, since this is the star of the pastry, the quality of your outcome might suffer. Custard is fast and easy to make; if you want a short cut, I would buy puff pastry or pie dough for the shell.
@SAJ14SAJ: Thanks, yes, that's a similar recipe to the one I use. I was just wondering if the store bought thick custard would do the trick
Without knowing the ingredients and method used to make the custard, it's not possible to know how it will react to being reheated.
I don't think you could get quicker than this buying them pre-made! Jamie Oliver Video
Short Answer: Probably, but it won't taste as good.
Longer Answer:
Given that most packaged custards (if you mean the powdered sort such as Bird's or Jello) do not contain eggs, you might find that the custard does not behave quite the same and certainly will not taste as rich. They tend to use yellow food colouring to give the bright yellow colour that you would get from the egg yolks. It's a bit like asking if you can substitute Cool Whip for Whipped Cream. Yes, but....
The best shortcut I can suggest without seriously impairing quality is to find a good Portugese bakery. Using store-bought pastry will be just as disappointing as using store-bought custard if you're used to making them from scratch.
If by store bought custard you mean something like Bird's custard powder, then no you cannot. Though I don't believe there is a hard distinction between them, generally what the English consider custard is more of a cream. I make the distinction, again this maybe somewhat arbitrary, in that a custard is intended to be cooked and set, which is what you're going for with the Portuguese tarts. A cream, on the other hand, is constantly stirred while heating to prevent setting, such as creme anglaise (which is what Bird's and other custard powders are intended to mimic).
Looking at this I would suggest that as opposed to a 'custard' that what would work, and taste better would be a store bought creme patisserie
In the uk where I am I would suggest either waitrose or marks and Spencer's
If you live abroad and can't get this then several uk food exporters sell around the world, including this one
http://www.britishsupermarketworldwide.com/acatalog/Marks-Spencer-Creme-Patissiere-300g.html
(Other retailers also carry this)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.816497
| 2013-12-25T07:27:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40580",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Ciera",
"Divi",
"Donna Burr",
"DrRandy",
"Earl J. Wagner",
"Gloria Miller",
"John Perry",
"Jolenealaska",
"Leslie",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"friendlyhelper",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94373",
"mayersdesign"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41360
|
Pork: sirloin vs tenderloin. Which one is most tender?
What is the difference between pork sirloin and port tenderloin?
I usually buy center cut pork chops and may buy one due to the sale price this week.
Preparation is key, as with most meals. The difference (in tenderness) between a pork sirloin and a pork tenderloin is relatively minor but the tenderloin is generally more tender (as the name implies). In this diagram you can see that they are adjoining cuts from the same primal cut (the Loin). Once you start preparing these cuts the final dish may result in sirloin that has been rendered more tender than the tenderloin. A slow-roasted sirloin may end up 'more tender' than braised tenderloin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.816752
| 2014-01-22T12:54:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41360",
"authors": [
"GT Invest Spammer",
"Kelly Black",
"Kontiko- Shop Spammer",
"McSarpong Medical Spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96386"
],
"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
}
|
41475
|
Coconut milk substitutions?
I am looking for a substitution for coconut milk. I am highly allergic to coconut, but often see recipes I would like to try that call for it.
Please provide details of why you need a substitute, and what type of recipes you want to substitute in. It is far more difficult to give you a good answer in the abstract. See: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1584/how-can-we-make-substitution-questions-more-helpful
I have no allergy, but always want to know about substitutes for everything. Maybe I run out of an ingredient. Maybe I just want to try an alternative to explore and mystify guests.
You can use cow's milk with some grated coconut or coconut extract. Or because I just saw your allergy you can use equal parts of milk, sesame oil and molasses.
You might make your own cashew milk, but I wouldn't recommend using commercially prepared ones, possibly with a bit less water than than most online recipes ... it tends to be thinned out to make them similar in viscosity as cow's milk, and coconut milk tends to be thicker.
Almond milk might work, but the same issues apply and it tends to be less viscous than cashew milk. It's possible that grain based milks (such as oat milk) might work as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.816958
| 2014-01-26T23:35:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41475",
"authors": [
"Adya Organics",
"Andrew Crowley",
"DarenW",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Xiaoqing Qu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96711",
"user7761803"
],
"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
}
|
34566
|
Is it possible to make oat milk ice cream?
If you think that normal ice cream is made from milk, is it possible to make it with oat milk?
I am not too sure if the lack of lactose in oat milk would restrict the stickiness or formation of the ice cream. Is it possible to make oat milk ice cream, or would it just turn into mush?
Your problem is not the lactose, it is the fat. You need between 10 and 20% of homogenized/emulsified fat for a good icecream texture. You can try getting it from some other ingredient if you use "oat milk" which is mostly starch dissolved in water.
Do you have any suggestions for other ingredient(s) to use as a substitute for that missing fat?
I remember reading an article years ago, where someone was recommending blending different plant milks rather than using them as-is. Unfortunately, I can't remember the combination that they liked best, but I think it was hemp + coconut, either of which might give you the fat you need. (I know they covered rice, soy and almond ... I don't know if they had looked at oat)
Evidently, there are some recipes for frozen confections based on oat milk.
For example, Dia Designs provides "5 vegan ice creams", most of which are based on oat milk. They read more like sorbet recipes, due to the lack of fat in the mix.
If you were to try to create your own oat milk based frozen dessert recipes, I would suggest modifying a base sorbet recipe, as they are not as dependent on fat as ice cream recipes. The additional starches in oat milk compared to water should add slightly more body and mouth feel, and make the product more opaque than a traditional sorbet.
If you are not opposed to egg whites, you might also consider using sherbert recipes as your base.
Note: the lactose in dairy products does not have a huge effect on the chemistry of ice cream (it is a small part of the total sugar in the mix), although it could potentially help inhibit sugar crystal formation somewhat (this is not usually an issue in frozen desserts). If you want to replace its effect, a small amount of honey, maple syrup, or even corn syrup would be very similar.
Alternatively, you can add in some fats, like a canola oil or other flavor-less oil, and use some lecithin or xantham gum as an emulsifier. Just put the oat milk and oil in a blender and add the emulsifier, and that should homogenize your new milk and give it a higher fat content which will work toward the creaminess of the ice cream. (I haven't tried this with an ice cream maker but have done something similar whenusing oat milk in an aquafaba based ice cream, and it worked well).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.817095
| 2013-06-08T03:11:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34566",
"authors": [
"Grace",
"Joe",
"Snowman8734",
"Stefanie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80577",
"norcalli",
"rumtscho",
"seps"
],
"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
}
|
44693
|
Help removing excess starch from potato chips
I was trying to make potato chips at home but forgot wash off the excess starch from the freshly cut potato slices. I have already dried them off. Now when i fry them they turn brown giving a burnt off kind of taste. What should I do???
Why not just soak them now?
According to Food Lab, the chemical that causes browning in homemade potato chips is tyrosinase. That article contains some really nice pictures to help demonstrate the value of soaking. Like this one:
Interestingly, after some experimentation, Kenji discovers a technique of first boiling the raw potato in a vinegar solution, drying, and then frying. According to him this gives the lightest coloration and cleanest taste.
I highly suggest checking out that article. In the meantime, I don't see why you couldn't simply re-soak your sliced potatoes now. You could even try out the par-boiling method indicated in the article if you are feeling adventurous. Unless your spuds have gone completely brown sitting on your cutting board you should be good to go.
Fascinating link. I wonder if the chemistry of the vinegar solution is related to the brown coating that forms on pretzels after dipping into a lye or soda solution: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8249/why-should-i-boil-pretzels-in-baking-soda-water-before-baking
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.817321
| 2014-06-07T02:11:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44693",
"authors": [
"BILL PENSY",
"Diego's Garage spam",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kelsey",
"Linda Sloan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe"
],
"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
}
|
39377
|
How can I eat or drink chocolate as Montezuma would have consumed it in pre-Columbian Mexico?
I know that pre-Columbian chocolate was less sweet and more bitter, but I can't find a recipe for it. That fact probably means that it doesn't taste great, but I'd like to try it anyway.
The closest I've come was a recipe for "how the Spaniards transformed Montezuma’s favorite spicy beverage with the addition of alcohol."
I don't have a definitive answer, but on a recent tour of a chocolate factory, we were given some Aztec style drinking chocolate, and it was simply water, cocoa powder, and a little red chilli. It was quite bitter but no more than, say, coffee. It was in fact very similar to iced coffee.
That is exactly how they had it @ElendilTheTall.
The thing is that the variety of chocolate that they used is probably extinct, destroyed by the push to commercialize an easier to grow variety. The other version, while harder to grow, produced better flavor. It's a shame!
@ElendilTheTall, was the drink at room temperature? I assume that the Aztecs did not have access to ice.
It was cold, probably because of health and safety rules about leaving things at room temperature.
@ElendilTheTall I had to read this twice - first assuming you implied the Aztecs already had food safety regulations :)
Not a recipe, but supposedly the premade elixirs here are historically based, with research, etc. Might not be what you were looking for, especially since you asked for a recipe, but might be easier (and possibly more authentic) than trying recipes yourself with modernized supplies.
Chocolate recipe was different for rituals or medicinal purposes. The recipes talk about adding some of the following: vanilla, powdered chilli, flowers as gueyncaztle, mecasuchil, maize as filler, honey, tlacoxoshitl..
Here is the recipe for Mexican hot chocolate from Food and Feasts with the Aztecs, Imogene Dawson (p. 29). It is adapted for modern kitchens:
Mexican hot chocolate Ingredients 1/2 lb semisweet cooking chocolate 4
cups milk 1/4 teaspoon ground cinnamon 2 drops vanilla
1. Break the chocolate into small pieces. Put the pieces in the top of a double boiler or into the heatproof bowl.
Fill the bottom of the double boiler or a large saucepan with cold water. Then bring the water to a boil. Turn the heat down so that the
water continues to boil gently.
Put the container with the chocolate over the one with the boiling water. With a wooden spoon, stir the chocolate until it has melted.
Measure out the milk and pour it into another saucepan. Heat the milk gently but do not let it boil. Pour the melted chocolate into the
hot milk.
Add the cinnamon and the vanilla to the mixture and bring the mixture to a boil.
Turn the heat down and whisk the mixture for 2 minutes until it is foaming.
Pour the chocolate into mugs and use the small whisk to whisk the chocolate again, so that there is foam on the top of each mug.
Montezuma dined with Cortes and his Spanish Officers. At this meal the Mexica/Aztec king reportedly drank chocolate from cups of pure gold. Hernán Cortés then wrote:
These seeds which are called almonds or cacao are ground and made
into powder, and other small seeds are ground, and this powder is put
into certain basins with a point... and then they put water on it and
mix it with a spoon. And after having mixed it very well, they change
it from one basin to another, so that a foam is raised which they put
in a vessel made for the purpose. And when they wish to drink it, they
mix it with certain small spoons of gold or silver or wood, and drink
it, and drinking it one must open one's mouth, because being foam one
must give it room to subside, and go down bit by bit. This drink is
the healthiest thing, and the greatest sustenance of anything you
could drink in the world, because he who drinks a cup of this liquid,
no matter how far he walks, can go a whole day without eating anything
else"
Source: http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodmaya.html#hotchocolate
I recommend you to read Chapter 8 "From Bean to Beverage", page 100 on the book–180 on the PDF– of History, Culture and Heritage, Louis Evan Grivetti & Howard-Yana Shapiro
The first recipe doesn't sound very traditional to me. The aztecs surely didn't have conched baking chocolate full of refined sugar, so the best product to start with is probably pure chocolate liquor, not semisweet chocolate. And the idea of milk being traditionally used clashes with my preconceptions, I don't think of the aztecs as cattle breeders. I would have assumed that mixing milk and cocoa is an European invention.
I gave a +1 for the descriptions in the beginning and end of your answer, but the recipe in the middle is definitely not authentic, it uses all modern ingredients. In my opinion, I think it would be better to omit the recipe, as it really isn't part of answering the question.
Based on Cortés' description, it sounds like it contained a high amount of stimulants (caffeine, theobromine, etc.). It makes me wonder if this was because of a different variety of cocoa, or if it came from the other seeds that were added. Perhaps they threw in some guarana seeds or something similar.
According to Marcy Norton's Sacred Gifts, Profane Pleasures: A History of Tobacco and Chocolate in the Atlantic World, in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, as well as afterwards, chocolate was eaten as a frothy drink, and spiced with chili. She doesn't give a specific recipe, but the book is a really great study of not only the foodways but cultural context of the consumption of these native American products, which can help one to understand how one might try to approximate the early American chocolate. Of course, as @GdD has pointed out the exact species may be extinct (or at least it has continued to evolve under the anthropogenic selection of commercial breeding) but we can try to approximate it.
Well, it depends on how authentic you want to be...and how involved.
First option, I mentioned in the comments - there are chocolate elixirs available for purchase at a company called kakawa chocolates. From what I've read, these are as historically authentic as one can get, they use archaeological research and written records from the conquistadors. Not a lot of work on your end, but it should do the job with only an outlay of cash-money.
Second option, you can look up recipes, if you can figure out good search terms. Since I'd already known kakawa chocolates, searching for a copycat recipe found this one: a mayan chile elixer that looks reasonable, using unsweetened chocolate, and honey instead of processed sugar. Searching for something like "authentic chocolate drink aztec" (or mayan, or omitting drink for solid versions) may find some recipes. One at allrecipes seems simple enough, another at cdkitchen has similar ingredients but seems to have processes looking to replicate authentic texture, this other one from kitchenreport has more handwavy amounts but a much more rustic process if you want to start from near-scratch, and this last one from yucatanadventure looks like it may well be an authentic, researched recipe. Searching for xoacoatl, which is apparently one of the original names, may also yield some good recipes - one here at uncle phaedrus, here's another one at almoustine, they both start from raw beans, but if that's a bit much this one from meltingmug looks a bit easier.
Third option is to do the research yourself and get really historical recipes. A couple places mention the Spanish conquistadors written records, as a good place to start from. Historical recipes can be pretty tricky, its best to find someone willing to translate - especially since they assume familiarity with the basic cooking techniques instead of spelling out all the steps, which makes it a bit hard for those starting from scratch, and some of the ingredients or processes they take for granted are quite different now, and doubly especially since the beginning language isn't english, which may well make it harder to track down good translations.
You'd want to look at historical and cultural sources first and foremost, to get at the original accounts, since most recipe collections tend not to include the source material, just a summary for interest. This will take a lot of work and research, but it can be fun - I've an interest in medieval recipes, so I'm a bit familiar reading about the difficulty (and fun) of working with accurate historical documents, and dealing with cultural and temporal translations.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.817494
| 2013-11-12T03:04:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39377",
"authors": [
"Bill ",
"Dorian",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GdD",
"Joseph Bolton",
"Jpkicks",
"Megha",
"Mehr Saffron",
"Shweta Aggrawal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91456",
"impo",
"kuzzooroo",
"mrog",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89568
|
Is there a general algorithm for calculating the amount of yeast while making bread?
I've had this question for a long time. I have several books with different recipes and the amount of yeast changes a lot. I know for a fact that it is better to work with less yeast and wait for a longer time for the bread to rise. But does it depends on the quantity of water, butter, sugar, etc? Thanks.
There are many variables that determine how fast bread will rise: The type and quantity of yeast, how much of that yeast is viable, temperature, water content, water availability, acidity, etc.
A Note about water availability
Some ingredients, especially sugar, compete with the yeast for the water in the bread. Dough with a lot of sugar will rise more slowly compared to a less sweet dough with the same quantity of water.
While I have not read that fat affects water availability, keep in mind that butter is 16-17% water.
If you wanted a chart or algorithm it would need to include all these variables for a desired rise time. Even then, it would be difficult to control all the variables and the rise time would not always be identical. It would be difficult to predict without experimentation. I have seen charts for a single variable vs time but these are intended for understanding the variable- not predicting rise time.
Bread making is more flexible. Recipes will call for the dough to double in volume- no matter how long that takes.
However,
As you noted in your question, there is no correct quantity of yeast. More yeast will simply act more quickly. You may want to finish a bread faster and use more yeast. On another day, you may want to maximize flavor, use less yeast and ferment for longer. Either can produce excellent, but different, bread.
Besides tested recipes, there are charts that can be used as a starting point when you are creating a new recipe.
For example from Cooks.com:
I would consider this chart reasonable, however, in my standard sandwich bread recipe I use approximately half this much yeast. In my regular, overnight-risen, artisan recipe I use even less than that.
Thanks for the reply. So, rich dough have more yeast because of the sugar ? What about eggs in the recepie? Another thing, i though sugar helped the yeast.
Not just because of sugar that is one variable. Rich breads often have a bit less water added as well because the fat makes the dough soft enough. Yeast need simple sugars to eat but they have all they need just in the damaged starches in the flour. If there is too much sugar then the sugar will start to compete with the yeast for water.
Eggs are mostly water and I've never read anything about egg proteins competing with yeast to retain that water. Egg proteins to have a drying effect on bread when it's baked but not while it is rising. AFAIK
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.818177
| 2018-05-03T03:47:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89568",
"authors": [
"Karl",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66927"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89310
|
For a beef stock, why should I roast bones at 450?
Everything in a beef stock seems to be about going slow and taking time. When it comes to roasting the bones though, it seems that most people recommend roasting at a really high heat. My instinct would be to roast them at a lower temperature to prevent burning. Is the higher temperature just to save time, or is there another reason?
This idea is to use the Maillard reaction (the reaction between amino acids and sugars as meats are heated and browned) to enhance and concentrate flavors. The reaction begins at about 280 degrees Fahrenheit, and tops out at 330 degrees Fahrenheit, so, you could use a lower oven. It would take longer. Caramelization flavors are more pronounced at higher temperatures. As long as your bones are well-browned, you will be in good shape. A lower temperature doesn't necessarily prevent burning, keeping any eye on your product is a better strategy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.818423
| 2018-04-21T08:55:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89310",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78233
|
What caused the crust on on the top of my bread to separate from the rest of the loaf?
I used this Portuguese sweet bread recipe. The bread came out with a great crumb, great flavor, and a great crust. The problem is that the crust on the top separated from the crumb on the top of the bread:
I followed the recipe. The only change I made was that I refrigerated the dough after the first rise and shaping for 12 hours and baked it the next morning after letting it warm to room temperature. Anyone?
What caused it: it's gotta be gases from the yeast exhalations which are unable to escape the air-tight envelope of the crust layer. So they just build up in a bubble right under the surface. Cutting some of those large gashes or cross-hatches into the top of the bread before baking should break up the outer skin of the loaf to let some of that gas out without detaching the top of the bread.
I'd always wondered what the slashes on some breads were for.
I agree, but it is odd how the gasses formed one big bubble at the top crust and yet the rest of the crumb is fairly even and small. This is a low hydration high fat content bread which are not known for creating large crumb. Have you ever seen Brose with slash mark?
@JAB Scoring (the more common name) is mainly meant to let the bread expand more easily and uniformly without cracks, by basically giving more surface area on the top. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33098/why-and-what-kind-of-breads-should-be-scored
@Amar Oesterly, I have no experience with Portugse sweet bread, or Brose (is that another name for it?) scoring. But I have seen the detachable crust phenom. on my own bread, and even to some extent on store-bought bread (esp. pseudo-rustic type w.w.). I see your point on why does all that CO2 just want to emanate right under crust, and there aren't giant caverns elsewher in the loaf. Speculating, but maybe dough exhales gently as the gas diffuses through the loaf on its way to the surface,..but hermetic skin keeps it in..? Wonder if that "off-recipe" stint in fridge hardened the crust
Might there be effects from the way the loaf was shaped?
@JAB. I've just done some baking, and I 'slash' the top... I 'score' points when playing games. But each to their own.
I found with a loaf I baked yesterday in a bread pan that the crust not only separated from the crumb, but became wrinkly and flaky and fell off the loaf when cut. I think it may have been because I set the hot bread outside to cool on a very cold day, rather than letting it cool slowly inside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.818529
| 2017-02-08T21:39:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78233",
"authors": [
"Amar Oesterly",
"Cascabel",
"JAB",
"Lorel C.",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089"
],
"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
}
|
61805
|
No water in the Crock pot
I have beans cooking in the crock pot and I'm at work. Just realized there is no water. I forgot the water!! What should I expect to come home to?
Dried beans or canned? What else is in the crock pot? Obviously the safest thing to do is go home ASAP, the water (or other moisture) in the pot is what keeps the temperature of the thing under 212F. I don't know for certain whether it's a fire hazard without liquid in it, but better safe than sorry.
I have no idea what the spontaneous combustion temp would be for dried beans -- but it might actually be better than if you had canned beans with insufficient liquid. (as you can use dried beans as pie weights without problem). With canned beans if the liquid boils off you'd have the possibility of thin deposits of starch from the evaporated liquids, which would more easily burn) Also if you added sugars (molasses, etc.), you'd have a higher risk of it burning.
This happened 2 days ago. What did you find at home?
This happened 3 years ago. What did you find at home?
@dbmag9 this is scary. On Kristal profile it says "Last seen Sep 17 '15 at 16:59"
@aaaaaa It's almost like they posted a question and never came back! Maybe they went home to check and the beans exploded leveling a city block!
At best, you'll have toasted beans. At worst they will be burnt. I'm guessing these are dried or otherwise you wouldn't worry. Curious what you find out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.818767
| 2015-09-17T16:59:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61805",
"authors": [
"Chris Brown",
"Dan C",
"Graeme Bayler",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joe",
"Mark Pickwell",
"UnhandledExcepSean",
"aaaaa says reinstate Monica",
"brad koons",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"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
}
|
76037
|
Pomegranate Chicken
The other night I made a derived version of pomegranate chicken and came up with a few questions.
The recipe I used was:
1/2 pomegranate (smashed)
1/4 cup of water
3/4 cup of powdered sugar
1 oz. salted caramel vodka
2 orange slices (smashed)
I let the mixture simmer and added it before cooking the chicken.
The questions that arose were:
Besides powdered sugar what other ingredients can be used to thicken a sauce?
Is there a possible sour contrast that I could add to the mix (besides the pomegranate) to cut the edge of the sweet?
Pomegranates are incredibly sour. If you need to make it more sour to counteract the sweetness, you're probably using far too much sugar.
Powdered sugar doesn't seem like a great thickener to me. It takes a lot to thicken a small amount of liquid, and as you've noticed, that means it'll end up pretty sweet. As an example, you can make a glaze (e.g. for cinnamon rolls) with a cup of powdered sugar and only a few tablespoons of liquid.
Generally, people thicken things using starch, most commonly flour and cornstarch, but also things like potato starch, arrowroot powder, tapioca/cassava starch. They're stronger thickeners, and don't really have much flavor of their own.
So I'd use as much sugar as you want to balance the pomegranate's sourness, and then use starch to thicken. You probably won't need extra sour at that point, but if you want it, you could certainly add something like lemon juice or vinegar.
Well, the powdered sugar does contain some cornstarch ;)
@Catija Indeed - going by the nutrition facts, it's... 98% sugar, 2% starch :)
Traditional fesenjan (Persian pomegranate chicken) is thickened by long, slow cooking (like, a full day). That allows a lot of water to evaporate from the juice, as well as undergoing changes that create a lot of new flavors from the pomegranate.
You won't need any additional water. The chicken itself will exude juices as it cooks. If you give it time, it will also give off gelatin, which will thicken the sauce.
I think you've got much too much powdered sugar in there for my taste, but that's up to you.
If you feel it needs additional thickening at the end, you can remove the chicken and boil the liquid down to reduce. Or you can add a small amount of cornstarch dissolved in water. (Start with a teaspoon of cornstarch in a tablespoon of water; cook and stir until thickened.) But you shouldn't need it to be any thicker than it is if you have let it cook down slowly.
Rather than thicken why not just dilute less. Use less water.
Rather than counteract the powdered sugar just use less. As stated by Jefromi you are not going to get much thickening from powdered sugar.
The issue was the main ingredient: Pomegranate juice. I did not want the pomegranate to boil out, so the water was meant to prevent this (albeit, maybe 1 oz would work.) Using less sugar would reduce the sweetness, but I'm still a novice chef so I asked these questions to learn more about thickeners.
Don't agree with your logic that water somehow protects the pomegranate juice. What is boiling off is water either way. Good luck.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.818940
| 2016-11-30T19:20:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76037",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Liam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89646
|
Why cool creme brulee?
Why bake, cool then torch the crème brûlée? Why not skip the cooling? Is cooling for setting?
Cooling for 4-24 hours is in almost every recipe I find.
Crème brûlée is supposed to be served cold, with a hard, crisp caramel layer on top. So that requires cooling after baking. The baking is needed to set the crème, it might just be a bit firmer after cooling. To ge the hard caramel, you need to add the sugar on top and then torch for a short time, just before serving.
You can't have the caramel formed during baking, or refrigirate after torching, as the caramel would absorb water from the crème and turn liquid (or at least get very sticky).
So yeah, just to set it and firm it up more alright thank you.
No, to set it you need to heat it, as it's the eggs that firm it (similar to egg custard). Cooling is needed to allow serving it cold.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.819289
| 2018-05-07T04:41:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89646",
"authors": [
"Jade So",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642",
"remco"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88717
|
Is Torta de Santiago supposed to be very moist?
Is a Torta de Santiago supposed to be moist? I cook it on convection for full time but the cake is still moist, so much so that my 95 year old mother-in-law cooks pieces I give her again! A couple of days later even! I did get an internal temp of 190 F. Any suggestions? Cake tester seemed clean!
Torta de Santiago should be moist, but I wouldn't describe it as very moist. Bear in mind that the standard presentation is to dust it heavily with icing sugar and then drench it in liquor when serving. If it's so moist that the icing sugar turns to icing, that's a problem. Otherwise, it would be moist from the liquor anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.819398
| 2018-03-29T01:26:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88717",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89212
|
Chemical meat tenderizers
I know pineapple (Hawaiian cooking), onion (Chaliapin steak), pickle juice (Chick-fil-A) and honey (Shokugeki no Soma). All tenderize meat via cooking and / or marinating. My questions are:
What others meat tenderizers are there?
Is there a tasteless or more mellow substitute that wouldn't impart so much of a flavour?
The tenderizing actions for all of the examples you've listed are different, and some are entirely debatable. Tenderizing isn't about specific ingredients; it covers a whole range of different techniques used to increase the perception of juiciness in the final meat, while reducing the perception of tough connective tissue. There are many different ways to accomplish this.
Tenderizing is very often coupled with attempts to add flavor to the meat, as in the classic and important marinade. Marinating does several things: it exposes the meat to salt, and to acid, and to other flavorful compounds. Since you're asking specifically about limiting flavor additions, let's discount that last and look at the other actions, which we can perform separately:
Brining: in general, this uses salt (and often sugar) to cause osmotic changes and denature proteins within the meat, which causes it to retain more moisture during cooking; hence it can seem more tender after cooking. A simple brine generally doesn't add a lot of flavor, but it does add plenty of salt (which can affect the perception of other flavors) and it takes time. This is the effect of pickle juice, which contains large amounts of salt.
Acid: exposure to acids denatures many proteins, to the point where some delicate proteins can be "cooked" entirely using acid, as in ceviche. However, longer exposure can unpleasantly break down meat into mush - there's such a thing as too tender. Acid adds a tangy flavor, and this flavor provides part of its "tenderizing" power; it triggers the release of enzyme-laden saliva that tenderizes as you eat.
There are other ways to accomplish similar results that introduce even less flavor:
Enzymatic action: a few fruits, notably pineapple and papaya, contain enzymes (bromelain and papain, respectively) that are particularly good at breaking down the proteins and connective tissues present in meat. This is similar to the breakdown that acids cause, and it has similar downsides; too much breakdown causes the meat to do from "tender" to "mushy". However, bromelain and papain powders are both available commercially, and they add much less flavor than acids do. There is some speculation that the onions in Chaliapin steak provide a similar enzymatic action, but evidence is mixed and there's a lot else going on in that dish besides.
Velveting: this is a cooking technique that uses a thin, largely flavorless coating on the outside of thinly sliced strips of meat to cook them more gently, reducing moisture loss and keeping them tender. Thin slices are important here too. The manga that you cite for the effect of honey does seem to imply that honey has an enzymatic action, but in a previous question that addressed it I concluded that the actual effect is one of velveting. As with onions, it's questionable whether honey contains the right enzymes for quick tenderizing.
Now, all of this so far has discussed chemical means of tenderizing meat. But it turns out there's an entire category of classic tenderization that adds no flavor whatsoever:
Mechanical action! For ages cooks have tenderized various tough cuts by breaking down their connective tissues with a variety of means. This can be as simple as slicing across the grain with specific cuts of meat, which shortens tougher meat fibers and produces a better result than slicing parallel to the grain. Meat can be pounded or sliced thin to break down connective tissue as well (and this is the main tenderizing effect with Chaliapin steak). Mechanical tenderization can use something as simple as a common spiked kitchen mallet or the back of a heavy pan, or a larger commercial device which uses spiked rollers or long needles to puncture the meat repeatedly and break connective tissues and fibers. If you're looking for a way to tenderize a cut of meat without affecting its flavor, this is the gold standard. It does tend to be immediately visible, and it's often thought of a "cheap" way to affect tenderization, but there's no denying the results or the ubiquity of this method across many different food cultures.
Baking soda is much more effective than table salt at denaturing proteins. Hence, do use a lower concentration than you would use in table salt brines. Do not brine for more than, say, 15 minutes.
However, it has its disadvantages:
Too much of it produces an unpleasant taste (unsurprisingly).
It does not penetrate deep into the meat. Hence, use thin strips of meat.
Heating it produces carbon dioxide, which can create small cavities in meat similar to the ones one finds in baked bread.
With the meat being so thin in the first place and the added unpleasant taste I wouldn't be so sure if this would be a very effective way to tenderize. The way around the penetrating issue would just to brine it longer but that would also destroy the exterior as you stated. So what would really be the use of this method? Still thank you for the info It's good to know.
If theres any way around the taste and penetration (other than cutting thin ) please let me know this sounds like it could work very well.
You may want to take a look at this answer.
So essentially I want to cover it with the spices and sauce?
You may want to take a look at this question, too.
Buttermilk does the same for chicken (I don't know about other meats), and I usually leave chicken in the buttermilk marinade for 8-10 hours in the fridge, before frying it.
Plain buttermilk has very little, in my opinion, flavour, hence why I add spices to the marinade.
A wee drop of scotch whiskey does the trick.
Bring it to a low boil and put the meat into the pot.
20-30 minutes does the trick.
Take it out of the pot, pat dry with paper towels and put it on a hot grill. Cooking on wood is best.
Could you please give us an idea of your definition of “a wee drop”? I suspect that either I misunderstood your description of the process or one needs a somewhat more generous amount if it’s supposed to be brought to a boil (evaporation?) and perhaps even cover the meat? You can always [edit] your post.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.819489
| 2018-04-18T03:22:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89212",
"authors": [
"Jade So",
"Rodrigo de Azevedo",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642"
],
"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
}
|
41551
|
Do I need to freeze this puree and syrup?
Related questions: What causes a cake to sink in the center? and How can I get the maximum flavor from orange peels?
I ended up simmering the zest of 6 oranges (peeled with a vegetable peeler, so there was still a small amount of pith) without rinsing at all. When they were tender, I added the supremed segments of those oranges and simmered the everything for another half hour. I strained the syrup and gave the solids a bit of a whir in the food processor.
I have just enough puree for one more cake, and this lovely orange syrup. I used a lot of sugar. I can't guesstimate how much sugar because I just kept adding it until I got the level of sweetness I want, but the viscosity of the strained syrup is like Aunt Jemima pancake syrup.
I'll bake the cake again in 3 or 4 weeks. Will the puree and syrup last that long in the fridge? Or should I freeze it?
Better safe than sorry. You haven't measured the absolute sugar or acidity levels. Freezing it will do no harm.
@SAJ14SAJ Add that as an answer and I'll upvote it. Barring another great answer within a week or so and I'll accept it. In the meantime, I'm freezing it.
It has been said:
Better safe than sorry. You haven't measured the absolute sugar or acidity levels. Freezing it will do no harm. – SAJ14SAJ Jan 29 at 1:47
I'm definitely not an expert with baking, but I've worked with fruits in other contexts. The only time I would be worried about freezing would be if I added oil, like for a marinade or such. In your context I think freezing is fine, and sounds like it would be a convenient way to make larger batches to reuse throughout the year.
PS: That puree sounds awesome, I might have to try that to marinate some chicken or pork chops!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.819994
| 2014-01-29T01:37:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41551",
"authors": [
"Abraham Lewis",
"Bruce Roeder",
"Coki",
"Jolenealaska",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Teri Kanikua",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96875"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86518
|
Homemade fermented coconut milk
I made milk from a mature brown coconut by blending the flesh with water and straining through mesh. That was a week ago. I haven't used it all, and now I've discovered that it has soured. It's kind of slimy and has a tangy smell.
Does anyone know if it's safe to use? Is this probiotic-filled and healthy or is it just rotten?
If it's not fermented in a known good way (often but not necessarily using a known culture), I'd assume it's not good.
It is probably not safe. If it was safe under what condition would you want to use it?
I'd go with "certainly not safe" - and probably rotten.
Even for fermenting foods like yogurt or sauerkraut you need to follow a certain protocol to ensure the end product is safe. Yes, a pot of milk that was left out can turn into a delicious soured milk if the right bacteria grows in it. It can also turn into a nasty rotten mess.
If you want to ensure a specific product, you should add the appropriate bacteria, the traditional way would be a spoonful of an established product. Alternatively the bacteria can be obtained in liquid or dry form. This would give you a safe product.
While it is possible to ferment coconut milk with "yogurt bacteria", it's pretty unlikely that the "desired" bacteria mysteriously appeared in your milk. So no, your coconut milk is not safe. And if you write "slimy", I assume it's simply rotten.
Generally, for plant-based foods, you can trust your nose. If it smells nasty, don't eat it. If it smells okay--just tastes different from what you expected, has gotten fizzy, etc., it's likely to be okay. This isn't 100% true, of course--botulism being the most notable exception. But botulinum grows in sealed containers, usually on alkaline substrates, and over a fairly long period of time.
Other considerations, in assessing whether something fermenting is edible or should be dumped:
Check to see whether it's gotten moldy (though not all molds are problematic--blue cheese. for example) or just bubbly. Molds have a higher chance of being problematic than do bacteria, though sometimes they can just be skimmed or cut off (with a good margin, since molds send out "roots" that aren't visible but will still taste bad).
The acidity of a food (fats are acids), as well as it's salinity, are also worth considering: more acidic or salty foods are less likely to support the growth of organisms that are harmful to people.
Did it ferment with exposure to air (at least initially) or in an airless environment (such as a factory sealed pouch or can)? The latter is much greater cause for concern. [NEVER eat food that made it's hermetically sealed packaging swell up (home canned items, factory cans/tetra paks/pouches)--that very well could be botulism.]
Will your accidentally fermented food get thoroughly cooked, such as going in a soup or cake batter? Sufficient cooking will kill most bacteria, though on rare occasion, even dead bacteria can cause harm.
If you're still not sure, and nothing in you wants to gag when you observe it (though even many gag-worthy fermented foods are happily eaten across the world, such as Japanese natto and, again, certain cheeses) carefully taste a tiny, tiny bit. Keep it on your tongue for at least 30 seconds and notice how your body responds.
Fermented coconut of all kinds (yogurt, kefir, water kefir) are popular, probiotic, health foods these days, so don't dismiss it out of hand--just learn how to observe it.
If you want to be prepared for next time, get a copy of one or both of Sandor Katz's books: Wild Fermentation (his first, in which he talks a lot more about his own experimentation) and his larger, more extensive and instructional volume, The Art of Fermentation.
It's fine to eat. I just had some the other day was left in frigerator too long. It sours and becomes a yogurt. May need to add a sweetener. It was tasty though. Fermented coconut milk becomes yogurt. I think its just slower fermentation versus actively fermenting right away with other additives and methods.
Fresh coconut and its water is short lived, it may last overnight in a cold fridge, but only if it goes straight in without delay or in the morning you will smell it, if you lack the sense of smell you will spit it out for the taste, if you lack both you will vomit, if your guts are iron, you will get sick.
We took water straight from the shell into a bottle on a 4hr hike in Malaysia, it was delicious but had to be discarded well before we finished, I now understand the great waste in that the water is tipped on the ground.
Even the milk is short lived and must be used immediately, I now understand why canned coconut is used in curries where fresh is plentiful.
Some advocate the milk can be fermented with kefir grain, others claim they ferment the water with tibicos, I have even seen coconut yogurt in supermarket, I do not think that is possible as in a warm situation it will rot before it can nicely ferment.
I have ordered the three, kefir grain tibicos grain and a so called coconut yogurt culture, when I stipulated fresh water, the lady said bottled, concerning milk she could not comment, concerning yogurt she said canned.
I love coconut and soon I will be testing it for myself, my girlfriend buys the milk and the grate fresh for curries, I cringe at the waste, liters upon liters a day tipped on the ground.
Traditionally it not heard of, research on prolonging its life naturally has been futile, traditionally the water is drunk or discarded and the meat used immediately.
Hopefully this is because coconuts are abundant year round and the ancients had no need to preserve it or dry it. Today we hate waste and may find the way.
Dylinda Matiga, welcome! Please take the [tour] and browse through our [help] to learn more about how the site works. The first rule is “answer the question” and your post has a lot of anecdotal details and very little that can be seen as an answer to the original question. I recommend you read [answer], then [edit] your post accordingly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.820171
| 2017-12-18T17:14:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86518",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78574
|
Beef Steaks : Cooking older-grade meat (C-Grade)
I'm an amateur cook and I can't afford to buy "good" steaks, so I made my own Sous Vide circulator to try and get the best out of cheap meat cuts. Thing is, where I'm from, even the less-glamorous cuts of A-Grade beef is too expensive for me. So I buy C-Grade rump, which is basically meat from older animals.
My question is: How do I adjust my Sous Vide temperatures and times for the older beef? I tried a 1-inch rump steak at 65C for 2 hours and it came out dry cos all the juices from the meat seemed like it oozed out into the bag. I salted it before the sous vide phase.
I previously tried a big piece of rump on a 16 hour cook time, and it was also very dry cos all the juices had come out into the bag.
What are my option to make a decent steak out of C-Grade rump?
EDIT#1: So a few suggestions that my temp controller isn't accurate... I do have a candy thermometer lying around. I'll try double-checking it against that. Also, from the other question that was linked, there's a suggestion to hold back on the seasoning until after the cook is done. I'll give that a try next time. I've looked at Douglas Baldwin's "Practical Guide to Sous Vide Cooking" and I think I might try a sub-60C cook to extract the magic from this passage:
Indeed, collagen begins to dissolve into gelatin above 122°F to 131°F (50°C to 55°C) (Neklyudov, 2003; This, 2006). Moreover, the sarcoplasmic protein enzyme collagenase remains active below 140°F (60°C) and can significantly tenderize the meat if held for more than 6 hours (Tornberg, 2005).
EDIT#2 : See my link below. It's a scholarly article on fibrous connective tissue, which makes comments about older animals and the effect on collagen. It's a bit over my head, but might be interesting to anyone who has the appetite for food science...
Click Here for the article
Not an answer as I don't use sous vide methods. However, what we typically do with cuts that tend to get tough and dry out is to sear and braise. The meat always comes out juicy and falling apart tender.
Are you sure your temperatures are accurate? 2 hours at 65C shouldn't result in dry meat.
@GdD if this is a stewing cut, 2 hours at 65C is not enough to melt the collagen.
Exactly @rumtscho, it just doesn't seem right.
@GdD I meant that, at 2 hours at 65 C, if this is a stewing cut, it is perfectly expected to get tough meat because the collagen won't melt.
The question says that the meat came out dry, not tough @rumtscho, it also says the bag was full of juices. I wouldn't expect that result if it was really cooked at 65C for 2 hours.
Possible duplicate of Dry sous vide steak
Dry meat = too high temperature for too long. Chances are the temperature is not right, perhaps monitor the bath with an external thermometer to be sure?
I'm no sous-vide expert, buit salting the meat first seems like something that should be avoided if your meat is coming out dry
For reference: what locale are you getting "C grade" meat in? It's not a designation I'm familiar with.
Older animals will have much more flavorful meat, but the only way to get the meat tender is to cook for a long time with moisture, at a relatively low temperature. This means braising or steaming. It is unlikely that sous vide methods will provide the temperature necessary to break down the collagen proteins, nor does it usually provide enough moisture. It is really not appropriate to use this grade of meat for steak, or any quick cooking method.
A possible alternative would be to use a marinade which includes fresh pineapple juice or papaya juice. These juices contain enzymes which break down the protein structure of meat and make it more tender, but must be used fresh, as the canning/pasteurizing process denatures the enzymes, making them ineffective.
Collagen breakdown starts at 60C, A decent SV circulator will maintain temperatures significantly in excess of that (not that you'd necessarily want to, but the point is a decent SV circulator will maintain temperatures well in excess of what is needed to break down collagen).
I have cooked some older cheap cuts with some success using sous vide. Indeed, there are some that love old cows, and there are movements to bringing these cuts to market (Google old dairy cows) and sous vide is a great way to cook them.
There are two things to do to increase how juicy the steak is:
Reduce the temperature. 65C is high enough that significant amounts of liquid will leave the meat. Look at this document to see different levels of liquid lost from different temperatures: https://www.seriouseats.com/2015/06/food-lab-complete-guide-to-sous-vide-steak.html.
Do not apply salt to the beef until just before you eat it. I would only put the meat in the sous vide bag, nothing else.
The problem of course is that using a lower temperature will lead to a less tender steak, which is a problem with a cheap cup. The solution to this problem is to cook the steak for longer, which contributes to tenderness.
In brief, the solution for a tender and juicy steak in sous vide is to use a lower temperature, and a longer cooking time. I'd try the steak at 140-145F for 8-16 hours if it is a particularly tough cut. All of this, of course, assumes using accurate instruments :)
One technique I like is a form of "turbo-aging" using the oven.
Start with steaks about 1.5" (4cm) thick. Season with salt and pepper, then put them in a low oven (275 F / 135 C) on a wire rack set inside a baking sheet and leave them there about 25 minutes, until the interior of the steak is 90-100 F / 32-37 C.
After that, grill or sear them as per your preference and as you normally would. The interior will be medium-rare to medium depending on how hot you let the interior get in the oven.
I normally do this with strip steaks, but it will work for any cut.
Do you do this with old grade meat? Cos that's the real key question... Rump is a decent cut, but it's the older grade meat that's the unknown. There's alot of info on using 'less glamorous' cuts of meat and those are all great, but they are always a-grade beef. I've seen no YouTube videos or cooking articles which discuss older grade meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.820650
| 2017-02-20T14:10:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78574",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"GdD",
"Luciano",
"Nat Bowman",
"canardgras",
"hashim alkabaaz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54183",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.