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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
55351
|
Extremely tender beef at hospital
My dad was recently in the hospital for intestinal surgery. While he was recovering they served him some beef that he was very surprised to find incredibly tender. He let me have a bite. It was so tender you hardly needed to chew at all.
It was served as some kind of boneless fillet with a dark brown gravy on top.
I've cooked a lot of beef, but never was it this soft.
Can anyone help me find this recipe or teach me a technique with the same effect?
May I ask where the hospital was located?
@Doug Georgia, USA
My first thought would be to ask what cut of meat it was.
You can almost certainly ask the staff there - most places like that are happy to share if you indicate you're impressed.
Are you sure it was a whole piece of meat? This screams Salisbury steak to me. Very tender, drenched in sauce, but ultimately ground meat.
@Chee'sBurgers It wasn't ground meat for sure.
Was the meat served at steak-like doneness (mid-rare) or well done? If it was well done, that would tend to indicate a very well executed roast.
@Chee'sBurgers hard to tell with the sauce on top, but I would imagine it was fully cooked and not rare
Roger. I think I have a chuck/brisket recipe that suites this question. I will attempt to compose a worthy answer.
@Jolenealaska Thanks for trying. I think I'll give velveting a try too.
@Chee'sBurgers Looking forward to the recipe.
@Jolenealaska If it was battered it would have been very lightly battered; hidden in the sauce. It wasn't like sweet and sour pork.
@SamWashburn Take a look at cooking beef using a pressure cooker.
One possibility is that the meat was cooked in a crock pot. This would make sense on a few levels.
First, since it is a hospital and presumably they have a large amount of people to feed, cooking multiple steaks in a large crock pot at once would save time and still produce quality food.
Second, cooking the meat slowly in a crock pot (or in liquid) over the period of 10 hours will produce incredibly tender meat, especially if the steak was already of good quality to begin with. Similar process is used to produce various roasts and also pulled pork, for example, which will literally fall off the bone once done cooking.
For the volume most hospitals are dealing with, it's more likely braised in hotel pans in a low oven.
This is my recipe for a sublimely tender roast:
Grab a large chuck roast or brisket.
Start in the evening by smoking or roasting the meat at 225 F until an internal temp of ~150-160 F is reached.
Place the meat inside of a covered roaster on a metal rack (important) then place in the oven at a rendering temp (say 170 F) overnight and all day until you get home from work. Your oven needs to be calibrated, because holding meat at too low a temp is a safety concern (see the bottom of answer for more).
Chill over night before slicing and portioning for the most cohesive, moist and unimaginably tender product. You could rest it on the countertop and slice the night of. Just know that the resting time on a large roast is considerable.
You can adjust the time and temperature variables to simplify the recipe further: roast in the oven at 350 F till ~150-160 F internal temp is achieved. Drop oven down to 170 F in a roaster till tender.
The long answer: (Nerd Alert)
Achieving the perfectly tender roast is a complicated subject because the temperatures at which different meat tissues break down are complicated.
Above 140 degrees F you are out of the food safety danger zone. This means you can take your sweet time as long as you are above this mark (this is a broad generalization, see the bottom of answer). At around 160 degrees, collagen and fats begin to break down or 'render', causing meat to become tender and juicy. However, there is a point where the proteins will begin to tense up and toughen (Don't know this off the top of my head, but the hotter you go the tighter they get).
There is a special temperature zone where you can achieve full rendering (maximum tenderness) without encountering dryness. This is achieved by getting the meat out of the danger-zone then holding it within the rendering zone for a very long time, without leaping into the tightening zone.
The reason that a most pot roasts are fall apart tender but dry is because the typical stock pot will eventually simmer on low. Water boils at 212 F at sea level, at which point most meats are fully rendered but dry.
Safety Adendum: Food safety is a matter of temperature and time. The FDA publishes charts that tell you how long a piece of meat has to be held at a given internal temperature to be safe to eat. To say that beef is safe as long as it is over 140 F internal is not strictly correct, as time is also a factor.
First of all: this is the first time I've seen anyone ask to recreate hospital food... I'm happy your dad didn't have the same experience most people do with hospital food.
One technique that can give meat that tender is velveting the meat. This is a Chinese cooking technique where the meat is marinated in egg white, wine and corn starch before cooking. This will give a velvety smooth texture to the meat, and it will basically melt in your mouth.
Can this be done with a large fillet? All I have seen is thinly sliced meat for stir fry.
Velveting is mostly done as preparation for high-heat cooking methods e.g. stir-frying, which I highly doubt would be used in a hospital, and wouldn't produce especially tender meat anyway. It's more about the surface texture. Far more likely that it was cooked low-and-slow - probably by a distributor and not the hospital itself.
What you describe sounds a lot like swiss steak, in which you use cube steak (an inexpensive cut that's been mechanically tenderized).
You sear the cube steak, then slow cook it in a flavorful sauce until it's extremely tender.
And I should mention -- it's inexpensive, easy to cook in large quantities, and can be held for some time ... so it used to be a staple of cafeteria cooking.
Maybe the meat was made with transglutaminase, a clotting agent that has the ability to bind protein-containing foods together. As I understand it, the results are very tender, often being served as filet. This from http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/you-eating-fake-steak-customers-5856558 I have been served some very questionable filet, soft, mushy, and flavorless. Though the guys at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhgOEsAd1xY say the glued together meat scraps cook up and taste like filet. Watch the taste test.
Being a hospital, where food safety is even more important than otherwise, I'd imagine they step away from the more elaborate methods of tenderizing meat.
The first thing I thought of was the industrial version of slow cooking. The may have used something like this Alto Shaam cook and hold oven:
Manufacturer touts:
Halo Heat tenderizes even the toughest cuts of meat by activating their natural enzymes
Many restaurants use the above to slow cook products over night at low temp. It yields better results than most home methods. I've seen some pretty great product come out of those.
If the hospital used this, and I suspect they did, you'll have to try something like @Chee's Burgers answer. (if you do, check the oven temperature with an oven thermometer for safety reasons)
Mechanical tenderizing is a possibility. You can get home use tenderizers like these (I like the one on the left):
And... there is always the possibility the hospital purchased meat that had gone through some special processing.
I wish you had a picture of the cut :)
Food safety and economics...
This sounds similar to something my mother used to cook, she would get oyster blade and put onion and gravy powder on top before wrapping it in tin foil and putting it in the oven.
The result was a tender piece of meat with a thick brown gravy on top, it tended to be more on the salty side due to the use of pure gravy powder, was the meat salty?
The original post was in 2015 - I suspect that they won't be answering your question. Though having said that OP was active in October last year, so you never know!
@bob1 Actually no, I'm still here and interested in an answer for this.
Chris, If I recall correctly, it had a salty flavor, but wasn't overly salty. What is "oyster blade"?
@SamWashburn Its a cut of beef that comes from the area around the cows shoulder blade, it has a lot of fat and connective tissue which can make it tough and gristly, but cooking it low and slow allows the fat and connective tissue to melt into the meat leaving a tender piece of meat
If it was salty - it may well have been tenderized with either an enzyme solution (a protease or collagenase in this case) or salt solution such as Sodium Bicarbonate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.821151
| 2015-03-03T17:05:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55351",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Barbara Kidzus",
"Derpy",
"Doug",
"Heidi Sumner",
"Joe",
"Mads Bakken Thastrup",
"Martin Bates",
"NathanielR",
"Nigel Hopgood",
"Sam Washburn",
"Sandy Meyer",
"Stephie",
"Swimming Pool Lighting Ltd",
"bob1",
"chris williams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80416",
"rfusca",
"sydney landry",
"talon8"
],
"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
}
|
42073
|
History of eating not fully cooked meat
When/Where/Why did humans start eating not fully cooked meat? I am aware that certain cultures were eating raw meat and still do but I am interested specifically in how it became popular in the Western world.
Any sources that discuss this are welcome.
@TFD The correct question is: When did man grill his first mammoth burger?
Not sure there is a coherent “Western” attitude towards raw meat or a general movement in one direction or another (beyond specific dishes or fads in particular countries).
Obviously, humans have eaten raw meat since we first showed up on the planet. But even after we learned how to grill our mammoth burgers, some people preferred the taste of uncooked flesh. This is especially true in Asian countries (not just fish, but beef, horse, and pork as well; collectively known as Hoe in Korea). A common practice has always been "cooking" the meat in citric acid first, to reduce the risk of infection. Of course we didn't always know that eating raw meat was bad for you. In fact, many cultures believe that raw meat is beneficial to the body.
Around the late 19th century, some doctors began prescribing "raw food" as a medical treatment. Carpaccio (Italian dish of raw fish or veal pounded thin) was invented in 1950 by Giuseppe Cipriani, after learning that the doctors of countess Amalia Nani Mocenigo recommended that she avoid cooked meat (for reasons I'm unsure of)
Of course the science doesn't really support this theory, but raw meat can be relatively safe in small amounts if prepared carefully. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure the entire Japanese archipelago would keel over from food poisoning. Personally, I prefer my parasites cooked.
Actually, there's a compelling case for cooked foods being the reasons that we evolved into humans in the first place. We have larger brains (requires more energy) and smaller jaws (slower food intake) than our ancestors. So something happened before we evolved into homo erectus to allow us to spend less time eating while getting more calories ... such as knives to cut up the meat, and cooking it so less chewing is required.
@Joe ...and the effect of cooking on protein and other nutrients, making the nutrition more available, so less quantity required for the same food value or more food value for the same quantity consumed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.822230
| 2014-02-17T02:10:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42073",
"authors": [
"Anthony X",
"Charles G.",
"Dina",
"Joe",
"John Considine",
"Relaxed",
"SPAMPRO of North Thornton",
"SZCthebandit ",
"Tony Arra",
"Videlynn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98264",
"mukesh Kumar",
"whongkong pools spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94595
|
Why does coconut milk separate in coffee?
When I put coconut milk in coffee, curds and lumps form, which does not look good in coffee. When I heat coconut milk, curds are still form. What can I do to avoid this?
Regular milk is an emulsion - a liquid [fat] suspended in another liquid [water], in its simplest terms.
Coconut milk is a suspension - a solid suspended in a liquid.
Mixing an emulsion into another similar liquid base tends to remain emulsified.
Mixing a suspension into another liquid, there is a distinct possibility that the two will re-separate, due to the heat-shock, & form clumps.
Perhaps if you pre-heated the coconut milk, it may tend to mitigate that, though your tests would seem to say otherwise.
I'd hesitate to say add a thickener first, such as cornflower, & preheat - this would bind it, but I'm not sure the result would be pleasant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.822457
| 2018-12-09T10:15:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94595",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88501
|
Cooking techniques for venison neck
I recently received a venison neck. I've never cooked this cut before and I haven't found a lot of helpful recipes. I want to keep it as whole as possible, not simply grind it into sausage.
I am assuming this cut has a lot of connective tissue, so I was thinking a low & slow method (braise or stewing). What I've found is mostly grilling (hotter and faster) than I expected.
What would be recommended cooking techniques for this cut of meat?
Welcome! We don't actually allow recipe recommendations here, so we'll have to focus on cooking techniques.
There are really two issues here. First is temperature, second is time, and they are somewhat inversely proportional to each other. Looking at AmazingRibs, one of my favorite online references, you can see some of the simplified data regarding both general information and elsewhere there are some venison specific cooking recommendations. The neck, in the second reference, due to the connective tissue is recommended to be cooked to a much higher temperature, similar to smoking a pork butt or brisket. So you either cook to a high internal temperature for a relatively short time (still many hours), or cook to a lower internal temperature for a very extended time.
Now, the issue is what cooking technique do you want to use? Smoking? I'd Traeger it at 225 until it hits 195-ish degrees like pulled pork. The meat itself will definitely be well done but the connective tissue will have broken down sufficiently. Sous vide? How about 135-140 degrees for 72 hours like short ribs?
From the food safety standpoint, cooking to less than 140 degrees requires much more care and preparation, and it does require you to understand a lot more about the potential risks in order to make an informed decision since you are the one putting the food into your mouth. Do I think everyone should cook sous vide? Absolutely not. You have to be willing to accept a certain degree of risk, or learn ways to mitigate that risk. In this particular case, unlike store-purchased meat the cut you have may or may not have unusual pathogens (parasites) that cooking (or freezing) techniques would have to account for.
Thanks for these resources. I have some ideas now, based more on a brisket style preparations. Sadly I don't have a smoker or sous vide setup, but thinking of this cut more as a brisket or shank will help a lot.
Knowing the safe food temp is important as well.
I cook venison regularly since my family hunts.
The neck is one of the most worked parts of the animal, so you need to cook it with an acid (vinegar, fruit juice), to break it down, an added fat to give it moisture, like butter or other animal fat, and with a cooking liquid of your choice (wine, stock, broth, etc) on low heat for a long time (1+ hour) so it doesn't seize. Be sure to keep it covered so no moisture escapes.
It still might end up grainy. Venison is one of the most unforgiving meats because of its delicacy and lean qualities. So, beginners often get grainy meat. I still get grainy meat sometimes!
Be sure you remove as much fascia as possible prior to cooking.
There's a reason people usually grind it up with a bunch of fat, though, so it wouldn't be bad if you did that, FYI. It will still taste good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.822564
| 2018-03-21T20:27:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88501",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"RunThor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63693"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6966
|
What causes the difference between Maine and Canadian lobsters?
In a first-season episode of the US TV show Kitchen Nightmares, the well-known chef Gordon Ramsay states that there's a "big difference [in] taste and flavor" between Maine lobsters and Canadian lobsters. He gets into an argument about it with a restaurant owner who claims that they're really no different. (If you're in the US, there's free video of the argument in question here, from hulu; start at about 16:33.)
Admittedly, I don't know whether Maine lobstering waters and Canadian lobstering waters border each other, though Maine waters and Canadian waters certainly do. And Gordon Ramsay owns more Michelin stars than I own plates, so he's clearly the expert. But I also find it hard to dismiss the owner's points — if they're true — that both lobster types are the same species (Homarus americanus), and come from the same North Atlantic waters.
So, what is the cause of the difference in taste/flavor/quality between Maine lobsters and Canadian lobsters?
First of all, Ramsay was primarily concerned that they were advertising Maine Lobsters and selling Nova Scotia Lobsters. He actually didn't comment on the flavour.
I've searched about 20 web pages (nothing authoritative) and the consensus is that the colder the water, the better the lobster.
But, the waters off of Maine are fed by the Labrador current, which is the same water that flows past New Brunswick, PEI and Nova Scotia.
If there is a temperature difference, it is likely not very significant, and any effect it would have on flavour is minimal at best.
true, his main concern was about false advertising. But he also says the following: "You're telling me now that Canadian lobster, half the price of a Maine lobster, is the same taste and flavor? There's a big difference."
And of course Ramsay isn't known for his tact...
I have lobstered from Montauk New york all the way to just south of Greenland. I come from a family that has been deeply involved in the losbter fishing trade since the late 18th century. My grandfather, uncle and brother have all, in their repective times, been consultants to the national lobster fisheries advisory board of both Canada(my grandfather) and The United States(my uncle and brother). I have worked as a chef in restaurants in Maine, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Cape Cod since I was in my late twenties.
It is mine, and my family's, considered opinion that the esteemed, if somewhat self-aggrandizing, Chef Gordon Ramsay is DEAD WRONG in is opinion of the differences between Homarus Americanus caught in Canadian waters as opposed to those harvested in American waters. There is virtually no discernable difference whatsoever.
Ramsay's opinionated, albeit ill informed, attack on the New York restaurant owner doesn't surprise me at all. On the original British version of Kitchen Nightmares I once saw him introduce, as a new menu item in the episodes featured eatery, what he dubbed , and I quote " a classic ceasar salad". The salad was served with two crisp stripsw of fried BACON! My 70 year old Rome born father in law gasped and said, "CLASSIC!!... maybe in Yorkshire!... he scoffed.
Your keyboard seems to be missing the enter key?
Why would your Rome born father have any expertise on Mexican salads?
@ChrisCudmore Italians have strong opinions on everything.
Possibly two reasons: environmental concerns and a lack of standards.
For the environment, Ramsay has often advocated for restaurants to serve fresh, local seafood wherever available. He supports local industry and sustainable harvest. He has a recent scathing documentary about shark fin soup, openly protesting inflated prices for the rare, costly, and underwhelming dish that puts environmental strain on the fishing industry. I am unsure, but both lobsters are harvested from different countries with different fishing regulations. He may have critiques about Canadian or American fishing industry.
High quality seafood restaurants often advertise from where their seafood is obtained. I'm not in a region known for lobster, but a region known for oyster. We have many regions in the pacific northwest whence oysters are harvested. Oysters in regions mere miles apart can have wildly different flavors. In a blind taste test, it's quite easy to match oysters by region based on their characteristics. I think small regional differences can lead to large differences in flavor between shellfish, based on water characteristics. No particular region is bad or low quality here, but for a restaurant to not know whence their seafood comes shows a lack of class and standards.
This seems like a really obvious answer to me. Im glad someone posted this. Im no expert on food, or seafood. However I do like food! :) In NY a Lobster from Maine would be perceived potentially more fresh - and to be helping regional/local industry (think, "Made in the USA"). I also believe Maine lobsters are more expensive. This owner was claiming Maine because of its popularity, but using canadian, less fresh/less local food because its cheaper. The restaurant was probably pocketing the difference in price that should have gone to that local industry, all while sacrificing freshness.
I imagine a textile company advertising that something was "Made in the USA", while actually having it made for a fraction of the price in China. Its not necessarily an issue of quality, the problem is someone leeching of peoples desire to help support their local economy.
As a lobster fisherman in Nova Scotia, I can say chef Ramsay is full of himself. He should never comment on anything that he has no idea of what he is talking about. If you are in a restaurant in Florida and you are served a Maine lobster, you have an 80% chance of getting a lobster from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, or Prince Edward Island, though this is less common than the other two. There are no differences between them other than at times water temp, and time of year caught. This can lead to shells with very little meat, soft shells, or hard shells, that are very full of meat. A lobster here for instance caught in March, April, or May, is very full of meat and rich in taste compared to one caught in October or November. Not to say some caught in October or November are not but in general they are.
The idea behind the whole Maine lobster fuss is more of an American deal. Where as if you are a US citizen, you will be more likely to support your US fishermen. But, you must remember I may be in Nova Scotia, but when I leave my harbor I am in what they call The Gulf Of Maine. So could you not call my catch Maine Lobsters, and be correct? Now when you get further up in Bay Of Fundy, or get out on the Atlantic side of Nova Scotia in the Atlantic Ocean, this may not fly. But like one of the other answers above stated, if you see Maine lobster, you know right away what it is. This could possibly be the best reason for the Maine name.
Also I must add, they do tag lobsters of scientific purposes here, to learn more about them. They have tagged lobsters here that have been caught in Mass I believe. There are a number of lobsters, that migrate yearly some say, up and down the Atlantic coast, seems they have no idea where the border is. LOL
I'm from the Maritimes here PEI my uncle and cousins are lobster fishermen although I have nothing to do with it. I find it astonishing that Ramsay would say that but of course the entire purpose of his existence is to cause drama. You know Mitch P but others may not know that Maine and south-west Nova Scotia and southern New Brunswick specifically districts 34, 37,38, and 41 literally border Maine. It's the same damn lobsters!
I'm no expert in lobster but all sorts of things can affect the quality of produce even if it's the same variety.
Things like diet, water temperature and water quality could easily cause differences between two otherwise identical things.
There could also be differences in how they are fished/managed by the two nations.
The Canadian lobster fishing industry is more regulated than the American industry, and the waters are colder. These two factors would probably lead to larger lobster, but I'm not sure the quality would change much... Road trip?
Larger lobsters are actually less desirable because by the time you've cooked the meat in the centre of a particularly big one, the outside meat is horribly overcooked. Good article about working with big specimens here: http://www.cookingissues.com/2010/07/07/giant-lobsters-and-their-puny-brethren-plus-a-wild-vegetable/
I believe the restaurant owner called it Maine lobster is to differentiate it from other species we call lobster such as rock lobster. Maine lobster describes all (western) North Atlantic lobsters whether caught in Canada or the US. To further this answer refer to the definition of American Lobster on Wikipedia. It is also know as Maine Lobster and covers (comes from) the Canadian and U.S. NorthEast Coast from Newfoundland to New Jersey.
I believe it is the same thing that sparkling wine from Champagne can be called champagne, but those made outside of it cannot be named that way. I watched that clip and it Gordon picked on false advertising, regardless if there are actual difference in taste.
A Maine lobster is caught by someone who resides in Maine. A Nova Scotian lobster is one caught by someone who resides in Nova Scotia. It's the same Species, Atlantic lobster regardless of where it's caught.
Canada fishermen have different size standards, they are allowed to keep bigger lobsters which are not as good to eat, kind of like an old cow. When Canada lobsters are processed you get the good with the bad bringing down the overall quality.
Within the same species/genus, the strain of lobster can account for a significant taste difference. Fishery quality and practices also matter, of course.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.822844
| 2010-09-08T05:27:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6966",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"AdamO",
"Ben Torell",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Frank Zimmerman",
"Jeff B.",
"Matthew Ruston",
"Mitch P",
"Mochi",
"Pierre Tonneau",
"Pops",
"Spammer",
"Stefano",
"Suzanne Smith",
"TFD",
"TraderD",
"Wendy",
"Yule",
"dghughes",
"eddiemoya",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81025",
"jwenting"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89610
|
Smoked Pork Butt Question
I’ve smoked two pork butts for 11 hours and they’re done- but I’ve not supposed to serve for 7 hours. My plan is to keep itv warm in the oven at a low temperature.
Question is: should I wrap the meat in foil now and shred later, or shred now and keep everything warm?
@Joe I am removing that from the comment space, if you repost it as an answer, I would upvote.
I would wrap the meat and keep it warm. Otherwise its likely to dry out in the oven at 7 hours, even at low heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.823598
| 2018-05-05T12:46:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89610",
"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
}
|
104481
|
Making Souk. When do I add these Moroccan spices?
I'm making black-eyed peas. They've been washed, boiled for 2 minutes, set for 1 hour. Now I'm cooking them stovetop on low after bringing to a boil. The spice combination I have is used in making Souk, a Moroccan dish. When do I add the spices?
can you share the recipe you are using ?
I cannot seem to find references to a Moroccan dish named "Souk". Rather, souk is the Arabic word for bazaar or marketplace. Perhaps it refers to the sellers of your spice mix and not a dish to use it in? I will assume you have your hands on a typical Moroccan spice blend such as ras el hanout.
In any case, to get the best flavor out of your spices, you need to bloom them in oil. Heat oil until shimmering and fry any aromatics you are using. Add the spices, and cook for a few second. Recipes usually tell you to cook "until fragrant", but really, a few seconds should do. It is very easy to burn ground spices. Immediately add the beans and the cooking liquid, simmering until tender.
A good inspiration would be this recipe for spiced black-eyed peas. Although it uses Indian spices, the basic technique would be the same.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.823677
| 2020-01-01T22:23:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104481",
"authors": [
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86609
|
How do I easily get thin slices of guava paste?
I made guava bars recently, with a layer made of slices of guava paste. The block of paste I had was pretty hard to cut thinly and evenly: it was very sticky, and firm enough to take effort to cut through along with the stickiness.
Are there any easy ways to get nice slices out of it?
(In this case, someone else had volunteered to cut, but ended up with too-thick slices, so we ended up putting it in plastic wrap and rolling it out thinner, but that wasn't exactly easy either - I wouldn't have wanted to do it for the whole block.)
Guava paste is easy to use when making it fresh, but canned with pectin it can be a pain.
You probably need to go warmer or colder to get it to do what you want.
If you go warmer you could try a couple of tablespoons on a small plate in the microwave. I usually put a coffee cup of water next to it to slow down the heating process. Try 20 seconds at a time until you could use a knife to smear it. If it has too much pectin or is dried out this might not work.
If you go colder you could try cooling it down in the freezer 5-10 minutes at a time. Use a wire cheese slicer (or a piece of unflavored dental floss) and try shaving off smaller slices off your block. Use a fork to lay the cold thin sliced guava paste on your bars and repeat.
You can also look for a different recipe that lets you use thicker slices of guava paste - there are several good muffin recipes where the molten guava in the center is most excellent.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.823787
| 2017-12-22T01:00:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86609",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40039
|
How long can I keep bread dough in the refrigerator?
If I've made some dough and want to bake it later, how long can I store it in the refrigerator? Do I need to do anything special to make that work out? Are there any types of bread it won't work well for?
Dough in the fridge is simply a refrigerated preferment or sourdough starter. How long you refrigerate it depends on what pH you want in the resulting dough -- longer means lower pH. It's hard to give exact numbers here because ingredients matter. The "dough will last approximately three days in the refrigerator" phrase in one of the answers below appears all over the internet without attribution, usually with additional text; SE may not be the original source. But this page is ranked highly in Google, so that answer may be contributing to misinformation elsewhere.
You can refrigerate all kinds of yeast-bread dough. Right after kneading, before the dough has had a chance to rise, oil the dough lightly, cover with plastic wrap or use a ziplock, and place in the refrigerator. As the dough cools in the refrigerator the action of the yeast will slow down until the dough has reached refrigeration temperature. At that point the yeast is still working, but at a snail's pace. So, during the first few hours in the fridge it may require a punch down or two, as there may still be enough warmth in the dough for the yeast to show active signs of life.
After the dough is completely cool, it may not need anything from you, but still check it at least every 12 hours or so - it may need another punch down. If at any point it grows to close to double it's original size, go ahead and punch it down. Most doughs will be fine if babysat like this for up to 3 or 4 days. When you're ready to bake, punch down the dough again (if necessary), shape, and allow to rise as if it had never taken its little nap in the refrigerator. Of course this rise is going to take longer than non-refrigerated dough as it reaches room temperature, but it should be ready to bake when it looks like a non-refrigerated dough of the same type would look when it's ready to bake. Bake as usual.
I'm sure there are exceptions to the basic rules I've set out, but I've never had a problem doing this with any yeast-bread dough.
"Punch down" is a commonly used phrase, but it's a bit of a misnomer. Especially in this case where you might need to do it repeatedly, it's best to do it gently. While it's often done with a clenched fist, there should be no hint of violence in the action. You're just looking for deflation. After the dough is deflated, fold it back into a ball.
Just wanted to add that you should definitely do this before the dough gets any rising. Once the yeast really starts to get going, the cold can cause a big die-off, and the byproducts of dead yeast can make your dough very slack and also cause it to taste pretty boozy.
@morvant Did you cover it well like Jolene said? If not, it could easily dry out. If it was just hard after baking, there could be all kinds of other problems. Please ask a new question if you want to know more, but be specific - "came out hard" isn't really a lot to go on.
It is possible to cold proof for a week or even longer in the refrigerator. I have even frozen dough for a month and then thawed it for a day in the fridge and still had ample spring during baking. Yeast will not die at cold temperatures, it just slows down. That being said the higher the protein and the more sugar the longer the yeast will be able to eat. Do not use tons of yeast if you want to keep the dough cold proofing for a week. The small amount of yeast will continue to eat just fine until all sugars are gone.
Cold proof immediately after kneading and forming the initial dough. High hydration dough works significantly better. If not using a ziplock bag then place in a bowl with plastic wrap tightly over the top. If oxygen is exposed to the dough the areas exposed will become hard and cake together not allowing for spring and uniform bread rising.
Allow dough to proof for 35 minutes once removed from the fridge. Lightly shape long proofed dough so that it does not de-gas the bread. (DO NOT KNEAD ONCE OUT OF THE FRIDGE). There may be exceptions but those are for experienced bread bakers.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Thanks for the good answer!
I always just stick the dough in the fridge after it rises and take out a bit at a time - I have found it’s totally fine for up to 5 days - after that it has not such a nice additional smell and flavour.
A dough will last approximately three days in the refrigerator; however, it is best to use it within 48 hours. This is the best way to refrigerate your dough. After the dough is kneaded, place in a lightly oiled, large mixing bowl. Cover tightly with plastic wrap and place in refrigerator.
what happens if you leave it longer than 3 days?
I regularly cold proof in the fridge in tupperware and keep for longer than a week. May max I've done is around 2 weeks. To my taste the best flavors don't even happen until about the 3 day mark. As it get's older the texture will change a bit, and it might start to be "boosey" but it still cooks up well and tastes great IMO.
I’ve refrigerated and frozen bread dough many times. All of the answers you got were excellent, but if I could add a suggestion: Once you’ve kneaded the dough and packed it (for this trick, you need a zipper bag), get as much air out of the bag as you can, seal it tightly, and place it in an ice water bath for a few minutes before putting it in the fridge. That will retard the rise quickly so you don’t get a big balloon of dough!
I have always used high quality 1 quart zip lock bags (ones with zipper).
Fill with dough and let sit in fridge for 24 hours. Then freeze any you will not use in the next week.
They will blow up like little festive dough Balloons, once in a great while a zipper will break and need to be repacked. Otherwise I find the pressure keeps the yeast in check and stores quite nicely.
Typically I make a big batch of dough on Sundays for the week using this method.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.824034
| 2013-12-07T02:20:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40039",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"John Fairbanks",
"Jolenealaska",
"Laurie Green",
"Owen",
"SourDoh",
"Xiaoyang Gong",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95036",
"redfox05",
"stevegt"
],
"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
}
|
27594
|
How do I extract coconut milk from coconut meat?
Coconut milk in the local grocery store costs around $1.50 for a small can. Cans of coconut milk that cost less are full of fillers such as extra water and gums to thicken it.
Whole coconuts, on the other hand, cost $1.50 and I would think I should be able to get more than one can's worth of milk out of it.
What is the correct process for extracting coconut milk from coconut meat? Does it have to be heated? Does it require a special press?
After the milk has been extracted can the flesh still be used as flakes or is it spent?
(I have seen the question here. I'm not asking about where to find it or how to store it- just how to make it.)
As an aside, it may not be a cost effective way to get your coconut milk. You may not get more than a can of milk, coconuts are not very juicy. Also, canned milk is made in bulk and with specialized machines, so it's less work for them to make, while you would have to do the work each time by hand (and it may be hard or frustrating). If it's a question of your effort against their costs... it may well be worth it, it may be fun, or you may look at your results and your effort and decide the can is worth the dollar-fifty.
Empty the water from inside the coconut, as this is not the milk you want.
Crack open your coconut and scrape out the meat.
In a blender, take about half your meat and roughly 1 1/2 cups of hot water (more or less depending on your desired thickness), and process.
Repeat step 3 with the other half of the meat.
Place a few layers of cheesecloth over a bowl and strain the milk through.
Wrap up the cheesecloth and squeeze the rest of the milk out.
No special press or tools needed. However, some sort of press could help get the last few drops out when squeezing the mass through the cheesecloth.
I don't think the water necessarily has to be hot. Some sources say to just use water, while other say hot. You may also want to start out with just 1/2 cup water and see how much it yields. Keep in mind: coconuts aren't super juicy. So expect the yield to be roughly equivalent to the amount of water used.
The flesh is still perfectly usable, but its applications may be limited based on how much you processed it (in terms of size).
This site has the step-by-step I used with a few (albeit not very helpful) pictures.
I'm going to try this tonight!
step 2 is traditionally done with a mounted scraper that looks like a deadly weapon. Scrapes away the flesh from inside out: stop before reaching brown skin. Alternatively, loosen flesh from shell with heat (don't cook)and painstakingly peel skin before adding chunks to blender (careful with motor)
@PatSommer- I usually pry the meat out and leave the brown skin on. Will it adversely effect the flavor of the milk or is it just a cosmetic problem?
Break Coconut
Remove the meat from coconut carefully using knife or use desiccated coconut then grind the meat in blender with some water or other option is to scrape coconut meat carefully.
If you are using scraped/grated coconut, add some water into it and keep aside for 5 minutes. (coconut extract will dissolve into water)
Filter coconut+water mixture in a cheese cloth/muslin cloth (even plain cotton cloth works too).
Nutritious Coconut Milk is ready. You can use the milk in cooking or drink it by itself. Pinch of Cardamom powder or pepper powder tastes amazing with coconut milk.
Source: Homemade Coconut Milk Preparation
In this method, nutritions will not get lost, so you can get the fresh and healthy milk.
The best home way. Put meat in a heavy cotton bag. White bag is best. With a ring in the center of the bottom. A draw string top. Close bag & hang up. Move all meat to bottom of bag. Insert stick in bags bottom ring & turn then twist tight. Let milk drain threw bag into pan. About the same as pressing whey water out of curds to make cheese. Meat needs to be in strings when cutting out of hull. This is for fresh coconuts normally done right in the grove. Bag hung to a mango tree. As we raise both together. Our bag is a long pyramid in shape 4 sides. But other bags will work. Mabe a white cotton pillow case for smallamount.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.824511
| 2012-10-04T15:34:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27594",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"Elaine Nilsson",
"Megha",
"Mike",
"Mrs.KuboAndTwoStrings",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sobachatina",
"Sojomom2",
"Trebor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91562
|
How to proof croissants in the hot weather?
I tried to cook croissants following a recipe. The whole process went smoothly, there was no butter melted and the yeast was still active. But when I proof the laminated dough, they wouldn't rise. I prove them in the fridge overnight because of the hot weather (The average room temperature reached 30°C.), but I found that the butter became solid and I think that's why the dough didn't rise. I've made some research and I found that a lot of people proof their laminated in the fridge successfully. What should I do now?
Possible duplicate of Temperature controlled work surface?
Wait, what? Your fridge is 30C? Can you please adjust your narrative of what you did for greater clarity?
@Luciano it does not look like a duplicate of that question to me.
Have you tried proofing them at room temp? 30C is a good temp for proofing. Proofing overnight in fridge allows for greater flavour development in breads (or any yeasted dough), but they still need to be proofed further at room temp before bake. Croissants I have never seen proofed in the fridge - not saying it can't be done, but I've never seen it.
@FuzzyChef I believe the answer to the duplicate will solve the same problem asked in this question
@soup4life: that looks like the correct answer, post it as an answer?
30C is a good temp for proofing. Proofing overnight in fridge allows for greater flavour development in breads (or any yeasted dough), but they still need to be proofed further at room temp before bake. Croissants I have never seen proofed in the fridge - not saying it can't be done, but I've never seen it. The only time you should be truly concerned about a hot kitchen (in my opinion) is when you're working with chocolate. Because breads and yeasted things rise best between 27C and 38C with the optimum temperature being 35C. Check out this link for more info http://www.theartisan.net/dough_fermentation_and_temperature.htm
Good Luck! Croissants are a labour, but a delicious one!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.824884
| 2018-08-08T23:46:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91562",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"soup4life"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67487
|
Remove tannins from tea without removing caffeine
I have a lovely black tea that is fairly high in caffeine, which I'd like to keep.
Unfortunately though, I'm not a fan of the bitterness caused by tannins, and I'd like to remove them if possible without leaching the caffeine as well.
I was thinking pre-rinsing the leaves with cold water for example, considering the solubility figures below:
Tannic acid solubility at 25 degees C: 2850 g/Ll
Caffeine solubility at 25 degrees C: 20 g/l
Caffeine solubility at 100 degrees C: 660 g/l
Are there any experimentally verified methods of doing this?
I assume you're set on removing the tannins somehow, rather than masking them or minimizing their taste?
Are you talking about bitterness or astringency ? I cannot imagine a really bitter black tea, however about astringency, I would advice to 1) increase tea quantity 2) lower water temperature 3) shorten infusion time.
@TZDZ I'd call it bitterness... I can't let tea steep for more than a minute or two without it becoming too bitter to drink without watering down. Some people are more sensitive to this than others (I don't like red wines or hoppy beers, either).
The correct solution to your problem is certainly to find a tea with similar caffeine content, but less bitter taste. There's really an amazing variety of teas; if it's the tannin which bothers you then check out some oolong or green teas.
Caffeine itself is bitter, so you won't be able to remove all the bitterness from tea without also removing all the caffeine.
Adding a 1/4-1/2 teaspoon of gelatin powder dissolved in the boiling water should do the trick. I fermented some arizona and used gelatin to remove the remaining yeast, only to find it removed the tannins as well, yielding a relatively clear liquid with a dark brown sediment at the bottom. I can't guarantee that it won't touch the caffeine, but i see no reason it would chemically.
I have run an experiment based off your suggestion (see my answer) and it seems to work. Thanks :)
In the same way, does gelatin trap only tannins?
I think answer is here: https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/135/3/532/4663687
Gelatin doesn't trap tannins. Tannins bind to proteins and amino acids, gelatin is just a soluble protein.
In response to the answer posted by @James, I've run the following experiment:
Ingredients:
Black tea by "Tea Merchant", flavor = "Ship Ahoy"
Colorless and flavorless gelatin powder, bought from the baking isle in a supermarket.
Process:
1) I made 4 cups of tea, each with 1 tea spoon of tea leaves straight into the cup:
Control cup, no addition
1/4 teaspoon of gelatin powder
1/2 teaspoon of gelatin powder
full teaspoon of gelatin powder
2) I thoroughly stirred the tea and left the cups to sit for 4 minutes.
3) Poured each cup through a strainer into a fresh receptacle to remove the tea leaves.
4) I left the tea to cool, such that I could take large gulps at a time in order to maximize tannin taste.
Results:
a) The colour was noticeably lighter the more gelatin was added. Below is a photo, where each label indicates amount of gelatin in each cup (as fractions of a teaspoon, where left is full spoon, right is control).
b) A large gulp of the control tea was unpleasantly bitter.
c) Each subsequent concentration removed more bitterness, indicating that a relatively large amount of gelatin is required to completely remove all tannins.
d) 1/4 teaspoon was sufficient to remove the unpleasant sharpness
e) The full teaspoon removed most of the tanniny flavor, allowing the more subtle flavors to be tasted.
f) Although I find the full teaspoon left the tea a bit bland as well. I prefer the 1/2 teaspoon ratio.
g) I am slightly disappointed that I did not create tea-jelly. Will just have to add more. For science.
h) I cannot comment on the effect of gelatin on the caffeine levels since I am quite caffeine insensitive.
Conclusion:
Gelatin definitely reduces tannin concentrations which removes the sharpness out of black teas.
I am unable to comment on caffeine levels from "feel", however, this paper models caffeine release from a gelatin matrix. I only gave the paper a quick scan, and I find no mention of gelatin reacting with the caffeine in any way.
EDIT:
Over the course of the weekend I was able to feed a caffeine sensitive friend some tea. Everyone was weirdly suspicious.
Process:
5) I created two 1l batches containing 3 teaspoons of tea leaves, soaked for 10 minutes. The control batch was left untouched and gelatin batch contained 10g of gelatin.
6) Saturday morning at 10 am the subject was given the control tea. He finished it by 10:45, and by 11 am his symptoms were: Elevated heart rate (110 bpm compared to 60 at rest), headache, shakiness and a general feel of ill ease. By 11:30 the symptoms seemed to have passed.
7) Sunday morning at 10 am the subject was given the gelatin tea. To my great pleasure the tea had partially jellified. The subject was not pleased. He finished the tea by 10:45 and reported no symptoms at all, apart from feeling "a bit better". It seems that the subject had somehow ingested some alcohol the previous evening, thereby bringing these results into question.
Results:
f) The gelatin heavy tea didn't really taste that great. The control was expectantly very bitter.
g) We created tea-jelly!
h) Based on the results from subject Friend, gelatin does in fact seem to lower the caffeine levels. Although it may be possible that the jelly caused the caffeine to be released slower (or something). Will have to repeat with much less gelatin, and again with much more gelatin.
i) This would make a really good masters research project.
Do you have access to a lab (e.g. job or university) or lots of money? If so you can do some precision caffeine content analysis. There's a number of methods, if you have access to chloroform, or lead acetate, or benzene and sulfuric acid, or HPLC equipment, or a few hundred dollars to spend. If not, there's also cheap and not too accurate test strips and kits available, which could be a fun test regardless, but their range and precision may not be good enough to tell the difference to you, worth a shot though, may at least give you relative concentrations if the differences are large enough.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/08057.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiCg47Tr8TRAhVDOSYKHRPCBJgQFghDMAQ&usg=AFQjCNFpCMq5ovH_qrfidZvBxxqz0Wam8w&sig2=spUe2sWTs4KDUfu9rKtO_w sorry about the huge link, hope it works, google crapifies URLs and mobile makes it tough to trim. That paper compares various methods, which lead to different results but consistent relative results. See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1927/how-can-you-measure-the-caffeine-content-of-a-liquid-at-home and a Quora link that I cant fit, search tea caffeine Quora.
@JasonC I was actually just thinking of feeding lots of tea to a caffeine sensitive person until they start shaking. Then repeat a few days later with gelatin added in :)
"Drink this. For science."
g) change from gelatin to agar-agar. For science.
@JasonC, See edit :)
Why does gelatin trap only tannins?
I think answer is here: https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/135/3/532/4663687
@mattia.b89 That is a wonderful article. Thanks for posting it.
The better meathod for this experiment would be to brew one batch of tea then split it. Also you would have been better giving the treated tea first day and control second day as the control could create a caffeine tolerance. (best would be several subjects with mixed testing order and possibly include a decaf tea control)
Usual method of tannin removal is anion exchange chromatography.
Linkage:
The primary tannin removal technologies of the past were carbon- and styrene-based ion exchange resin. More recently, acrylic-based and high water retention/low crosslinked styrene-based anion exchange resins have surfaced into the residential water treatment market and seem to outperform the traditional ion exchange resins used for tannin removal. Although no resin is 100 percent effective, success has been greatly increased with these resins. If you haven't tried treating for tannins recently you may want to give it another try.
I have not tryed this with tea, but I have used it on coffee.
The result is a clear liquid without much of the bitter taste of cheap coffee.
Still tastes like coffee, just better coffee.
Not being charged, the caffeine comes straight through, so you still catch a buzz from it.
Looks like anion exchange resins are easily available online.
You'll probably want food, or at least water system grade.
This method will likely work better for some teas than for other.
I've no idea what the charge is on the bergamot flavor in Earl Grey, but if it's acidic, it won't make it through the column. Cardamom flavor might make it through. You can either look up the structures of the relevant flavor molecules, and go from there, or just give it a try and see if it works to your satisfaction.
I just took an hour finding a solvent that removes tannins and leaves the caffeine behind and yes, it can be done, but no, the remaining tea will be highly toxic.
So unless you're trying to kill your awful in-laws with a de-tanninised black tea high in caffeine, no it cannot be done.
Sorry to be the harbinger of bad news
E.G. 200° proof ethanol washes away the tannins too, but also 90% of the caffeine (and probably 100% of the taste).
May I at least know what that solvent is? You know, for science!
No need to retrace your steps if you can't remember the solvent. I was just curious. Was just waiting on accepting in case there was a late entry. Thanks for the effort!
I remember it was a complex one: not something simple like Chloroform or Ethanol...
I learned this from a southern friend who took the bitterness out of her tea by adding a pinch of baking soda, so I tried it with every tea I could get store-bought (particularly high-caffeine black tea) and it takes the bitterness right out of it.
Best i can figure the baking soda is neutralizing the tannic acid, though I'm unsure on whether it affects the caffeine content as well.
Unsure about the tannins and caffeine, but I read somewhere that it adds electrolytes. Might be why so many in the south do this....
Add a little lemon juice to your tea and it neutralizes the tannins. You can also use soy sauce, but the flavour may not be so great afterwards.
You just threw so many concepts in here that sound interesting. Please will you unpack everything a bit more (and to stay on topic, especially go into your experiences regarding sensitivities to tannins and caffeine)?
I use an old trick learned from the deep south (of the US) to make iced tea. The tannins in tea turn cloudy when poured over ice, so many would use a pinch of baking soda during the brewing. The resultant strong hot tea could then be poured over ice and would not turn cloudy from the tannins. I still use this trick on some black teas that I like since I am more sensitive to bitter than most.
Call it about 1/4 teaspoon per cup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.825077
| 2016-03-17T08:48:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67487",
"authors": [
"Camila Zanoelo",
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"Fabby",
"French Tours",
"Jason C",
"Max Power",
"Orishaba Victoria",
"Roman",
"Ross Ridge",
"TZDZ",
"Tamera Patterson",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84089",
"leftaroundabout",
"logophobe",
"mattia.b89"
],
"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
}
|
88197
|
Do older apples contain more or less pectin in the skins/cores?
In order to make apple jelly and not use pectin, just fresh (not frozen) apples skins and cores: Do older, stored apples have more concentrated pectin in their skins and cores or does it degrade? should I boil more? add more sugar, less water?
Older apples should have less pectin, probably:
The chemistry of pectins is a vast and complex subject ... all these enzymes work together to degrade the pectin and eliminate is sticky effect. They exist naturally in plant tissues ... after harvest, during apple storage, the protopectins within cell walls are naturally broken down ... During that process, the apples get softer ... as the apples become overripe and mealy, the soluble pectins are degraded into nonpectic substances.
Quoted from "The New Cider Maker's Handbook" chapter 12 "The Pectic Substances" by Claude Jolicoeur. (There's also apparently an entire book on this called "The Pectic Substances" by Z. I. Kertesz.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.825935
| 2018-03-07T22:35:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88197",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32523
|
What features should I look for in a fireplace grill?
I recently moved into a new apartment that is equipped with a wood burning fireplace.
I am very excited about this, not only because burning wood on a cool day makes the world seem simpler and awesome, but also because I am interested in the potential culinary applications.
First and foremost, I am interested in grilling. There seem to be a number of different ways to use an indoor fireplace as a grill. Given the limited space of my apartment-sized fireplace, what is the best solution to grill a steak, some veggies, or some hot dogs over my interior open flame?
What features differentiate the various styles of these devices?
Example image:
If anybody happens to be curious, I ended up not pursuing this project. My fireplace doesn't ventilate well enough. Even after a thorough chimney cleaning, much smoke ends up being sucked back into the apartment for some reason.
Your primary features should be:
Safe design. This means the unit should remain steady when engaged with the fireplace.
The ability to easily add and remove food from the cooking surface.
The ability to easily move the cooking surface closer to and further from the fuel source.
These are paramount. Your first priority is to do no harm, so you want a stable grill built for the purpose of hearth cooking that won't fall out of the fireplace and set your apartment aflame. The ease of use is also important (and is probably a contributor to overall safety), as you want to be able to control your cooking conditions without much complication.
As a secondary concern, I would want something that either had a rotisserie option built-in, or was rotisserie-capable. Also, I'd want maintenance to be simple. The default thought might be to go for cast iron, but you should consider that it will likely be facing temperatures that will kill the seasoning, and reseasoning could prove to be difficult. So it may be worthwhile to do some research on the best material to use for the long term.
Oof. I hadn't really considered cleaning. That part will be trickier on an indoor grill for sure.
@PrestonFitzgerald My usual trick is just dropping the grill over the flames, let it burn and then scrub out the carbonized grease with a metal brush over the (already dirty) fireplace
This won't be a direct answer regarding the grill, but a popular alternative:
Consider getting a cast iron dutch-oven and a wire/metal bbq basket instead.
Cooking over the open wood fire is akin to driving a rocket through a go-kart track. Most people burn the logs util they have have built up good amount of charcoal. At this point, you either bury the cast-iron pot in the coal or place the cage containing food over the charcoal and watch the magic.
a couple of small blocks of stone/brick propped on the desired side usually leads to the perfect height of the cage over the coal. Best part is that the cage and the pot fit in the sink for a quick cleaning.
here is a cross section picture of the cast iron pot in coals. From Modernist Cuisine, Nathan Myhrvold:
I'm pretty sure the idea with grills like this is to let the logs burn down to coals. At that point, surely for the sake of being able to reach in to add, turn, and remove food, it's good to have a grill, not just something inside a pot?
@Jefromi I'm referring something like: http://www.amazon.com/Onward-Manufacturing-Company-Non-Stick-Rotisserie/dp/B0000CGE87/ref=lp_3742141_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1362791332&sr=1-3 easier to 'reach in' if your whole set up can be removed from the fireplace. The cast iron pot is a different game from a grill and what you see in this Mondernist cuisine picture: http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/books/hopub/images/MC2.V181696785.jpg
I'm mostly a reader at this site, but in this particular case, as an Argentinian barbecue fan that used an indoor grill for many years, I feel somewhat qualified to spit out some warnings:
Use embers, not direct flame. The flame will burn your meat.
Temperature: you should be able to hold your hand for three seconds
just over your grill when cooking, no more, no less. You may use an
adjustable height grill or just adjust the amount of embers, as you
prefer
No greasy meats. They'll clog your chimney after some time and leave grease at your
fireplace floor (the smell is nice while cooking, but not afterwards)
Be sure your chimney works very well before attempting to use a grill indoors. The smoke smell may last for a week on curtains and mats
NEVER use it to cook fish unless your SO is a seal
(more on some desirable grill features later, need some spare time)
Do you know how much grease is okay? I ask because I know how nasty it is when it starts dripping down out of a stove hood, but I assume you don't find out you've overdone it until it's way too late.
Very thankful for your feedback. I was hoping someone with first hand experience would wander in. Thanks.
@Jefromi De-greasing a fireplace vent pipe (sorry I don't know the right word) is a one-time-in-a-whole-life experience. So I didn't allow any space for a second round. I mostly cook thin slices (faster) of very lean meat or poultry and veggies now.
This is actually making me kind of nervous. My fireplace vents fairly well, but not as well as I'd like. My apartment smells of wood smoke for days after burning a fire... which is fairly pleasant. But I imagine it would not be pleasant if it smelled like hot dogs for days.
@PrestonFitzgerald Well, my first mistake was with a trout. Just imagine ... :D
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.826071
| 2013-03-08T19:28:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32523",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dr. belisarius",
"MandoMando",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12455
|
How can I reproduce a "gamey" flavor?
I have fond memories of deer hunting with my uncle when I was younger... not only for the thrill of the hunt (as I'm sure most do), but also for the spoils: venison. Apparently, I was the only one of the kids who enjoyed the meat (I guess I have weird tastes?). It wasn't until recently that I identified the specific taste that I enjoyed: gaminess.
Anyway, it's incredibly difficult to buy venison where I live, and the prices on the net are unacceptable. So, that leaves me looking for a flavoring I can simply add to what I eat. Unfortunately, this has not been easy.
I have seen "liquid smoke" before (which I was told tastes exactly like how it's described), but nothing close to this.
Where can I find a "liquid game" or a similar sauce? Can I reproduce this flavor with other spices?
Your question is very interesting. I have never heard of "gaminess" before!
Can you get other types of gamey meat? Kangaroo, buffalo, moose, emu, ostrich, pheasant, even some types of duck? This, with the right sauce, might give you the richness you are after.
I would see if you can get your hands on blood, and use some of the offal from various animals to get some of that barn yard in your food. Liquid smoke definitely won't help anything though.
From a cooking perspective any imitation sauce or marinade is never going to deliver the quality that venison has to deliver. We have a massive deer farm close and the price is still ridiculous .
My suggestion is that you find a good butcher that will age beef for you on the bone ,or you could age it yourself if you have a climate control area to keep it at the correct temperature. Anything over 30 days on the bone will start to give you the gaming flavour you are craving. Nothing is going to match deer, but aged beef or really any type of cattle (eg buffalo etc) will give you the gaminess if it is aged. Restaurants are getting up to 180 days, which I could only imagine would melt in your mouth but the flavour would be intense.
Totally agree on aging. It's worth pointing out, too, that if you're going to make that investment in aging beef, you might as well start with a beast that's been grass-fed.
As a deer hunter myself, my most favorite part of the experience is the butchering. I enjoy having a knife in my hand and breaking down the big quarters into smaller roasts, chops, etc.
This is where I purposely cut out the gaminess. Gaminess comes from the fat. Venison is very lean, however, it does have some fat, especially in the rib section. Most people avoid the ribs precisely for this reason, too gamey. Yes, you can go in and cut around the fat, but it's just too meticulous. Cut out the fat, and you cut out the gaminess.
Hence, if you want to add gaminess, add venison fat, not beef fat. Beef fat will just make it taste better. To make it taste "wild", add "wild" fat.
Same for other wild critters, remove the fat, and you remove the gaminess. Keep the fat, and you keep that elusive "wild" flavor that you are after.
I also find it is nearly impossible to find venison. If you can find someone who hunts you may be able to buy some off them, I finally was able to find someone after asking some co-workers. Trying other gamey meats like bison or boar, depending on your local availablity may help but they really don't compare to venison.
Have you tried liver? it has a metalic taste which is vaguely similar and delicious.
Agreed on finding a hunter -- most of 'em would love to have someone take the meat off their hands, as it means they get to hunt more. (at least, the responsible ones who aren't willing to waste meat, so will only hunt if someone's willing to use the meat from it or there's a major reason to thin the population)
I would second the comment on liver. A gamey taste is generally associated with darker meats. Rabbit is a good alternative as a meat, but if you're struggling to find different types of 'game', then offal (i.e. liver, kidneys etc) is a good way to go
Beef can make a fairly acceptable venison substitute if you marinate it the same way you would venison. For example, juniper berries are a flavor I associate with venison marinade, so using them on beef gets me that "almost there" taste. It's never quite the same, though; sorry.
This is a good idea, although the venison I've had is rarely marinated in a unique sauce. Unseasoned venison jerky seems to have the most distinct flavor.
I basically agree with Burdon on Society's answer; aging is really important. But among the less specially raised and hung meats you might want to look out for hogget, mutton, or goat.
You might also check out the gamiest-tasting cut of beef: the Onglet, or Hanger Steak. It takes very well to marination, and yields a very flavorsome, open-textured meat when grilled or pan-fried.
The easy way without marination is to use a leg of lamb and lace it with bacon. Stick a medium wide knife blade through the meat and thread a rasher of bacon all the way through the cut. Repeat this 4 or 5 times or more for larger legs. Roast it in the normal manner surrounded by onions and peeled potatoes and peeled pumpkin. Sprinkle the meat with mixed herbs. The flavour of the lamb will be close to venison.
Adrian
Would you have any pictures of how this looks prior to cooking?
I would try to find unami flavors you can layer or mix. The flavor of meat is wildley based from not just the type of animal itself but what it eats and where. That affects the blood. Unami flavors with smokey flavors helps bring me back to hunting and smoking meats with my dad.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.826606
| 2011-02-22T01:35:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12455",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"JJ Caldwell",
"James Slagel",
"Joe",
"KimbaF",
"Matt Taylor",
"Mick Walker",
"Rasmus",
"Robin Betts",
"Ryan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lakers4sho",
"remembershirley",
"user25701"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22287
|
What is the difference between a poolish and a biga?
Both poolish and biga are pre-ferments. Poolish is a French name, biga an Italian term. What other differences are there between the two?
Just to give some direction: are there differences in making them? Can you both keep them as long? How does the dough feel with it? What difference does it make in the end result? Is there a difference in flavour/colour/texture?
I had to consult my copy of Bread Baker's Apprentice by Peter Reinhart to be sure, but here is a quote:
There are two types of firm, or dry, pre-ferments and two types of wet
pre-ferments. The firm pre-ferments are known as pâte fermentée and
biga. The wet pre-ferments are called poolish and levain levure.
...
Biga, an italian style of firm pre-ferment, differs from pâte
fermentée in that it doesn't have any salt in it. Also, rather than
cutting off a piece of finished bread dough to hold back as an
improver, a biga is made specifically to be used as a pre-ferment.
So, it seems the main difference lies in the hydration of the dough, where a poolish is made with a ratio of equal water and flour. There also seems to be a few other differences. A biga apparently uses .5 percent yeast to flour, while a poolish uses .25 percent.
Mr Reinhart does not say anything about a concrete difference in final result between these methods - just that a 'wet' pre-ferment is faster. Faster in the sense that in the same time-frame a poolish will develop more flavor and character than a dry pre-ferment.
Sadly I've personally only used a wet pre-ferment, since it is easier to handle. Just whisk it prior to bed time with a wire whisk and mix in the rest of the ingredients the next day. Having a full blown dough makes it more difficult to incorporate the rest of the ingredients.
Do you know anything about the difference in end results, particularly if the final dough has the same hydration either way?
@Jefromi I've added a little note about this in my answer, but the key note is that I'm not aware of any big difference.
For a given hydration, % pre ferment, enzyme development, technique, there should be no difference in color/taste. But many people swear by their favorite, probably because it works best for them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.827061
| 2012-03-15T16:12:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22287",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Engkus Kusnadi",
"Max",
"Optionparty",
"Wendy",
"aelin_s",
"clickbait",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50145",
"srk_cb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9256
|
How to make softer biscotti?
I made this biscotti recipe yesterday - Fruity Christmas Biscotti. It contains plain flour, baking powder, mixed spice, golden caster sugar and eggs. The recipe also calls for raisins, dried cherries and nuts which I substituted dried cranberries and white chocolate chips for.
I love the recipe but it was a bit hard - I know biscotti is supposed to be hard but is there any way I can make it chewier or softer? I'm really looking for an ingredient to add, or to change the quantity of something that is already in the recipe rather than storage suggestions like putting an apple in the box with the biscuits.
My kids love a similar recipe, but they also like them softer. What I do is reducing the second baking time by half.
Be aware that the shelf life of the biscotti is also reduced! ... Not a problem in my case since they don't survive more than two days ...
Edit
Some history:
Though modern biscotti are associated with the Tuscan region of Italy, the popular Italian cookie traces its origins to Roman times. The word biscotto derives from “bis,” Latin for twice, and “coctum” or baked (which became “cotto,” or cooked). The Roman biscotti were more about convenience food for travelers rather than a pleasurable treat for leisurely diners. Unleavened, finger-shaped wafers were baked first to cook them, then a second time to completely dry them out, making them durable for travel and nourishment for the long journeys—Pliny boasted that they would be edible for centuries. Biscotti were a staple of the diet of the Roman Legions.
After the fall of the Roman Empire in 455 C.E, the country was repeatedly sacked by the Visigoths, the Vandals and others. The people did their best to survive; there was no culinary development. But with the Renaissance, cuisine also flowered. Biscotti re-emerged in Tuscany, credited to a Tuscan baker who served them with the local sweet wine. Their dry, crunchy texture was deemed to be the perfect medium to soak up the wine (and how much more flavorful than dunking a donut in coffee!). Centuries later, many still agree that dipping biscotti into Vin Santo is a perfect way to end a meal, or to while away an hour at a café.
I use my regular biscotti recipe, and then I make a simple powdered sugar icing (1/2 cup powdered sugar to 1- to 1 and half teaspoons water, liquor or juice, depending on the flavor of the biscotti). I drizzle the icing on the biscotti, and let the icing dry just until the outside is hard enough it won't smudge, then store them in an airtight container. The moisture of the icing is just enough to take the hard 'crispy crunch' off the biscotti, while still getting a nice texture. I think of it as the perfect biscotti... firm and toasty enough to dip in coffee, but if I take a bit without dunking, it doesn't hurt the roof of my mouth.
I love baking biscotti and trying those made by my friends. Over time, I have tinkered with a few biscotti recipes. There is a fine line between making biscotti that are crisp versus biscotti that are hard. In general, I got a better texture (not as hard) by reducing the quantity of flour. To make the biscotti crisp, I slice them quite thin (about 1/4 inch) using a serrated bread knife.
Less cooking time is important for a soft Biscotti...Also when mixing make a soft dough that must be handled with a large spoon..Drop the dough batter one spoon at a time to form a long line of dough batter..Bake for twenty five minutes,,Remove from oven..Let cool then cut on diagonal...They are done at this time..Dont return to oven for second bake on each side,Bake only one time..
Couldn't you just shorten the cooking time (or lower the temperature) for one or both of the baking stages?
To make cookies chewier, try more egg yolks. For that recipe I'd consider substituting one full egg for two egg yolks. This adds fat, which inhibits gluten development and increases chewiness.
In general, though, if I was going for soft I'd not make biscotti. I'd make drop cookies.
You mean substituting two egg yolks for one full egg, right?
@Jefromi - yes, so it becomes 2 eggs and 2 egg yolks instead of 3 eggs in that recipe.
I make Biscotti all the time and for a softer version just cook them less time..I bake the log for 15 minutes at 375 F then remove from oven let cool.then slice put back in oven for just five minutes standing up...Remove and you are done!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.827281
| 2010-11-19T08:18:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9256",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Debbie",
"Fozzle",
"Huong Le Thanh",
"SANDY HOLEMAN",
"Speedobsessed",
"Surfy",
"agjacome",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19168",
"justkt",
"kathleen",
"pklz",
"user18925"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9894
|
What is the correct way to make "Brazil style" BBQ meat?
I'm interested in cooking some meat Brazilian style, like they do at those BBQ restraunts where the meat is served on trays in small slivers.
Is there an effective way to do this without a huge turning slow cooker thingy (sorry don't know correct name/terminology).
Not sure if there is a correct way. It's basically skewered hunks of meat on a wood fired BBQ
You can do your own Churrasqueira by using a Weber "kettle" style BBQ or a B.D.S. (Big Drum Smoker). Use long steel skewers (or swords!) for your meat and BBQ away
Thick steaks of beef and lamb work well. Also try chicken drumsticks and some small Chorizo (spicy sausage)
Don't marinate the meat, but toss some coarse salt onto the meat surface before and during cooking. Don't go crazy with it, but it seems to absorb the roasting flavours and really boost the taste
Use a smoky fire, if your wood won't smoke add some fresh wood or herbs that do. Try lavender bush (wood and flower), grape vine or kiwifruit vine cuttings, or any other fresh cut aromatic wood
Watch the amount of fat dripping onto the hot coals; too much will make the meat taste bad. Shield the coals as required or trim off large chunks of fat
There is no need for motorised skewers that takes the fun out of it. Occasionally turn the meat by hand while enjoying your favourite beverage, and "chewing the fat" with a friend
Serve by taking a skewer to the diners plate, and hold skewer nearly vertically above plate. Use an extra sharp carving knife and slice onto the plate with a downwards cut so juices and other slicing splatter goes onto the plate and not onto the diners
If you are having a Churrasco party, give each diner a flippable symbol (e.g. red/green) to indicate to the server (probably you) "GIVE ME MORE!", or "I am stuffed". Serve a round of each meat as their outer layer becomes done
Coolest Churrasco cooker I could find
The rails on the top are what the skewers rest on
Following the car theme, some more cool Churrasco cookers here http://autozine.com.br/inusitados/churrasqueiras-automotivas
I lol'd at your "cooker", but I bet it would produce the perfect flavour.
You only need to rub the coarse salt on the meat and then give it a good shake to remove any excess salt. NEVER add herbs or spices to the fire, brazilians only use charcoal made from wood or wood itself always keeping the flames at a minimum.
@Fábio 'Herbs' as in the whole woody plant. as in whole Lavender etc, which burns slowly and smoky
Step 1. Pull out your sword.
Step 2. Slice off hunk of meat...
...
To simulate the technique at home, I'd go with something along the lines of kebabs.
+1 for using humour with your cooking. It's important to enjoy the process.
That wasn't a joke. Don't you all have swords in the kitchen? :-)
@talon8 - yes, yes I do. Makes a good pizza cutter
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.828020
| 2010-12-08T21:34:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9894",
"authors": [
"Andrey Rubshtein",
"Anonymous Type",
"Ferenc Deak",
"Fábio",
"M K",
"Megha",
"Sunil Mehra",
"TFD",
"Tom Robinson",
"bobbyjoe93",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"mixsprouts",
"raam86",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9741
|
Are fresh, raw cashews different from store-bought?
I have a pen pal in Brazil (is it still a pen pal if we e-mail? anyway...) and knowing that I like nuts sent me some cashews. Apparently there is a cashew farm near enough to her that she went right to the source and procured me some raw nuts. I've eaten a few handfuls; the taste is a little more sharp than I'm used to, but in a good way, I have however had some serious discomfort after eating them. I'm not allergic to nuts in general or cashews specifically so I thought I would ask about it before ingesting any more. Anybody have any ideas or thoughts?
Nuts can go rancid. I've also had stale nuts, pecans or peanuts that were exposed to too much humidity. This adversely affects the texture. They need to be fresher than that.
Cashews, however, are in a slightly different boat. See Anacardium occidentale L.
Cashews have a toxin in their shells that resembles poison ivy. When harvested, cashews are roasted in their shells to reduce the toxin and make the shells brittle and easy to remove.
If these cashews were harvested by an amateur this process might have not been done correctly and you may be reacting to the toxin.
well yes i guess a toxin would cause me to have a pretty sever upset stomach, steaming it it.
Truly raw cashews are not safe to eat. The "raw" cashews in stores are actually slightly steamed.
http://www.wisegeek.com/are-raw-cashews-really-poisonous.htm
Roasting the nuts should neutralize the urushiol remaining in them (I'm assuming they're not still in their outer shells).
Also, technically, cashews aren't "nuts". It's the seed of a fruit.
that's great Bob, but if i had put 'cashew seed' then i would have gotten people saying 'do you mean cashew nuts?'
@boxed There's nothing wrong with saying "cashew nut", or "peanut", but cashews are still seeds and peanuts are still legumes. It matters when talking about safety, preparation, allergies, and other "technical" things.
This is roughly like saying "technically, tomatoes are fruit".
You can eat the fruit of the cashew off of the tree, called the "cashew apple" and it is supposed to be popular in places where it grows and has a mild sweet flavor, but it's never seen anywhere else because it's very soft and doesn't transport at all. In places where they grow, they are purportedly a popular as juice and an ingredient in smoothies in markets. If you do not have cashews growing where you live, you might be able to find cashew juice in bottles or cans.
The nut you cannot eat off of the tree because the shell contains urushiol and is usually removed by roasting them in fires (don't be downwind of these fires as they are irritating to skin and lungs--understatement). The nut or seed itself is quite safe once the shell has been removed, since it's only the shell that contains the toxin, but that is why you never find cashews to buy in the shell.
Most kinds of nuts and seeds are certainly better the fresher you can get them because the oils contain large amounts of mono- and poly-unsaturated oils which are subject to oxidation over time and become less tasty and less healthy after they are oxidized (go rancid). The exceptions being so-called tropical nuts/oils--palm and coconut--which are almost entirely saturated (contain almost no double bonds) and are therefore much less subject to oxidation/becoming rancid, and therefore keep better than other oils.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Wow, what an answer! Keep 'em coming!
And for those that don't know "urushiol" -- it's the 'poison' in poison ivy.
When visiting Costa Rica, my tour guide pointed out a cashew tree in a park with fruit on it. I asked if it was safe to eat and she looked at me funny and said, "Yeah, but I don't know why you'd want too." I took a bite of the apple and ate the nut. They were OK. for the rest of the day I had a burning sensation all around my lips like a hot chili pepper sensation. In general I have very low sensitivity to poison ivy, I used to remove the stuff from my yard bare handed before someone told me what it was. So I wouldn't recommend anyone eat truly raw cashews.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.828330
| 2010-12-03T13:45:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9741",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"Cascabel",
"Dan",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Edward Falk",
"Joe",
"Jonathan",
"ModelTester",
"boxed dinner",
"comeauch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80246",
"user19932",
"yu_ominae"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4600
|
Can evaporated milk be converted to sweetened condensed?
(Not a duplicate of this question, I don't believe)
If I have a recipe that calls for sweetened condensed milk but only have a can of evaporated milk, is there anything I can do to it to the evaporated milk to make it a suitable replacement for sweetened condensed milk? Does the heating / sterilizing of evaporated milk ruin it as a replacement?
You may convert evaporated milk into condensed milk by adding sugar to it. For each cup of evaporated milk add about 1 and 1/4 cups of sugar. Pour the mixture in a pan, stir while heating on the stovetop until the sugar completely dissolves. Let cool. The heating of evaporated milk is similar to the treatment condensed milk undergoes, so the evaporated milk with sugar should be a perfect replacement.
Fabulous, I was hoping it was that easy :) Cheers!
PSA: The link in this answer has rotted and was identified as a threat by Avast
You can make your own sweetened condensed milk with the following instructions.
In a sauce pan place 3/4 cup white sugar mixed with 1/2 cup water and 1 1/8 cups dry powdered milk. Bring to a boil and cook, stirring frequently, until thickened, about 20 minutes. You should get about 14oz from this. If you, instead, would like to convert evaporated milk to sweetened condensed milk, follow the instruction above, from Papin. Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Ann
I would add sugar and heat it up until dissolved.
This would be more helpful if you added specific details; note the quality of the answers that already exist.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.828733
| 2010-08-09T02:33:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4600",
"authors": [
"Alan Friedman",
"Nichols34",
"Oleksandr Novik",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"dissemin8or",
"eppdog",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8792",
"pyInTheSky",
"squillman",
"sturgman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129111
|
Maggots (?) in Katoomba Red Lentils
I cooked split red lentils and moong dhal both Katoomba brand. Both won't expire till Aug 2026. I did not add any spices, nothing!.
After boiling for about 45mins, I noticed black specks attached to white bits floating to the top. It's very unusual as I've cooked these before and never seen black specks at all.
I scooped out some on a glass bowl. Like to know if others have encountered the same. They look like maggots
Cooked Moong Dhal separately, was ok, looks like from Lentils
Separated the black bits from the floating bits, seemed hard .
I also soaked some of the lentils after about 18hrs see pic
Also cooked some from a freshly opened pack, yielded same result
Also did a search on google on lentil anatomy to try and understand where the black bits are from. Could someone shed some light?
I don’t know if those are specifically maggots, but it does look like some sort of insect got into one of your ingredients.
If you have any remaining, you might want to put them into a freezer or dispose of them (or cook it immediately if you’re willing to deal with the current level), to hopefully prevent it from contaminating other stuff in your pantry.
You may also want to mention it to whatever store you got them from. Some will offer a refund, but they also need to deal with it before they have cross-contamination, too.
Probably pantry moths - they love dry goods like lentils. Definitely tell the store; if they don't seem to care, either shop elsewhere, or if that's not a possibility, freeze everything you buy from them (lentils, pasta, flour, corn meal, etc.) for a week. You'll also need to deal with your current infestation - search this site for various questions and answers on the subject.
Could also be carpet beetle larvae - if they are covered in longish hairs, it'll be carpet beetles. These might come from the shop or your house, pretty common world-wide.
I separated the black bits and they feel like a seed, hard. See pics
I don’t know if that’s maybe some sort of insect cocoon (as it looks like the worm was coming out of something similar), or maybe small rocks or other debris that wasn’t sorted out. I don’t know if there’s a a better site to ask for identification… maybe biology or gardening?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.829016
| 2024-08-29T15:31:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129111",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Marti",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"user124724"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32715
|
Will flavors marry in compound butter if given sufficient time to rest?
Edit: I plan to actually do a blind taste test to put this question to bed and satisfy my curiosity. If anybody wants to beat me to it, please feel free.
If you make a salsa (for example) and store it in the fridge the flavors will marry over time.
Is the same true of compound butter? My hypothesis is that a compound butter that includes multiple flavoring agents (perhaps two different herbs) will taste essentially the same right after it has been compounded as it will after an overnight banishment to the refrigerator.
My initial reaction is that the magic that is helping salsa ingredients mingle is water (a solvent extraordinaire & excellently thin transport medium). Will butter insulate this wonderful exchange?
This Alton Brown recipe (http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/compound-butter-recipe/index.html) suggests chilling for two hours before serving. He's one smart cookie, so I tend to follow his lead, but is it worth waiting?
Image from another recipe here: http://www.thehungrymouse.com/2009/03/27/fresh-herb-compound-butter/
This will also depend on whether the compounds are fat soluble. Some flavors will likely work much better than others due to their solubility in fat.
If you leave the butter uncovered in the fridge, it will eventually pick up the tastes from everything else in the fridge. This really is why there is a special compartment for it. The compound butter has to do less work to infuse.
Our chef school teacher said they made their compound butter ~2-days ahead of the event so the flavours would infuse properly. The piece of butter I tried had no strawberries in it, but it sure smelled and carried the taste of strawberry.
I've even done the lazy-man's compound butter by rolling the butter stick in Thyme and stick it in the fridge.
Thanks. The bit about tasting a piece that did not have whole flavorant in it is just the kind of information I am looking for.
Yeah, it would definitely be worth waiting. Various plant compounds have varying ability to dissolve in fats and aqueous solutions, and this process is going to be slowed by putting the butter in the fridge (basic chemistry..virtually everything happens faster when the temperature is higher). However, prolonged high temperatures can also destroy some plant flavor compounds (anecdotally cilantro comes to mind). By allowing the product to rest for sufficient time you're going to get all those slow moving, barely-fat soluble flavor compounds mixed in nicely with the saturated fats in the butter.
I would even bet that sometimes the miscibility of two different types of herbs mean that the compounds would dissolve into each other as well, making for a delicious foodstuff.
Yes it is worth waiting. It's not just water that is a good medium for flavors, but fats as well and butter is just a big chunk of fat. A good example is herb flavored oil, the same process that distributes the flavor of the herb in the oil works in butter as well, and it takes time to work. So some will make your compound better. Many chefs advocate making compound butters and then freezing them, using them when needed, they say the butters just improve over time. Within limits of course.
never heard about freezing the butter. this is curious to me. i would think that the water left in the butter would trap some flavor compounds in its crystalline structure.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.829246
| 2013-03-15T19:45:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32715",
"authors": [
"Alisa",
"Brendan",
"Franck Lefort",
"JeanMi",
"JronCh",
"Preston",
"banjomonster",
"chalapathi dheeraj",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75863",
"user75606",
"wootscootinboogie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13297
|
Uses for radish and turnip greens?
Got a lovely bunch of radishes and turnips from the farmer's market, giant mass of greens included.
Can I use the greens for anything aside from compost? Are they edible? Worthy of salads? Stir-fry?
you can do a pesto with the green, replacing basil in the recipe.
The flavor of turnip greens is very much like mustard greens, just with a bit of the sharp mustard flavor removed. The grocery stores here often sell turnip greens right alongside the mustard greens - without the turnips, since presumably they're a slightly different variety, selected for leaves, not roots. These large leaves are probably a bit tougher than the somewhat smaller ones you're likely to have on your turnips. Incidentally, I see in On Food and Cooking that mustard greens are Brassica juncea, a cross between Brassica rapa (turnip, broccoli rabe, bok choy, napa cabbage) and Brassica nigra (black mustard) - so the flavor similarity is perhaps to be expected!
I use them pretty much as I would mustard greens, in a variety of things - as a standalone dish, in soups, in stir fries, you name it. Depending on your tastes, they might be too strong for salads, and they're also a bit tougher than traditional salad greens. Try a bite and see what you think - I expect if you use it in a salad, you'll probably want to mix it with milder things. To find more ideas, just search for recipes mustard greens.
Radishes are actually in the same family as turnips, and just like the radish itself, the greens have a sharper, perhaps peppery flavor. I usually just toss them in when I'm using other greens, to add a bit of zing. Have a bite of those too and I'm sure you'll decide that they could be an excellent addition to various dishes.
In traditional US Southern cooking, one of the more common places to find these greens, all the bitter greens get boiled forever, to make them extremely soft - but I find that I actually like them cooked more quickly, leaving a pleasant bit of texture. I also don't think they need much special treatment to counter the bitterness (as hobodave mentions) but I do admittedly have a higher tolerance for bitterness than many.
A couple example dishes that really let you taste the greens:
Curried Greens with Golden Onions and Cashews - it calls for spinach, mustard, and dandelion greens, but turnip and radish will work great too.
Turnip Greens and Potato Veloute - it calls for turnip greens, and mentions in the notes that radish greens work well too.
Turnip greens are a very common food in Southern US cooking. The smaller baby leaves are good for salads since they have a milder flavor and are more tender. Larger leaves are best cooked.
You'll definitely want to rinse them thoroughly in a sink full of cold water. They tend to have a lot of dirt and bugs on them. Just fill the sink and dump your greens in, jostling them around with your hand. This allows the sediment to sink to the bottom.
The typical southern preparation involves boiling them for 30 minutes, dumping the green water (and much of the bitterness), and then boiling another 15 minutes with some bacon or ham hocks. They are then drained, salted to taste, and served with either tabasco, vinegar (malt is good), or butter.
Radish greens are edible and can be used in salads, although they aren't to everyone's taste (my brother hates them). Or you can try them in a stir fry or cook them similarly to spinach.
I wasn't sure about turnip greens so I looked it up, and they're certainly edible as well! I'll try some next time I have some!
steam for 10-15 minutes + vinegar and/or (vegan) butter == yum! (i can't imagine cooking greens for 30+ minutes -- what would remain after so much heat?)
The Dutch traditional mashed potatoes with vegetables can also be done with radishes or radish greens. If you search on Stamppot you will find many recipes.
Boil the potatoes, crush them, add milk and butter or bacon fat or oil, cut the greens in slices and mix them through.
It can be done with all greens that have some or a strong flavor. Many vegetables will get cooked as well before being mixed in.
"Traditional" is likely a regional thing. Most Americans have never heard of it, but if you're in the Netherlands, "stamppot" is quite well known.
I don't know much about radish greens, but you can use turnip greens as you would collards or mustard greens.
Radish greens can also be used in soup, especially blended soups.
Unbidden, my garden produced a super-abundance of a wide variety of mustard-y and radish-y greens this summer: leaves with bold but not overwhelmingly strong flavor, hairy undersides and juicy stems. Determined not to put them in the compost pile, I first tried but did not enjoy the classic Southern US preparation with ham hocks. Shout-out to Vivian Howard and crew for acquainting us with the history and uses of "Southern" ingredients in "A Chef's Life."
In the follow-up series, "Somewhere South", Rakesh and Archna Anand prepared Saag Paneer using a variety of available greens. Saag is a "curry" of pureed cooked greens, while Paneer is home-made cheese for which you can substitute cheese curds (aka "squeaky cheese") or feta. (Note: Palaak Paneer, perhaps more familiar to non-Indian diners, is similar but uses spinach only.)
While the Anands started their Saag with a counter-top electric pressure cooker, the preparation continued on the stovetop for many additional hours. My summer was saved by a recipe at SpiceCravings that produces delicious Saag in a small fraction of the time using only the pressure cooker. My freezer runneth over with cup- and pint-sized pucks of Saag. Thawing a puck, simmering in an added vegetable or protein and serving over rice delivers a quick and satisfying meal.
Though not a vegetarian, I prefer to replace paneer with pan-fried home-grown potatoes cut into 1/2-inch cubes. (Home-grown = flavor; store-bought = bland) For reasons I can't explain, simmering the pan-fried potatoes in the "gravy" for 10 to 15 minutes produces a whole which is far greater than the sum of its parts. The flexibility of Saag with respect to greens, aromatics, spices and complementary simmering additions reveals it to be a kitchen MVP!
Callaloo is another delicious and healthy way to use large quantities of green leaves. Regional and household variations abound: some with coconut milk, different seasoning combinations, easily adapted to quick preparation in an electric countertop pressure cooker. Spinach, kale and my own garden's "mystery greens" all produce a delicious stew. It freezes well, so you can use up an abundance of a wide variety of greens to enjoy a burst of Afro-Caribbean sunshine when the snows fly!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.829583
| 2011-03-19T15:53:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13297",
"authors": [
"Chef Pharaoh",
"Claudia",
"Joe",
"Maccath",
"Max",
"Rod Cope",
"William Wells",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7582
|
How do you prepare bacalhau before cooking?
A specialty grocery store recently started to sell bacalhau (heavily salted cod fish). I am guessing that a recipe I have for baked codfish would work. Since it is so heavily salted, what should I do to prepare it for cooking?
For posterity, a recipe for Baked Codfish will NOT work.
This is not a simple question. You know that in Bilbao there are contests with trophies for cooking salted cod.
Basically it depends on how much salt (not how little water) there is in the fish. Here in Galicia and northern Portugal we usually soak it for 12 hours or so, changing the water once or twice. That will yield a slightly salty and tangy fish. If you don't like the salty edge and prefer it blander, soak it for 18 hours or so.
This answer is useful in the case you do not have much time (12 hours, or even days) to let the cod fish soak in water (put water, wait, change water, repeat). There is a nice trick to prepare it in less time.
Boil it with vegetables. Just that: put the cod fish and vegetables in water and boil them. One particular good vegetable at absorbing the salt is cauliflower. Well, actually, don't do this right away with the super-salty cod fish, it is worth to just soak it a few times with warm water (no waiting needed).
The boiling time depends on your taste. The longer the less saltier. After boiling it, in case it was not for long long time (i.e., the vegetables still have nice consistency), you can actually eat the vegetables.
One great way to do this is by adding vegetables that would complete the dish, so it is two in one, e.g., cauliflower, potatoes, broccoli, chickpeas (garbanzo beans). Enjoy.
Image source: www.soguima.com
Depends on the dryness of it.
Sometimes it's completely dessicated, which means you need to soak it for a couple of days, changing the water frequently.
Sometimes it's a bit moist and spongy, in which case you can shorten the soaking to about 24 hours, again changing the water frequently.
Or, you can just buy fresh cod.
The fish will rehydrate in a couple of hours at most; the long soaking is useful only to extract the salt from it. Also, I disagree with your suggestion to buy fresh cod in substitution: salted cod and fresh cod are two different things, like fresh apricots and dried apricots. They have different uses, they are used differently, and they result in very different dishes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.830087
| 2010-09-24T12:51:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7582",
"authors": [
"CesarGon",
"Drisheen Colcannon",
"Frobbit",
"FuzzyChef",
"John",
"Miz Tipples",
"falcojr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"jonmorgan",
"user15591"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7677
|
Cooking moose meats
Today, I'll be getting about 50 lbs of fresh moose meat. I suspect, it'll be an assortment of different cuts.
What are some of the things to consider when cooking moose?
Consider who you're going to invite to a moose cookout.
Since moose is always hunted the actual characteristics of the meat will vary. An old moose is tough moose.
It has a mild beef like flavor and can be used in recipes that call for beef. If it is a tough specimen then, as with tough beef cuts, stick with slow, wet cooking methods.
It is extremely lean. Some recipes, especially if using it as burger, may require adding some fat. Because it is so lean it works very well for jerky or smoking and that is my favorite use of it.
EDIT
My favorite, all-purpose jerky recipe copied from the comment:
3 lbs. meat, sliced thin (partially freezing makes the slicing easy)
1 T salt
1 tsp garlic powder
1 tsp onion powder
1 T pepper (I like coarse ground)
1/4 c. soy sauce
1/3 c. Worcestershire sauce
1/3 c. liquid smoke
Marinate in the fridge for 12 hours and then drain and dehydrate.
I've cooked moose and deer steak before, and I agree with the toughness variation. In terms of making jerky, I know we're not supposed to ask for recipes on this site, but can you guide me ?
If I were to cook moose I would have to try it at least once in mole. Can't pass up the idea of having chocolate moose!
Yet awesome. +1!
meat mousse doesn't even sound good.. ick.. haha
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.830312
| 2010-09-29T12:07:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7677",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"ceejayoz",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29560
|
How can you keep a stack of Swedish pancakes fresh?
I make Swedish pancakes for my family every Thursday, as per Swedish tradition. Fresh from the frying pan they are crisp at the edges and very slightly crisp on the surface where the batter has caramelised.
If I fry and serve while everyone else eats, we get to enjoy pancakes at their best. The disadvantage is that I don't get to sit and eat with my family.
If I make a stack of pancakes in advance, as I often do, most of the pancakes have become rather limp and lost all of their crispiness by the time they are served. Those at the bottom of the pile are also noticeably cooler.
Is there some way to serve pancakes en masse where each pancake is hot and crisp through to the last?
Convert to "Mexican tradition" and have tortillas; which are just great when not crisp :-)
You have this same problem with most fried foods that you want to serve fresh. Anyone who makes latkes for Hanukkah knows this problem well. So it's similar to this question What technique should I use to make latkes for a party so that I don't have to stay in the kitchen?
You can try what I do for latkes - I put them on a drying rack, sheet pan, skillet, etc. in the oven set at around 250°F. You may want a lower temp for Swedish pancakes, like 200, since they are less dense. They will not be the same as fresh from the frying pan, but they will stay warm and crisp.
For reheating, put them in a dry cast iron or non-stick skillet or in the toaster oven on 375-400 for 4-5 min, more or less time depending on thickness and initial temperature.
If you do this a lot you could also invest in a heat lamp/warmer set up like they use at fast food chains to keep the fries warm. Cheap one on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Home-HL100SV-Culinary-Heat-Lamp/dp/B0043M5N08
Many a Top Chef participant has been felled by this problem though - fried foods, blinis, etc. are never the same as when taken out of the fryer fresh, but they are still quite good out of the warm oven.
@Joe I tried out three suggestions yesterday: drying rack, sheet pan and rolled up in the oven at 100ºC. They dried out too much on the drying rack and became a bit tough. The sheet pan and rolled up pancakes were better but still a tad dry, rather than crispy at the edges. My wife preferred the ones from the sheet pan while I thought the rolled up pancakes had the edge. Not much in it though.
So I don't have a heat lamp. I do have an in-oven broiler, and I'm thinking maybe it would work to have the broiler on at a low setting and put the pancakes at the bottom of the oven. Might try this next Thursday.
Ah, very interesting, thanks for posting the results!
For American pancakes, my mom would always warm a plate or two in the oven, and then stash them in there as they were done cooking ... but American pancakes don't suffer as much from losing a crispy edge, and you'd run the risk of them steaming. You might be able to counter this somewhat by a clean towel in between them.
When I do dutch pannekoeken, which are really similar to swedish pannkakor (which I assume is what you mean by 'swedish pancake' and not plättar, as you mention 'stack'), I find that they keep their texture better if I roll them up as I make them, and then put the rolls on the plate in the oven. This results in more surface area exposed in the oven, and they won't steam quite as quickly.
The only other suggestion I have is that if you're not already -- cook two at a time. It requires getting the temperature dialed in correctly on both pans, but you basically coat one pan, then the other, wait about 30 seconds (depends on how dark you like 'em), flip the first, count to about 15, flip the second. (It might be possible for some people to do three at a time, but I only have two pans that are appropriate, and I wouldn't be able to fit a third pan that size on my stove) This might not work if you've got something else on the stovetop at the same time, but if it's pea soup, you could get that done earlier, and move it to the oven to keep warm.
I think your last suggestion is definitely the way to go, although I would have to invest in an extra electric ring and pancake pan just to have two on the go. Could be worth it though.
The other way is to make ungspannkakor, which you cook in a non-stick deep baking tray in an oven at 180, that way everyone gets to sit at the table and eat together. this is also delish reheated in a non-stick fry pan so you cook it in advance, reheat it and serve in in a spectacular pile in the middle of the table. for this you use the same recipe as you would for pannkakor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.830460
| 2012-12-29T20:52:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29560",
"authors": [
"AdamInTheOculus",
"Ahm987",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Dpur",
"Faatimah Dawood",
"Ninotchka",
"Shirlee Hayford",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76067",
"paul",
"user9015909"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3708
|
What can I substitute for Guanciale?
Guanciale is something I've never seen in the UK. What can I use as a substitute?
Or, alternatively, is there somewhere I can source this in the UK?
Note: I'm thinking of experimenting with an Amatriciana.
I'd never heard of that. It looks disgusting and sounds delicious. Wikipedia doesn't have the second n in the spelling though. Are there multiple spellings or is that a typo?
I think you're right.
Wikipedia suggests Pancetta which is another form of cured Italian bacon, usually without smoking. I think the primary thing you are looking for is cured but not smoked, as smoke will add a strong flavor that is completely missing in Guanciale.
Right: bacon cured but not smoked is ok. Even here in Italy, for us living outside the Lazio region, it's a little bit hard to find guanciale. I usually use fresh bacon, aka pancetta dolce, in preparing amatriciana.
And if you really can't get unsmoked bacon, you can blanch the bacon in boiling water for a minute or so--it removes quite a bit of the saltiness and some of the smokiness. Be sure to drain or pat dry the bacon after unless you're putting it in a dry pan--water left on the bacon can splatter if added to hot fat.
You could also try unsmoked rashers.
America's Test Kitchen recommends well rinsed salt pork as a substitute for guanciale in Amatriciana.
In Italy, Amatriciana is quite often cooked with pancetta cubes (smoked or not).
Here in the UK, if you can't find pancetta (easily found at Waitrose or Tesco), you can also substitute with lardons, bacon cubes or streaky bacon strips. The overall effect is very similar - however I suggest that you try guanciale if you can find it.
Pork belly! Very similar to guanciale, maybe slightly less fat.
There really isn't a good substitute for Guanciale, but it can be purchased online.
For example http://laquercia.us/cuts_specialties_guanciale_and_lardo_guanciale_americano.
Or in the UK http://www.nifeislife.com/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=guancial
Yes, you can substitute Guanciale with Pancetta cured Italian bacon but usually without smoking.
If you are in the UK you can be got it online, See the Balsamic Vinegar Recipes with Pancetta http://blog.vorrei.co.uk/balsamic-vinegar-recipes/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.830853
| 2010-07-29T17:43:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3708",
"authors": [
"CH81",
"Dog Ears",
"Escoce",
"From a Brit",
"Jeremy Kerr",
"Kristen Waite",
"MaD70",
"Maggie",
"MyDaftQuestions",
"SparrowG",
"bikeboy389",
"ento",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87947",
"kuzey beytar",
"vmd",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18223
|
How to do creme brulee 'to go'?
I used to sell desserts and baked goods - I'm thinking about 'reopening'. I would like to offer creme brulee as an option since its one of the more popular desserts when I make it for friends and family.
The problem is, I can't figure out how to make it 'to go'. I can't raise the price enough to give them a traditional ramekin. If I provide it in a styrofoam container, I can't blowtorch the sugar on top without melting the container.
I've already pretty much assumed I'll be cooking it in one container and scooping it into another to give to them. As such, I'm open to less traditional and more innovative solutions overall - mainly on how to provide it to them in a 'take out' container AND have the crunchy top.
Is there an established way to do this or does somebody have a simple solution that I'm overlooking?
Could you use some kind of 'heat shield', a plastic or metal ring of the same diameter as the container to protect the edges from the heat of the blowtorch? Kind of like a mask.
As I remember from chat, you sell to people you meet often. So use the established container deposit system. Buy cheaper ramekins (the small ones should be available for 1€ per piece or a little more), then include a ramekin deposit in the creme brulee price, and give them back the deposit when they return the ramekin.
@rumtscho Mostly I sell there, but not always. And I'd like to avoid container deposit things - they're not really established around here.
I've eaten from the creme brulee cart in San Francisco before, which is basically a food cart that sells nothing but. They're presented in one-serving disposable aluminum ramekins and the crunchy top comes from caramelizing as people order. I've seen similar in bakeries and restaurants that sell creme brulee to go. Presumably this is far easier than cutting up large batches or trying to come up with ways that don't melt styrofoam! :)
More pics from the cart: http://hoodscope.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/street-food-redefined-the-creme-brulee-cart/
Good deal...I was just researching this too actually. Seems painfully stupid now that I see it. Now to just find them at a reasonable price...
I think I'm going to try this to start http://www.ehow.com/how_6046047_make-ramekins-aluminum.html
That seems like a lot of work. http://www.kitchendance.com/foilcup.html (referenced on that ehow page) has the cups like the cart's in bulk, and they even have lids available. I'm sure you could shop around for more stylish options and find them at your local restaurant supply shop.
I saw that site and when I really run with it, I'll be using those. But right now, as a test run, I'll just be rolling ehow.com style since I don't have to order anything.
Alumminium melts at ridiculously low temperatures (660°C)! I wouldn't go anywhere near it with a blowtorch. Maybe the cart is making this with a grill.
@rumtscho: if you manage to get up to 660°C while toasting your custards, the melting of the aluminum will be the least of your worries.
@Marti Flames are hot. I have melted aluminium foil with a common paraffin candle. And metal conducts heat well, so if you hold both alu and sugar in a flame, the alu will be at a higher temperature at any given point of time. I don't know if it will reach 660°C before the caramel burns, but even if not, a mishap will end in liquid metal dropping on your counter, instead of just a bit of charcoal. Maybe there is a safe way to do it, but I wouldn't start the experiment in a kitchen.
@rumtscho: If you use a small kitchen torch it's really nothing to worry about it. White sugar caramelizes at 160° C so you'd have to really overdo it to burn the ramekin. If you want to be on the safe side, just do your work over a tray.
@rumtscho: The aluminum is fine. This is how we do creme brulee to go at the restaurant I work for, and we use a full-scale welding blowtorch. I've never seen the aluminum melt; the flame is always moving to get an even caramelization, and 660C is much higher than anything you want to subject the custard to.
I have succesfully burned aluminum with a blow torch (which I think you should use if you're making multiple creme brulees). Burning aluminum is probably not good eats (and toxic I think). That said, if you keep it moving, and are careful, you should be fine...
A sandwich shop in Madison, IN surprised me with creme brulee to go, in a styrofoam container. I bugged the chef to show me how he did it. Simple: he oiled the rim of a ramekin, sprinkled the sugar on top of the custard, then torched it. After letting it cool for just a few seconds, he carefully lifted the top off with a spatula and placed it on the styrofoam cup. It worked very well and he presented a wonderful to-go product.
I actually had creme brulee made inside an orange, once. It was hardly the best creme brulee I've ever had, but I don't think it was the orange's fault. They had cut a fairly large hole in the top and then scooped out the orange. Since it was a citrus and lavendar influenced version of creme brulee, I don't think they were too concerned about getting out every last bit of orange.
Use a ramekin sized so they are nearly 100% full when made
Use paper circles to line the ramekin to about the 3/4 mark. Use oil or other "glue" to make the paper stick smoothly to the ramekin surface. Then make the creme brulee as usual
Depending on how you caramelise the sugar, you might get away with oiling the ramekin edge (if using the under the grill/broiler method) to stop the sugar sticking, or just run a knife around immediately after torching it (blow torch method)
To dispatch; run a knife around the top edge down to the paper, invert with small silicone baking sheet or silicone dish on top. Replace ramekin with plastic dish of same size and re-invert
Let is cool somewhat before transferring to plastic !
If you could find a stainless steel milkshake-cup insert (the sort that you'd use to fill the milkshake cup without spilling while you whizzed it), and it sat 'just right' in your otherwise disposable ramekin, it might absorb the heat for long enough before it dissipated it to the plastic ramekin. (Aluminium would likely not work ... it transmits the heat too quick).
The coffee cup industry is innovating with edible cups (eg. https://good-edi.com/ has them as small as 6oz) which are (I think) the food version of compressed wood products, and are resistant to even hot liquids. I've never had one, but imagine it could be quite a nice textural counterpoint to a soft custard, and would probably stand up to the blowtorching, with probably-desirable secondary toasting of the rim of the 'cup'.
Maybe the width-to-height ratio is a little tall/narrow (which limits the surface area of the burnt sugar!) ... but maybe there is something on the market that will suffice? Or you maybe you could make your own 'cheesecake base' that erred on the 'bite hard to crack a piece off' end of the scale?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.831094
| 2011-10-06T04:30:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18223",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BobMcGee",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gail",
"Marti",
"VJV",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"janeylicious",
"marty",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"talon8",
"user3447961",
"user39379"
],
"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
}
|
115005
|
Ground Turkey "with natural flavoring"
I notice that Foster Farms brand ground turkey (in Calif, USA) is actually labeled "Ground Turkey with natural flavoring". I am curious what sort of "natural flavoring" Foster Farms has added to the turkey meat. The ingredients list is no help as it just lists the two ingredients: ground turkey and natural flavoring.
This product is not sausage. It seems to be just ordinary ground up turkey meat with no visible herbal particles or spicy looking speckles, etc. Does anybody have any idea what natural flavoring this might be, and why it would be added to ground turkey?
Would salt be considered a natural flavoring? OR do you think they might add MSG?
At a guess (hence not an answer) cysteine from some sources could be described as "natural". Sugar of some sort (easily called "natural") will react with the cysteine to produce a meaty flavour. You don't say wherein the world you are; if you did might be possible to look at what's permissible and likely
As for salt, you could look up the salt content per 100g on that and a similar product that doesn't say it's got added flavouring. But both can probably have added water and may nothave the same amount
@ChrisH, in most of the western world (at least the parts I have visited) salt is required to be listed if added, as are flavour enhancers (e.g. MSG). Natural flavours could be any sort of flavouring from a natural source, but I would suspect one to enhance the flavours, perhaps an oil from a herb or maybe something umami from say seaweed.
You could try ringing them and asking, I've found that CS reps are often are helpful if they can be.
@bob1 also most parts of the Western world I know, but we didn't know where the OP is, not even which continent, when I commented. Cysteine (especially combined with sugar) is used as a chicken flavour, which is why I suggested it, and it's cheap because it's made from waste products
@ChrisH - looks like edited to California, USA.
@bob1 probably in response to my comment (MSG was added at the same time). We have plenty of users who know far more than me about US food labelling, so I won't attempt an answer
stay away from this. Go to you butcher and ask them to grind turkey for you then and there.
Ground turkey has rosemary added as a preservative.
Effect of Commercial Rosemary Oleoresin Preparations on Ground Chicken Thigh Meat Quality Packaged in a High-Oxygen Atmosphere
I have wondered the same thing. It seems ground turkey invariably has rosemary. I thought maybe turkey had some funk that was countered by rosemary. But I could never taste the rosemary. It turns out it acts as a food preservative. I imagine that having "rosemary" on the label is more palatable to consumers than some chemical preservative name.
Yes, you are quite right. I e-mailed Foster Farms, and they have informed me that, "The Natural Flavoring in our Ground Turkey is Rosemary extract." From what you say, it sounds like they are using a "flavoring" compound in quantities where is isn't a flavoring at all, but a preservative ... what-ever, I guess, it's still rosemary.
From foster farms website-
What are the natural flavorings in Foster Farms ground chicken and turkey products?
Spice extractives of rosemary.
Please could you add a link to the source for this claim.
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
http://www.fosterfarmsandnewmansown.net/faq/quality.asp
FDA Says, Natural flavor:
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21: Natural flavor
(3) The term natural flavor or natural flavoring means the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional. Natural flavors include the natural essence or extractives obtained from plants listed in §§ 182.10, 182.20, 182.40, and 182.50 and part 184 of this chapter, and the substances listed in § 172.510 of this chapter.
A little more on "natural flavors":
Natural flavors are essentially anything you extract from a plant or
animal source; in contrast to artificial flavors, which are chemicals
originating in a lab.16 But despite being derived from a single
natural source, the resulting natural flavor complex buyers eventually
consume is far different from the derivative.17 In the end, the
flavors “are mixtures of chemicals obtained by applying physical
separation methods” to natural sources, and the result of a lengthy,
complex process.18 Once ready for consumption, these natural flavor
mixtures can contain as many as 250 chemically identified
constituents, some of which are artificial and synthetic.19Natural
flavors and the amalgamation of chemical constituents that comprise
the ingredient can often be found on the back of products labeled as
“Natural.” While there is much commentary online20 questioning the
naturalness of these “natural flavors,”
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.831785
| 2021-03-28T19:19:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115005",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Community",
"Lorel C.",
"Mark Wildon",
"Paul Gaines",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"njzk2"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1297
|
Can you reuse marinade used with raw chicken?
I marinated chicken a couple weeks ago, and stored the marinade afterwards in a jar. Can it be reused, or is that dangerous? I've been told conflicting stories here. The marinade is mostly teriyaki if that makes a difference.
Intended use of used marinade: Marinate chicken which will then be cooked in the oven. It will not be used with anything that won't be cooked (like a sauce).
Probably not twice!
How about if the marinade is put in the freezer? You'd think that, given that meats last many many months without spoiling in the freezer, a marinade with the same bacteria last similarly in there??
Most reliable sources will warn you strongly against reusing marinades because they can continue to harbor bacteria. Even though the second batch of meat will be cooked, there'll be lots of time for the bacteria to multiply in the meantime. (And given the symptoms caused by foodborne illnesses caused by bacteria like salmonella, the risk isn't worth the few cents you'll save on marinade.)
+1 for pointing out that "bloody runny poop" vs. "spend an extra $1" is a pretty no-brainer trade-off.
No! Do yourself a favor and avoid the advice of whomever or whatever suggested otherwise. Yes, it is dangerous. You have a jar of teriyaki flavored bacteria in your refrigerator. Yes, there's a fair chance that cooking the hell out of your chicken will kill anything deadly, but why on Earth would you take the chance?
Not only are you allowing the bacteria to fester, you are allowing it to fester in almost an ideal setting.
No, you can't, not without risking illness. Once you've marinated meat, you should dump any leftover marinade; don't even use it to baste roasting meat! (Reserve some marinade that has not touched the raw meat for basting purposes.)
Wait a minute. If the meat was just in the marinade, then basting with it is just fine. If the concern is that there is a build up of dangerous bacteria already,then the meat would have to be rinsed. If you use fresh ingredients and marinade in cold conditions, the marinade is perfectly fine to use to baste.
Marinades for meat/poultry/fish should not be re-used. Particularly if it was used a couple weeks ago.
The sweetness and saltiness of teriyaki sauce would likely make it more difficult for bacterial growth but it's still a health concern and definitely not worth taking a chance on.
What you can do is use a fresh marinade as a basting glaze AFTER you have brought it to a boil for a few minutes. Then use it to glaze your meat during the last 3-5 minutes of cooking.
When you've marinated meat in mixtures that contain a lot of sweet elements you want to first wipe off the marinade, pat the meat dry and then lightly coat with a little oil before grilling/broiling, etc. Bring the marinade to a boil and then brush on as a glaze during the last few minutes of cooking. If you cook the meat with a coating of the marinade from the beginning, the sugars will caramelize and burn and you'll have the meat sticking to the grill/pan. The result will be that it tears and leaves the skin/outer layer of meat stuck to the grill when you remove it.
@hobodave & @ceejayoz:
I'm not suggesting using the marinade that had been used several weeks back. What I'm saying is if you've marinated chicken for dinner tonight you can then pull the chicken out to start cooking it and then cook the marinade prior to basting.
I started that post by saying that marinades shouldn't be used more than once.
@ceejayoz: what waste products of bacteria are toxic? I've never heard this anywhere before so I'm curious about it; can you give me a source where I can read about it?
@Kevin Selker One of the most notable is botulinum toxin - Botox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_toxin
@ceejayoz But botulinum is anaerobic, so to my understanding it is only prevalent in canned foods; I don't think it would grow in a chicken marinade left in the fridge.
Food poisoning from E. coli is also due to a toxin.
@Kevin: Preventing foodborne is often caused by the toxins produced by the bacteria. If it was a case of simply killing the bacteria most spoiled items could be consumed by simply cooking them to a high degree. Cooking to a high temperature will kill bacteria but not the toxins they have produced. Staph, Clostridium Perfringens, and Costridium botulinum are most notable for producing illness from their toxins.
http://www.restaurant.org/foodhealthyliving/safety/foodborneillness/
@Kevin - RE: Botulism, Clostridium botulinum is most notably associated with canned goods. It however simply needs anaerobic conditions to grow and thrive. C. Botulinum is found in soil and in the 80's when flavored oils were the rage in restaurants there were several instances where illness was traced to oils containing garlic cloves that hadn't been refrigerated when not in use. The garlic was the source of the botulinum and oil produced anaerobic conditions. Left within the danger zone (40-140degrees) for extended periods it produced the right conditions for bacterial growth to occur.
Does the (same day) reserve marinade have to actually boil, or just reach the same temperature as the finished protein (i.e. 165 for chicken)? What's the difference between requiring a temperature for meat but a higher one for the marinade... or does it have to do with internal vs. external protein temperatures (external being significantly higher during cooking).
The minimum temperature it would have to reach to be considered safe is 165, same as for the chicken. The idea of boiling it however ensures that it has been brought up well above that temperature without any need to take the temperature of the marinade. If it boiled, or even came to a a simmer for a minute or two, then you'll be fine. Easier than messing with checking the specific temperature.
If the marinade has been in contact with raw chicken, dispose of it. 83% of raw chicken in the US harbors campylobacter or salmonella.
Link doesn't work here—brings me to their main food page.
The link is old. Similar: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/january/food/chicken-safety/overview/chicken-safety-ov.htm
The question you need to ask yourself is would you have used the chicken you marinated today? The bacteria on the chicken is now combined with the marinade and I assume from the post that the marinade was just sat in the fridge. I don't think that anyone would feel comfortable using raw chicken that has been sat there for 'a couple of weeks'. I think anything that has come into contact with raw meat should be treated as if it is that meat, if you wouldn't cook and eat the chicken now, don't cook and eat the marinade.
"anything that has come into contact with raw meat should be treated as if it is that meat" I usually follow this idea. Thank you for your answer, it sounds like one I could go with.
Yes, providing you boil the marinade immediately after you remove the chicken from it and then store it either frozen for ~3 months or in the fridge for ~1 week. Any bacteria in the marinade will be killed off from the boiling and, if there were any bacterial byproducts in the marinade, well, they're also on the meat you just took out of it so you have more problems than your marinade.
A few minor problems with this: boiling kills most (not all) bacteria, and if there are sufficient bacteria, boiling may kill most of the bacteria, but will leave anything they produced behind (not good eats). Also: boiling can change the flavour of a marinade, depending how long it's on the fire (herbs especially).
As I said, if there's byproducts in the marinade, then there's byproducts in the chicken you need to worry about.
If the marinade is boiled after marinating the chicken with it then it can be used as a sauce without issue. But I would not store the marinade after basing raw chicken and try boiling later. Boil for about 3 - 5 minutes.
If it touched raw meat, it is raw meat. Would you eat two week old raw chicken?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.832233
| 2010-07-17T02:57:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1297",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"Chadwick",
"Darin Sehnert",
"David Ly",
"Jay",
"JeopardyTempest",
"Joe",
"Jonathan Banham",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Mike Sherov",
"Ocaasi",
"Prasanna Jeldhi",
"Rick",
"Rolf",
"Shalmanese",
"W3Max",
"Wim ten Brink",
"ceejayoz",
"d91-jal",
"derobert",
"goblinbox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"kevins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1346
|
How do you prepare a rabbit?
A family member gave me a couple rabbits to cook and I'm not sure how to prepare them. I'd prefer something on the smoker or grill. Do I marinate, rub, brine? I'm just not sure how to prepare it.
How'd they get the rabbits? I've often wanted to cook some rabbit myself, but living in Chicago I can't exactly trap them easily.
What's a "smoker" A smoke room?
@hobodave Our grocery store here sells D'Artagnan brand rabbits. http://www.dartagnan.com/51337/Farm--Raised-Natural-Rabbit.html
I got the rabbit from my brother in law who went rabbit hunting.
I found a page with several links about grilling rabbit that you might find helpful: "http://www.slashfood.com/2008/06/13/extreme-grilling-rabbit/".
I can't tell you what to do but I can tell you one thing not to do: don't chop up the bones, they're very brittle and if you do you'll end up with little shards of bone all over the place; especially bad if you make a rabbit stew; joint the bones instead.
You need to be careful to make sure it doesn't dry out, as they generally aren't particularly fatty. If you joint it so that the pieces aren't too thick, or splay it out well, you should be able to grill it so you get a good taste on the outside and cook all the way through before it goes dry. Marinading can help, although I just like rabbit rubbed with salt and pepper.
I've not used a smoker before, but I suspect you'd have to leave the meat in their for too long to get a good smokiness, so that may not work.
I've made rabbit pie before, with sausage meat and rabbit mixed together, which worked rather well.
Cook it using any chicken recipe. Used to make fried chicken for my kids using rabbit. Also jambalaya and stew. We all loved it.
If making rabbit stew, soaking the rabbit in salted water before disjointing it will make it easier to prepare. Also cooking it slowly, at a low to medium heat will keep the meat tender. If cooking from a whole rabbit, once the rabbit has been gutted the insides should be cleaned with vinegar and it should be thoroughly rinsed. Marinating it will also keep the meat tender.
I'm not sure but I think smoking it would dry it out too much. Stewing works best ime, but if roasting it it needs a lot of basting and checking to make sure it's not drying out.
Rabbit is pretty lean, so you'll need a slow wet technique.
I've made a great Spanish rabbit stew, which is basically rabbit joints, tomato sauce and about 2 cups of dry cured olives.
I'll look up the recipe and edit tomorrow.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.832910
| 2010-07-17T05:22:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1346",
"authors": [
"Breakthrough",
"Fanzoo",
"Iuls",
"James Sutherland",
"LanceH",
"Mast",
"Pram",
"Pulse",
"ceejayoz",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"kmiyashiro"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14381
|
What's the correct temperature to prepare confit cod?
I've been cooking confit cod at 40°C (104°F). Once it reaches 40°C, I keep it for about 5 minutes and take it out of the oven. However, the thinner parts of the cod lose more moist than the thicker parts.
Is it safe to prepare cod at that temperature (I am referring to salted cod)?
Can a lower temperature produce a better result (for both the thicker and the thinner cuts)?
I'm not happy with the result I'm getting. I probably have to lower the temperatures even further... However, I do notice the cod spoils 'rapidly' after cooking. After about two day in the fridge (below 5ºC) I had to throw away some leftover cod.
The official position of the USDA is that all fish must be heated to 145°F (63°C), else it is considered undercooked. In practice, most people don't do it, because fish is terribly overcooked at this temperature, and they seem to mostly live through it without ill effects. With salted fish, there is even less actual risk of foodborne illness. Still, I don't think that anybody will assume the responsibility to tell you that it is "safe" when the responsible officials say it isn't. You are taking a risk, but none of us can quantify it or tell you if it is justifiable. Food science books often recommend preparing fish at temperatures lower than 63°C, but include a disclaimer that this is against food safety guidelines.
A lower oven temperature can definitely produce a better result for your problem, because slower, more gradual heating means that you have a lesser heat gradient within the piece of fish. This means that the thin parts will overheat less in the time the center of the thick parts reaches 40°. However, this will only alleviate the problem, not eliminate it completely, unless you go for a very low temp cooking method like sous vide. If the lower oven temperature isn't enough for you, you might try other tricks to eliminate the problem, like changing the shape (e.g. by creating rolls of fish).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.833140
| 2011-04-27T16:49:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14381",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3730
|
Filtering home-rendered lard
I recently rendered some lard at home from some pork fat I bought from a nearby Mexican grocery store (Mi Pueblo in San Jose). The lard is delicious and I'm glad I made it, but I wish I knew how best to make it "cleaner". It's not very light-colored now that it's chilled, and I can see some burnt pork solids left it it. What's the best and easiest way to get my lard nice and clear?
Are you using cheesecloth, and worried because the finer particles get through and settle out? Or are you just running it through a sieve and seeing small cracklings still floating in it...?
I'm seeing tiny dark pork particles and I want nice clean clear creamy lard.
If you have burnt pork solids, that suggests to me that you rendered over heat that was too high. You might have better luck with extremely low heat
For applications such as these where I really want a fine strain, much more than any of my strainers can handle, I line a larger-hole strainer with cheesecloth (if I have trouble with the cheesecloth staying I use a rubber band to hold it in place).
Although I have not tried it with rendered lard, I have used it in a lot of other places (stock immediately comes to mind) where I have a lot of little particles that make it through my finest of strainers. A quick search for a lard/cheesecloth/strainer keyword combination shows that a lot of recipes for home-rendered lard seem to suggest this so I think it would work.
You can find a picture of a cheesecloth-lined strainer here or just Google image search it if the link dies.
Oh, and as an aside, I find that purchasing the cheesecloth in bulk at a fabric store (such as Jo-Ann Fabrics in the USA) is much, much cheaper than buying small packages in a kitchen store (such as Williams-Sonoma).
I've never seen cheesecloth at fabric stores (but admit, I haven't been looking) ... but I know you can get muslin, which will work as a decent substitute (but because of the tighter weave, it won't drain through quite as quickly ... but it'll stain out the small bits really well) In a pinch, I've also been known to line a strainer with paper towel, you just have to be patient, and careful to make sure you don't tear it or you have to start over.
The cheese cloth works great as others have stated. For small amounts at home like beacon dripping and such, save them in a mason jar. When about half full or so warm up the jar until the dripping are all liquid and kinda clear looking. Add hot water and put the lid on the jar and shake it real good. Flip upside down and set in frig over night. The solids will fall to the bottom, after the overnight in the frig, open pour water out and “rinse” the exposed lard off with warm water. Repeat as needed. Finished product will be clean white lard!
very clever solution
At Asian grocery stores you can find a variety of very fine-mesh sieves and strainers. I have a couple that are fairly broad and shallow, and in my meat-eating and fat-rendering days I used to use those to get the fat pretty "clean".
Restaurant supply places sell bigger strainers (generally under the uncomfortable name "China cap") with very fine mesh, and that might work. Thing is however that you don't necessarily want a lot of volume in the strainer, as the fat has to stay hot and liquid or else you're in trouble.
Use a cheese cloth. It's a pain to clean but it's absolutely worth it. If the lard isn't snow white, you may be cooking it at too high a heat or for too long. If the pork flesh burns, then the flavour leaks into the rest of the fat. Make sure you're also cutting out any obvious bloody and meaty bits, and that you're getting leaf lard specifically, as sometimes places will refer to pork fat in general as lard. If it's not leaf lard, it'll usually come out coloured and "pork-y".
I render my own lard semi-regularly with my partner. We put our lard through a meat grinder, slow cook it over most of the day on low with a cup of water (to reduce uneven cooking and burns before the fat renders) and the lid cracked open (to prevent the heat from getting too high and burning the flesh), then we use a fine mesh stainless steel sieve lined with cheese cloth to strain it, resulting in snow white lard with no visible impurities. We also then put the remains back in the slow cooker, and let it go on high for a few more hours to squeeze out the last of the fat, which we then store separately for use as a much more savoury fat. The leftover crumbly meat bits also makes for a great meaty filler in various foods.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.833327
| 2010-07-29T21:00:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3730",
"authors": [
"FindOutIslamNow",
"JavaAndCSharp",
"Jeff Martin",
"Joe",
"Laura",
"Luciano",
"Shog9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"moscafj",
"nohat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7375
|
Basque cod with sous-vide
I recently cooked bacalao al pil pil, a Basque recipe. The trick is to render the gelatin from the fish at a low temperature, reserve the fish meat and then mount the gelatin with oil. The whole process is somewhat longer.
The question is that codfish has a thick part and a thin part. So over/under cooking is always a problem. That's where I thought of the sous-vide technique. At what temperature could the fish be perfectly cooked and at the same time release all the gelatin?
Per this paper, you want an extraction time of 15-60 mins at 113F / 45C. This patent uses temperatures below 131F / 55C. Both of those temperatures may be too low to make the cod actually taste good / cooked. 140F is a fairly typical temperature for sous vide fish. While 113F has some interesting results, it may or may not work for your dish as the result comes out quite different than standard cooked fish. However, I don't think that using a higher heat will have a negative effect on the gelatin extraction, so I'd start with 140F and work down from there.
This process may cause other problems though. In addition to extracting the gelatin, any other juices from the fish will mix with your gelatin. In a pan, these may steam off, but with sous vide you're stuck with them. I think you're likely to end up with a mixture that's much more watery than if you used a pan. You may find that this needs to be boiled down a little bit in order to get the desired consistency of your emulsion.
As always with sous vide, you've also got potential safety issues. You'll never reach pasteurization at 113F. You should check Douglas Baldwin's A Practical Guide To Sous Vide for cooking times (which are highly dependent on width).
Your link doesn't work, but the logic sounds good.
@GUI, Wow. I fubared those links bad. Thanks to google search history, I managed to fix them.
Salmon mi-cuit is cooked as low as 108F per Douglas Baldwin but this is a "fast" cooking technique that requires only 15-20 min cooking max which is not long enough to render gelatin.
You can render gelatin safely from skin and bones (or whole fish) sous vide for longer periods of time at any temperature at or above 131F.
I would consider rendering the gelatin separately for a long period of time, reserving it, and putting it back with fish possibly done at a lower temperature (depending on what level of doneness you want).
FWIW, the Douglas Baldwin section on Salmon ‘Mi-Cuit’ has a number of interesting tips on low temperature sous vide for fish.
Edited excerpts from: http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#YTSalmon
Salmon ‘Mi-Cuit’ - Douglas Baldwin
While salmon mi-cuit is a popular among sous vide enthusiast, it
should never be served to immune compromised individuals. The low
cooking temperatures in this recipe are not sufficient to reduce the
number of foodborne pathogens or parasites. Since the prevalence of
the parasite Anisakids simplex may exceed 75% in various types of
fresh U.S. commercial wild salmon (National Advisory Committee on
Microbiological Criteria for Food, 2008), I recommend either freezing
the fish (below –4°F/–20°C for at least 24 hours) to kill the
parasites or pasteurizing the fish using the times and temperatures in
Table 3.1.
. . . . . .
Set the temperature of the water bath to 108°F (42°C) for rare salmon,
122°F (50°C) for medium--rare salmon, or 140°F (60°C) for medium
salmon. Then prepare a 10% salt water solution (100 grams salt per 1
liter cold water).
. . . . . .
Cut the salmon into individual servings and vacuum seal. For rare and
medium-rare salmon, cook the salmon for 15–20 minutes. For medium
salmon, pasteurize it for the time listed in Table 3.1. Then remove
the salmon from its pouch, garnish with crisped salmon skin, and serve
immediately.
I realize they are different fish but the food safety issues with them would be roughly the same and they have similar protein structure as well. Probably one of the important thing to note is that 131F temperature -- if you are below that temp, you don't want to sous vide fish longer than 20 min. Any of the methods I've seen that extract gelatin at a lower temperature over longer time use acid, lye, or other additives to keep bacteria from multiplying.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.833805
| 2010-09-16T14:42:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7375",
"authors": [
"Adisak",
"BaffledCook",
"Cry",
"Lina Kennedy",
"Manuel Ebert",
"Navid777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"user15123",
"weima",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85302
|
Making Carbonara in Canada; what kind of cream should I use?
I was making Carbonara today: bacon was getting crisp, tossed a bit of chopped shallot, some butter, till it was time to add the cream.
The closest I found at the store was half-and-half.
In front of my eyes, the cream broke - I'm still grieving for that bacon.
What went wrong? Is that the wrong kind of cream? was my temperature too high? how is the cream I should use called in Canada ?
thanks!
Folks, there are plenty of versions/variations of carbonara that do include cream, and the OP is making one of those versions and asking for help with it. Let's focus on helping out with that, not legislating what dishes can be called carbonara.
OK. Is a suggestion of "if nothing else helps, try whisking the cream with a bit of cornstarch before adding - not too much or you are going to end up with imitation custard!" going to get me killed? It certainly helps in a lot of "XYZ breaks under heat" situation...
@rackandboneman I'd be super happy if you posted it as an answer, and if anyone grouches about it being nontraditional, feel free to flag.
@Jefromi I am always careful about posting things-to-try-that-might-or-might-not-solve-the-problem as answers, and this was no more no less...
"Authentic" carbonara does not have cream. It's made with just guanciale, egg (yolks and whites), pecorino romano, and black pepper. Thanks to @GiuppeP for the clarification.
However, at least in the US (and, it appears, Canada) there is tremendous variation to what folks call "carbonara". What is more relevant to the question is technique. Whether you choose to use cream or not, in either case, add egg white and cheese (or cream, or half and half...) gradually, and more importantly, off the heat and with some added pasta cooking water. There is a bit of a knack to achieving the proper consistency. If it breaks, no sweat. It might not look pretty, but it is still fine to eat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.834414
| 2017-10-28T23:13:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85302",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29351
|
What is the best way to toast pecans?
Amongst other things, I'm making a chocolate & bourbon pecan pie for Christmas in my capacity as family pastry chef. The recipe calls for toasted pecan halves.
What is the best way to toast nuts evenly? I assume a low oven is best to avoid scorching, but what temperature and for how long?
Good question. I usually just toss them around in a big fry pan until they smell good.
An oven is the way to go.
Toasting on a frying pan is a pain because you have to stand there shaking it for so long and it is far to easy to scorch if you pause.
I have seen some recipes call for low oven temps but I use 350F (175C) for 10 to 15 minutes stirring a few times. Some sources online recommend as low as 5 minutes but I personally have not ever had them done that quickly. They still have to be checked or they will burn.
I like to use my toaster oven because it heats up faster and is cheaper to run.
I have used an air popcorn popper with good results. Don't overfill it and remove them when they smell nutty. It goes very fast but you have to do them in batches if you have many.
For a pie or other sweet applications, I like to toss the nuts in butter and brown sugar and let them candy in the oven. The fat makes it harder to burn them. Obviously this won't fit for all recipes.
I personally have not had good results using the microwave. Some people swear by it but it seems to me to make them a little gummy.
I tend to go with the oven, but I also keep a second sheet pan ready, so that I can dump the nuts on there to cool one I pull them from the oven, to minimize carry over burning.
Thanks. I don't have a microwave, but I don't think I'd consider using it if I did. And a good idea Joe re. a cool sheet pan to arrest the toasting process.
My recent experience with nut-toasting gave a temperature and time recommendation with the following added advice: " . . . until fragrant"
That made a world of difference because in my case (almonds), it took several minutes longer than the stated time and it was definitely worth the wait. The cookies made from the toasted almonds were voted best of the cookie exchange.
While ovens, cookie sheet materials and nut piece size and shape may vary, the "until fragrant" tip was something I can depend on (assuming I do not have a stuffy nose!)
I go with an oven, but at 250 degrees. And my experience with toasting all nuts is that they can go from toasted to burnt very quickly, so check on them and remove promptly once toasted.
Just a couple more tips
oven toasting in a preheated dark heavy skillet evens out the toasting.
single layer with no corners (they burn first). Ideally, a donut shape on pan: the center ones get plucked out and moved to edges
under grill (UK) or broiler (U.S.) gives a much more accurate visual sign of browning vrs the black-on-the-bottom bottom heat. Just watch through glass front with door cracked open for sniffing.
I only toast one side as they are fairly flat and that seems enough toasty flavor for further baking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.834622
| 2012-12-20T21:33:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29351",
"authors": [
"Aubrey Smithwick",
"Cesar Bielich",
"ElendilTheTall",
"George",
"Joe",
"JoeFish",
"Nona",
"Old Gin",
"autopoietic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"user307380"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42650
|
Is Yellow coloring inside a fish normal?
I recently purchased a Bronzini fish from a local market.
From the outside it looks great.
But on the inside, a portion of the fish is a mucusy yellow
The other side looks normal whitish/pink.
I was curious if the yellow coloring is normal or something to be concerned about.
Thank you kindly.
This article indicates that it's probably gall bladder bile:
The gall bladder [...] sometimes [...] breaks even when you are cleaning the fish very carefully and close to the skin. If the gall bladder is broken, the greenish yellow biliary fluid pours immediately out into the inside of the fish and starts to absorb into the meat. The meat becomes bitter.
[...] see if the fish is greenish yellow on the inside or not. If it is, then quickly take a piece of paper towel and wipe it off; if it has already started absorbing into the meat, use a filet knife to cut off the part of meat that has turned yellow.
So, it looks like the gall bladder broke and stained some of the meat. If this is the case, cut the yellow bits away, and the rest of the flesh should be fine.
Good call. I think you are spot on. I cut out the yellow stained portion of the fish and ate the rest. 4 hours into it, vitals signs are solid :)
Yes, that's the gall bladder fluid. It won't kill you but it tastes disgusting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.834919
| 2014-03-11T01:02:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42650",
"authors": [
"Brock L",
"Daniel Chui",
"Dragonflyy 000",
"George Jester",
"J.J",
"Mindy Lipson",
"daddypigg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99666",
"moniefahrenkrug "
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92294
|
Is there any difference between wholewheat pasta and wholewheat sphaghetti besides the shape?
I'm asking about the plain food as you would buy from the shop which has no extra ingredients. It seems to me they are both pure wheat just in different shapes. Is that correct or has one been processed more than the other in any way which may have caused nutrient loss?
You could read the nutrition on the package.
Spaghetti is a type of pasta. "Pasta" is generally used as a generic term for Italian noodles; you can see more shapes of pasta here. If the ingredients are the same, the processing is likely the same––most dried pasta is just flour and water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.835071
| 2018-09-16T15:07:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92294",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88359
|
How do I replicate the taste of prepopped movie theater popcorn?
To clarify, I'm not asking how to make popcorn that tastes like movie theater popcorn (which typically comes from a popper), I want to know how to make the bad pre-popped popcorn that small theaters sometimes sell.
It's hard to describe the flavor, but it was almost this hint-of-mustard salty taste with semi-stale, but large and uncannily round kernels. The closest I've found (and it is close) is the plain popcorn that comes in those tins. My guess is that there's a preservative used that's imparting a taste.
Any ideas?
I'm not familiar with popcorn in tins, are the ingredients listed on the tin so you can see what likely candidates might be?
You might try experimenting with different butter flavored popcorn oils. Maybe start with the cheapest one you can find that contains coconut oil. In my opinion, that makes popcorn taste a lot more like the pre-popped stuff. Don't forget to add a generous amount of salt.
Also: Fake butter flavouring, based on artificial/isolated diacetyl - which is a hazardous substance in undiluted form btw :)
There's a different variety of popcorn used for pre-made popcorn, as it comes out more spherical and thus less prone to breakage once it dries out. I've always seen it called 'mushroom popcorn'.
I've never made it specifically, so I don't know if the flavor is something to do with the variety of popcorn used, or if it's something added to the popcorn before storage.
I've also seen it called mushroom popcorn, I recently saw it in an online store specializing in popcorn varieties - so it is available here and there, if one looks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.835163
| 2018-03-15T06:09:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88359",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"mrog",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
175
|
Is there an alternative to condensed milk?
In Denmark we don't have condensed milk in our regular stores and I've actually only seen it in an UK-import store a few years ago. Is there an alternative to it or can you craft it with regular cooking equipment?
Is that sweetened condensed milk or evaporated milk? If one is talking about condensed they usually mean the sweetened stuff, but occasionally they mean evaporated instead.
I'm not sure to be honest, the recipes I've been looking at only says condensed, like in a toffee topping on a pie.
If you're making something sweet it's almost always sweetened condensed.
SuperBrugsen which must be considered a regular store carries Nestles condensed milk. However you may need to ask for where they put it - in my local SuperBrugsen it sits on the shelve with turkish goods.
I've seen both SuperBest and SuperBrugsen carry condensed milk - if your local store does not carry it, ask if they can order it home for you.
Seems like it's becoming quite available in danish stores these days, I guess it's after people started spreading out into icecream and toffee recipes.
Along with turkish, you might try the East Asia food section as it is used to make http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_iced_coffee
To make sweetened condensed milk:
The best make-your-own version is to
mix 1 cup of evaporated milk with
1-1/4 cups of sugar in a saucepan,
heat and stir until the sugar is
completely dissolved, and let cool.
If you don't have evaporated milk on
hand either, you can make your own by
slowly simmering any quantity of milk
in a pan until it reduced by 60%, and
then adding the sugar.
Source: http://www.ochef.com/125.htm
Another recipe that sounds like a lot more work and uses powdered milk: http://www.ehow.com/how_4903555_make-condensed-milk.html
Evaporated milk is...? (unknowing dane here :))
Evaporated milk is milk that has had some of it's water content removed (by evaporation or cooking it off, slowly).
You could also make condensed milk from regular whole milk. Just cook down the milk (whilst stirring constantly to stop the milk sticking and burning) in a heavy bottomed pot until it loses about a quarter / a third of its volume, then add the sugar.
One recipe of mine has peanut butter as a substitute for sweetened condensed milk but I don't think this is appropriate for all recipes. It is convenient, as I always have some peanut butter in the pantry.
I would guess that it is a very small subset of recipes which will work with this kind of substitution.
Mix 2 1/4 cups of blue milk and 1/2 cup of sugar. Mix.
What is blue milk? Googling provides no reasonable hits.
@SAJ14SAJ Wild guess: 2% milk, since I think it's the one most commonly sold with a blue label?
@Jefromi I had no idea there was a convention for that--but it would be regional, if it exists, I think...
My guess is it's regional. Where I live evaporated milk is usually labelled in blue. But googling it with its English name shows many cans with red labels.
In the UK, blue-topped milk is full-fat. I assume that's what gemma means, as to the best of my knowledge most condensed milk is made from raw unskimmed milk. For completeness: green is semi-skimmed ("2%"), and red is skimmed.
Condensed milk and evaporated milk have the same consistency (almost) simply because both of them are made by the same process of evaporating 60% of the water content but the similarity ends there. Because sweet condensed milk contains added sugar you cannot substitute condensed milk for evaporated milk.
Evaporated milk is not as sweet as condensed milk.
This has some good to amazing reviews.
Sweetened condensed milk substitute
2 eggs
1 c. brown sugar
1 tsp. vanilla
2 tbsp. flour
1/2 tsp. baking powder
1/4 tsp. salt
Mix all ingredients and use as a substitute for sweetened condensed
milk in recipes for pies, bars and desserts.
Sweetened condensed milk really is just milk with a bunch of sugar and less water. This is going to be way different - different flavor from the salt, vanilla, and brown sugar, different thickening and binding properties from the eggs and flour, and maybe even a bit of leavening from the baking powder.
This is nasty and has no similarity at all to the product it supposedly is a substitute for.... and has raw eggs, where condensed milk is often used without further cooking in refrigerator pies, for example.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.835331
| 2010-07-09T20:20:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/175",
"authors": [
"Allison Dayson",
"An̲̳̳drew",
"Bala Clark",
"BarrettJ",
"Brettski",
"Cascabel",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jan",
"Jonas",
"Magnus Wittstrom",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"cyberzed",
"dragonflyroses72",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96417",
"jam",
"john speller",
"pjz",
"reducing activity",
"rumtscho",
"soegaard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18094
|
What happens to the heat/capsaicin content of a pepper when you roast it?
We received some extremely hot peppers of some sort in our CSA bin. They're a light green color and look like under-ripe habaneros, and we can't for the life of us figure out what kind of pepper they are. My dad used to tell me that eating spicy things would "put hair on my chest," but I think these peppers would burn the hair right off of my body, given the chance.
Since I'm not the biggest fan of deathly spicy peppers, we're considering roasting them to reduce their heat to something similar to the peppers we normally use. I'm curious what happens to the capsaicin content of the pepper as a result of roasting it. Does anyone know how that works?
You can also use them diluted. E.g., use a few to spice up chili, or salsa. Also, if you roast them, I'd expect some of the capsaicin to become airborne, which you definitely don't want to inhale. Watch out for that (e.g., when opening the oven).
I don't believe roasting will reduce the 'heat' of the peppers, only make them tastier and more easily digested.
Only removing the seeds and the white membrane inside will reduce the heat, as far as I know.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.835689
| 2011-09-30T01:50:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18094",
"authors": [
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23133
|
How can I cook chicken in a similar way to how it was done in Biblical times?
I want to make a historically accurate biblical meal for a group. I'm using chicken, and serving it with flatbread and an Israeli salad (sans tomatoes and other new world vegetables)
Does anyone have a recipe for a historical barbecue chicken or an idea of what sorts of spices were used back then?
edit: Just thought I'd let you guys know
I marinated the chicken in a mixture of rosemary, thyme, oregano, toasted sesame, garlic, salt and a bit of mint/pepper overnight. Then put them on skewers. Maybe not 100% authentic, but tasty.
Which biblical era are you interested in?
The real question - how rich were the people of the time you're trying to imitate?
"historical barbecue chicken" sounds like an oxymoron.
Take the chicken to the temple, Burn the fatty portions on the altar, and eat the rest.
McCormick Science Institute: History of Spices:
Papyri from Ancient Egypt in 1555 BCE classified coriander, fennel, juniper, cumin, garlic, and thyme as health-promoting spices (3). Records from that time also note that laborers who constructed the Great Pyramid of Cheops consumed onion and garlic as a means to promote health.
The Spice Encyclopedia at Spice Advice appears to give history / origins for a large selection of spices.
Thanks, that spice encyclopedia looks good.
I know that spices were super expensive back then, but I want just a reasonable approximation. A real style meal would proabbly have all the meat boiled, which is not...good.
Chicken, heat, oil, salt, honey if you feel a need for sweetness. Spices were rare and expensive in biblical times, with even black pepper being used a commodity for gifts between nations.
Perhaps authentic but not much fun. Surely lemon would have been common as well as mediterranean herbs such as rosemary or oregano.
@Sobachatina probably not lemon; that's an asian plant, which wasn't introduced into west asia until after the biblical era cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon#History
The honey would probably be date honey, not what we call honey.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.835812
| 2012-04-17T21:22:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23133",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Damila",
"Daniel Chui",
"Eli Lansey",
"Joel G Deacon",
"Marek",
"Margot Banescu",
"Marie",
"Sobachatina",
"Vidhyapathi Rio",
"Vince Bowdren",
"cbz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960",
"red.october",
"rfusca",
"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
}
|
14414
|
Why is my apple pie not crispy?
I made an apple pie, but the crust was thick and not crispy. Why? What should I do to fix it?
For the crust, I used:
1 cup of flour
Butter
1 egg
1/4 cup of sugar
1 teaspoon baking powder
1/4 teaspoon of salt
As for the apples:
2 apples sliced to small cubes (without the apples cover)
2 tablespoon of sugar
1 tablespoon cinnamon
Thanks in advance.
Did you blind bake the crust? If you want it crispy, that's what you should do. As for thickness, it's as thick as you roll it. 250g flour + 125 g butter is enough for a 28 cm round pan.
@rumtscho I'm still a noob, so please be patient with me. I'll try your advice. Just another quick question: Do you advise me to use specific type of flour? Thanks again
If you are new to pie baking, there is lots you can learn. Find some good guide, e.g. http://allrecipes.com/howto/perfect-pie-crusts/detail.aspx, watch their videos if you need it. As for the flour, in Europe you should take the flour with the least share of bran. In the USA, try one with lowered protein.
Assuming the apple pie is a true pie and not a tart, and is thus covered, you shouldn't (indeed can't) blind bake the crust.
@ElendilTheTall, thank you for clearing that. I was indeed thinking of an open pie (I regard the closed version as uncommon), and didn't know that there is such a language distinction in English. I agree that prebaking only applies to open shells.
@ElendilTheTall In the US, "tarts" are often (confusingly) referred to as "pies", e.g., chocolate mousse pie, lemon merengue pie, and key lime pie.
@Esultanik. I know; when I think of apple pie I think of a closed pie (I don't think I'm alone in that), whereas if I think of an apple tart I think of an open top, tartes au pommes style.
Ha, I never knew that. How do you crimp the two halves together? Just wrap the top over?
@ElendilTheTall - wrap over the top with a lil' egg wash as glue. Obviously it won't seal like a prebake crimp, but works reasonably well.
Shortening gives a flakier crust than a similar quantity of butter. They've got most of the trans-fats out of even cheap shortening now, so you're not taking your life in your hands by using it anymore.
Gluten is what makes doughs chewy, and gluten is associated with high protein flour, so you should try and get low protein ("soft") flour. Also, the colder your fat (i.e., butter) the flakier and crispier your crust will be. You also may want to substitute some of the butter for lard or shortening; the lack of water in the lard will also help the crust become crispy and avoid gluten formation associated with hydration of the flour. Note that you cannot substitute lard/shortening for butter in an equal ratio; you should try and find a recipe that specifically calls for it to get the ratio correct. As rumtscho noted, you can also blind bake the crust to start its cooking process (but as ElendilTheTall warns, you may not be able to call it a "pie" after that!). Finally, it may be the case that your pie filling is too moist and therefore makes the interior of the crust very soggy. I've found that almost all good apple pie recipes call for pre-cooking the apples to remove a lot of their moisture before putting them in the crust.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.836144
| 2011-04-29T11:57:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14414",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"evilReiko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5922",
"rfusca",
"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
}
|
25809
|
Why boil milk in desserts?
In desserts like panna cotta or crème brûlée, why do you always boil the milk/cream? What does boiling do to the milk?
I am not sure that the boiling step is absolutely necessary, but it is definitely an easy way to heat to a known temperature (rather than saying "heat to 180 degrees" and people complain because they don't have a thermometer). Or, it could just be because generations of chefs have done it that way and nobody thought to ask why. Either way, it is typical to heat the dairy, temper the eggs (creme brulee) or dissolve the gelatin (panna cotta) with that, and then finish cooking (gently heat to the desired consistency) for the creme brulee or just chill the panna cotta.
With that said, I have successfully made thin custards for ice cream/ gelato sous vide without first boiling the dairy and they have received wonderful reviews from my wife. Also, this recipe for panna cotta specifically cautions you to not boil the mixture.
Creme Brulee, panna cotta both involve mixing sugar (or sugar and honey) with the warmed milk. This is generally true of other similar desserts as well. Heat is a catalyst to the mixing process. The heat aids in dissolving and mixing the sugars into the solution. If you try to mix either in cool (or cold) milk most the sugar will clump and rest at the bottom and the honey will separate from the milk.
I think that this process (scalding) was done before there was homogenization and pasteurization of milk as a general rule, and that heating the milk would kill off any bacteria, and do some de-naturing of the proteins in the milk, making a smoother sauce or custard.
Since most milk is pasteurized and homogenized these days, it is an unnecessary step in most custard or sauce making.
Scalding milk destroys some enzymes so that it improves setting, as in custards.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.836417
| 2012-08-23T10:44:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25809",
"authors": [
"Arrowhead Herbs",
"Grace",
"Isaac",
"Krishna",
"Unkownguy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59290",
"user59188",
"user59222",
"user59290"
],
"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
}
|
22679
|
Can coconut cream be transformed into coconut milk, or vice versa?
Can coconut cream be transformed into coconut milk, or the other way around? For example, will adding water or cow milk to coconut cream make a usable coconut milk? Or by reducing coconut milk, can I get coconut cream?
Short answer: you can let coconut milk separate and skim it to get a little coconut cream, but can't convert coconut cream back to coconut milk. Diluting the cream just produces something runny and disgusting.
Long answer: Coconut milk is made by grating coconut and running very hot water through it to extract oils and flavor, then straining out the coconut pieces. It is a mix of water soluble parts and fats, and can emulsify just like normal milk or thicken sauces similarly to milk cream.
If you allow coconut milk to sit, the fatty part will rise to the top. This part is skimmed off to make coconut cream, which is much richer in fats. It cooks very differently because of the higher fat content, and does not emulsify or thicken well; however it is quite delicious!
If you're looking to substitute for coconut milk, but only have coconut cream, the best substitution will probably be a little coconut cream + a lot of heavy (milk) cream.
Note: Some people refer to the liquid contained in fresh coconuts as coconut milk, but it is more accurately called coconut water. This confusion has ruined many a recipe!
Wikipedia reports:
The coconut milk is refrigerated and allowed to set. Coconut cream is the thick non-liquid part that separates and rises to the top of the coconut milk.
To get the other way you can surely add milk or water. This will not give you the same exact thing as coconut milk, but it would be ok as a substitution for a dish.
This is confusing. That would mean that what is marketed as coconut milk is not really coconut milk, right? So you can't really make coconut cream from "real" coconut milk then.
However, my guess is that the difference between commercial coconut cream and coconut milk is a greater coconut to water ratio used in the preparation.
@cptloop: I don't think I follow you... Coconut milk is the liquid you have inside the coconut (I don't know whether commercial one may have added preservatives etc.). If you let it sit you get coconut cream + a liquid which would mostly be water + other salts, hydrosoluble vitamins etc. that are normally in coconut milk. If you take the cream and add water you are more or less making coconut milk again, but you will be missing some of those extra components. Adding milk would be good to dilute the mixture, but of course coconut milk does not naturally contain cow's milk!
The liquid inside the coconut is called coconut water. Coconut milk and cream is made by grating the coconut meat, mixing it with water and squeezing it out.
AFAIK, traditionally, some people call the water that is left after removing the cream for "coconut milk". Hence you can only make cream from commercial coconut milk, since they use another definition.
@cptloop: you are right, disregard my previous comment.
For converting coconut cream into coconut milk
There seems to be a lot of disagreement, so you'll probably need to experiment (like #5 below suggests).
Answer 1: BobMcGee says you "can't convert coconut cream back to coconut milk".
Answer 2: In my experience, I've always added 1 can of water for every 1 can of coconut milk, and it works great for my purposes.
Answer 3: https://mommypotamus.com/how-to-make-coconut-milk-from-coconut-cream/ says:
¾ cup water per 2 tbsp coconut cream
https://amzn.to/2ItFPHp says a 2 tbsp serving size of coconut cream weighs 30g and that a 13.66 fl oz can (403 mL) has ~13 servings.
13 × 0.75 cup = 9.75 cups water per 13.66 fl oz can of coconut cream (i.e. 9.75 c water per 1.7 c coconut cream).
I personally expect this approach would taste far too watery.
Answer 4: https://willamettetransplant.com/how-to-make-homemade-coconut-milk-4-ways/#coconut-cream says:
The ratio for coconut milk from canned coconut cream is: 1 can of coconut cream (5.40 oz) and 2 cups of water.
If we assume that Willamette meant to write "5.40 fl oz" instead of "5.40 oz" (i.e. a volume measurement rather than a weight), then scaling* her recipe leads to: 5.1 cups water per 13.66 fl oz can of coconut cream (i.e. 5.1 c water per 1.7 c coconut cream), which is ~1.9 times creamier than the Potamus recipe, but still far less creamy than I prefer.
*13.66 ÷ 5.4 × 2 ≈ 5.1
Answer 5: https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Coconut-Milk-from-Coconut-Cream does not provide a specific ratio and instead says:
The amount [of water to mix with coconut cream] will depend on the consistency you want. It's best to add small amounts and build up rather than to overdo it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.836626
| 2012-03-31T07:32:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22679",
"authors": [
"Beez",
"Farzad64",
"Joaquin Ochoa",
"cptloop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7684",
"jbandsma",
"lazulikid",
"nico",
"user51784",
"user98761"
],
"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
}
|
20878
|
How do you make guava juice?
I have three very productive guava trees in my yard and end up throwing away 25-50 guavas each day, as I can't go through them all fast enough. I'd like to make juice from some of this excess, but I'm not sure how to go about this.
Do I do my best to peel them and then put them in the blender? Or do I just throw them in whole into a blender? Do I peel and then boil? Or just boil? Or do I just break down and buy a juicer?
FWIW, the guavas are about golf ball-size, a little bigger, and vary in tenderness from very squishy to a bit firm.
Thanks
The peel is certainly edible, it's up to you whether you use it or not. If you choose to not peel them, try using large, juicy guavas.
The seeds are edible as well, but perhaps a bit annoying in juice. So perhaps you could put it through a sieve after it's juiced (when using a juicer). If you don't find them annoying, there is no problem in leaving them in.
Some varieties of guava have a strong odour. If you dislike this, you can boil them first, to reduce this.
As for the blender, I've never tried it myself, I've found this website that gives a good how-to.
It says to chop up the guavas, put them in the blender with some extra water (the amount needed will depend on how juicy your guavas are, so don't put too much with them in the beginning), blend, put everything in a clean towel or a cheese cloth and try to press out the juice, so the pulp and the seeds stay behind. There is nothing wrong with the pulp, you can let it in if you don't want to do the towel-step. But your juice will be more like a smoothie.
A juicer would be less work, but it's more expensive. Perhaps try making juice with a blender, and if you really really like it, you can always buy a juicer if you know you like it.
And just a side note: you surely can can or freeze the guavas, so that you don't have to throw them away.
Just to note a cheese cloth is specifically created to strain something like this. It might work better than just a towel.
In Brazil, some blend chopped guava with water and sugar, then sieve the liquid.
I just made my morning glass of juice using the golf ball sized "baby guavas" from Mexico. I used a centrifugal juicer from Breville on speed level 3 and just washed the whole guava. I threw 1 guava into the juicer whole along with 1 peeled tangelo, 1 peeled naval orange and 1 whole Granny Smith apple. The juice is delicious and a beautiful colour of yellow with no identifiable seeds or pulp. The guava taste did not stand out from the other fruit, so I will increase the amount of guava in the future. The juicing machine may be costly but it is the most efficient way to produce juice. The whole process took about 5 minutes, including the washing up of the machine
Since its quite a squishy fruit I doubt it would turn into any thing more than a guava purée in the blender.
Likewise for a juicer even (unless you choose a firmer one) where it usually uses a spinning blade which grates the fruit and a spinning compartment to spin the juice out, this would just create a purée/coulis like it does with soft berries.
I would blend the fruit then put the pulp into a muslin bag, hang it over a jug in the fridge and let the juice drip out overnight.
Alternatively you could turn the guava pulp into a sorbet, I bet that would be delicious!
You can also use a food mill. I have never peeled guavas, but I cut them in half, scoop out the seeds with a teaspoon, chop them up and either stew them for a few minutes, some sugar if required, and then they can also be frozen at this stage, or put in the 'fridge' to be eaten at breakfast or as a dessert with vanilla ice cream.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.836984
| 2012-01-29T04:12:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20878",
"authors": [
"Al__H",
"Jay",
"Kim Stebel",
"Margaret Taylor",
"Rodrigo de Azevedo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"jackyalcine"
],
"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
}
|
86245
|
Is it ok to make mozzarella from pasteurised milk?
Hi Is it ok to make mozzarella from milk bought at Spar or any other supermarkets? If not, how could I buy 5l non-pasteurised milk? I live in Hermanus, Western Cape. Thanks Ian le Chéf
Ok meaning possible?
homogenization is more likely to cause problems than pasteurization, I suspect.
Similar to: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14724/can-you-make-cheese-curds-with-pasteurized-milk
Yes, you can make mozzarella from pasteurized milk. You will want to avoid the so-called "ultra-pasteurized" milk if at all possible.
The reason the ultra-pasteurized milk should be avoided for cheese-making is because the extreme heat denatures the proteins and they will not solidify into curd.
This is US based, but is informative:
"The minimum legally required temperature for pasteurization [145°F], basically has no effect on the protein," explains Metzger. "But when you get to the 170, 175°F point, the casein and the whey proteins actually start to interact with each other." Those whey proteins, he elaborates, "are similar to the proteins in eggs—when they get too hot, they start to aggregate, and they take the casein proteins with them. What you're left with are proteins that won't coagulate into the kind of curds needed to stretch mozzarella cheese." (Source)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.837290
| 2017-12-10T14:25:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86245",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77283
|
How can I calculate the nutritional value of something homemade?
Does the baking/cooking process change the nutritional value of food? I don't know the science behind that.
I want to calculate more than just calories -fat, carbs, sugars, protein, etc... Is it just as simple (albeit, time consuming) as adding up those values on the ingredients? Or is there more to it than that?
It's all just an estimate anyways. I can't imagine baking changes enough to matter provided you don't burn off a significant amount of the bread.
Yep - only thing that should be lost in baking is water, and water is 0 anything and 0% anything :)
Questions on nutrition are off topic on this site.
@GdD actually the tag "nutrient-composition" exists because the nutritional value is an exception of the "no nutrition" rule.
Edited for clarity. The question flagged as duplicate refers specifically to calories only.
Hello @TheSmallestOne Thank you for editing, it seems indeed that I picked a wrong duplicate target. We also have http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42664/ and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24147, and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40286, so in its current form, it would be a duplicate of one of those. Is there something different you needed? If yes, please edit it so we can also see the difference to them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.837417
| 2017-01-09T01:31:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77283",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"GdD",
"TheSmallestOne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47838",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90148
|
Does room temperature affect rising time for bread dough?
I've tried a couple different kinds of basic bread recipes (both active dry and instant yeast) and no matter how closely to the letter I follow the recipe, I can't seem to get the dough to rise in the time suggested in the recipe. It takes so much longer and I fear the longer rise time makes changes the taste of the bread (and serves as an I convenience to my timing, though I guess that's slightly less important). I'm starting to wonder if my room temperature might be slowing down the rise time? My house this time of year is usually mid to high 70's and I will try to put the dough in sunlight if it's shining that day.
Any thoughts on what I'm doing wrong and how I can help my dough rise quicker?
Edit:
Ok, after attempting the suggestions in the answer below, I still cannot get my bread to rise. This is an oatmeal sandwich loaf which I was able to get a great 1st rise (doubled in bulk after 2 hours sitting in the sun), but the second is taking longer. After 2 hours, this is the best I got:
Not to mention that I suck at kneading because I can never get the dough smooth. These both have visible folds on the top which will inevitably burn in the oven... When I leave the dough for the 1st rise, I spray the top with oil to hold in the moisture and cover with a lint-free linen. But when I split the dough and press the gases out, the top is always a bit dried out and slightly hardened. This makes forming it into loaves difficult and leaves this fold on top. I am told that handling it too much after the first rise is not good and will make the 2nd rise take that much longer. Maybe I'm wrong a out that?
Warm equipment, super warm day today (80+ degrees and super sunny), I did use sugar and butter and allowed for a longer rise. This recipe called for 1tbs instant yeast and I even threw in an extra 1/4tbs for good measure. I made sure the salt and yeast were not mixed in together. But I just can't seem to make my breads light and fluffy. They are always small and dense. What gives? I'm so frustrated :(
If your kitchen is on the 70s then it's time to remodel it ;)
Possible duplicate. Read this: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/10310/52874
You probably aren't doing anything wrong. The times in recipes are approximate, and often vary enormously from reality, you should always work towards a result, not a time when it comes to bread baking. I've had bread take 2 hours to rise more than once, there's no problem with it. In fact, you get better gluten development and flavor in your bread with a longer rise. So, if don't rush if you can avoid it, take your time and get better bread. If that's not an option you can speed things up.
The temperature of the room is one variable, 70°F is perfectly normal for rising, and putting it in the sun will heat it up a lot, so temperature of the room doesn't seem to be a problem. There are a few other variables that come immediately to mind:
Yeast, if it's old many of the organisms will be dead, if it comes into contact with salt it will retard the yeast. Instant yeast is milled finer and gets to work faster, so use that, and put the yeast and the salt on opposite sides of your flour when you mix it in. You can also make a sponge using 100g of flour, 100ml of water and they yeast from your recipe, mix it all and let it sit for 30-40 minutes. It gives a perfect environment for your yeast to get active and healthy before you mix in the rest of the ingredients. It may seem like it will slow you down but it actually speeds up the process as rising is much faster
Ingredient and equipment temperature: if you start with cold water, flour etc you will slow your rising as the dough will be cold. If you put your kneaded bread into a cold bowl to rise it will cool the dough. If you want things to go faster make sure your ingredients and equipment are at a decent room temperature, or slightly warmer
Enrichment ingredients: butter, oil and sugar all enrich dough, and enriched dough will rise slower than non-enriched
Adding more flour than the recipe calls for: a common mistake is to think dough is too sticky and keep adding extra flour when kneading. Don't do it! It takes time for the flour to absorb all the water and the gluten chains to unravel, just deal with the stickiness. If you keep adding extra flour your bread will get too dense and rise much slower and have a tight, crumbly structure.
There are several questions on bread on this site which might be worth a read, for instance this, this, and this.
Ok, I know I accepted this answer, but I've had the same problem despite trying your suggestions. See an edit to my question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.837557
| 2018-06-03T22:16:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90148",
"authors": [
"TheSmallestOne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"roetnig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55849
|
How long do peanut butter sandwiches last at room temperature?
We're going on a long flight with our family tonight. I prepared peanut butter sandwiches for the kids, and would like to pack it already to avoid the last minute rush (or forgetting them). We're not leaving for another 12 hours or so, and it will probably be eaten a few hours after that. (I'm not so concerned about mushy sandwiches because these are little kids, they won't mind.) Bread and peanut butter individually can be stored at room temperature for a significant amount of time... Can I leave my peanut butter sandwiches out for ~15-20 hours?
I've never seen a notice on store-bought peanut butter to store it in a refrigerator after opening, so assuming your PB doesn't have this notice, it should be perfectly safe. If including jelly, should also be fine as Joe describes below.
I've done it before without problems. Even if they're peanut butter & jelly (something that's typically stored in the fridge), it has so much sugar in it that it's inhospitable to microbes.
If you want to play it extra safe, and the sandiwiches won't be easten shortly after you leave, you could place them in the freezer and then let them thaw in your bag.
... all that being said, if you're in the US, the TSA considers peanut butter to be a gel, so won't let you fly with a container of it. I have no idea what their rules are in sandwich form. (I've never tried it, as I typically fly w/ cold cut sandwiches, and just take them straight from the fridge before I go).
update from Erica : "I have flown with peanut butter sandwiches in our carryons. New TSA rules mean pulling it out of bags to send through the scanners, but they had no objections."
I wouldn't freeze them, I think that would definately make the bread yucky soggy. I would recommend eating them before getting to the airport, like has already been said, TSA might not let you through.
@Escoce : it depends on the type of bread. My mom would make sandiwches for a week & freeze them so that you could just pull one out in the morning. Firmer sandwich breads like pepperidge farm hold up just fine. I don't know how well it'd work with today's overly soft breads, or artisinal rustic loaves. I should also mention that for years my mom would buy loaves of sandwich bread & freeze them; the bread ends up a bit firmer than if you didn't freeze it, but it was what I grew up on for sandwiches.
I was thinking more of condensation being an issue, sure some breads stand up better than others. I like ryes and pumpernickels best, and those have amazing shelf life.
@Escoce : If it thaws while tightly wrapped, it's not an issue. You could wrap it in a paper towel first to help mitigate any problems, but I don't remember it being an issue growing up (admittedly, it's been a few decades)
FWIW, I grew up eating pb/j sandwiches for lunch, which were assembled using frozen bread slices (store-bought white bread) in the morning (thus pb/j not frozen), and by lunch the sandwiches were defrosted. The bread was a bit moister, but not soggy. Your mileage may vary. :)
I have flown with peanut butter sandwiches in our carryons. New TSA rules mean pulling it out of bags to send through the scanners, but they had no objections.
They can be considered bad when the bread becomes moldy. If it is regular bread with normal preservatives then I would give them about 7 to 10 days before not eating them. Peanuts last stupidly long and with all the sugar they put in peanut butter the microbes almost cannot grow in it.
I would be more concerned about the staleness of the bread before woring about anything being unsafe.
yes, why not? I've eat 1 -2 days old sandwiches of peanut butter and a lot of other things (ham, chiken, chocolate, cheese...) without problems ;) 15-20 hours is not too much. I think, only raw eeg could be unsafe.
Just because you are fine doesn't mean it was a safe. Time and Temperature guidelines are set to ensure every ones safety in all most circumstances, this includes younger children, and immuno compromised people.
Well look at his name, he is from the dark side after all. Seriously though, very bad advice. It's certainly going to be fine for peanut butter on bread, but not as a general rule.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.837932
| 2015-03-19T08:27:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55849",
"authors": [
"David Conole",
"Dolan Antenucci",
"Erica",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"Lindsay Bennett",
"Linet Maria",
"Mark Martin",
"Nicola Baker",
"Seung Dae Baek",
"Valerie Banks",
"draksia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7219"
],
"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
}
|
22544
|
Are chilies in olive oil dangerous?
In Portugal, chilies in olive oil are a very typical form of spicy sauce, in both commercial and artisan forms. Different types, amounts, and mixes of chillies result in different flavours and it can be very nice.
However, I worry about botulism. I have googled for this and find many warnings against preserving garlic or other spices in oil, but nothing related to chilies in particular.
Are chilies different?
Or are the commercial chili olive oils prepared in a way that makes them safe? Any way to achieve the same at home or should I just stick to the industrially prepared products?
I think this is a dup of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9451/botulism-garlic-cold-pressed-olive-oil-and-mason-jars and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12761/garlic-infused-oilsafety, because there is no safety-wise difference between keeping garlic or chili in oil. Any thoughts?
I've edited the title, because chili oil sometimes refers to a shelf-stable infusion, something like this: http://www.asianfoodgrocer.com/img/prods/sesame-oil/00633-orchids-hot-chili-oil-lg.jpg
@rumtscho the question is exactly whether there is a difference or not. I specifically mention knowing that garlic in oil is dangerous, but keep running into the chilies in olive oil preparation both commercially and in restaurants &c
@luispedro: The second linked question does pretty much cover this this: it's safe if it's properly commercially prepared. In restaurants hopefully they've either done this, or they don't keep it around long enough for it to be dangerous.
Well, just need to make sure your acid and salt ratios are correct and cook the veggies/garlic/etc... Using raw is always asking for trouble.
There's nothing magical about garlic that causes it to be especially prone to botulism - it's just commonly found as an example because it's commonly used to prepare flavoured oils.
All low-acid foods must be acidified or pressure-canned before long-term storage. Storage in oil creates an anaerobic environment which further promotes botulism, and room-temperature storage is even more risky.
Chili peppers are low acid, like all peppers, so yes, they're a risk.
Isn't olive oil (and several other vegetable oils) antiseptic? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17536679 or https://www.oliveoilsource.com/asktheexpert/can-bacteria-develop-olive-oil
@d-b, pure olive oil contains no water, so bacteria can't grow in it. Once you add garlic, or peppers, or whatever else, it's no longer water-free. The PubMed article you cite mentions an antibacterial effect against Salmonella and Listeria, but Botulinium is considerably more durable than either of those.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.838370
| 2012-03-24T19:15:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22544",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"David Regev",
"Keemosobby",
"Mark",
"Singular1ty",
"d-b",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62247",
"lindsey",
"luispedro",
"marcoS",
"rumtscho",
"simon",
"zerobane"
],
"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
}
|
88457
|
What to expect from canned bear meat?
I aquired a can of bear meat from Finland. I'm not sure what to expect of the contents of the can. Will the meat be pre-cooked?
I can find some ideas online for preperation of fresh bear meat, but grilling probably doesn't translate too well for canned meat. What are normal preparations for canned bear meat?
I've purchased canned reindeer and elk from Finland. Ideal for stews or to heat and pair with veggies. Some items I've had already had veggies in them, from the cooking process, I guess.
@logophobe it doesn't answer the title or the second paragraph, so I didn't, but I suppose not many people will have general guidance on cooking bear.
@ChrisH that not many people have general guidance cooking bear is exactly why I asked here :D - still good info on the canning though.
@ChrisH I'd suggest that those fall under the heading of "too broad" and should be removed from the question in the first place, as they'll just produce a list of suggestions about what you could hypothetically do with canned meat.
@logophobe or recipe request of course. I've tried to avoid too much guesswork anyway
A brief Reddit thread says "treat it like pork", which sounds reasonable.
Please let us know what you decide to do and how it turns out! I'm particularly interested to know the doneness(?) of the meat when you open the can. All of the canned meat products I've had were falling apart tender right out of the can.
The can is almost certain to have a list of ingredients which would give you an idea of what to expect. if you can identify that on the can, using an online translator may be useful.
Hopefully it won't end up tasting like pooh.
Canned foods are by their very nature cooked once they're in the can. That's how they keep so well. It is possible to grill canned meat if you dry it first, and it may benefit from a little browning for best flavour (assuming this wasn't done before canning).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.838617
| 2018-03-20T15:09:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88457",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"Joshua Engel",
"Martijn",
"Richard",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"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
}
|
18530
|
How do I prevent venison (for jerky) from spoiling?
I laid out some vension for jerky. It has been in the fridgerator for 2 days. I put it in the marinate today. how long can I leave it so it does not spoil?
stilltasty.com gives you 3-5 days in the fridge for fresh, raw venison.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.838802
| 2011-10-24T01:11:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18530",
"authors": [
"Ceribia",
"Ravioli",
"Tom Miskey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40147"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12731
|
How to cure beef jerky with a minimum of salt?
I just made a batch of jerky last weekend. I used the packet that came with the dehydrator. Marinade for 4 hours, dehydrate at 160 for 14 hours (12 for smaller peices) It turned out excellent! (I did not use the beef jerky gun)
My question is, since I only have 2 more packets left and I want to try my own flavors, what do I need to use to create a cure?
I'd like to stay away from salt if possible or at least reduce the salt content (possibly sea salt?).
What exactly is the cure doing?
Just a point I feel the need to make: part of the whole point in preserving foods tends to come down to reducing the Water Activity. Dehydrating the meat effectively does this, salting or acidifying more so. The lower the water activity, the less capable bacteria are of breeding on/in it. Especially if you forgo salt, you will likely want to use an acidic marinade and make sure to refrigerate your jerky until consuming it. This should not be construed as condoning any action not sanctioned as safe by any federal agency.
The salt in the cure inhibits bacterial growth (particularly if the salt is one made for curing, and contains nitrates). So you should be warned that you are trading a few blood pressure points for enhanced risk of foodborne illness. Unfortunately, I think your options are rather limited -- either to keep the salt as-is, or forgo jerky in your diet.
never!! So what salt should I be using?
this is really a separate question... You do need nitrites (a.k.a. "pink salt", "saltpeter", etc.) in your mix to prevent botulism
What Ray said..
this, sir, is plainly incorrect. Please see my answer.
I read your answer. Your reading comprehension skills need a tuneup, sir.
@Ray Let's not suggest "saltpeter", LOL Remember why they put that in soldier's eggs during WWII?
The risk you have is that if you do not inhibit bacteria growths not only can spoilage occur but mold can grow as well. The Biltong I make is hung for 10 - 14 days. That is a long while for micro organism to have there way with your meat. You must take precautions
This is very scary as unless you have a laboratory at hand you are playing the proverbial culinary russian roulette. Not all mold / bacteria produces odours or tastes and you cannot deduce the safety of mold from the colour either.
That being said you do not need excessive use of salt. The biltong I make is doused in the salt for two hours. That being said For a 2kg batch I do use almost a half a kilo of salt but still you do not want a too harsh taste of salt in your end product. You can then use a spiced up vinegar bath to further inhibit spoilage and also reduce the salt without the adding of water.
My advice to you would be that if you have an aversion to salt or maybe have health concerns then it is better to just plainly avoid cured meat. Reducing the salt of the cure sounds to me to very much be a recipe for disaster.
(PS Biltong and Jerky are very similar to each other so I know the question asks about Jerky but these points I believe are valid for both.)
What exactly is the cure doing?
It provides enough acidity to the environment of the meat as to make it impossible for spoilage bacteria and mold to grow. This is usually done by the use of salts, vinegar and / or Nitrates.
When you have provided the meat with a PH balance that does not favour any bacterial growth you can hang your meat and let the cold winter air dry the meat without any risk of spoiling.
This added with the flavour of the salt and the spices gives a cured meat product that is very tasty indeed.
While the salt does inhibit bacterial growth, it is possible to safely make jerky in a dehydrator without it if you are careful about the temperature, moisture, and dehydrating time. There is more information on this thread.
just in case anyone who reads this is wondering this is bad advice.
There are several methods recommended by USDA (US Department of Agriculture) and curing with salt is NOT the best one, so you can totally go without it and have a SAFER result than curing and not do the treatments recommended in the following articles.
Please see here:
https://www.foodsafety.wisc.edu/assets/pdf_Files/Making_Safe%20Jerky_in_a%20Home_Dehydrator3.pdf
And also here:
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/fch/sites/default/files/documents/pnw_632_makingjerkyathome.pdf
Edit:
For the sake of being sure to have understood everything properly, I emailed one of the author of the first article.
Here's my original email:
Hello,
I read the guide at
http://www.foodsafety.wisc.edu/assets/pdf_Files/Making_Safe%20Jerky_in_a%20Home_Dehydrator3.pdf,
many thanks for it.
I am writing you to kindly ask for a clarification, though.
I am trying to realize if marinading and post-processing in the oven
are both necessary step or if by using the oven I may skip the
marinating step. I would love to be able to make safe jerky without
seasoning because of the added salt.
So by using lean meat, that is kept very well refrigerated until
dehydrated; dehydrating it at 155F, and then putting it in the oven at
275F for ten (or more) minutes would be safe enough without any
marinading?
Thank you VERY much for your kind assistance.
Here's the reply.
Marinating is not required; it is used only to add flavor to the meat.
What you have suggested, without marination, would be fine to do.
That is based on research, not on opinions.
One more article, from USDA itself.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/meat-preparation/jerky-and-food-safety/ct_index
A quote from it:
What research findings exist on the safety of jerky? "Effects of Preparation Methods on the Microbiological Safety of Home-Dried Meat
Jerky" was published in the Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 67, No.
10, 2004, Pages 2337-2341. The authors are from the University of
Georgia (Brian A. Nummer, Judy A. Harrison, and Elizabeth L. Andress,
Department of Foods and Nutrition, and Mark A. Harrison, Department of
Food Science and Technology) and from Colorado State University
(Patricia Kendall, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition and
John N. Sofos, Department of Animal Sciences ).
Marinating meat doesn't make raw meat safe. "Marination alone did not
result in significant reduction of the pathogen compared with whole
beef slices that were not marinated," concluded the study.
Neither of those links indicates that jerky is preserved without salt, merely the drying practices to achieve an initial kill of pathogens. Without curing agents, even dried foods will be susceptible to pathogen growth once the food has dropped back into the danger zone.
Well, it is indeed pretty clear that it is stated that the method to eliminate ANY pathogen is HEAT, not salt. I also emailed one author of the first article, miss Barbara Ingham, and she replied me so:
Marinating is not required; it is used only to add flavor to the meat.
I am adding this to the answer.
My answer, by the way, is based on research, not on opinions.
Please also read this: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/meat-preparation/jerky-and-food-safety/ct_index
"Effects of Preparation Methods on the Microbiological Safety of Home-Dried Meat Jerky"
Marinating meat doesn't make raw meat safe. "Marination alone did not result in significant reduction of the pathogen compared with whole beef slices that were not marinated," concluded the study."
I hope you might finally consider to remove that downvote.
I will not, because you are ignoring the requirement of shelf stability for beef jerky. That is achieved through curing agents. Heat kills pathogens, but growth resumes when temperatures fall unless the environment contains agents that inhibit it. Your answer is based not on research, but on poor understanding of research.
Don't pathogens need water to build up and prosper? If you kill all of them and dehydrate the meat, leaving no water inside, while shouldn't that last for a long time? Assuming that you are sealing well the jerky so that moisture cannot enter back in.
Are you really going to claim that you have squeezed every water molecule out of the jerky? And that water will not be reabsorbed from the humidity in the air? Is your food sealer that amazing, really? Give it a rest already.
I was simply asking, mate.
oh, by the way. Last sentence in the USDA article: "Home-dried jerky can be stored 1 to 2 months". Yes the same article that teaches how to cure jerky without salt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.838887
| 2011-03-02T22:28:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12731",
"authors": [
"Broklynite",
"Bruce H",
"Carol ann Brown",
"Dakatine",
"DustinDavis",
"Faith Brown",
"Joe",
"Linda Ortolani",
"Maria Denham",
"Neil Meyer",
"Qiaoni Zhang",
"Ray",
"Sean Hart",
"Susan Allsopp",
"Suzanne McMahon",
"Water Dragon",
"diimdeep",
"elbrant",
"ghdiep",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"mosca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14947
|
Storing Cream Cheese Icing
What's the best way to store cream cheese icing to make it last as long as possible? How long will it be good for?
The icing is made up of
1/2 cup of butter
1 cup cream cheese
3 cups icing sugar
I made a red velvet icing with pretty much these same ingredients and I was able to freeze it for a month and it was still perfectly fine to use after a night of defrosting in the fridge.
It will freeze indefinitely (say a year) if you take two steps;
1) Seal it up good, no air exposed surfaces. Ideally a freezer bag and then suck all the air out.
2) After it thaws re-whip it just before applying. If you can, thaw it by throwing into the fridge the day before so you have more control over the temperature as you approach the time when you will use it.
Also worth pointing out that the faster it goes to frozen the more stable it will be (less separation of fat/water content, crystals etc.) so put it in the coldest part of your fridge for at least a few hours, then transfer it to the coldest part of your freezer so it makes a fast transition.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.839510
| 2011-05-21T01:55:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14947",
"authors": [
"Etoile",
"Lee Giles",
"Maximilian",
"Stuart P. Bentley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31548"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46216
|
Can I freeze tzatziki sauce?
I've got a bunch of cucumbers from my CSA and one can only make so many pickles in a season :) Can we prepare a large batch of tzatziki sauce and freeze it to use later? Cucumbers have a lot of water, so I'm not sure it'll turn out well. Anything we can do to make it turn out better?
(You can't can this stuff... can you?)
I tried freezing tzatziki sauce but wasn't happy with it when thawed as it seemed to separate easily and even when mixed thoroughly it seemed to have a different, more watery texture than when fresh.
What I do now if I have cucumbers I need to use is to prepare and process them exactly as I would for fresh tzatziki sauce. I freeze the processed cucumber in 1/2 or 1 cup containers and thaw to make fresh tzatziki sauce. Works great and the added bonus is that it doesn't take up as much room in the freezer.
If you want any chunks of cucumber in your finished sauce you can deseed a fresh cucumber and cut chunks the size you like. Add when you are making your sauce.
I haven't tried it, but I don't see why not. Sure, cucumbers have a lot of water, but you're already crushing them in a blender or processor to make the sauce, so you don't have to worry about bursting cell membranes.
I suppose if you made some kind of chunky tzatziki, you might be concerned about a change in texture. I've never seen a chunky tzatziki (and it doesn't sound very appetizing, IMO) but searching Google, I found mixed advice on this subject. Some of the recipes I found call for finely chopping or mincing the cucumbers and in that case I can see why you might have some issues.
Globalpost.com has this advice on a page called, appropriately, How to Freeze Tzatziki:
You can freeze extra tzatziki for later use, but don't expect perfect
results as you might with foods such as lemon curd. Cucumbers usually
become mushy when frozen, but the acidity in yogurt does protect some
of the original crunch. Yogurt fares better in the freezer, but some
liquid separation can occur and it might taste more acidic when
thawed. You can stir the liquid into the tzatziki sauce after it
thaws, but it might not be as smooth.
......
If the cucumbers become too mushy in the thawed tzatziki, you can
strain them out of the yogurt and stir in fresh cucumbers.
My advice would be, try to puree your cucumbers really finely for sauce that you intend to freeze, to minimize any change in texture.
We usually have minced cucumbers still in chunks in the sauce. I can look for a recipe that calls for pureeing though
I wouldn't freeze tzatziki sauce.
Dairy practically never freezes well. It is a fat-water emulsion, and it is likely to change its structure a lot upon thawing. You have to prepare it and stabilize it a lot, and then also preferably use a special freezing method (such as making ice cream with agitated freezing).
The other part are the cucumbers, which are a fresh vegetable. There is no way they will keep their texture. Of course you can freeze vegetables if you don't mind them softening, but the point of tzatziki is that the pieces of cucumber crunch when you bite on them. Cucumbers taste so mild, especially when diluted in yogurt and overpowered by dill and garlic, that they contribute nothing but texture.
So, altogether, it's a poor candidate for freezing. And besides pickling, I don't think there is another way to preserve cucumbers well - whatever you do, they will lose texture. Keeping them as puree or juice doesn't make much sense, you can use water instead for all the taste you'll get out of it.
I froze shredded cucumbers and used them a month later in tzatziki sauce. It turned out wonderful! First, I peeled and removed all cucumber seeds. Second, I shredded them. Third, I salted them and let them rest in my colander for about a half hour. Finally, I squeezed out as much water out as possible with paper towels. I placed them in Ziploc bag and removed the air inside and froze them. I made fresh sauce yesterday but I did not add more salt to the final recipe. Once my cucumbers thawed, they still had enough juice (not too much) for the sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.839641
| 2014-08-08T16:09:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46216",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Krissi Keenan Forte",
"Rhett Wilkins",
"Spammer",
"William Yun",
"Yamikuronue",
"bleh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"user2173353"
],
"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
}
|
112336
|
Store meat in marinade or after cooking (for taste)
Let's assume that cooking time is to be ignored. And storing marinade to give it time to "work itself" is not part of the process.
From a taste perspective would it be better to marinade for it maximum time (let's say a day) then cook it and store it till next day to be reheated.
OR
Marinade meat for shortest time possible (let's say 15 minutes), cook and store for two or three days?
On one hand we have marinade that have longer time to interact with surface of the meat making "different" coating around the meat during cooking. On the other hand we have much more marinate taste in the dish that further react with cooked meat during storage.
My question come from meal prepping. Would it be better to store ready meals for 5 days or to have ingredients prepared in advance and spend just few minutes cooking before each day.
I'm ignoring argument that preparing fresh each day allow me to differentiate each meal.
Additional info: let say the main meat is pork in fine cuts for searing and stir-frying. Chicken for oven-baking (but I usually store it after with some veggies and rice to keep the moisture in).
Edition: By "marinating" after cooking I had in mind keeping the meat in the sauce that is created.
What are you preparing with the meat? Steaks, or something else? The answer will differ depending on whether the meat gets stored as dry slabs after preparation, is part of a dry dish (say you have made an oven-baked dish of meat pieces embedded in rice) or part of a wet dish (e.g. braised meat, or a stew).
Are you re-using the same marinade, or are you putting the cooked meat back into the marinade that had been used for the raw meat? Because that second one is a really bad idea.
@Joe No, The idea is to marinade either the whole batch. Or make different marinades for each day. Store cooked meat in different containers.
This may be semantics, but does "marinating after cooking" stop being a marinade and become a sauce?
Marinades usually make lousy post-cooking flavorings. They are often too strong, too salty.
This is so close to my question that it would no doubt be flagged a duplicate. I've never really been convinced by the value of marinading meats before cooking (chicken is a particular waste of time). But leaving a cooked-meat-in-sauce type of meal overnight really seems to develop the flavours. So... which approach produces the best flavor? Ideally I'd like some test based evidence not just chef superstitions (of which there seem to be many!)
Marinades are surface treatments. However, many marinades contain salt. Salt does penetrate proteins. Over time, you will get a more "cured" flavor and texture. So, your pork might begin to resemble the structure of a cured or brined pork product. You may or may not want this result. On the other hand, some marinades contain ingredients that denature proteins and impact the texture of the product in a way that makes them more "mushy" over time. For these reasons, I would marinade for the prescribed time, then cook...then store (not in the marinade, and especially not in the same marinade that was used for raw proteins), if not eating or if you have any left over.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.839969
| 2020-10-27T11:37:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112336",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"GdD",
"Greg Woods",
"Joe",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89297",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20506
|
How do Chinese restaurants tenderize their meat?
I eat at a lot of Chinese restaurants now and also while growing up. I often wondered how is it that the chicken, pork, and beef in dishes are always so tender. I can never replicate it when I cook.
What do the Chinese chefs use to tenderize their meat?
One technique, but not the only, is velveting. Here the meat is tenderized in an egg-white/cornstarch mixture for 20+ minutes, then cooked briefly (a minute) in oil or simmering water with a small amount of oil prior to using in stir fries.
I've never velveted in straight oil but water/oil definitely gives the chicken that smoothness that Chinese Restaurants obtain and the shorter stir fry cooking time makes it much more tender.
Super thin slicing (you'll need to cut the meat semi-frozen to get such thin slices), plus cutting across the grain also lead to tenderness.
My mom uses corn starch with meat sometimes, and has claimed it was a tenderizer. I was unfamiliar with the other parts of this technique. Thanks for sharing
I've used corn starch and water to leather. Also gives it a bit of a crispness to it I believe. Learned the tip from watching the show Ken Hom's Hot Wok
Crisping the outer layer might also give you the ILLUSION that the insides are more tender...
Baking soda (Sodium bicarbonate).
If you find the meat has a spongy texture aside from being very tender, then very likely the restaurant put baking soda (Sodium bicarbonate) in the marinade. The sodium in baking soda chemically reacts with the meat and make the meat very tender and soft.
Below is an except from the cooking section in Sodium bicarbonate (Wikipedia):
Sodium bicarbonate was sometimes used in cooking vegetables, to make
them softer, although this has gone out of fashion, as most people now
prefer firmer vegetables that contain more nutrients. However, it is
still used in Asian cuisine to tenderise meats. Baking soda may react
with acids in food, including Vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid). It is also
used in breadings such as for fried foods to enhance crispness.
Personally I found the meat too soft and would prefer if they can just marinate in oyster sauce or soy sauce with some oil - acids also has a tenderizing effect on meat, although not to the extend of baking soda.
Interesting. Regarding the texture, I don't really recall the meat being spongy.
I believe most takeout places use this method over the egg-white/cornstarch method because this is cheaper. One would think that the "nicer" places would use the former as the baking soda method impacts the flavor a lot but that's rarely certain until you try it.
Here is my "a-bit-late" stab at the answer.
Besides velveting the meat prior cooking, the meat in restaurants may be marinated with chemical meat tenderizers. The active ingredients are usually papain or bromelain, which are enzymes extracted from fruits.
I believe it is their suppliers rather than their techniques which are decisive. You may not want to know what 'restaurant quality' pre-portioned meat-units look like.
In order to be tender and juicy, a great deal of added water is bound into the product with dubious adulterants -ah, additives. This is all generally legal and safe.
Some exceptions:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/chicken-injected-with-beef-waste-sold-in-uk-1696407.html
How the animal is raised makes a big difference: here in Beijing hormones are routinely added to pig-feed to fatten up an animal quickly without it over-developing muscles.
So, if you really want to know why their meat is so tender, ask for the names of their suppliers or, better yet, some of the packaging to investigate for yourself.
Water and corn starch slurry.
I talked to some of my Chinese food experts...i.e. moms. They actually suggest using a water and corn starch slurry. They would add this slurry to the meat, whether it is chicken, beef, or pork, and let it sit for a little while before cooking.
(One downside of this potentially is that it may thicken the sauce or liquid that your dish contains as this slurry is also used to thicken sauces and gravies.)
Marinate the meat with pureed fresh ginger in your marinade. It will make it fall apart if allowed to sit for a few hours in the fridge. Corn starch slurries are just so you get that gloss and thickening to the sauce when you are doing the stirfry. Don't know of anyone that uses baking soda though I wouldn't rule it out.
Corn starch seals the meat and keeps the beef tender even without tenderizer. High heat short cooking, of course.
Meat loses moisture as soon as the muscle fibers start to contract and it would do so even if you vacuum sealed it in plastic.
you can put a little vinegar and rub them properly for about 2 mins
i always cook meat like that, they are tender and delicious, you can have a try.
Probably they heat it a little bit and keep it warm instead of storing in a cold place like ice rooms.
I sincerely hope not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.840266
| 2012-01-16T21:27:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20506",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andre D",
"Aubrey Robertson",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Christopher Rodriguez",
"Ciprian Tomoiagă",
"Eric Hu",
"Federico",
"Joel Z",
"Mark K",
"Martin Milan",
"N. B ryant",
"grumpasaurus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9130",
"itsazzad",
"jamiebarrow",
"milesmeow",
"rackandboneman",
"sstack",
"whitebeltcoder"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24925
|
What is special about pork that makes it so suitable for curing?
No other meat has as many preparations as Pork - you have Bresaola out of beef, and I've seen the odd artisanal lamb and venison product, but why do you not get the range of hams, sausages, bacons etc out of other meats? I'm guessing something to do with the stability of the fat - but I'm not sure.
How about corned beef or pastrami? Or salted cod, or lox?
This is an excellent question.
Ray - Forgot about corned beef and pastrami. Still a small list compared to the world of pork related products though. Was thinking specifically about meat rather than fish - otherwise we would get into the whole wide world of smoked and dried fish products.
I would guess that it is a combination of animal cost, regional climate, and societal impact. A pig would be a lot of meat for a poorer family, so much of it would be cured so as not to waste it. Also, there may have been need for long term storage to weather winter months which might not be needed in other climates. In those climates where weather was less of an issue (Middle East/India), pork has not been as popular as say, lamb due to social/religious influence. Just speculation (and thus a comment and not answer)
I suspect that this is because in Europe, the pig has been a fairly common household animal. For example, in the past in Poland, all families that didn't live in closely packed towns would have their own pigs. Some of the reasons for keeping pigs is that they don't need much room and can eat almost anything - you can easily feed them household scraps, or anything else you can find.
For most of history, pretty much everyone has been very poor. Thus, people need to keep an animal that can eat anything. For a pig you don't need to find grass or keep hay like you do for cows and sheep. And likewise you find a way to use every part of the animal no matter what. You also no doubt get a bit bored of pork all the time, so a variety of different methods of preparing and preserving would be developed.
So basically, I think the number of European preparations for pork is due to our long and close relationship with pigs due to their practical nature.
Further to support the idea that this has a Northern/Eastern/Western European cultural cause, Halal butchers will apparently sell beef bacon, and pastrami is traditionally beef, and comes from the Mediterranean area (more or less) so I suspect that there are simply a range of beef and perhaps lamb products that many Europeans either don't know about or don't consider as essential or main-stream.
You give three examples here: ham, sausages, bacon and I'm sure there are plenty of others from pork. But you can get a similar range from beef or venison/game meat.
I'm from South Africa and we have a traditional dish which is called boerewors which is sausage made from meat such as beef or game. We also have biltong which is a dried and cured meat also made from beef or game. The only one I can't match is bacon.
Also, carpaccio came to mind, but that is not cured or dried, just raw.
But to refer to the question, pork is not the only meat which can be cured.
While other meats can be cured - usually through dehydration, pickling or smoking - the sheer variety of cured pork in European and Asian cuisine dwarfs that of the other meats. The question isn't whether other animals can be tasty when preserved - but what makes pork so special that it so dominates charcuterie?
I think then that depends on the area that you are in and the history of that area. For example, an island nation might have plenty of ways to prepare fish and fewer ways to prepare meat if fish was more plentiful than meat.
It might be that in your area that pork was at one point the most plentiful meat in the same way that in South Africa at one point cattle and game were the most plentiful. And then as a result more methods develop for preparation of that meat as a tradition than others.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.841063
| 2012-07-09T13:01:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24925",
"authors": [
"A Mitchell",
"Andrew Christie",
"BobMcGee",
"Carl Gregory",
"DHayes",
"Gabrielle Beell",
"Geula",
"Mindy",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Rachel",
"Ray",
"Zvezdochka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7574",
"user56922"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18443
|
Condensed milk versus regular milk in fudge recipes
What is the difference between fudge recipes that call for sweetened, condensed milk versus regular milk?
Fudge is basically a chocolate flavored candy.
You combine chocolate and a sugar syrup and boil the syrup until you get the desired concentration. Everything else about the recipe is to either minimize sugar crystal size or add flavor.
Sweetened condensed milk will do two things-
1- give you a nice, caramelly flavor
2- Save a little time. Since it has less water to begin with there will be less to boil off.
Save a whole lot of time, I'd say; making condensed milk out of regular milk would take quite a while and require constant attention to prevent burning.
Some recipes call for heavy cream instead, which also has less water. (Those recipes, I assume, use more sugar and less butter.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.841405
| 2011-10-18T21:17:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18443",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Fred",
"GuillaumeDufay",
"Peeja",
"Yaron Idan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"user39910"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27646
|
Tortilla Espinoza — what is it and how do I make it?
It's been requested that I make a traditional Spanish dish named tortilla espinoza. I have no idea what this is, and Google has failed me in finding something remotely close to it.
Does anyone know what it is and could point me to a recipe?
Are you sure it wasn't tortilla Espanola? Also, recipe requests are off topic here on Seasoned Advice. As you've also included a question regarding what the item is, I won't vote to close, but you might want to modify the question a little.
...or Tortilla de Espinacas? This is a dish from Spain where a tortilla is a potato and egg dish made in a low-sided, oven-proof skillet. This particular version uses spinach - hence "Espinacas".
http://herbivoracious.com/2012/02/tortilla-de-espinaca-spanish-omelet.html
I'm not sure if this is what you might be looking for but I can't wait to try it!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.841508
| 2012-10-06T20:18:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27646",
"authors": [
"CJBrew",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jeff Turner",
"William Robert DuPriest",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62424",
"sameoh3"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23264
|
Coconut milk ice cream — getting volume?
I've made ice cream with full-fat coconut milk twice in my KitchenAid ice cream maker with OK results.
I've followed the instructions and have run the machine for the time suggested (about 20 minutes) and the ice cream mixture is ice cream like, but the volume has not increased by much.
My question is are my low-volume results because I'm using coconut milk, or can I run the machine longer and get more volume?
Thanks
Recipe:
1 can of full fat coconut milk (Aroy-D Coconut Milk)
2 tablespoons honey
2 tablespoons cocoa power
Steps:
Mix ingredients together
Chill for 1 hour
Start ice cream machine (get it turning...)
Add mix to machine
Churn for 20 minutes
Serve
Can you post the recipe you're using? (Also, you say "coconut cream" once and "coconut milk" twice - what exactly are you using?)
Updated coconut cream to coconut milk and added recipe.
With the KitchenAid, can you increase the speed while churning? I lack experience, so I didn't want to put this as the answer. I want the KitchenAid ice cream bowl, so I can control the speed of the churn. With a faster churn, it should add air (which is volume). This is basically whipping air into the mix. They call that overrun.
I get better fluffier desserts from coconut milk/cream that isn't loaded with gums (stabilizers). That is counter-intuitive because I do add agar in making mousse and that traps a lot of air when I whip halfway thru gelling time. The goopy canned coconut stuff just can't hold a candle to the pure Tetra pack stuff.
Try to decrease the fat percentage in the custard. Full fat coconut milk has a fat percentage of ~20%, hence the custard has about the same. Fat tends to make the ice-cream more heavy and "creamy". Ordinary ice-cream usually have a fat percentage around 10-16%, and even lower for gelato type ice-cream.
To decrease the fat percentage, add some liquid with low-fat.
If this is the OP's problem it's easy enough to fix - just use light coconut milk.
You are simply freezing the coconut milk mixture.
First make a custard using the coconut milk; to do this scald the milk ie bring to just below boiling point whilst stirring constantly.
Meanwhile whisk 6 medium egg whites with 150g sugar until it becomes white and fluffy, then pour in the heated milk from the pan into the mixing bowl whilst whisking, this is to stop the eggs curdling.
Then poor the mix back into the pan and heat gently until the mix thickens, dont let it boil as this will curdle the custard.
After a while the mix will thicken and when it is thick enough to coat the back of a wooden spoon take of the boil. Then mix in whatever ingredients you want and pour into ice cream maker or into a freezable container and stir every 3-4 hours until fully frozen.
When I made this I added dessicated coconut to give it some texture and a bit more flavour. I then added the zest of 2 limes and the juice of 1.
A custard is made with egg yolks, not egg whites.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.841623
| 2012-04-22T19:29:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23264",
"authors": [
"Caimen",
"Cascabel",
"Leonard Bruce",
"MADCookie",
"Marty",
"Mizzvee62",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8582",
"maycca",
"mikebmassey",
"niceguy",
"sweetkristy"
],
"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
}
|
8751
|
What is the name of the middle eastern salad containing Tomato and Cucumber?
Not sure if there is an proper name, had it in Israel but have seen it (or similar variations) in Moroccan restaurants (in the US). Comprised of primarily diced cucumbers and tomatoes, that have been seasoned.
Can you remember any other specific ingredients that might differentiate it?
Aaronut got it, the problem is those were the primary ingredients, and apparently some simple seasoning.
Not too surprisingly given where you found it, it's called an Israeli Salad in most parts of the world.
In Israel, it's just called a chopped salad or (according to the wiki article - I never personally encountered this) an Arab salad.
Thanks, this is exactly what I was trying to figure out. And as Wikipedia points out, I did have it in an Israeli hotel.
Probably not in Israel, but there is an Iranian recipe called Salad-e Shirazi.
It contains chopped tomato, cucumber, onion, lime juice, olive oil, fresh mint, salt and pepper.
In Turkey it is referred to as Çoban salatası (pronounced 'choban'; shepherd's salad.)
Usually consisting of tomatoes, cucumbers, onion, salt, oil, lemon, and sometimes pomegranate juice.
The description itself is the base for Fattoush, which has as many names as variations:
I found one place that calls it "Jerusalem Salad" (theirs is served with tahini). Another restaurant has a variation that includes green bell peppers called "Lebanese Salad." (Click here for a bunch of pretty pictures)
Unless this is a regional thing, I believe that fattoush is also made with fried or stale pieces of pita bread or other flatbread, which differentiates it from the plainer Israeli salad.
@Aar Fattoush is served both with the pita chips tossed in the salad, or served on the side for scooping (as with any other Mediterranean dish like tabbouleh or hummus).
I'm afraid I'm not seeing the parallels; tabbouleh is technically a salad but hummus most certainly isn't, and although they may be served on or with pita, it's not an integral part of the dish as it is with fattoush. Now obviously I can't account for every regional difference and can't claim to have actually eaten these in, say, Lebanon, I'm just pointing out that traditional preparation of fattoush involves a good deal more than just cucumbers and tomatoes.
@Aar that's what the comma was for. I separated the two clauses; if there had been no comma the parentheses would have applied to both preparations. I feel bad though, and it may just be too regionalized a preparation and I just don't know it.
In Australia, I think it's just called Greek Salad.
It has Tomato, Cucumber, Onion, Olives & Fetta Cheese + Olive Oil + some lemon Juice and so on..
Greek Salad does have tomatoes and cucumber but generally not diced, and the inclusion of olives, feta cheese, and sliced onions makes it very different from Israeli salad. Not to mention that Greek salad usually has lettuce, which is conspicuously absent from Israeli salad, even the less "authentic" versions.
@daniel: This is true, however, as this question concerns North America, the most common preparation of a "Greek" salad does contain lettuce.
@Aar I've had both Greek salads served wrapped in lettuce (authentic a la P.F. Chang?), as well as served 'open-faced' (their name) where the fattoush was placed on not a bed of lettuce, but rather two crossed leaves of romaine (U.S.)
Greek or Turkish shepherds salad is the most common name by folks who aren't Jewish in my area. As its a pan Mediterranean salad I suspect folks call it whatever region of that area they are closest to.
In the U.S., I've heard it called Israeli Salad. When I was in Israel, the locals just called it "salad" (and they called lettuce-based salads "American salad"). It seems like a very basic standard salad found all over the Middle East with minor variations.
In Morocco, this is a very common salad, it's usually made from diced cucumbers, tomato, and parsley to which a vinaigrette is added, some people add finely chopped onions. Variations include mint, and the vinaigrette is sometimes made with salt, pepper and paprika or cumin also.
http://moroccanfood.about.com/od/saladsandsidedishes/r/moroccan_cucumber_tomato_salad.htm
In Palestine, this is called Gaza Salad.
its called horiatiki salad (Χωριάτικη σαλάτα)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.841932
| 2010-11-02T00:52:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8751",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brittany M",
"Scott Markwell",
"Suzannah Schmid",
"TATA",
"freude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"mfg",
"mycrica gale",
"paul65",
"robin",
"user17940",
"vt."
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7333
|
Why doesn't chocolate go bad?
After all, chocolate has oil and sugar in it. Why don't bacteria love it? Thanks!
Simple: it has no water.
Chocolate is a suspension of cocoa solids and sugar in cocoa butter. It is made from fat and carbohydrates only. Bacteria, as everything else, need water to live. They can't survive in something hygroscopic (like jam or honey) or something with no water at all (flour, chocolate, pure fat). Similar for molds. So, independent of temperature, chocolate won't go bad in the sense that it will never grow colonies of bacteria.
As Hobodave mentioned, it can "grow bad" in another sense. If held at high temperatures (somewhat above 30°C), the chocolate butter will separate from the mix and form a dull yellow-grayish crust on the chocolate surface. Also, if you leave it in contact with oxygen for long enough (many months), the cocoa fat will go rancid. In both cases, it is perfectly safe to eat the chocolate without risking food poisoning. However, the taste is much worse than in normal chocolate.
The scientific term for this is "water activity". See my answer on Skeptics SE about the spoiling of honey.
Bacteria can survive without water, but they won't be active, won't multiply and won't be able to do any damage to the chocolate.
It does go bad.
The shelf life of opened dark or bittersweet chocolate is one year. Milk chocolate lasts only about eight months, due to the presence of milk.
The reason it has such a long shelf life, even opened, is due to the cocoa butter. Cocoa butter is a fat, but it is primarily a saturated fat, and thus is solid at room temperature. Saturated fats are naturally less susceptible to degradation than unsaturated fats (oils). Cocoa butter acts as a preservative in chocolate, as well as in cosmetics.
So why is cocoa butter a preservative?
It is high in antioxidants. Oxidation causes fat to go rancid. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-cocoa-butter.htm
I wonder if that wisegeek thing is correct; I thought the antioxidants in chocolate are not in the cocoa butter fraction. However saturated fats themselves won't oxidize quickly because there is no place on them for the oxygen to attach (they are already saturated).
@Michael: There are most certainly antioxidants present in cocoa butter. There are numerous other sources.
@MichaelatHerbivoracious Saturated fats are not saturated with oxygen, they just don't have double bonds between carbon atoms in fatty acids, and thus are saturated with hydrogen. Molecules saturated with hydrogen oxidize nicely (e. g. methane, ethane).
I'm not sure how big a factor it is compared to the other answers, but chocolate generally doesn't have water in it, and bacteria generally don't like water-free environments.
Most commercial chocolate does not have a shelf life. Batches are dated for processing and tracking purposes but there is really no inherent limit to how long it will remain shelf stable assuming it remains below about 30C / 85F and in a correctly controlled environment.
Chocolates that contain preservatives typically do so because they contain non-chocolate fillings.
Most chocolate that goes "bad" is the result of 3 issues:
1) It was in an environment above 30C / 85F will begin to lose temper (above 35C and 95F for sure) and begin to liquefy. Once the temperature returns below these temps, the chocolate will resolidify but may take on a chalky white texture and color. Assuming it didn't get hot enough to burn, the chocolate is fine and while it may lack correct mouthfeel, it is perfectly fine to eat. This chocolate, if melted down and correctly retempered, will return to its original, crisp and shiny texture and color.
2) It was stored for a period to time along with other foods or items that have a strong odor. Chocolate is high in fat and as such easily absorbs flavors and odors.
3) Storing chocolate in a cold location and then introducing it to "room temperature" will cause condensation on its surface. This moisture will later cause a "bloom" on the surface and depending on the amount of moisture introduced and over what period to time, may be purely cosmetic or have an actual affect on the chocolate but it is difficult to say at what point it has actually gone "bad".
Storing your chocolate in a refrigerator or freezer is a poor choice for reasons 2 and 3. Years ago I had a friend that stored chocolate in a motorhome in which he smoked and he wondered why after 6 months it tasted like an ashtray?
Both cocoa butter and the dark solids in chocolate are high in antioxidants. There is also almost no moisture in "tempered" chocolate. When chocolate is tempered the cocoa butter part of the chocolate is crystallized, which helps the chocolate form a tight lattice-type structure. The combination of 1) a high percentage of antioxidants, 2) almost no moisture, and 3) a dense, tight crystalline structure results in a product that has an extremely long shelf life. I make chocolate professionally, from the cacao bean, and I have some bars (70% cacao) that I make over 3 years ago that have shown absolutely no degradation. They taste the same as when I first made them.
I doubt that the antioxidants are a reason, they are probably inactive in the chocolate for the same reason that the bacteria can't live in the chocolate - not the right environment for the biochemical processes they are part of. But the rest sounds reasonable, especially the low moisture part.
Simple answer is that it does.
Most commercial grade chocolate (Cadburys and what have you) is full of various preservatives to keep it "fresh".
Also, higher quality chocolates will have less sugar in (as it will have more cocoa).
Its the same as bread - fresh, homemade bread will be spoiled in a few days, but supermarket bought stuff can last 7 days+
Have you ever seen chocolate go bad? real chocolate not a candy that has chocolate in it. I have seen discoloration, but not spoiling of chocolate.
@Adam C - when oil goes bad it goes rancid. It shouldn't have the same impact as getting eaten by bacteria.
I have personally eaten milk chocolate that was over 30 years old; it had some white "bloom" (sugar crystallisation) on the surface but tasted perfectly fine and did not make me ill.
Oh also, it had not been sealed - it was loosely wrapped in paper.
@Vicky - there's got to be a bit of a story behind that!
@mskfisher - when I was a kid, my Mum brought some old Christmas decorations down from the loft, they were left over from when she was a child herself. Most of them were glass baubles in various states of brokenness, but there were a few red paper Christmas Crackers which turned out to have small fingers of chocolate inside them. So I ate them!
Why is higher quality chocolate equal to less sugar and more cocoa? Bittersweet vs milk chocolate seems a matter of personal preference to me, not of quality.
Chocolate must also have an anti-microbial factor because not only does pure, dark chocolate have an extremely long shelf-life but cakes made with high dark-chocolate content seem to last forever!
I've seen Trader Joe's Triple chocolate bundt cakes (NO perservatives) last over a month uncovered at warmish room temperature! Try that with any other natural cake or bread item... they get moldy in a week!
The only ingredient that they have different from other cakes is chocolate (and lots of it).
I'm not sure if this really addresses the question. Cakes can last a long time for a variety of reasons.
You'd have to define what "go bad" means exactly. If it gets toxic or whether the taste, looks or something else changes.
I found an answer from someone from lindt&sprüngli:
"Although cooling could probably prevent the chocolate to expire fast, room temperature is actually the best for the chocolate's quality. I still don't get why so many people like to put their chocolate into a fridge, because the taste of a chocolate is the best at room temperature. Anyway, basically a chocolate expires after six to twelve months. That only means, that the company which sold the chocolate can't guarantee that the characteristics mentioned above will still be as good as at the beginning when you bought the chocolate. That's it. But what if you wait even longer and let's say, eat a chocolate which expired ten years ago? Could you die? Most probably not!"
source: http://quandano.com/questions/can-chocolate-expire
Chocolate does go bad, when it does it's called blooming, the cocoa butter starts to run out of the chocolate and leaves what looks like white flowers or webbing on the surface of the chocolate.
Chocolate lasts longest when kept in the cold.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.842329
| 2010-09-15T17:31:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7333",
"authors": [
"Adam C",
"Barbara Mooney-Tucker",
"CMM SLOT88 spam",
"Caitlin Quintero Weaver",
"Cascabel",
"Cristian Dobre",
"Jacek Konieczny",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Nathan Basanese",
"Robert",
"Rose ann",
"Rosemary",
"Vicky",
"berta staudt",
"gdz",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96479",
"justkt",
"lawduck",
"mlmillion",
"mskfisher",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"sheryl kovach",
"syko",
"user3109679"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7722
|
Why are there so many different pasta shapes?
Do the different pasta shapes serve any purpose, or are they just for fun? Some difference appear to be cultural (lo mein vs spaghetti), but there are so many different syles of Italian pasta, is there a reason for this?
Clearly there need to be differences for stuffed / not stuffed, but why do we have penne and ziti?
Read "Heat" by Bill Buford. There's a great discussion of this exact topic. But what it comes down to is Old Italian women, with lots of time on their hands being creative. In other cultures, they did elaborate quilts, or needlepoint. In Italy, they made slow food.
I wouldn't consider a lo mein (or any other Chinese noodles) a pasta. Spaghetti is a type of noodles, not vice versa.
One answer to this is that Americans have a reversed understanding of the relationship of pasta to sauce compared to Italians. In Italy, the sauce is called the condimento, meaning literally it is a condiment to the noodles, which are intended to be the main source of enjoyment in the dish. When you begin to understand it that way, it makes sense that you would want to have a wide variety of sizes, shapes and textures. (What Taeraresh said is also true, there are functional differences in how the different shapes hold sauces.)
I really like the idea that sauce is a condiment. So a lot of this is about exploring texture in the mouth as much as the mechanical aspect of what sauce works best with which noodle. Funny, after some poking around I found a link to a book on this subject: The Geometry of Pasta.
Yes, that is a neat book! I was just browsing it at a bookstore a few weeks ago.
Be sure to check out their clickable shapes.
One thing that varies is how much of the sauce adheres to the pasta, especially for pasta shapes that have ridges or hollow areas. Sometimes you'll have a sauce where you'll want chunks of it to stick to the pasta, and sometimes you just want the pasta to be flavored by the sauce, but eaten more by itself.
It's regional varieties -- just as there's different cheeses and olives, different types of pastas have evolved.
Now, you might think at first that it doesn't make sense, as we could produce the same pasta everywhere, you have to remember that Italians will pair specific sauces with specific pasta to get a specific balance of sauce to pasta. As different things are grown / raised / etc in different areas, we end up with different pastas preferred for different sauces. Some are better for oil (eg, thin strands, light and delicate), some for cream sauces (wider strands, tubes), some for tomato sauces (wider strands, anything with good ridges on it), some for soups (smaller shapes), etc.
Now, I know, there's lots of tubes, and there's lots of strands ... but others could ask why Americans need Coke, Pepsi and RC Cola (although, in that case, there's commercial interest, but there's still some heavy regional preferences out there, particularly for smaller local varieties)
As for the difference between penne vs. ziti -- the angle of the cut on the end can affect how much sauce gets inside the pasta, as the angled cut of the penne will grab some as you're stirring the pasta in the sauce. (or so I've been told ... I've never done a side-by-side comparison of two with the same diameter / thickness / length, etc.)
Mainly that different shapes serve different purposes. You should pair the right kind of pasta with the right kind of sauce. Depending on sauce thickness or what's in it etc.
Some shapes are also designed to allow for different textures like farfale where the core cooks less than the edges, making for a richer texture.
Whilst there may be pasta shapes designed to be decorative rather than functional most pasta shapes serve a clear purpose. Spaghetti, for example holds a pesto or a finely ground beef sauce very well, whereas if you used a thicker pasta noodle for something like pesto or just a simple olive oil and garlic dressing there would be too much pasta per forkful to flavouring. Yet a thick tagliatelle would be very suited to a game pasta sauce made with chunks of rabbit or hare. Chunky vegetable sauces work very well with large pasta shells, as the shells catch the vegetable pieces in the sauce, making it easier to eat. Tubular pasta works very well with creamy sauces (such as macaroni and cheese) because it is very satisfying to bite into the tube and feel the sauce releases within. You could also say that so many shapes exist to satisfy the individual's personal taste and sense of fun.
The pasta cooks differently based on the shape. It will have a different feel in the mouth, and as you chew, as well as holding the sauce differently.
You will notice the difference most if you aim to cook the pasta perfectly al dente.
We were sitting at a table in the town square of Sienna, Italy having drinks. My wife and mother-in-law went off to do some shopping. I wandered off down a narrow street and came to a pasta shop. The interesting thing that might answer some of the question is found there, I think. The wall was covered with cubby holes similar to an old time post office ending in glass front drawers about waist high. Arranged vertically were compartments holding the largest diameter spaghetti (or macaroni as they say) down to Angel hair at the bottom. There were a variety of shapes all in descending diameters. The drawers held shapes, such as, stars, elbows, rotini, etc., in different sizes and thicknesses. It occurred to me that the people eat pasta so often, they use the different shapes and sizes to break the monotony of just spaghetti, let's say. Also, they could have a different sauce to go with each pasta shape or size.
Makes sense to me now and then.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.843114
| 2010-09-30T20:15:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7722",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"DaveParillo",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Lie Ryan",
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2654"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30060
|
Why does salt prevent soy milk from curdling in hot coffee?
As many people have experienced, soy milk will often curdle in hot coffee. I've experienced this myself with both instant and fresh coffee, and with my homemade soy milk (not my favorite soy milk brand from the store, which has a few extra things).
There are many people out there with the same problem, which is typically blamed on the acidity of the coffee, acid being well-known as a coagulant:
http://www.thekitchn.com/why-does-soymilk-curdle-in-hot-148329
How to prevent curdling in a local vegan coffee creamer- aka- Post Apocalypse hippy coffee creamer?
One day, I tried adding salt to my coffee, knowing that it is said to reduce bitterness (ref). That day, my soy milk didn't curdle. On each day thereafter, if I added a pinch of salt to my coffee before adding the soy milk, it wouldn't curdle. My heating procedure has remained the same: mix instant coffee with boiling water to dissolve, add cold soy milk, stir, then microwave until hot again.
What chemical interaction could plausibly result in salt preventing the curdling of soy milk?
As a side note: Some brands offer soy (or rice) milk with added calcium. I recently observed that these do not curdle when pouring them into hot coffee. Might be a similar effect (e.g. pH buffering).
I can't find any definitive answers to this question online. All the discussion I could find are speculation.
Factors that cause soy protein to coagulate are heat, acidity, and the presence of magnesium or calcium salts. Additionally the proteins are more likely to curdle if they are heated very quickly.
I will assume that you heated your coffee and milk identically with and without the salt. If you had changed the order of adding boiling water, for example, it could have prevented your curdling.
If you have hard water then there will be a good amount of calcium salts in your water. Coffee itself also has a good bit of magnesium. These salts will coagulate soy proteins more readily than acidity.
Sodium chloride does not cause soy proteins to coagulate. Sodium chloride ions will replace calcium ions- this is used in water softeners and soaking beans.
My suspicion (which to prove would require more experimenting than I have time for right now) is that the sodium ions are preventing the calcium and magnesium ions from coagulating your soy proteins.
I don't think my heating procedure has changed - added description above. I think you might be on the right track with the ions - if curdling is associated with ion activity, then any "neutral" ions (sodium) that may be interfering with active ions (calcium, magnesium) might be the root cause.
Are you a soy-and-coffee drinker? can you confirm that I'm not crazy and this actually works?
I don't drink coffee and can't confirm that you aren't crazy. I've just experimented with soy milk a fair bit
Accepted as the most plausible answer - although we will need a chemist to tell us for sure!
Acid curdles soya: that's part of tofu making.
Anything in the coffee that neutralizes acid below a given threshold will prevent it. Black coffee is in the range of 4.3 - 5
According to New Scientist: The pH required to make tofu from soya milk is around 5.7 to 6.4
I'm reckoning that there may be tiny flakes of coagulation in the cup but not noticeably so. You could test this by dissolving in salt first then pouring soya without stirring at all: see what 2min gives. Finally, stir it up and see if it's your regular cup.
Now someone else say why a supposedly neutral salt has that effect...?
Serving as a buffering solution (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_solution )? Just speculating, I am no chemist!
I think your guess is plausible but FYI- most tofu is not acidified at all. It is coagulated with magnesium (nigari) or calcium (gypsum) salts.
I'm not able to detect any tiny flakes of coagulation - just the usual soy grits due to casual straining with a metal strainer.
interesting. different brands of soya and coffee I guess
Thanks, Sobachtina. Lemon juice is listed as a sub for Nigari so I just assumed...
Perhaps, but this doesn't explain why adding salt suppreses the curdling. Adding table salt to a solution will hardly affect its pH as both Na+ and Cl- ions are conjugates of strong acids / bases, so they dissociate completely.
Sodium chloride is mildly chaotropic with respect to most proteins. That is, the charge interactions between Na+, Cl- and charged amino acids in soy protein make it moderately more soluble, even in a slightly denatured state.
Add a little bicarb to your soy milk, no more curdling :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.843580
| 2013-01-14T06:07:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30060",
"authors": [
"Brian McCutchon",
"Christoph Grimmer",
"Hakaishin",
"Jonathan",
"Mark",
"Only4fitness",
"Pat Sommer",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sherwin Yu",
"Sobachatina",
"VLAZ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8682",
"tmgr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28818
|
What characteristics should a bread peel have?
A peel is the utensil used to transfer loaves into the oven:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_(tool)">Image source: Wikipedia
I've done a couple of them using some wood boards I had on hand. I made them for a home electric oven. But now I'm planning to make one from scratch for a wood fired oven.
What characteristics should one look for a peel?
Specifically:
What characteristics will have different materials: plywood, block of wood, metal, ...
If they are made of plywood, what kind of glue should be used to join the boards?
What kind of wood? Which metal?
Should they be flat? Wedge shaped (like the one in the picture)?
If they have a detachable handle, what system would be faster to change? Less prone to loosen?
How to choose the length of the handle? The material?
Any differences between a home oven one and one for a professional/large oven?
Note: I originally wrote the question thinking in making a peel, but actually it should be interpreted as how should a peel be, independently of how you manage to get it (make it, buy one, ...).
I know this question has been asked a long time ago, but as I have been shoving around 1000 loaves of breads in 2014 alone (we bake for charity), all in a traditional wood-fired oven like in the picture, I couldn't resist... The following points are geared towards wood-fired ovens, but are valid for most sizes, from the 8-loaves home versions to larger sizes. "My" oven can handle 100 pounds of dough / 50 loaves per session.
The Handle:
Must be long enough to reach all the way in and be still long enough to get a good grip with two hands. You need leverage. So aim for [door to back corner] + at least 2 feet/60cm. This influences the place for your oven: You need at least as much space behind you, so that you can move freely. (Often overlooked in home environements...)
Must be heat-proof, but non-conductive. This rules out metal, because even with gloves you'd be scorching your hands. Wood is a good choice. Use hardwood, round or rounded, make sure there are no splinters(!) (but use gloves, just to be sure). When placing multiple loaves, you will want to work fast in order to have roughly the same baking time for all of them and to loose as little heat as possible through the oven door. So basically you will be rather sliding the handle along your hands than using a hand-over-hand motion. Catching a spliter this way will hurt like h**l - check the handle regularly, e.g. after each baking session. This answers the question of detaching the peel part: your handle will be the longest part and should be in one piece. So a removable peel doesn't change this much. If you want to fix it with some kind of nuts and bolts construction, do it horizontally, making sure nothing sticks out at the bottom and no cavity gets filled with ash, preventing disassembly.
The Peel
Choose a size that fits your baking habits: Estimate the usual loaf size(s), determine the required peel size from there: I'd add at least 2 in / 5 cm to the largest meassurement and use tis to determine the diameter or side length of the square /see later). Same goes for pizza: The entire pizza must fit on the peel. For cakes, the tin or sheet should provide enough stability, and you might choose to simply place it at the front of the oven and then use the peel to gently push it in place (more on this later). But don't overdo it: The larger the peel, the more unwieldy. Do not include French Bread / Baguette in this calculation, get a special sword-shaped peel for them.
Use warp-free material. This may be metal (but some do warp, I'm no expert, ask a professinal before building your own), but wood is fine. It will not burn or scorch if handeled properly. Stay clear from plywood, its likely to warp, splinter and if too thin can't hold a larger loaf well. Also, there's the question of glue: food grade, yes, but appropriate at high heat? I'd by wary... Most peels I have worked with are solid wood, but composed of three equally wide strips, glued together (no idea on the glue used), running in the same direction as the handle. I strongly suppose this is to reduce warping, at least that's what my carpenter suggested.
Shape is somewhat a matter of choice. If you are making mostly pizza, a round peel is good. Square peels can be impractical if you want to reach the back corners of the oven. My preferred peel is basically square(ish), with heavily rounded corners, the radius of the corners is probably 2in / 5cm. I can easily reach all corners of the oven without "catching" on the corners of the peel. (Sorry if this sounds muddled...)
You do want a thin(ish) front edge, though, to slide easily under the bread / pizza / baking tin when removing them from the oven. For metal peels, this feature is obviously "included", for wooden peels, you can either just taper the front edge - like a knife - or taper the entire peel - the "wedge-shape" mentioned in the question. The latter would be my coice, because it allows the front edge to always/automatically be the lowest point without having to lift the handle much. You do not need a razor-sharp edge, somewhere around 2-5 mm is thin enough. You may get some wear over time as the stone of the oven sands the tip down. If the edge gets to "serrated" (after a few years), just sand it down a bit.
There is one aspect of shape that is easily overlooked, though: The back side of the peel where it meets the handle. If you have a sharpish corner here, it can be used to pull a baking tin towards you, either from the side or from the top. Just "hook" the peel to the tin and pull gently. This is especially handy if you need to manouever multiple tins around because a back one is done before the front one. You can try to slide the peel underneath, but this can be tricky if a filling hasn't set yet or you are bumping the tin into something else.
Maintenance: Neither type of peel should require maintenance. Brushing or wiping off excess ash and flour should be enough. Be generous with the dusting flour and you should "never" get stuck-on dough on the peel. If you do spill something, just wipe it off and let dry. No seasoning required or recommended.
Wow. I had never even thought about using the back end of the peel. And yes, the multiple pieces of wood reduces warping because you flip the middle slat relative to the other two. (so if it warps because of moisture, it becomes wavy, rather than cupped across the whole thing. Cutting boards made from slats should be made similarly; you can look at the edge and the ring pattern should flip with each slat.
Thank you! This was the kink of information I was looking for.
Great answer, by the way.
Here is what Kenki Lopez says about the desirable qualities for peels, in the context of pizza, but pizza is just flat bread with stuff on top:
Serious Eats article on Best Pizza Peel for my home
The main take away is that wood is not recommended, due to being flammable, thick, and hard to clean--they like metal. I know that isn't what you want to hear when planning to make your own...
As for shape, a squared off front edge (as opposed to rounded), and a length to reach the back of your oven make a peel desirable.
Making my own in metal is also possible (I don't discard it). But some metals are harder to maintain: my iron peel gets rusty very easilly.
I've never heard of a pizza peel catching fire. Also, for pizza baking you have fire in the oven, something you don't do for almost any other dish. (Anecdotic: They use wooden ones at famous Pizzeria da Michelle, in Naples).
Why squared end, and not rounded?
I just summarized the article--I don't have a personal opinion here. I use an un-rimmed cooked sheet for the job, and it works fine with my home oven.
@J.A.I.L. I linked the primary source.
In my home oven, I just use a plastic cutting board like this:
Mine have a larger hole in the handle, so I can easily pick one up wearing an oven mitt. I put cornmeal on the cutting board then put the loaf on it to rise, and slide it onto the preheated pizza stone really easily.
Advantages: they're lightweight, easy to clean, and I have about 8 of them already.
Disadvantages: no long handle, which would be more important if you were trying to put bread further into a hotter oven. For me it's not an issue, and if I ever feel that it is, I wear an oven mitt.
Someone downvoted this answer. Adding a comment explaining why will help the answerer (and others) to improve the answers.
If you work with a wood-fired oven like OP asks, this is definitively a bad idea: The temperature may be around 350°C / 600-700°F. Touch the stones with a plastic board and it will melt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.843961
| 2012-12-02T19:04:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28818",
"authors": [
"Anderson",
"HDA",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joann Gasca",
"Jodie Goins",
"Joe",
"Robin Marella",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephie",
"Tom Z.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"takintoolong",
"unclesmrgol dragon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15435
|
How to cook cod?
I'm laughing. I've been looking at codfish recipes for about five minutes now and I can make neither heads nor tails from it.
Some recipes claim you should cook for 5 minutes, other for one hour. Most agree on 15 minutes.
Some give thickness in inches as a measure for determining the time. Others say you have to look for the flakes.
Oven temperatures range from 160ºC to 205ºC (320F - 400F).
Others say poach...
What's the real story here? Is anybody out there an expert in cod?
I poach cod steaks in flavoured milk for 4 min per side. The real story, if it says cook for more than 10 min, is that the recipe author wants the fish to absorb the flavours of whatever it is being cooked with.
Related: How do you prep Bacalhau (salted cod fish) before cooking?
Cooking time will vary greatly depending not only on the cut of fish but also the cooking method. In general, your cod will be done when it reaches an internal temperature of 54°C (130°F), regardless of cooking method. Here are some times/temperatures that work for me:
Sous Vide: 10 minutes or more at 56°C, followed by a quick broiling/grilling/blow torch.
Baking (thick fillets): 15–20 minutes at 218°C (425°F).
Baking en papillote: 15 minutes at 232°C (450°F).
Deep Frying: 7–8 minutes at 190°C (375°F).
Steaming: 6 minutes.
Poaching: I like to add the fish to the cooking liquid while the liquid is room temperature. I bring it to a simmer, and then turn the heat to low, cover, and cook for about 15 minutes.
Pan Frying: This isn't quite as popular a method as the above for cooking cod, however, if you want to do it, I would recommend cooking it on high heat, flipping once the opaqueness has reached about halfway up the side of the fillet.
Basically, it doesn't matter which method you use as long as your cod ends up with an even internal temperature of around 54°C (130°F).
Don't forget deep frying!
I already listed deep frying as just "frying" (#4). I'll edit it. Thanks!
@ESultanik Is there a temperature guide for other fish species, or is 54°C it?
@TFD: The way I like to cook my fish, the only general exceptions to this rule are fish that I like a bit rarer (e.g., salmon, which I only cook to 52°C, or tuna, which I like pretty much raw in the center), or fish that are better suited to be well done (e.g., oily fish like sardines and mackerel, which are very forgiving to cooking temperature given their fattiness).
Very good answer. I'll give these methods a try. Any comments on my other questions http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7375/spanish-codfish-with-sous-vide and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7812/why-does-salted-codfish-turn-chewy
@ESultanik, I've done some experiments today. From 35ºC to 54ºC between 10' and 15'. With very small pieces of Cod. I'm going to do some more experiments, as I ran out of Cod today. At 54ºC after 5', the Cod was perfectly done. Cheers.
@BaffledCook: Nice work! Remember that the size of the pieces will affect cooking time (the thicker the pieces the longer the required time for the center to come to temperature).
The classic baking method is 400°F (205°C) for 10 minutes per inch of thickness of your room temperature fish fillet or fish steak. Therefore, a thin sockeye salmon fillet might take 5 minutes or less, while a one and a half inch halibut steak will be perfectly cooked in 15 minutes at 400°F. BTW, this is also a good rule of thumb for pan frying or grilling in the 400-450°F (205-230°C) degree range. Other clues to look for are white bubbles of fat on the surface of salmon, flakiness of cod, flesh separating from the bone in a halibut steak.
Cooking cod is very simple:
Coat the bottom of a pan with oil or butter.
Lay the cod filets into the pan.
Sprinkle in various spices of your choice.
Flip them after a few minutes.
Press down on the filets when they start to flake (separate).
Serve and enjoy!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.844652
| 2011-06-13T19:56:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15435",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Drew Stewart",
"ESultanik",
"ElendilTheTall",
"James Barrie",
"Jason",
"Slicedpan",
"TFD",
"WaitForPete",
"dexterdev",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"iled"
],
"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
}
|
7812
|
Why does salted cod turn chewy?
We recently bought half a salted codfish. I did a Spanish recipe (and asked a question about it). The fish had a very nice texture (although it was way too salty).
This weekend, my wife did the same Spanish recipe, with the same codfish... but the texture of the flesh was chewy (her fish was less salty).
Any idea why? My guess is that the fish was overcooked. But I'm not sure.
Assuming the cod was the same quality as before and you de-salted the fish in the fridge for 24 to 48 hours, then I would also guess overcooking. Rendering the gelatin at 45°C (as suggested in the paper @yossarian uncovered) should prevent the fish from cooking and give enough time to get it into the oil. You can always cook the fish in a separate step after you made the pil pil.
Modern techniques for salting cod use less salt and create a product that will not be edible by future archeologists, so store in a dry cool place (tightly wrapped in the fridge).
I think that's possible.
A complete guess here, but I'm assuming the process of curing the fish changes the protein structures. The salt denatures the proteins which drives out the liquid in the meat to cure it. That process will result in tightly coiled protein molecules which will have a chewy texture similar to beef jerky.
Maybe, but this is the same fish that turned out alright some weeks ago.
weeks ago? What did you do with it in the mean time?
I thought salted cod was usually slightly chewy? If it was from the same piece of fish and the texture changed along with the saltiness, then I think that might support my answer. Could it be different stages of osmosis? Again, just guessing here.
@Arafangion, we're talking about salted cod, it will keep for months. I believe the 'real' cod is not chewy but moist and flaky. If it's chewy then it's not real cod. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadus
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.845010
| 2010-10-04T14:13:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7812",
"authors": [
"Arafangion",
"BaffledCook",
"Chris Benard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"snekse"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23260
|
How do I prevent smoked brisket from being chewy?
Last night I smoked my first brisket. I used a charcoal smoker which was given to me. I followed the advice given to me by the previous owner coupled with some quick reading from the manual and internet. While my brisket was full of flavor it was a bit chewy, though not dried out. I'm wondering if it is the way I prepared the meat. Here's an outline of the process I used:
About 5 lbs. of brisket
No marinade on brisket
1 gallon of Apple juice in pan
Started smoking when about 1/3 of coals were white with ash
Added soaked alder chips wrapped in tin foil
Placed brisket on top rack of smoker
Kept temperature to the left of ideal (advice from previous owner)
Added more soaked alder chips and charcoal 2 1/2 hrs in
Cooked for a little over 4 hrs
Smoker was in sun for first hour
Photo to illustrate what I mean by left of ideal:
Which leads me to my questions:
Is brisket generally chewy when smoked?
Would a good marinade prevent chewiness?
Is there something else wrong in my preparation (cook time, temperature, etc.)?
A gallon of apple juice? I understand the need for some liquid but a gallon seems like a lot for a 5 lb. brisket. That said, I'm not as well versed in smoking as others may be. Or maybe a gallon isn't too much for a longer cooking time?
Chewy means undercooked. Most of your standard "barbecue cuts" of meat contain a lot of connective tissue. This must be rendered to achieve tenderness. This goes for brisket, pork butt, and ribs, to name a few. If you are using the words "chewy" or "tough" to describe the texture of your meat, in nearly all cases it has not been cooked enough. Your time/temperature pretty much confirms it.
The best thing you can do is deemphasize time and temperature as your measure of "done." Rather, use a skewer to probe your meat when you think you are getting close. It should slide in and out of the brisket with VERY little resistance. Some people like to wrap in foil a few hours in. This will finish the brisket faster, as you will mitigate the evaporative cooling effect that causes your cooking process to stall. Plus, you can add some liquids and spices to the foil, which adds to the flavor profile of your meat. This is better known as the "Texas Crutch," and there is no shame in using it. Plenty of competitions have been won employing these tactics.
Brisket is a little intimidating because of the small window between "too chewy" and "dry and falling apart." But you should probably err more on the side of the latter, as that can be more easily compensated. The real takeaway here is have patience, and look to the meat itself for clues as to whether or not it is done, rather than using a timer and thermometer.
Here is a good basic technique for smoking brisket. The important points are to smoke it until it reaches an internal temperature of about 160 F, then wrap in foil. The meat won't absorb any more smoke flavor at that point anyway, and the foil will protect it from drying out during the rest of the cooking process. You can add a little bit of liquid inside the foil, though I've never bothered.
After foiling the brisket, continue cooking until it reaches 195-200 or so. Remove it from heat and allow it to rest for a while. Some people will store it in an insulated cooler.
Properly cooking brisket can take 12 hours or more. If you can't manage that kind of time, think about smoking chuck roasts ("chuckies") or making pulled pork.
As the other answers point out your brisket was vastly undercooked. Understand that this style of cooking requires not only cooking to doneness but also "time at temperature" in order to break down the connective tissue.
Some poeple do inject marinades, but that's not where you are going to find the gains you are looking for here. Your biggest opportunity to improve this dish is to cook much longer. Generally at least 12 hours at 225 degrees F. If you want, you can begin on the smoke and then move to an oven to finish. The general rule of thumb is that you don't get much more smoke adhesion after hour 2 or so.
The reason I wanted to add on to the existing answers was because I do not see a mention of slicing technique. Be sure to cut your finished product against the grain for maximum tenderness. This is one of those things that makes a huge difference but people are often skeptical about unless they've seen it first hand. Check out Franklin's slicing video on youtube for one surefire method. This whole series is great. It was produced for PBS (American public television).
I sear both sides of the brisket, wrap it in foil, and allow to cook until done, occasionally spreading liquid runoff over the meat.
How do you judge whether it is done?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.845308
| 2012-04-22T16:38:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23260",
"authors": [
"Chuck",
"Cindy",
"Dennis Börjesson",
"FlukyFood",
"Heather Heather",
"Nell",
"PowerCheez",
"Sam",
"Tinuviel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240"
],
"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
}
|
3378
|
How should baking soda be used to tenderize meat?
At some Chinese restaurants, I've had beef dishes where the meat was unusually tender. It also has a somewhat unusual texture, which is hard to describe. I understand that this is a result of using baking soda to tenderize the meat.
How should one use baking soda to tenderize meat? And can the technique be applied to other tough meats like chicken or pork?
You may be disappointed with the results from the answers below. The texture you're after does not come from tenderizing (or tenderizing alone), but from a process called velvelting. Here is an article on water-velveting for home cooks: http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/07/chinese-velveting-101-introduction-water-velveting.html
@RI Swamp Yankee both velveting, and tenderizing with papain or sodium carbonate are used. They're two separate processes both making softer meat but in a bit different ways with different results.
Add the baking soda to the cut meat and then wash it off. Measure about a teaspoon in your palm and then sprinkle it over the thinly sliced meat from high up. This way you get a thin layer over all the meat. Wash after some time (you can do it overnight). There is an eHow that you may follow
The baking soda will work like other meat tenderizers, by denaturing the proteins on the surface of the meat, so it should work on pork or chicken as long as the baking soda is on the meat (and not the skin or fat). The tenderizers penetrate the meat very slowly, millimeters per day at refrigerator temperatures, faster at cooking temperatures, so in practice it will only work on thin slices. If you use thicker pieces, you will still change the meat's surface texture.
If you use the baking soda straight into the dish in the same proportion (some people like it this way), adjust your salt accordingly, as the baking soda will make the dish salty.
I once worked in a Chinese restaurant and we used it for beef only, It was always the same, 1/4 teaspoon baking soda per lb of meat (lean meat, we used top round), tablespoon ShaoXing wine, pinch of salt and clove of garlic mashed. Marinated about 15-20 minutes, then "blanched" in hot oil for about 30 seconds, meat will look horrible after this last step, grey and ugly but when added your stir fry it will be tender and juicy. You can also use the egg white marinade with cornstarch, Shaoxing wine, white pepper, soy sauce...marinade 1/2 hour...blanch in hot oil. We used that marinade on chicken and didn't use that on beef as it does leave a slight coating that was not wanted in beef. As far as the baking soda leaving a taste....I never noticed it as it was not that much. Also when using the baking soda marinade, you should throw the meat into the bowl with force and manipulate it with your hands for a few minutes to activate the process faster, we used to slam it into a large bowl with as much force as we could. The meat will feel slimy, that is normal. Try it and let me know.
The egg-white and cornstarch marinade followed by a hot oil blanch is also known in the US as velveting. You've described the process very well, and so I'm looking forward to trying your beef preparation for the next time I do a stir fry.
The goal of using Baking Soda in treating meat, generally beef, is one wanted to tenderize cheaper cut of beef such as round steak, for stirfry dishes, e.g., stirfry beef and Chinese Brocoli. Pork and chicken generally are not very tough after cooking hence will not require treatment with meat tenderizer or baking soda.
When round beef was cut in small pieces, not necessary very thin cut, stir fry them would result in very chewy meat because the meat is in contact with oil for very short time. Pre-treatment with baking soda will make the meat very tender after stirfry but the baking soda did leave a strong alkaline taste which is very unpleasant.
So it is very important to adjust the amount of baking soda and the time of exposure of meat to it as well as proper washing of treated meat with fresh water containing some lemon juice or rice vinegar to remove excess baking soda taste is very important. After removal of excess baking soda, the beef will be marinated with spices, oyster sauce, pepper, garlice etc... to enhance the taste of the final product.
Bon Appetit
The effect of sodium bicarbonate on meat was aimed at making cheap cut (round beef etc...) acceptable for stir fry dishes (e.g., Beef and Chinese broccoli). Round beef even beaten up with a meat tenderizer hammer is still chewy.
Having the round beef sliced thinly help but even with extensive wash out, there still remain an alkaline taste which is overbearing.
I found the following approach worked for me.
Cut the beef thinly then sprayed with sodium bicarbonate generously. Leave in refrigerator overnight.
The next morning clean the slices with tap water for at least 15 minutes. Then add to the slice half a cup of vinegar (cheap quality is ok. No need for Kikkomen Rice Vinegar costing as much as a cheap .wine. The vinegar which is acid will interact with residual Sodium Bic .After 15 minutes wash again profusely with tap water The reason that this technique works was because it is very easy to wash out remaining vinegar which interact with the remaining sodium bicarbonate to free CO2 which emerged as tiny bubbles. Since Vinegar can be washed out much faster than sodium bicarbonate that form strong bindings with meat, your thin slices will be tender without alkaline after taste. Voila
I wondered much the same how the Chinese takeaway got their chicken so tender and googled the question and found the answer below.
I cannot credit the writer as I did not keep a note, but I can tell you it works.
I have not tried it with beef though, but having just done a beef curry with diced beef that has been in the freezer for over two years and was a bit tough I might give it a try.
Chinese chicken with bicarbonate.
You might wonder, as I did, how the chicken is always so tender in
Chinese restaurants? I asked the woman in a Chinese supermarket how
it was done and this is what I was told. All I can say is, it may
sound strange, but it works! Frying cubes of chicken can sometimes
result it being a bit on the tough side. Follow this and the
chicken will be fantastic:
First, get a small piece of paper and write yourself a note saying
'Rinse'. Now in a small bowl, mix together the following:
2 teaspoons of cornflour (known as cornstarch in the US)
2 teaspoons of baking soda
2 teaspoon of Shaoxing (Chinese rice wine)
Add the cubed chicken and stir so it is fully coated with the mixture.
It won't look like there is enough but there is to cover the chicken
but there is.
Cover the chicken with cling film and put the note on top. It's so, so
easy to forget the rinse the chicken and if you don't you won't be
able to eat it because of the baking soda taste! So after 20 minutes
or so, remember to rinse the chicken and pat dry with kitchen paper
before cooking.
Source: http://www.aglugofoil.com/2009/08/chinese-curry-just-like-takeaway.html
I read this on tastingtable.com. I haven't tried it yet but it is similar to advice given already:
Dissolve baking soda in water (for every 12 ounces of meat, use 1 teaspoon of baking soda and ½ cup of water).
Soak the meat in the solution for at least 15 minutes.
Remove and rinse.
Cook as desired, then bite into a seriously tender piece of meat.
you can tenderise any meat by use of baking soda rub, sprinkle on a few teaspoons and massage into meats, cover it with film for a few hours in the fridge, massage again and thouroughly rinse off soda and pat meat dry, works wonders
baking soda contains sodium its actual name is sodium bicarbonate. Baking soda contains carbonate which reacts (along with the sodium) with the water in the meat to forms carbonic acid thus acting as an acid the breaks down proteins. Also, the sodium does the same and encourages water retention by drying out the surface of the meat while keeping the inside moist, I've used this method from everything from fried chicken, turkey, and Peking duck.
Baking soda in water forms a base, not an acid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.845712
| 2010-07-27T00:20:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3378",
"authors": [
"Bobby Callahan",
"Ching Chong",
"ChrisR",
"Dhruba Adhikari",
"Doris Taylor",
"J.W. Mosley",
"Mandy Morgan",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Sam Duong",
"Spammer",
"Steven Rumbalski",
"Swiss Frank",
"Synthopian",
"cpugh",
"gmcchessney",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6213",
"olafure",
"user6123"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102593
|
How to prevent/slow down fava beans from turning to darker color?
I usually make fava beans from dry beans, I simmer them in plain water for hours.
Right after they are cooked they are bright green and have a very fresh delicious taste, but after letting it cool the color will change dramatically to a darker grey colour and as time goes the taste will change to the worse, Canned beans usually don't have this issue, I guess they add something to it, so what is causing this change and how can I prevent it?
Edit: I made an experiment by separating three bowls of beans and their water
one was topped with oil, one was rapidly cooled and then refrigerated and the last was the control left to cool down slowly in the open air, the rapidly cooled one was on the best in terms of colour then the oil covered one and last was the control
How are you cooling the beans?
Out of the fridge first for a couple of hours then into the fridge
I think the answer lies in how you're cooling them (hence my earlier comment). Many vegetables need to be 'shocked' immediately after cooking in order to retain a vibrant color. As shocking stops the cooking process, it also contributes to maintaining a good texture and flavor.
Here is a very similar Q & A from The Globe and Mail:
The question: I love fava and green beans in the summertime and would love to serve them at dinner parties, but they always look dull and grey after I cook them. Whenever I have them in French restaurants, they're bright green and vibrant. My daughter insists the chefs are probably just using MSG. Is she right?
The answer: It's not likely MSG they're using - just a simple technique called a "big pot blanch and shock." The key is to cook your green vegetables as quickly as possible so the heat doesn't have time to release their pigment and then shock them in ice water as soon as they're done. Fill the biggest pot in your kitchen - I use an eight-litre stockpot - with cold water and bring it to the hottest boil your stove can muster. Add a cup of table salt for every four litres of water, then dump in only as many vegetables as you can add without stopping the boil. Cook them in batches if you must. When they're done, scoop them out and chill immediately in a big pot of ice water. And maybe wear some protective sunglasses. They're going to be that bright.
Since, at the end of your cooking, the beans have the nice color and flavor you like, I would suggest cooking as you normally do but use the shocking technique immediately after.
If you normally keep the beans in the cooking liquid, I would still shock the beans and refrigerate them separately from the liquid. You can refrigerate the liquid and, when cold, add the beans back in.
I hate to be the spoil sport— but the idea of blanching and shocking the beans is usually done for vegetables that don’t need to be cooked significantly. You deactivate enzymes that cause browning. So that advice you quoted was likely for fresh beans, not dried.
Your observation is interesting in that fava beans contain high levels of oxidants. Persons with genetic susceptibility can get very sick from eating them. This illness is called favism.
https://www.hematology.org/Thehematologist/Diffusion/8304.aspx
The problem is that the bean’s protein content can include as much as
2 percent vicine and convicine, which are converted in the gut to
divicine and isouramil. These highly redox proteins are likely to
retard rotting of the bean, but produce reactive oxygen species (ROS)
including the superoxide anion and hydrogen peroxide, which rapidly
oxidize NADPH and glutathione. These molecules are normally detoxified
by catalase and glutathione peroxidase, in enzymatic reactions that
depend on NADPH. Because NADPH levels are very low in G6PD-deficient
red cells, these undergo severe oxidative damage. A characteristic
feature of favism is that intracellular and extracellular hemolysis
coexist.
Let us assume that color and flavor change described is due to these oxidants acting on the bean. How to prevent? I can think of one of 2 ways. 1: add antioxidants 2: prevent exposure to air.
The antioxidant that comes to mind would be lemon juice. The experiment is easy: a batch of fava beans, then treat half with lemon juice and the other leave alone. Does lemon juice prevent the color change? Lemon juice works to prevent browning of sliced apples by this mechanism.
The other method would be to exclude air. One could do this by tossing the fresh cooked beans with olive oil, which should produce an air barrier on each bean. Submerging beans in oil would be a surer way to achieve the same purpose. A third method would be to contain them in an airtight bag or container and exclude air first before sealing. Again, testable.
*Note that submerging cooked beans in oil is not a way to keep them indefinitely. Different and possibly more dangerous types of spoilage can happen. Both of the above ideas are to keep your beans good for a couple of days at most. Both sound delicious to me.
Use lemon skin or a bit of lemon juice while cooking. This tip is known in the fava beans restaurants in the middle east
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.846375
| 2019-09-28T08:31:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102593",
"authors": [
"Ahmad Hani",
"Cindy",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48070",
"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
}
|
94122
|
why won't my lentils cook uniformly?
Whenever I cook black lentils there is always a hard crunchy piece in every bite while other pieces become soft as they should, I start cooking by boiling for about 30 minutes in unsalted water until almost all the lentils are soft.
I tried changing my soaking time and boiling time before I add salt but it didn't help.
Could it be that the manufacturer is mixing old lentils with newer ones or is there something else.
There are many sorts of lentils, and they cook differently. Some names are used for more than one type so please update witrh what sort, being as specific as you can
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6928/when-sorting-lentils-what-exactly-am-i-looking-for?rq=1
It is black lentils, I don't know the exact name
do you mean black gram, also called urad? do you use it whole or split? do you buy it loose or already packaged? do you sort it if you buy loose? how long do you soak it? do you soak in cold water or room temperature water? how long do you boil it for? More information will help getting a better answer.
I bought it loose and it was whole lentils that keep its shape after cooking, I boiled it for almost 30 minutes and soaked it in tap water I can't know what type of lentil it was because I live in Egypt and we have only 2 types yellow and black, also I didnt sort it
http://www.foodsubs.com/Lentils.html has a few different types, can you tell from that which you've got? Certainly I always soak black gram overnight then slow cook (simmer gentle for hours) without trouble.
loose lentils can often have some 'dodgy' ones which don't cook very well. You should try sorting it first. This question is about sorting. Try soaking it for longer. I used to soak black gram for about 8-10 hours and then cook but had to cook it for longer to prevent uncoooked bits. Now I soak for about 24 hours and it cooks beautifully. Search on google for term black lentil and decide which one looks similar to what you've got. It will help in getting a better relevant answer.
Thank you I think it looks similar to black gram. I will try buying the prepackaged stuff and sort it before cooking, I will also cook some with a 2 hour soak and another with 24 hour to see the difference
When cooking any sort of legumes
1) Sort them (if you don't trust it to be pre-sorted)
2) Soak them (make cooking easier, and also more uniform, since they already absorbed moisture)
3) Now you cook them. I don't simmer in the slow cooker, I usually pressure cook them
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.847072
| 2018-11-21T09:37:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94122",
"authors": [
"Ahmad Hani",
"Chris H",
"Ess Kay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76347
|
What is this Austrian pork dish called?
A traditional Austrian pork dish, served with potato croquettes, vegetables, mushrooms and gravy
From: https://i.sstatic.net/aZ9zA.jpg
Where is the picture and quote from?
@Cindy http://imgur.com/gallery/35BwvDi
The original source of this image is from a photographer named KF, Gmunden, taken in Austria on July 2005.
Here is the original source on the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pork_.JPG
With a reverse Google Image search and more digging, this doesn't appear to be a named dish. Rather, the amalgamation of these ingredients is typical, as suggested by the original wiki upload. If the dish had a name, it would have been tagged when the file was uploaded to Wikipedia.
Isn't it strange to claim it "traditional" then, if it wasn't well-known as well?
I think what is traditional about the pictured dish is that it is common to include several or all of these components on a plate. Pork, potatoes, vegetables, gravy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.847299
| 2016-12-11T18:54:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76347",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"mavavilj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73746
|
What's a microscoop?
I've bought pure caffeine powder and its serving size is said to be a microscoop, but no measure of weight is given.
So what's/what size is a microscoop?
"Microscoops" can be found from the internet, but their size is 7-12mg. Is this reasonable for caffeine?
Please keep your powder out of the reach of children and pets. The LD50 of pure caffeine is ~150-200mg/kg of body weight. That means less than a gram of your powder could kill a toddler or curious pet.
Seconded. There are publicly documented cases where people have been hurt by misjudging the quantity they ingested.
http://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/index.php/2014/12/tragic-deaths-highlight-the-dangers-of-powdered-pure-caffeine/
Yes, 7-12mg is a perfectly reasonable, very conservative amount. 12mg of caffeine is about equal to the amount of caffeine in a liquid ounce of 'average' coffee. (Source USDA)
Take care not to pack the scoop. Pure caffeine is a potentially dangerous ingredient. Microscoops vary even more than what is implied by your question, I've seen them as large as 50mg; a comment here tells of a 100mg microscoop. Again, take care, and know exactly what you have.
For greater accuracy, consider a milligram scale which can be had for about $20 US.
A liquid ounce is around 0.3dl so if 12mg of caffeine corresponds to the caffeine in 0.3dl of coffee, then it's not much. Somewhere (https://www.google.com/search?q=pure+caffeine+miscroscoop+100mg) the serving for pure caffeine was said to be "100mg microscoop". But I would want to avoid taking too much of caffeine, since it can be dangerous
+1 for mentioning the danger of pure caffeine. One can't really poison oneself with brewed coffee, but with caffeine powder (1).
I don't know about the "7-12mg is a perfectly reasonable, conservative amount" though. One cup (8 fl oz) is said to contain 94,8mg of caffeine. In that sense (since surely the pure caffeine I have is the same thing as that in the measurement) one could equate ~100mg of the pure caffeine powder into 1 cup of coffee.
@mavavilj That's why I called it conservative. I'll edit it to say very conservative.
Actually, looking closer the pure caffeine bags that I bought had the microscoop in them, but it was hidden into the caffeine itself. So this is their measure of "microscoop". The volume is about the size of a medium sized pill or a button cell. They say in the bag that the microscoop would be 180mg. Perhaps, it looks like it's something between 100-180mg (I know the size of a 100mg caffeine pill).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.847416
| 2016-09-06T05:42:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73746",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50360",
"mavavilj",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109968
|
Deep frying vs air frying temperature equivalence
TL/DR. Is there a general rule that can be applied for converting from deep frying recipes temperatures to air frying? If so, what's the rule?
When converting recipes from deep frying to air frying, I've tried using the same temperatures suggested in the original recipe, but I've found that food won't get brown/golden as expected, or it can even get under cooked after the same cooking time. These experiences have lead me to believe that cooking temperature needs to be higher, but some articles I've read about this (i.e. this article) would seem to point in the other direction.
An example of this was with some cheese sticks, which by their recipe were supposed to be deep fried with oil at 210°F for 10 minutes, but when air fried at that temperature for more than 25 minutes, still came out pale and with the dough being undercooked.
By the way, I'm using GoWISE USA GWAC22003 5.8-Quart Air Fryer, in case this is relevant (although I feel it shouldn't, in general terms).
Can someone with enough reputation please create the air-frying tag and add it to my question? Thanks in advance!
it might help if you give examples of recipes that did and didn't work, and how long you cooked them at what temperature
@csk ok. Thanks for the suggestion. I just added an example.
It's impossible to give you a conversion. Or if not impossible, at least exceedingly impractical, both for the person deriving the formula and for you when you try to apply it in your case.
First, let's take the issue of underdoneness only. To make sure the center is done, you have to ensure sufficient heat transfer. In deep frying, most of the energy arrives at the food via conduction from the oil to the food, and is proportional to mass and the specific heat coefficient. Not only is the specific heat of oil almost twice as high as that of air, but also the mass of oil in a deep fryer is many times the mass of air in an air fryer. This means that in an air fryer, you get much more heat through radiation than through conduction. Since it is not the same process (such that you can plug in only the variables that differ and come up with some kind of simple ratio), it is completely impractical for a home cook to try to derive a conversion formula between the heat transfer in their deep fryer and their air fryer. Generalizing it and giving it to all home cooks would be even more difficult, and it would depend on the geometry of the fryers and on the properties of the food surface anyway, leaving too big a margin of error. Bottom line: forget the formulas, cook until done, whenever that happens for your particular combination of cooking device, temperature setting, and food.
Your second point was the surface. If you want the crispy golden surface of fried food, this happens through an interaction of heat, fat and usually also starch. The starch is usually already present in the food, either because you are frying starchy items like potatoes, or because you have breaded or battered your frying goods. The air fryer provides the heat. What you still need is the oil. You will have to toss your items with a sufficient layer of oil, generously brush it on. Then you will get a fried crust.
A third point is that you may be trying it with prefab foods (at least I have rarely seen people make their own cheese sticks). Prefab foods are precisely engineered to work with exactly the suggested method of preparation. Other methods, while edible, will likely produce a noticeable difference. You may not be able to get the same results with an air fryer.
Thanks for your answer. I appreciate the thoroughness of it and your effort to help.
Now, I don't know if I completely agree with some of the underlying assumptions, as I would expect that some basic rules of thumb exist, specially from the manufacturers of air fryers, which for sure would need to know how this "translation" works in order to produce successful appliances (as they do). Unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge on thermal transfer theory to come up with something on my own, hence the question.
@carlossierra if you think that manufacturers of air fryers know of some translation, surely you should look for it in your user manual? Personally, I have had some limited success with dunking foodstuffs in oil (as rumstcho mentioned) before airfying at highest temp. Depending on the item, the oil can get absorbed as if it was badly deep-fried, so it's hit and miss.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.847637
| 2020-07-31T16:01:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109968",
"authors": [
"carlossierra",
"csk",
"hmijail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10444
|
How to cook pelmeni in the microwave?
Is it possible to cook pelmeni (пельмени) — Russian meat dumplings — in the microwave without any precooking either in pot or on pan? What are the steps?
Anything that is normally cooked by simmering / boiling in liquid can be cooked in a microwave in the same way, if your microwave can keep the liquid simmering.
So for pelmeni just put them in a bowl of salted boiling water (use a kettle or the microwave to bring it to the boil first), bring back to a simmer and cook on high for the same length of time you'd cook them in a pan on the stove. If your microwave is not powerful enough to keep the water simmering, cook smaller amounts at a time.
It's less efficient than doing it on the stove, takes more time and is more fuss. The pelmeni will take longer to come back to a simmer than they would on the stove, so the dough will be relatively overcooked and soft.
good point about boiling water first in kettle!
It is possible, but considering the fact that the filling for pelmeni isn't pre-cooked (in any recipe that I've seen), you want to make sure to cook it thoroughly.
You can place them in a microwave safe bowl with water and cook them for 9-12 minutes until done.
You can also place pelmeni in a single layer on a plate. Cover with a wet paper towel or clean cloth - it should be thoroughly wet. Cook on high, checking every few minutes to make sure the towel or cloth is still wet. Again, do this for 9-12 minutes.
There's no significant time-savings over doing this on the stove-top, but if you only have a microwave available, it works. They taste better on the stove top.
I would not use the cloth method. Sounds like a sure way to overcook the dough and ruin the dish. HOWEVER, if you are making the chicken-filled variety, then yes - make absolutely sure they are cooked through.
In my experience, microwave works surprisingly well for this.
take out 10-15 pelmeni
boil at least one liter of water in the microwave or an electric boiler
place the pelmeni in a container
add water and stir gently to separate and prevent them sticking to each other
place the container in the microwave oven
set the oven to 3-5 minutes (700w+)
let them rest in the water for 1-2 minutes after boiling
drain the pelmeni (or fish them out and reuse the water for next batch)
serve with any of:
a bit of pepper
oregano
mayonnaise
sour cream
vinegar
soy sauce
terryaki sauce
any korean sauce
oyster sauce
MSG
caviar
chicken stock
mustard
raw onions and salt
or even a salad!
Comments to check for readiness
Small portion (6-8) pelmeni in one liter of water can be done in as little as 3 minutes. Some people like to use even more water and more time. Do whatever you do for pasta - if that helps. Salting the water is not necessary, but if you do the result will taste better, but require more time to boil.
For boiling, if three minutes seems like too little, try 3-4 rounds of 2 minutes with a minute in between each round. Since it's not very easy to simmer anything in the microwave, and since it heats the meat and dough and water all at the same time, I find that less time is required with the microwave.
However! I currently live somewhere where the water is pretty hard, with a lot of minerals in it. If your water is soft, or if you use bottled and filtered water, then you may need more time.
However!! If your microwave is less powerful, with the total effect of ~600 Watt or less, then use more time.
However!!! If you are cooking pelmeni with chicken filling, then use more time, I'd say at least 7-12 minutes, starting from boiling water.
It helps to know if you how they should taste when done.
Generally:
if they float on top of the water, they're done
if the dough skin is broken, you cooked them too long
if they are dry inside (no meat juice), you cooked them too long
If you are still really unsure, keep one pelmen uncooked and defrosted and cut it in two. Compare the color of the meat with one that's cooked. It should look dead and have no red color ;)
Tips
Eat them right away after they come out of the water. By the time you are done, some will have cooled down and the magical effect of biting into hot broth will be diminished.
If decide to have pelmeni for dinner when you get back from work, consider taking them out of the freezer and put them in the refrigerator in the morning or the evening before. This will marginally reduce the cooking time, or you can fry them in a pan with lots of butter to give them a glorious crust.
O.K. I need to stop writing, I love this dish too much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.848098
| 2010-12-23T07:19:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10444",
"authors": [
"James Young",
"Jason",
"dotty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3953",
"kusoksna",
"Ярослав Рахматуллин"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16148
|
Soft bones in smoked chicken
For lunch today, a coworker and I went to a neighborhood southern-style BBQ joint. I usually wind up with fried catfish and he fried chicken, but today we both sprung for the smoked goods, and I found myself ordering a barbecue chicken leg sandwich.
After ordering, I thought "I wonder how that works... legs on a sandwich?" I figured that meant is was leg meat. When Mabel brought it ought I was a bit surprised (and slightly disappointed) to find that this was whole chicken legs on top of two slices of white bread. Oh well, I'll just pull out the bones.
Then the strange part happened. I picked up a leg to start pulling on the bone, and it collapsed under its own weight. Well that was the exposed part of the bone... it must have just disintegrated. So I started picking the meat apart to get to the bone, and when I found it in the middle and squeezed it to give it a yank, it collapsed under the pressure of my fingers.
As I worked my way through all the bones in the legs, I found this pattern continued: all of the bones were not just brittle, but downright soft! It was a bit hard to pick it all out, and I think some even got left behind in the meat--and even still it was barely even noticeable when chomping down.
What would cause bones to become so utterly soft?
I assumed Mabel must cook these things for a week, but when I asked, she said it was an hour or two in the smoker. Does smoke really do this, or is there some other treatment.
Tremmors and Rincewind42 are both right, but it does sound strange that an hour or two in a smoker would make the bones that soft. Maybe Mabel pre-cooks them, possibly using a pressure cooker?
@Henrik Söderlund, can you make this an answer rather than a comment?
Done. My comment is now an answer.
Tremmors and Rincewind42 are both right, but it does sound strange that an hour or two in a smoker would make the bones that soft. Maybe Mabel pre-cooks them, possibly using a pressure cooker?
Boiling chicken bones for an extended period of time (4+ hours) will cause bones to go squishy. I'm assuming any long duration slow cook method will do the same.
A pressure cooker for a long time will make chicken bones go mushy. My father-in-law likes his chicken done that way. Goes well with the false teeth. Also I know a German lady how makes her chicken stock / broth that way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.848476
| 2011-07-14T00:18:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16148",
"authors": [
"Barbara",
"Elvis",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Lauren",
"Ray",
"Scott B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"user34374"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7821
|
Substitution for baking soda in pancakes
I attempted to make pancakes this morning, only to discover that I was out of baking soda. I tried substituting baking powder, but it didn't work at all. The pancakes didn't bubble on the griddle, and they were far too doughy. If this happens again, do I need to go out to the store for baking soda?
You need to use 2-3 times more baking powder than baking soda. Be aware that your flavors will be affected. Make sure it's double-acting baking powder and you must replace the acidic liquid in recipe with non-acidic liquid. You could also use some heartburn medicine that contained potassium bicarbonate :-)
+1 for the heartburn- as long as you don't mind the pancakes tasting like fruit. :)
Unfortunately there is no substitute. While it is possible to substitute for baking powder, the reverse just doesn't work the same. Tripling the quantity of baking powder to baking soda will give an equivalent reaction, but your pancakes will taste like metal.
I wouldn't recommend replacing the soda in the same recipe but there are plenty of pancake recipes that call for powder instead of soda.
@Sobachatina - powder is the secret ingredient in the recipe I use.
@Soba: I didn't say baking powder isn't used. Your comment seems to imply that I did. My pancakes use baking powder too. I was just referring to tripling the quantity of baking soda for a baking powder substitution.
I did misunderstand. Thanks for the clarification.
Using a baking powder that does not contain aluminum compounds might help alleviate that.
You can use baking powder to leaven the batter but you can't replace baking soda with it 1 for 1.
Baking powder is soda with some acid to balance the ph. Pancake recipes that use only powder will not have extra acid, such as buttermilk, added to them.
I love buttermilk. If I were making the pancakes I would go buy soda rather than having an under-flavored breakfast. Baking soda keeps indefinitely and is useful for a lot of things. Buy enough that you never run out again.
When no baking powder is handy, you can make pancakes using yeast*.
It takes longer, having to let the yeast rise for 30 minutes and all, but I've done it, and the result is really really tasty pancakes!
*No endorsement of this recipe is implied, it's merely the first one I ran across.
It is possible to make pancakes with non of both.
In Germany I have yet to meet someone who adds it. I guess the pancakes are thinner but they are tasty non the less.
Or you can carefully add whipped egg-white to the batter just before baking. That's how the very fluffy Kaiserschmarrn is made. The air contained in the stiff egg-white does more or less the same as the CO2 produced by Soda or baking powder.
For yet another option add some sparkling water to the batter.
Use 2 times the amount of baking powder and a higher temp.
As for acid I'm not sure. I sub it in cake recipes (and never cared about the acid). In fact I use extra lemon juice for softness and it never interfered.
Someone posted this on a different site. I am going to try it.
The only trouble I had was remembering the amounts. So, I wrote the following down and taped it to the inside of my baking cabinet.
to equal the leavening of:
1 teaspoon baking powder . . . use 1/4 teaspoon baking soda plus 1 teaspoon vinegar
2 teaspoons baking powder . . . use 1/2 teaspoon baking soda plus 2 teaspoons vinegar
1 tablespoon baking powder. . . use 3/4 teaspoon baking soda plus 1 tablespoon vinegar
The question is about replacing baking soda with baking powder, not the reverse.
Yes, there is a substitution. It is a combination of cream of tartar and salt!
I responded to your post in error.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.848707
| 2010-10-04T15:18:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7821",
"authors": [
"Alice Coleman",
"Belinda Chong",
"Chris Steinbach",
"DAN HARMON",
"Lynn",
"Matt",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"ethalfrida",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99491",
"justkt",
"snekse"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28693
|
Cooking tips for elk sausage
I recently purchased some elk sausages from a farmers' market but I have no idea what their ingredients are. I understand that game has a lot less fat than other meats, so presumably the cooking (grilling?) time would be a lot less.
Is there any thing else I should be aware of? They cost 4.45 CDN each so I don't want to mess them up.
It's a bit late now I guess, but ask the people you bought them from if you can!
With any game I automatically think about avoiding overcooking as it is quite lean, however any sausage may have fat added to it to prevent it drying out, so a simple look at your sausage should tell you how much fat it has. If it is really dark with very little white in it then there's little fat and you need to make sure you don't overcook them, if there's a good proportion of fat then cook them as you would normally.
The best reference I have for cooking game is out of an app called BB Meat Master which says:
The trouble with game is that you don't know where it's been. Modern animal husbandry has eliminated many common foodborne illnesses and makes raised meat very safe but wild meat may have some diseases. For this reason some recommend that game be cooked to a minimum of 160F(71C) which is where all foodborne illnesses are wiped out, however with most game this will make it dry and unpalatable. You as the cook must balance safety and flavor/tenderness. When eating be sure to be on the lookout for metal shot or bullets.
To me there's no point in buying game if you plan to cook it until it's dry, so I aim to cook it to medium at 145F/63C at the most. It's hard to gauge with sausages, so with low-fat game sausages I'd brown them off and get them out pretty quick. As long as they're firm you should be ok.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.849019
| 2012-11-26T23:25:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28693",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Janina Rooney",
"Narda",
"Nibedita Das",
"Ole Tange",
"aude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66376"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16424
|
Has anyone ever tried birch sap as a tonic?
According to this blog posting, birch sap is very popular in Russia as a drink. Further, I read in wikipedia that it is popular enough to be bottled and sold commercially.
Finally, (and most importantly) I found this article in the Guardian, detailing the steps to take in order to enjoy fermented birch sap (AKA 'birch wine').
Has anyone tried this, and if so would they relate how successful the attempt was?
This would probably be better suited on homebrew.stackexchange.com.
@ESultanik I wish you had written as an answer, rather than a comment. I just wanted to know what birch sap was like to drink, any comments on fermented birch sap would be a bonus.
@Doug: Ah, okay. I thought you were more interested in what it's like when it's fermented. I'll convert my comments to an answer (I also have some more to add!).
look at my comment to the answer
Doesn't "successful" in conjunction with "as a tonic" (unless "as a substitute for "tonic water" is intended) imply a health-related question?
I've tried unfermented birch sap before (I got it at a local Russian supermarket). I was expecting it to taste somewhat like Birch Beer. Instead, it was surprisingly tasteless; like maple, I suspect one would have to reduce/concentrate it quite significantly to get a pronounced birch flavor. It had the taste and consistency of a thin/diluted simple syrup with only a faint hint of birch flavor.
I made a cocktail using birch sap and ROOT: a liquor modeled after a pre-temperance liquor called "root tea" that was the predecessor to root beer (which is, ironically, non-alcoholic), one of whose primary flavorings is birch bark. I forget what else (if anything) I put in it, but I seem to recall that it worked quite well.
I asked a Russian friend of mine if he had ever heard of fermented birch sap. He said that, although birch sap ("берёзовый сок", if you ever want to find it in a Russian store) is very popular in Russia, he has never heard of anyone fermenting it. However, he did add that "Russians would ferment anything…"
On a somewhat related note (at the risk of going off topic), there is an extremely popular low-alcohol drink in Russia called kvas (квас) which is made from fermented rye bread. Despite the fact that birch sap is also popular, every Russian for whom I've served root beer or birch beer absolutely hates the stuff. Likewise, I love root/birch beer, however, I hated kvas the first time I tried it (but I have since developed a taste for it, over time). I have developed this theory:
Anyone who liked the taste of kvas the first time he/she tried it will undoubtedly dislike the taste of root/birch beer the first time he/she tries it. Likewise, Anyone who liked the taste of root/birch beer the first time he/she tried it will undoubtedly dislike the taste of kvas the first time he/she tries it.
I have surveyed dozens of Eastern Europeans and Americans alike who have tried both, and I have yet to find a single person that invalidates my theory. Is there anyone out there who has tried both?
Well, I live in Russia and tried both. I can say that birch sap is almost tasteless, like a slightly sugared water with some weak flavour (think weak cool roibos), while kvas has a very strong and characteristic taste. Birch sap is very good for your health while for kvas that's highly debatable. Today you can buy b.s. but you really have to know where. Kvas is sold almost anywhere you can find Coca-Cola (though sometimes a totaly synthetic thing). As for tonic properties of b.s., I think it's something like roibos too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birch_sap
Birch sap is different than American-style root/birch beer. You are correct that birch sap is almost tasteless, however, root beer and birch beer have a very strong and characteristic taste.
Beer yes, it has much more taste I think, but I don't drink alcohol, so can't say anything from myself :) I think that a recognizable rich taste is a must-have for beer :)
Despite their names, modern birch beer and root beer is almost never alcoholic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birch_beer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_beer
rightieee.. okay, found a shop for the root beer here :) gonna try it sometime soon I hope :)
I enjoy both both kvas and root/birch beer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.849212
| 2011-07-26T20:08:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16424",
"authors": [
"DHayes",
"Doug",
"ESultanik",
"Keith",
"Sobachatina",
"Tinz",
"actfong",
"bautrey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76547",
"noncom",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37086
|
Are cooked shrimp shells edible?
Some Chinese shrimp dishes like the spicy garlic shrimp is served with the shell still on but head removed. Since the shell was on during cooking, the seasoning is all over it.
Are you supposed to eat the whole shrimp with the shell, or remove the shell and only eat the meat? I usually taste the seasoning on the shell and then peel it away to eat the meat only.
This depends partially on the cooking technique and the shrimp variety/size (=> thickness of the shell).
If the shrimp is deep fried the shell can turn crispy and is super fun to eat. However, if boiled, the shells are chewy and extremely unpleasant - in this case you have to peel them.
I am not familiar with the spicy garlic shrimp, but you can just try if the shell is crunchy, is pleasant to eat, and does not require excessive painful chewing - go for it, if not return to your old practice of pealing it and just licking the flavoring of the shells.
The shells are edible (no harm would come to you) but unpleasant. You're supposed to remove the shell and eat the shrimp. If no no one is looking I'll suck on the shells because they do have nice flavor. If you can save a decent sized pile of them, you can make a pretty serviceable broth by boiling them for a couple of minutes, but that is usually done with raw shells.
I'm Chinese American and when I order garlic shrimp I prefer to eat the little feet beneath the abdomen because it's slightly crunchy and thoroughly marinated in sauce. But I always peel off the rest of the shell since it's hard to chew and usually tough.
A couple of years ago I went to an Indonesian restaurant in New York City and tried a dish where the shrimp had been flash fried in extremely high heat, so the shell was thin, brittle, and edible. The dish was called Nasi Goreng Sambal Udang Petai, or Shrimp with Stink Beans and Rice. I won't go into the unusual beans, which deserve its own StackExchange question, but the shrimp had been fried so that the shell nearly disintegrates when you bite into the shrimp. I found the shrimp shell to be incredibly delicious and ever since then I've tried try to eat shrimp shells if they're not too tough.
So, yes, shrimp shells are edible and, based on recent scientific research, may also provide health benefits, like lowering cholesterol and improving cartilage and joint health.
My wife is from China (Northeast) and she ALWAYS eats the shrimp (fried) with the shells intact. (chopsticks, fork, hands, whatever) I do too now, and prefer it that way.
You're supposed to eat the shrimp with chopsticks, picking one up from the platter, bite off a piece if they're large, chewing up the whole thing, and swallowing only the meat and spitting out the shells as politely as you can on the table.
I'm going to guess that if you are served shrimp prepared in this way, the shrimp are probably large.
The purpose of this method of preparation is to cook the shrimp without toughing it up.
My brother in law is from Bangladesh and he's making beautiful prawn curries and dishes with shells still intact. So when it comes to eating we all eat the prawns iwth the shell and head. It's super yummie and crunchy from the outside and soft from the inside.
Try it, when grilled prawns taste great with their shells still intact.
The fact is that the Prawn/shrimp shell/skin is edible item. But it depends only on how the item is cooked. If you cook a plain Prawn/shrimp in an electric oven at higher degree for longer duration(try your own by trial & error way the temp & time, also other way of frying/putting on direct fire/grill helps), no matter how big it is, you can enjoy eating them whole with excellent taste. This way you get more calcium and other minerals and their benefits too. But it is not advisable to eat the shells if they don't get to powder form while biting (generally other ways of cooking has this problem). It may even upset your stomach.
Shrimp shells are edible but what she said they are not pleasant. Shrimp skin is very healthy and have a lot of health benefits like it can help you lower blood pressure and lose weight easily.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.849544
| 2013-09-25T21:59:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37086",
"authors": [
"Amy",
"Angie Hamilton",
"Anthony Leo",
"Barbara Metsa",
"Frisk",
"Guilder",
"Maria ",
"Maureen Bourke",
"Michael Arick",
"Ryan Beer",
"Sandra Snyder",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87165",
"neil giles",
"novaro ramadhan",
"toby mathis"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17468
|
Is it safe to prepare Chicken Tartare?
I know that raw chicken generally has a lot of safety concerns. Is there anyway that I can source the chicken to minimize these worries? What are the general concerns? How can I combat them? Are there any other safety concerns I should be worried about?
I can't think of anything I'd like to eat less. Apart from safety concerns (salmonella, campylobacter etc), the texture and probably the taste (if the smell is anything to go by) of raw chicken is off-putting to say the least. Just my 2 cents.
I suggest this question (and its excellent answer!) be merged with "Why isn't it safe to eat raw chicken?"
Yeah, this is totally unappetizing notion.
Many people find the idea of raw fish unappetizing too but many of us grew to love sashimi despite our initially yucky preconceptions. Of course it's more widely known what's safe when it comes to uncooked fish so I think this is a great question.
I'd suggest Consumer Reports as a starting point. They specifically investigated the food safety of chicken in 2010 and found that (among other things):
Campylobacter was in 62 percent of the chickens, salmonella was in 14 percent, and both bacteria were in 9 percent. Only 34 percent of the birds were clear of both pathogens. That's double the percentage of clean birds we found in our 2007 report but far less than the 51 percent in our 2003 report.
Store-brand organic chickens had no salmonella at all, showing that it's possible for chicken to arrive in stores without that bacterium riding along. But as our tests showed, banishing one bug doesn't mean banishing both: 57 percent of those birds harbored campylobacter.
Among all brands and types of broilers tested, 68 percent of the salmonella and 60 percent of the campylobacter organisms we analyzed showed resistance to one or more antibiotics.
The same issue seems to come up over and over again in food safety questions, and I really can't stress this enough: Salmonella is not the only dangerous bacteria in food. Campylobacter is just one of many others and produces heat-resistant enterotoxins that simply put, can make you very, very sick. Perfringens is also common, and raw chicken has also been found to harbour Listeria.
I've seen a number of articles and blogs claiming that people "worry too much" and most of them cite Ippuku in SF, which generated quite a stir by serving chicken tartare. It's legal in many countries for a restaurant to serve raw or undercooked food, provided that there is informed consent (the customer is specifically informed or specifically orders that their food be undercooked). However, legal is a very long way from safe, especially when we're talking about raw meat.
Steak tartare is more acceptable because, for some reason, Campylobacter don't like it and the incidence of E.coli is extremely low at only 0.26%. Raw beef isn't totally safe but most healthy people who eat it will not have complications afterward.
So, to summarize:
Raw chicken: ~20% salmonella (depending on source), ~60% campylobacter (any source)
Raw beef: Less than 0.1% e.coli, ~2% campylobacter (any source)
Conclusion: If you eat raw beef (steak tartare), you're a risk-taker. If you eat raw chicken, you have a death wish. Just say no.
At an absolute minimum, please don't serve this to your dinner guests with assurances that it will be safe. What you do to your own body is your decision to make, but it would be grossly irresponsible to serve anything made with raw chicken to anyone who hasn't been made fully aware of the risks.
P.S. Some of this data may be U.S. specific, but the problem is worldwide. For example:
A New Zealand study showed a 36.7% contamination rate for salmonella and 84.3% for campylobacter, (thanks TFD!).
A Canadian study showed a 37.5% incidence rate for salmonella and 75% for campylobacter.
So don't expect to be safer simply because you don't live in the U.S. If you're planning on doing this, you should check what your country's regulations and current statistics are regarding salmonella, campylobacter, C. perfringens, and listeria, for farms and plants producing chicken meat. That is your actual risk.
Buying "organic" might help, or might not, since organic is currently not a true legal or regulatory category in most regions.
It's most likely a global issue, as birds are birds, and their pathogens get spread around the world. Here is a Australian report with similar findings http://www.foodstandards.govt.nz/_srcfiles/Poultry%20survey%20rept%20March%202010.pdf. Here in NZ we mainly have a problem with Listeria
NZ stat: Per million people per 10 years, Campylobacteriosis from undercooked chicken 12,000 cases, 700 hospitalisations, 1 death
And according to your statistics, 66% of Ippuku's customer who ate chicken tartare should've dropped dead. 5 serving's a night over 3 years they already managed to kill about 3000 people.
If you want to eat raw Chicken find a good supplier of raw chicken, one were we you can see how they are farmed, or farm them yourself
There are at least four main pathogens to worry about (Campylobacter, Clostridium perfringens, Listeria, Salmonella), but all of them should only be found on the feathers, skin and gastrointestinal tract of a healthy bird
Get to know how it was killed and prepared and be satisfied that it was not contaminated, or you have to do it yourself
If you do it yourself, you need to keep the bird chilled during processing (work in an empty walk in fridge). And you have to sanitise everything during processing
You will probably still need to wash the bird before further processing. When you wash the bird you have to wash ALL your equipment too. See this commercial guide on the steps required haccp_v2ap-ix-4-broilers.pdf
Process the bird as you intend for raw eating and then freeze a sample and take to a food standards laboratory and have it checked. If you comes out clean, repeat a few more times until you are satisfied you can produce clean meat
After all this work even a Chicken burger from Maca's sounds good :-(
In countries where eating raw chicken is socially acceptable (France, Japan, etc) you will often find they have specific breeds of chicken (Blue Foot?) that taste OK raw, and these are specifically farmed and killed for eating raw
I read somewhere that one way to kill most bacterias but still leave the meat raw is to boil it for a just a short while. If you look at this picture you see what I mean.
This will likely resolve any surface contamination, but won't do anything for any interior contamination. Where does the contamination exist? My understanding was that it could be pervasive through out the cut of meat. So you haven't really answered if it's safe or not.
As I'm no expert in food safety I cannot answer more precise. But obviously my suggested is used by people who eat raw chicken so it probably works if you only use fresh source controlled meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.849944
| 2011-09-04T14:28:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17468",
"authors": [
"Bloodpuncher",
"BobMcGee",
"Cerulean",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Godisemo",
"Jakub Falat",
"Joyce Buzan",
"Katey HW",
"Sleeper Smith",
"TFD",
"biju",
"captainbaloo",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7250",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7740
|
Why did my banana catch fire in the microwave?
Wow, that sounds like a silly question, but really! My wife froze bananas in the freezer with the peel still on. You can't peel them frozen. I put it in the microwave for one minute at 50% power. After 30 seconds the thin end of the peel (where a bunch connect to each other) was on fire, with a visible flame (about the size of a lighter). What on earth happened?
That is very odd indeed. A fire needs an ignition source, and the only thing I know of that can actually ignite from microwaves is metal. Was there a metal twist tie or something?
@aaronut, Not that I noticed before putting the banana in. Once it came out, the end was charred. There was no metal visible, but it could have been hidden by the mess at the end of the banana.
@Aaronut - it can also ignite if it's heated too long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Hazards
I suspect the bananas were, like many of the fruits you find in grocery stores, coated with some sort of food-grade wax. The dry woody end of the banana would have allowed this wax to heat to its flash point and ignite, catching the stem itself.
@justkt: That's true, but to reach the autoignition temperature of even a highly-combustible substance would require far more than 30 seconds at half power.
I thaw my bananas in a bowl of warm water ... the only problem is that dealing with half-frozen bananas will chill your hands rather quickly. If I need the bananas stil frozen, I use a sharp paring knife, and cut the peel off.
I've thawed frozen bananas that way many times and never had that happen... now I know to watch out!
I did this when attempting to 'bake' a potato in my new 950W microwave. It would have burnt the whole potato had I not intervened.
Quite something to watch. A scientist friend suggested it was related to this phenomenon (http://bit.ly/fT6EA3) (first item on the page).
Related blog on the Washington Post website.
justkt - the article can't be read as the WP requires a subscription for me to access it.
It's caused by the high amount of potassium in the banana. Microwaves react with metals, bouncing off and cause arcing. You can even create a cool light show by putting a raw peeled banana in the microwave. Don't worry, it won't explode, but it will make a mess, it's also harmless.
This can also happen in some frozen vegetables depending on the soil conditions they grew in. As noted in the linked article, other high concentrations of metals such as magnesium, iron, and zinc can be the responsible mineral.
Momentary brief sparking is harmless and won't harm your microwave, but the USDA recommends turning off your microwave if you see sparks nonetheless. If it does start a fire, unless it's a very small fire, do not open your microwave door. The safest thing is to turn off the microwave and let the fire burn itself out by consuming all the oxygen. Opening the door could create a dangerous backdraft induced fireball.
See Also:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1697458/USDA-Microwave-Ovens-and-Food-Safety
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/concen/specif/veglegmicroe.shtml
The high potassium content of bananas is very useful for people who maintain certain types of gamma ray detector systems...the K-40 isotope provides a nice calibration line without having to deal with regulated radioactive sources. I have put part of my lunch in a counter for calibration purposes... BTW--don't fret the radioactive dose: you get more from cosmic rays than from any reasonable consumption of high potassium foods.
I don't feel entirely convinced by this. Yes, bananas are high in potassium, but the potassium is ionized and should not be prone to arcing like a solid metal. If this didn't matter, you would be able to see sparking with salt as well (sodium is highly reactive!). I obviously can't argue with results, but I feel like there has to be some other/deeper explanation.
@dmckee: As our resident physicist, I'm hoping you can comment. How is it possible that stable potassium compounds react to the microwaves like pure metals? Doesn't there have to be some reaction breaking them down, or am I looking at this entirely the wrong way?
@Aaronut: I don't know. I don't even know if that is the mechanism at work here. I'm not a solid state physicist, and hesitate to speculate too much. Has anyone tried some other high potassium vegetables (broccoli, spinich,...)? The mechanism discussed in SpecKK's link looks viable, but requires two smallish dipoles and a low resistance path between them. I don't think the banana provides that---unless there is something going on in it's internal structure.
@dmckee: Interesting, broccoli and spinach don't seem to be frequently complained about. Both the GM and USDA links refer to carrots, apparently due to the soil conditions under which they were grown. I found a link about broccoli which also makes reference to sweet potatoes and cauliflower; all three are frequently microwaved and rarely have issues. Interestingly, I also found this chowhound thread about broccoli suggesting that fires (not necessarily arcing) could be due to sugars combusting...
...which makes sense because bananas are quite high in sugars as compared with vegetables, which never spark in my microwave. The same chowhound thread also suggests that it may have something to do with the exact configuration of the molecules, and apparently, chopping the vegetables after steaming them is also cited as a common cause. The whole issue just seems way more complex to me than simply "X is high in minerals."
Hmm.. so when the metal detector goes off at the airport, I should just say that I have a banana in my pocket.
@intuited You had better hope they grope your banana instead of igniting it with the backscatter. (Yes, I know it's X-rays and not microwaves :P)
@Matthew Read: It's okay, my banana is not pierced.
Try microwaving a bowl of water with some potassium chloride and soluble salts of all those metals. I don't think it'll ignite.
Interesting, I got similar, but not same results with Potassium Nitrate + water in my mycrowave - instead of catching fire it started arcing like mad.
If a banana contained metallic potassium it wouldn't take a microwave to set it on fire :) And high amounts of saltpetre would also.... impart an off taste.
Oranges, grapes and of course, raisins (dried grapes) are also high in potassium. I've hydrated raisins with a very small amount of water in the microwave and also heated cold rice pudding (with lots of raisins). Both took several minutes and I've never noticed this. I very much doubt the potassium in food behaves like metallic potassium. Remember the internet has as much pseudo-science posted as real stuff - AND it's repeated more often.
The video link is broken.
To clarify: Metallic potassium will ignite all by itself when contacting water or wet matter.
Fun fact, you can also create a "cool light show" using grapes, but for a completely different reason.
Oh, the IDEAS..! "I don't know the lab came to burn down", said Bond, smiling faintly. "All I did was put a frozen banana and some broccoli in the microwave and set it to 'Defrost'". "Nonetheless, excellent work, Commander Bond!", said M. "Errrm...but...". "But, M?" replied Bond, quizzically. "Well, you see...cutbacks in funding...end of the cold war...all that rot...", said M, sadly. "You mean..?", asked Bond. "Yes. Redundant. Sorry, old man". With that M drew a silenced pistol from his jacket and fired, killing Bond instantly. "Ms. Moneypenny?", called M. "Could you clean this up, please?"
I've had this occur w/ green beans and green peppers. It all depends on the arrangement of the pieces. If all pieces are well separated w/ space all around them, there won't be any sparking. If you have some pieces are close enough together or overlapping, you can get arching between them.
This may also be related to the dielectric antenna effects that cause grapes to spark in a microwave :
I found that single grapes would eject steam out of the stem hole forming little rocket engines which often propelled the grapes about the oven. If the stem was left in the grape, so that the steam could not escape, the grape skin would quickly rupture in a small explosion as it was heated.
...
There are two general classes of antennas, metallic conducting antennas and dielectric antennas that concentrate electromagnetic fields. The common antennas most people are familiar with are antennas made from conducting wires and rods such as the rabbit ears on indoor TV antennas or the multirod TV antennas on millions of roof tops. Dielectric antennas include various geometric solids including cylinders, spheres and plastic focusing lenses.
More videos and an explanation of grape plasma produced by a microwave http://maartenrutgers.org/fun/microwave/microwave.html#disc
I would expect a small, 5-6cm banana to be the most problematic then, it is would be a tuned dipole for the most commonly used frequency in microwave ovens :) Now even smaller ones, around 3cm... you could really call that a short banana.
Freshly arrived explanation on that effect: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/02/13/1818350116. The relationship may exist, but it is not exactly the same, since the grape effect relies on the shape.
Update: How Microwaving Grapes Makes Plasma.
I keep my bananas in the frig and warm them up (one at a time) in the microwave. It is the stem which burns/smolders/smokes, in as little as 20 seconds. I don't know why, but I think it may have to do with the lack of water.
It could have fermented and alcohol ignited it
Bananas is the only fruit that contains radiation. That is why it will catch fire.
All fruits (and non-fruits) "contain radiation". Else it wouldn't be possible to do carbon dating, for example.
The (slight) radioactivity from a banana's potassium has nothing to do with it catching fire in a microwave.
It would be great if your answer contained a source that you can cite that indicates this.
I belive the potassium in the banana would be a good conductor, but I have a few things to add.
The microwave runs on, well microwaves a form of radiation that penitrates what's in there and heats from with in.
A banana is also slightly radioactive, not harmful to humans though, and I belive the potassium is a conductor of both the microwaves and the radioactivity of the banana reacting to one another and the potassium is then chemically changed and then reacts to the microwaves emitted from the device
That's my hypothesis anyway let me know what you think.
chemically changed to what?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.850622
| 2010-10-01T17:23:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7740",
"authors": [
"Aaron Franke",
"Aaronut",
"Art",
"Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні",
"Clément",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Joe",
"Jude",
"JustRightMenus",
"Luciano",
"Matthew Read",
"NSGod",
"Peter Mortensen",
"Shog9",
"Simon Kuang",
"SpecKK",
"Stuart Jeckel",
"Zee",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"immutabl",
"intuited",
"justkt",
"lailabakes",
"milesmeow",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40697
|
Is condensed milk the same as sweetened condensed milk?
Is condensed milk the same as sweetened condensed milk?
I have a fudge recipe that calls for condensed milk and I can not find strictly condensed milk, only sweetened condensed milk or evaporated milk.
Just as an addition, it is interesting to see how depending on the countries, this would be impossible. Countries with less use of sugar and more regulation on it have different names. Here in Spain, we only have "condensed milk" which everyone knows is VERY sweet, but you won't be able to find a name with "sweetened" even though they are the same!
Just to add to Marti's answer: If the recipe was written in the US within the past 30-40 (maybe more) years, "condensed" almost certainly means sweetened condensed. Sweetened is just assumed if the milk is described as "condensed". At least in the US, unsweetened condensed milk is never called "condensed", it is called "evaporated".
To boost my confidence in this answer before I posted it, I searched Amazon for "Condensed Milk". In 22 pages of results, I was not able to find a SINGLE product described as "condensed milk" that was unsweetened. I did however find several that used "condensed milk" without the word sweetened in the name of the product page, but without fail, these ALL turned out to be sweetened.
If the recipe is old or if its origins are outside of the US, I can't be absolutely positive what the author intended, but I have never seen "unsweetened condensed milk".
In my experience, "condensed" milk refers to the sweetened product, and "evaporated" milk refers to the unsweetened product. People will often say "sweetened condensed" for clarity, but this is not strictly necessary: if your recipe calls for condensed milk, use the syrupy stuff.
However, if this is an older recipe, all bets are off: older casual usage had "condensed" for both meanings. (Hence using the "sweetened condensed" phrasing, even though it's a bit of a tautology.)
Thanks Marti ... I made white maraschino fudge for the first time and it was the only fudge batch of 8 this season that did not turn out, thought maybe there was just condensed milk and sweetened condensed milk as to why it never hardened....well NOW I will blame it on the cherries (not drained enough) will try again but will drain cherries for a couple weeks first LOL Thanks again for your help!
I've found when I run across the phrase "condensed milk" vs. the more specific "sweetened condensed milk," the recipe has its origins in the UK, such as in this recipe: http://www.saveur.com/article/Recipes/Banoffee-Pie-Classic. First, look for clues in the recipe: it's not likely 1/2 cup of brown sugar would create a sufficiently sweet toffee layer, although I'm sure that could be argued by people with a less sweet tooth than mine. Next, look up similar recipes. I looked up other banoffee pie recipes and each US based site referenced sweetened condensed milk. Finally, this UK site for the Carnation brand product seems to verify it is indeed what we (in the US) call sweetened condensed milk. Check this out:
http://www.carnation.co.uk/recipes/8/Classic-Banoffee-Pie.
Hope that helps.
Technically no, it is not the same thing. Sweetened condensed milk has a very high sugar content, something like 40%, while just condensed milk has no sugar at all.
But this still doesn't tell us what the recipe author meant. The availability of different types of condensed and evaporated milks seem to differ a lot in different parts of the world. This being a fudge recipe, I can imagine that it is an American one, because fudge is not as common in other places. If unsweetened condensed milk is unusual in the States, I can also imagine that the recipe author was not aware of the difference and just shortened it to "condensed milk" without knowing that it has a difference in meaning.
Your best strategy is finding a different recipe, which uses a different dairy product. Not only will be there no doubt what the author meant, it will also be much easier for you to make it as it is, instead of having to mess around with substitutes. Candy recipes are generally sensitive when it comes to small differences in ingredients.
If you hang to your recipe very much, you can try looking online for non-sweetened condensed milk, it is possible that you will find products your brick and mortar stores don't carry.
Both products are common here; the unsweetened variety is actually somewhat harder to find sometimes, outside the holidays, but not that hard.
So what's the difference between unsweetened condensed milk and evaporated milk?
If the recipe originates in the US (like you suggest, that's quite likely if the recipe is for fudge) and was written within the last 30-40 years, "condensed milk" almost certainly refers to "sweetened condensed milk". I wasn't able to find even a single example to the contrary in 22 pages of Amazon listings. I did find many examples of products listed only as "condensed milk" which are in fact sweetened.
As a recipe developer / chef... 'Sweetened Condensed Milk' and 'Condensed Milk' are exactly the same product - just labeled differently by different manufacturers for different markets. Condensed milk is ALWAYS sweetened.
Here's the lowdown:
Evaporated Milk, is just that. Milk that has been evaporated with 60% of the water removed. This product has NO sugar added.
'Sweetened Condensed Milk' and 'Condensed Milk' take this evaporation process a step further and add up to 40% sugar by volume.
So to sum up:
'Sweetened Condensed Milk' and 'Condensed Milk' are exactly the same product.
'Sweetened Condensed Milk' and 'Condensed Milk' are both up to 40% sugar by volume.
Evaporated milk contains no added sugar.
Really hard to believe that the other answers here are so wrong...
... if you are in the US, and even then only in most, but not all cases. As some the other answers and comments discussed in detail. We are looking forward to more contributions and appreciate your expertise (always good to have another pro on board), but please refrain from generally bashing other contributions. If the comunity agrees, you'll be upvoted, others downvoted. More on this in our [help], especially here. You might want to consider an [edit] of the last line...
From https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/condensed-milk:
John B. Meyenberg … achieved the first successful manufacture of
unsweetened condensed milk. The name of this product was changed to
evaporated milk for a clearer distinction from sweetened condensed
milk, a situation that prevails today.
I have historical family recipes from my GGGM using the term Condensed milk with no sweeteners added.
No, the two products are different. As the names imply:
Condensed milk is strictly reduced milk
Sweetened condensed milk is reduced milk with considerable sugar added
See Can evaporated milk be converted to sweetened condensed? You can easily modify the condensed milk with additional sugar.
-1 (sorry) In all my years (many) of cooking, I have never seen an unsweetened milk product labeled as "condensed milk". Unsweetened condensed milk is called "evaporated milk", at least in the US. Referring to sweetened condensed milk just as "condensed" is not unusual. "Sweetened" is assumed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.851484
| 2013-12-30T13:08:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40697",
"authors": [
"AAA Garage Spammers",
"ASK Computers",
"Harold",
"Jennie B",
"Jolenealaska",
"Keith Miller",
"M.K",
"Marketing Bullet",
"Marti",
"Mona Scully",
"Robban",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"Weed Delivery NYC",
"dunchloe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94731",
"tobiuchiha"
],
"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
}
|
98822
|
In Chinese cuisine, are the black beans fermented in Black Bean sauce?
I was wondering what type of flavour the black beans add to black bean sauce. Can they be switched for pinto beans or kidney beans? Is there a process such as fermentation that the beans undergo before adding to sauce.
I ask because UK supermarket black bean sauces seem poor. I was thinking that that the main source of flavour is soy, fish or oyster sauces. I was also beginning to think that all the beans did was to add bulk and to thicken (because soy is watery).
Are they are cheats/substitutes to achieve the same effect as fermentation? Links welcome.
You got it completely backwards. Soy sauce is extracted from bean paste, not the other way (bean paste = soy + bean)
I'd say a resounding no.
ermm... or yes, depending on whether I'm answering your topic title, or the question in the question ;)
You cannot use substitute beans, because the key ingredient for black bean sauce is fermented black beans. Everything else is an aromatic additive; easily substitutable depending on recipe & intended result.
Leave out the Szechuan pepper, sure; more garlic, why not; different vinegar, yup: different soy, whichever you prefer...
leave out the black beans... it's no longer black bean sauce.
You can, if you're lucky, get fermented black beans in "the West".
I'd recommend a trip to eBay, Amazon, local Asian Supermarkets, etc, if you want to make your own.
Once you have those, recipes for home made black bean sauce are easily available on the web.
I'm not sure I'd tackle the fermentation myself - I'd leave that to the experts.
On a 'shopping' note - if you're in the UK look for makes like Lee Kum Kee which have a London distributor but are as 'authentically Chinese' as you can get. I have no idea whether they are comparatively good bad or indifferent to a Chinese person, but they at least have a definite origin on the labelling.
[no affiliation, just what I can find a lot of in my local Asda & it tases alright to me.]
As a rule I avoid the 'foreign food for Brits' aisles* when shopping for foreign food - but your local market forces will dictate how much footage a supermarket will devote to 'real' vs 'friendly English substitutes' stock.
*Apologies if this may be considered 'inverse-racism' against my own culture - no prejudice intended except in flavour terms - but I prefer imported to 'made in Milton Keynes' when shopping for foods from other areas of the world.
It's actually not black beans, but blackened soybeans.
You cannot substitute out fermented black beans and end up with something that tastes like black bean sauce. They have a very strong taste. I can't speak to the UK, but here in the US every asian market I've ever been to carries them. They store quite well as they come "dried." They're used in every pacific rim asian cuisine, so you should be able to find them at most asian grocers.
I wouldn't try doing the fermentation myself. You could always try buying a pre-made sauce and adding stuff to improve the flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.852022
| 2019-05-05T14:19:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98822",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70777
|
What are yellow sushi radishes called?
I'm considering growing some sushi radishes, but what are they called, because I'm considering growing some this summer after ordering them from a seed catalog.
I think you're talking about takuan? I don't know if I'd call it a sushi radish, but it's yellow and Japanese, at least.
It's just pickled daikon, not a naturally yellow radish:
The finished takuan is usually yellow in color and quite pungent, though most mass-produced takuan uses salt or syrup to reduce the dehydration time, and is colored artificially.
You can have a look on Google image search to confirm it's what you're thinking of.
Yep, this one is at every Asian grocery I know: http://img.21food.com/img/product/2011/6/26/david720518-18420020.jpg
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.852370
| 2016-06-18T04:59:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70777",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42144
|
Cod as a sub for salmon
Will my recipe for roasted red pepper salmon still taste great with cod as a sub?
I have a freezer full of cod, but no salmon. The salmon goes faster. Thank you.
Salmon is a much stronger flavor, to stand up to peppers. So your dish will be different with cod; the only test is making it and seeing if you enjoy it.
Red pepper and cod isn't an unknown combination in Iberia.
It might very well be delicious, the only way to really tell, is to try. However, keep in mind that cod has far less flavour, not to mention a significantly different flavour.
That said, I have substituted one for the other on several occasions, usually with decent results. The only exception to this has in my experience been when serving cod with very rich, fatty sauces, such as a hollandaise, which doesn't taste good to me at all. However, give me cod, melted butter, potatoes and chopped eggs, and I am a happy man.
At the end of the day, a big part of this is what you like. This might be completely delicious to you, or it might be a disappointment. Seeing how as you have "a freezer full of salmon", I'd say there's little harm in trying it once. If you don't like it, you can always do something else the next time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.852463
| 2014-02-18T19:36:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42144",
"authors": [
"Kabelo Masilonyane",
"Peter Taylor",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"daftar balislot spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98377",
"leanne"
],
"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
}
|
36091
|
Sirloin Tip Kebab cooking times
I want to make some Beef Kebabs with onion, sirloin and peppers. I'm using metal skewers (if that helps). How long should I let the Sirloin cook on the kebabs? There is bite size pieces on a grill at 350 degrees F. I want to cook 6 kebabs. Any ideas?
Edit:
I like my meat medium-rare.
My grill itself is 6 inches from the heat.
The pieces are no bigger than 2x2 inches.
There is no way for us to give you absolute cooking times. There are too many variables, among them:
How do you like your meat cooked?
How hot is your fire?
How far are the kabobs from the fire (since kabob cooking is essentially 100% radiation heating, distance is a huge factor)
What is the size of your meat chunks?
What is the starting temperature of your meat chunks?
You will note that the number of kabobs is not a factor.
Instead, you need to learn to check for when they are done to your liking. This will come from experience. Kabobs are generally too small to use a thermometer on; you would need a very high quality one like a Thermapen in order to get a reasonable reading.
All that said, it is likely that you want something on the order of 2-3 minutes per side, but there are far too many factors to make that a concrete recommendation.
You can start by cooking just one kabob, or even one chunk. When you think it looks good, try it. Of it is overcooked, do the next one for less time; undercooked, cook a little longer. After a couple, you will know about how long you will need for your particular set of circumstances.
From my edit above can you tell me anything differently?
Not really, those are fairly average values, although 6 inches from the fire seems pretty far. This is not something where someone can specify a time. You are going to need to practice and learn to recognize when they are done to your liking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.852602
| 2013-08-18T14:52:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36091",
"authors": [
"Charleh",
"Holly Truitt",
"Jon",
"Maggie Bash",
"Ritajit Dey",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Young Guilo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84780",
"ladybuglady"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59651
|
Do you cook in oven before dehydrating venison jerky to kill possible bacteria?
I am getting mixed advice on preparing venison jerky at home. Some people/sites advise to cook venison to internal 160 degrees in oven prior to dehydrating to kill any potential bacteria that may be present. Please advise who does/does not cook prior to dehyrating
If you were paranoid, before you started doing the thin slicing, you could sear all of the outer surfaces, then trim them off (to be used for something else), then thinly slice it. It'd help to mitigate surface contamination, but wouldn't necessarily deal with every possible type of contamination.
Jerky does not need to be pre-cooked, in fact the process of making jerky probably predates the invention of cooking.
The process of salting and drying (and additionally adding sugar, acid, and/or smoke) inherently kills or inhibits growth of bacteria and mold. As long as your meat is cut thin, evenly salted, and well dried you do not need to pre-cook it.
Since the meat is thin, cooking it beforehand will just result in overcooked, stringy meat. If you are using the oven method or a food dehydrator with a heating element the meat will end up cooked.
thank you for replying...used both convection oven & dehydrator...1/2 & 1/2...both turned out great other than I think I overcooked it slightly but flavour was great....
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.852788
| 2015-08-06T02:25:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59651",
"authors": [
"Chris Ehren",
"Joe",
"Kim Palchikoff",
"Malven Chiduku",
"Mike Folan",
"Snshyne",
"Welsh Rose",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37338",
"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
}
|
55278
|
Bear in a crock pot
My brother-in-law gave me a big hunk of bear meat. It's approximately 5 lbs in a cone-like shape, so a good hunk of meat.
I'm curious to use a crock pot on it: some onions, potatoes, and maybe a broth of some type, but nothing too fancy.
I know this is not a place to look for preferences -- I'm just wondering if anyone could give me any sort of tips before I start cooking. I typically don't cook a lot of wild game and I know they cook a bit faster. I'm also only a beginner with the crock pot... so warnings, tips, etc.
What do you want to make? Do you just want to do a huge hunk of meat as one thing or are you open to cutting it up into chunks and making more of a stew?
I'm really open to anything. Stew would be completely fine.
Bear is like any other meat, the best way to cook it depends upon the cut. Is it fatty (hopefully not very, the best bear meat comes from early spring bears)? Is there a lot of connective tissue? Think of the difference between pork shoulder and pork tenderloin. Sometimes you want low, slow, moist heat, but if the cut is very lean, that will ruin it.
If your meat has plenty of connective tissue (collagen) then it should make a great stew. Treat it just like beef stew meat. If it is (as I hope) early spring bear, there won't be a huge amount of fat in the meat (relative to the same cut in fall), so it will have a tendency to dry out a bit faster, so just be aware of that.
Whatever your favorite recipe for beef stew, that will work fine with bear meat that has enough connective tissue. All other things being equal, I would recommend that you do cut it into stew chunks instead of cooking one big pot roast because the stew chunks will be easier to gauge as they get closer to done.
If your cut is very lean and without connective tissue, treat it more like you would a beef tenderloin (hotter and drier).
Here's a little recipe book I came across: Black Bear Recipe Guide, hope that helps!
Don't even look sideways at my avatar.
EDIT: Just for fun, here's an oft-repeated recipe for bear stew. He uses a Dutch oven, but you could use a Crock-Pot: Bear Stew. That actually looks a bit bland to me, I'd look first at beef stew recipes that have appeal and a are bit more bold to stand up to a meat that you may find strongly flavored. Especially in a crock-pot, I'd definitely look at recipes that brown the meat first, before adding to the stew.
If your meat looks good for pot roasting (especially if it's from the round or the rump), you might consider a Sauerbraten, here's Alton Brown's. The strong flavors will be of benefit especially if the bear was out of hibernation for a while (eating fish and roadkill instead of berries and grasses). The sauerbraten marinade will mask some of the off-flavors that come from eating an animal with a less than discriminating palate.
2nd EDIT: I just came across a line that I really like from (believe it or not) "Bear Crap" from Yahoo Answers.
Bear tastes like..well bear! It takes like what it's been eating.
His whole answer is worth reading. I concur with him on all points including the recommendation of making jerky. I'm ambivalent about bear meat in general, but I have really enjoyed bear jerky.
Nice - lots of great recommendations. It's a very lean cut with a small trace of fat, but almost not worthy mentioning. I think the stew is the way to go like you suggested. Awesome resources thrown in too - can't wait to try it :D
Does "early spring bear" mean "just after the winter season is over" or "young"?
@jcolebrand Just after the winter season is over.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.852948
| 2015-03-02T00:31:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55278",
"authors": [
"Andrew Lowe",
"Catija",
"Crystal Manuel",
"Francisco reyes reyes",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lorraine",
"Telicia Kurrle",
"Tim Horwood",
"debbi walton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3325",
"jcolebrand",
"jhawes",
"peter stuart",
"rose brownstein"
],
"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
}
|
79152
|
What does "wedge" mean, as in "wedge" a head of Cabbage?
In a recipe on Corned Beef and Cabbage, the instructions read "wedge" the head of cabbage before putting it in the slow cooker.
Wedge (Geometry)
Another way to say this is to quarter the cabbage. The goal is to make "wedges" (triangles, when viewed from above) that are smaller than an entire head of cabbage (easier to cook and fit in your slow cooker) but still relatively intact.
To wedge a cabbage, slice it in half, and then slice the halves into either 2 or 4 pieces (depending on how large a wedge you want).
Image from Green Lite Bites
Are you supposed to core the cabbage?
I would. Once it's in quarters (as pictured) just cut diagonally along the core.
Not strictly necessary, but the dense chunk at the bottom isn't beloved by everyone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.853568
| 2017-03-15T13:44:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79152",
"authors": [
"Chris Cirefice",
"Dan",
"Erica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"roetnig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49703
|
What Kind of Pan is This?
This is a screen-shot of "Chopped", a show on the Food Network that I watch a lot. Most of the pans on the show are stainless steel, but it seems that these pans are always the ones the chefs grab when I would grab Teflon. They don't seem as non-stick as Teflon, eggs especially seem to stick to these pans, the show doesn't seem to have any Teflon pans. What surface is this?
Lol. +1 for butter and herb basted bacon-wrapped hotdogs. Oh Chopped.
@PrestonFitzgerald It's even worse than you know. The hot dogs are vegan! :)!
EDIT:
The cookware used is by Zwilling JA Henckels. They are Thermolon-coated, which is why I mistook it for a Green Pan--they are the same coating (ceramic.)
You can see the cookware used in the show here:
http://shop.foodnetworkstore.com/nav/department/cookware/show/chopped/0
My original guesstimation:
This looks like a Green Pan, an attempt to make an alternative type of non-stick pan (does not use PFOA to create PTFE [Teflon])
They use ceramic to try to re-create a non-stick-ish feeling, but they definitely are not as non-stick as PTFE pans are.
http://www.green-pan.com.au/en/technology-3592.htm
I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any other pans with that colour of surface, so I'm pretty sure it's a Green Pan.
AHA! That would be it. The chefs can bring their own knives, I wonder if they can bring their own pan too? I'm pretty sure I'd prefer Teflon if I wanted to fry eggs.
Teflon isn't so great for people, when the material flakes or leaches into food, so that's why there are these kinds of safe alternatives :)
Yeah, but nothing works as well for eggs! I've never had a problem with Teflon, but I know that some people avoid it like the plague.
@setek and chances of that are miniscule, plus the amount you'd have to be exposed to is far larger than you'd get from even a lot of meals cooked in that pan.
Teflon only flakes when exposed to severely high heat...eggs should be cooked at medium heat (by 'stove top' standards).
Using Teflon for eggs is perfectly safe.
Newer coatings are, IMO, as usable as Teflon, and more durable and not as susceptible to high heat destruction. I scoffed at Teflon scares at fist, but it is now considered enough of a carcinogen after exposure to high heat that I now actively avoid it. And who among us never burns or overheats a pan?
@dlb my original Green Pan wasn't great at being non-stick. However, I recently picked up a RACO ceramic pan and was very (happily) surprised to find that its non-stick properties were pretty close to teflon/PTFE, if not the same!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.853685
| 2014-11-12T02:50:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49703",
"authors": [
"Colette Welby",
"Cos Callis",
"Irene Whelband",
"Jim",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lynda Bowmer",
"Ming",
"Preston",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"jwenting"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34890
|
Is it safe to cook pheasant medium?
Am I right in thinking it's safe to cook pheasant breast medium so its a little pink?
If so why is this different from chicken?
According to Canada's Safe internal cooking temperatures article, game birds including pheasant should be cooked to an internal temperature as follows:
Whole 82°C (180°F)
Breasts and roasts 74°C (165°F)
Thighs, wings 74°C (165°F)
Stuffing (cooked alone or in bird) 74°C (165°F)
These temperatures will be decidedly not pink (except possibly around the bones), but will maximize the safety of eating game.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.853919
| 2013-06-23T20:37:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34890",
"authors": [
"BobSills",
"Espadero Delos Santos Lenny",
"Jerry Mills",
"drawerfixer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81389"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23309
|
Island cheese — Azorean (or Portuguese)
I have a recipe that uses island cheese and I am not sure what type of cheese that is. I've found a place online that sells "Island Cheese" in the Azores but it doesn't describe the type of cheese. I am trying to find a substitute that would be similar. Any ideas?
Is the recipe Portuguese?
What's the national origin of the recipe? That would probably give a clue.
I'm pretty sure it's the famous Sao Jorge cheese from the Azores although there are many cheeses from these islands:
There's some good information here:
http://www.culturecheesemag.com/Sao%20Jorge
The Azores have traditionally been home to a variety of cheeses. These range from fresher styles, designed to be eaten within a few days of production, to more robust, aged cheeses able to withstand the rigors of transportation - and consequently often sold to ships’ crews to sustain them for many months at sea.
Made from raw cow’s milk, São Jorge cheese falls into this second category. It is the largest of the Portuguese cheeses weighing between 8kg (16 lb) to 12kg (26lb) and is aged for between three and seven months before release.
To make the cheese, cows are milked twice a day and the evening milk gets delivered to the cheese plant about 8:30pm with cheesemaking commencing right away, continuing through the night from about 9 pm to 4 am. Then, after morning milking another round of cheese is made.
A cooked curd pressed cheese, São Jorge is made by three dairies on the island although just one produces cheese that has been awarded DOP (name protected) status. The DOP status is awarded to cheeses matured for a minimum of 90 days although usually wheels of São Jorge are released at three, four and seven months.
Surely it is a goat or mix cheese.
I just found
"island cheese" from Azores (pay attention that the single page of images changes if you set on english).
Since it is a travelling touristic page, it is impossible to get specific informations about cheese, that should be that:
it seems a mountain-cheese, a medium-aged cheese, semi-hard, with crust. Impossible to know how much salted (to me not to much) and the type of flavor.
More specific informations could be given if you tell about your recipe, since I found:
Arran Island Cheese (like cheddar)(mustard cheese)
Bruny Island Cheese from Tasmania (it seems like some Camembert)
Salt Spring Island Cheese (any type from goat)
King Island Cheese from Australia (mostly blue ones)
and many other. That from Azores looks like Italian "Asiago", Swiss "gruyere", Spanish (gallego) "tetilla".
Since the "tetilla" is produced in Galizia, that means the place closest to Portugal, and I tasted it, I think it is the more close to what you search.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.854005
| 2012-04-25T04:39:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23309",
"authors": [
"Amal Gupta",
"FuzzyChef",
"Hermione Granger",
"Joanne C",
"Parvez Akhtsr",
"Stacey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80544"
],
"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
}
|
68149
|
How to make a passion fruit mousse without gelatin?
I am Brazilian amateur cook.
I wonder if there is any original recipe to make passion fruit mousse. Every time I do it, consistency is too runny and slightly aerated. Maybe the consistency to stay firm with the use of gelatine, but avoid using because I don't like to do it.
Most recipes that date make use of:
heavy cream;
sweetened milk and
passion fruit juice or pulp.
At the same time all mixed in a mixer or in a blender. Apparently, using too much juice or passion fruit juice is what brings more acidity and taste the result, making the more liquid mousse. I don't know if the climatic condition here change something.
PS: Use whipped cream would make the consistency of mousse more aerated and firmer too? What could I do (without gelatine) to make the mousse as expected?
What do you mean by "similar"? You don't want any gelling agents at all?
Gelatine, agar-agar etc. Yes, I don't want to.
post a recipe that gives the consistency you like and we can help with substitutions
What do you qualify as a gelling agent? Are you just trying to avoid the issues w/ blooming and such? If so, mixing the fruit with a small bit of xanthan gum in the blender would likely do the trick. I suspect that tapioca starch might work, too, but I don't work with it very much.
Would you like a softer texture, without the harshness that the gelatine leaves. I didn't want to have to use it, just.
There are two things you can do to make the mousse stiffer:
Reduce the water from the fruit. So use some kind of concentrate instead of the pure fruit. For example, you could cook down a syrup or jam and add it to the mousse. Or see if dehydrating juice gets you somewhere.
Use more fat. Instead of whipping cream at 30 to 35% fat, you could use double-cream at 45%, or a mix of cream and mascarpone. Or fold whipped cream (for aeration) and some cooked down passion fruit into something even stiffer. Maybe base it off a whipped white chocolate ganache.
However much you are making, use this ratio: 4 parts heavy cream/whipping cream to 2 parts sweetened condensed milk to 2 parts passionfruit pulp. Make sure that before you start, you whip the heavy cream until it holds in stiff peaks. This results in a mousse that has an almost custard-like consistency, but with a lighter feel. I don't know how to make a fruit mousse that is much stiffer without gelatin. A good compromise if you are uncomfortable with normal gelatin is to use plant gelatin, available at many health-food stores.
One of the most important details in this recipe is that the mixture needs plenty of time - overnight is ideal, but at least 2 to 3 hours - to really chill completely before serving, so that the fruit acid in the passion fruit pulp (or concentrate) has time to thicken the protein in the heavy cream and condensed milk. (It works sort of like the way the lime juice firms up the protein in raw fish or shellfish when you're making ceviche.)
I thought I was doing it wrong the first few times I made it (with only the three ingredients referenced above by Suhany, the OP) since I was working from just a verbal description, not a written recipe, but it turns out I was simply being too impatient: it was perfectly delicious but way too runny, more of a sauce than a mousse. Once I contained myself and left it in the fridge overnight it came out exactly the way my favorite Brazilian restaurant served it. Also be sure you're using either pulp or a bottled/jarred concentrate, not a 'passion fruit juice' beverage, which will be much too watery.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.854248
| 2016-04-09T20:50:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68149",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Pat Sommer",
"Suhany",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"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
}
|
50158
|
Why is my pecan pie always runny?
My pecan pie used to be firm years ago. Now going by the same recipe it's always runny. This time I added an extra egg, stirred it less and with a wood spoon so as not to get air and foam in the mix.
The full recipe: stir 4 beaten eggs into 1 cup karo, add 2T flour, 1/2c white sugar, 1/2c dark brown sugar, stir, add a pinch of salt, 1t vanilla, 1 1/2c pecans, 2T butter, mix gently. Pour in a 9" unbaked pie shell and baked at 350 degrees for 45 to 50 minutes.
The only think I have changed from the way I used to make it getting a firm filling is using dark brown sugar instead of all white sugar. I have never cooked the filling before pouring into the pie shell. I have tried adding more flour and it didn't help. How do I fix this?
Has your oven changed... Or is it now really old. The thermostat differs from oven to oven plus age deterioration is a common issue. Plus dark sugar is wetter than white so could also be making the filling a little looser. I definitely reckon longer cooking will fix your issue
I'm looking at the recipe from Karo. The only thing that stands out as potentially being your problem is that the Karo recipe calls for a longer bake time. That recipe gives a final temperature too, 200F (93C). Could it be that your pie is undercooked?
@Jolenealaka - That seems likely. I make a similar 12 inch (thiner filling) pie, and the recipe calls for oven at 350°F: "Bake 35 minutes. Cover edge loosely with foil. Bake 15 minutes more, or until filling is set." Thicker filling would take longer to heat up.
I make pecan pies several times a year and it always takes a good 60 minutes (granted, I'm at a higher elevation...). I was taught to keep baking it until a knife inserted in the filling came out "clear." I've used all white sugar, all dark sugar, light corn syrup, dark corn syrup, Roger's cane syrup, etc. and as long as the knife comes out with a thin layer of clear gel on it the filling always thickens up.
@S.Burt That's good info. Feel free to edit it into the answer if you like.You could also write another answer.
Has your altitude or oven changed? I agree with Jolenealaska that you probably need a longer bake time. I always needed 55-60 minutes for my pecan pies to set and I cook them several times a year. (As noted by Wayfaring Stranger, sometimes you need to cover the crust edges with foil to avoid getting them too dark). I don't think the type of sugar will have much effect - I've used all white sugar, all brown sugar (dark, light, medium), a mix of white and brown sugar, as well as light corn syrup, dark corn syrup, Roger's cane syrup, generic brand, karo syrup brand, etc. It's possible that some generic brands have a higher water content; in that case, it would take a little longer to cook before it will set up.
In the end, the secret that I was taught to ensure the filling sets up is to insert a butter knife into the filling. If the knife comes out covered with a lumpy or a colored gel, the filling isn't ready. As soon as the knife comes out "clear" (i.e., with a very thin layer of clear gel on it) the filling will thicken once it cools.
For reference, my recipe is almost identical to yours; I use only 3 eggs and no flour in the filling. I mix the filling quite thoroughly (I don't think I've every gotten it foamy, but I do try to get the melted butter evenly mixed into the egg/sugar mixture before pouring it over the pecans).
I'm having the same problem, all my pies came out perfect up until last week. I think the problem for me is I used generic corn syrup instead of the karo brand. I used the generic corn syrup with the Karo recipe because I thought the off brand was such a good value. I guess every brand has different measurements, and concoctions? I'm going to retry making the pie using the brand name corn syrup instead of the generic and see what kind of results I end up with!
Let us know how it goes!
This is a tough call, because the style is hard to read, but I'll leave it here as an answer, because it offers a possible explanation (generic syrup). Even if the explanation is wrong, this is no reason to delete.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.854527
| 2014-11-28T18:48:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50158",
"authors": [
"Alex Techstepper812",
"Anne McAleer",
"Asif Pasha",
"Chrysa Papathanasiou",
"Doug",
"Jane Viggers",
"Jolenealaska",
"Leslie Hollinshead",
"Maria Zito",
"Partition Walls Ltd",
"Romualdas Zvonkus",
"S. Burt",
"Sasha",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51565
|
A substitution for pork in Swedish meatballs
I am looking for a substitute for ground pork in Swedish meatballs. For religious reasons, I don't eat any kind of pork (I adhere to the Bible clean and unclean meat, fish, and fowl).
Would ground turkey or ground veal be the best substitute for the pork? Thank you for your answer.
Hello Cheryl and welcome to Seasoned Advice! Ground veal would be an excellent choice to substitute for ground pork. I think you will find that the flavor will be closer than turkey or chicken.
Ground lamb may also be a good substitute. It has a bit more fat than veal does, which would come closer to pork (though it may change the flavor a bit, adjust seasoning as needed).
Alternatively, a fattier type of ground beef should work good (like ground beef chuck which is around 80% lean habitually). This will have less impact on the flavor than ground lamb would.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.854954
| 2014-12-13T12:35:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51565",
"authors": [
"Corey Earls",
"Debbie Botha",
"Doug Keefe",
"Ivan Vazquez",
"Michael Manuel",
"Shelagh Bebbington",
"Zach Yucha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122178"
],
"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
}
|
64048
|
Substitute for coconut milk in curry
I would like to make Thai yellow curry or Panang curry but there is a severe coconut allergy in my family so I cannot put even a trace of coconut into it. I have the Mae Ploy curry pastes for both but they both call for coconut milk to be mixed in.
Oh, and I am allergic to nuts so almonds (almond milk) and cashews (cashew milk) are out too :/ I have seen cream suggested but am concerned about depth of flavor
Welcome Raincloudt - Some answers here might be helpful http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24578/what-would-be-a-good-substitute-for-coconut-milk-in-curry-sauces?rq=1
Are peanuts OK for you (they aren't nuts but peas botanically :)? What about Sesame and/or Melon seeds? Yes, I am thinking of indian style gravy bases (Salan+Yoghurt)here, some of them might work with yellow curry paste (which is a Thai-Indian hybrid anyway).
A reasonably light cream (about 15% fat) should be fine as a substitute.
It will lack the specific coconut flavour, obviously, but that's fine in this case. What's more important is the fat as a flavour carrier, and the creaminess in the texture.
A soy based cream, or even oat milk should work equally well here, too.
On the other hand, rice milk would probably not work so well, as it tends to separate quite quickly, and is generally more watery.
That coconut flavor is part of what makes Thai curries so good. I couldn't imagine a massuman without coconut milk.
@Escoce my favorite curry...mmm.
Coconut milk is slightly sweet, so you'll probably want to add something to sweeten it very slightly (don't overdo it though!). I can't think of anything with a flavour at all similar to coconut though except possibly almonds or cashew cream, which were already ruled out. Hmm... sounds crazy, but maybe a touch of apricot and vanilla in with the cream might give a very slightly similar soft light richness to the overall flavour?
You may also want to try Thai country-style curry recipes. Country-style curry contains no coconut milk so there is no need to try to replicate a primary ingredient; the dish just has a different character.
Here are some recipe examples, though I have not made these.
http://www.finecooking.com/recipes/red-curry-beef-shiitakes-edamame.aspx
http://www.food.com/recipe/thai-country-style-curry-with-ground-beef-and-green-beans-384479
aka jungle curry. be careful with the paste and other hot ingredients, the amount that will make a coconut-based curry slightly hot will be incendiary in a water based curry.
I often cut my coconut milk in half (to decrease fat) with onion puree as is produced in Indian restaurants: youtube masala gravy.
Just skip all the seasoning and use straight onion: lightly satueed then allowed to simmer in own juices for a good long while then pureed.
Silky and enough body -add cream of choice if you want richer sauce.
Does, however, require considerable advanced prep. Make a big batch and freeze flat in ziplocked bags for convenience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.855072
| 2015-12-02T18:49:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64048",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Escoce",
"Israel Pérez",
"Jeffrey Murphy",
"Karen Faulkner",
"Nancy Mckernan",
"Rachel Swander",
"Suzanne Abbotts",
"basher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41299",
"rackandboneman",
"user56reinstatemonica8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65927
|
Does honey actually tenderize meat?
I was recently reading a cooking manga named Shokugeki no Soma, in which the protagonist uses unconventional methods to cook specific dishes. In one chapter, he uses honey specifically to tenderize meat in a short amount of time. Here's the chapter page specifically:
I tried it for myself but can't seem to replicate the same thing he's done, if anything the beef remained relatively hard, and not soft as the manga describes. While some scenes are somewhat outlandish there is a certain truth to most of the cooking terms thrown around in the manga, so I'm curious: does honey actually contain proteases that tenderize meat quickly?
This article on LIVESTRONG.com seems to support the other fact in the same page which claims that pineapple can be used to tenderize meat, but it doesn't make any reference to honey at all.
If you're curious, this is the anime version of it:
https://youtu.be/5GCUzTyp9sE?t=6m36s
Professor Google reports "Fresh Pineapple Juice contains an enzyme bromelain, which is a natural meat tenderizer. It is used in many commercial meat tenderizers. This enzyme is destroyed in the canning process, so canned Pineapple Juice won't work."
The acidity of pineapple is enough to tenderize. Bromelian also tenderizes and very effectively, but it's not the only tenderizing agent in pineapple.
A note to anybody (like myself) not very familiar with manga: the panels are apparently meant to be read right-to-left. Not that answers to the question are dependent on the story, but this does help make more sense of the fictional chef's claims about honey.
It would be atypical for that manga to present a false fact - most of the methods and ingredients described in it are accurate, albeit overdramatized; also one of the storywriters is a professional chef.
Based on the description given in the manga (specifically "I rubbed it on the meat before boiling" [emphasis mine]) I would guess that this is not actually an effect of tenderization at all. Instead, the effect is possibly closer to that of velveting.
The velveting technique is typically done with a thin coating of corn starch, and my working theory is that this seals in the natural juices of the meat while preventing the outer layers from drying out. Being thick and viscous, honey might have much the same effect. As a result, the final product seems more tender, but that's just because it's been more delicately cooked - not due to any special tenderizing power of the honey itself.
Yes honey tenderizes meat, though not to the degree shown and only if it is A. real honey not honey flavored rice syrup or sorghun syrup as most cheap honey is (Chinese Honey exports mostly) and B. It must be raw and unfiltered honey.
Bees eat a mixture of pollen proteins and honey and thus create and excrete special proteins that help breakdown other proteins. These protein enzymes are mixed with the honey because of the processes that occur in its creation, transportation, and preservation within the hive. Depending on the type of honey the pollen inclusions can also play a role in protein degredation. However, processing the honey often involves heating which denatures the native proteins rendering them ineffective.
A number of online sources confirm that raw honey has proteases that can tenderize meat, which makes sense given that honey is a popular marinade ingredient in many cuisines. I cannot find any even vaguely scientific analyses to back this up, but it seems pretty likely.
Honey - or anything sweet - will also make meat taste better for other reasons: coating the surface with sugars will improve searing, and a small amount of sugar can make any savory food taste richer and less dry.
I have used a honey and olive oil based overnight marinade for decades and in my opinion it definitely tenderises. I dont pretend to understand the science but in practice I find it works, and is extremely tasty.
Yes, it will work by osmosis, but not very well, and very slowly. It will take lots of time, just like salt does. You tenderise by either adding enzymes (which honey does not have, because it is very pure without any proteins or fats, energy storages of bees) or activating enzymes...like salt does by breaking cell walls or getting fluids between the cells. Honey does that as well, but not as effective. Acidity will also destroy cells and activate enzymes (or inhibit the destruction of other enzymes) and tenderise, but that is not an enzyme reaction.
Time and salt are your best options. Acids and plant enzymes will mainly work on the surface, and likely mush up your meat.
http://www.beefresearch.org/CMDocs/BeefResearch/PE_Fact_Sheets/Adding_Enzymes_to_Improve_Beef_Tenderness.pdf
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/330c7a/does_honey_contain_protease/
http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/03/the-food-lab-more-tips-for-perfect-steaks.html
Honey is certainly not pure sugar. Pure sugar is ... sugar. Honey contains all sorts of things.
Honey is more than 96 percent glucose and fructose , and these are sugars.Sugar loosely refers to carbohydrates, monosaccharides, disaccharides, or oligosaccharides. So yes, it is sugar.
But i see the confusion with "refined sugar". I meant it was pure in sugarish chemical substances, I edited it towards that.
And no, honey does not contain much of all kind of things. It is essentially very pure sucrose and fructose. With some water and minerals, and very, very few proteins that could act as enzyms. Why would bees put many things in it, if it is just to store energy to get through the winter? Traces of substances, sure, but so minute and non-protein based they are irrelevant in tenderising meat.
Only osmosis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3492327/ for example. Honey contains proteolytic enzymes not because bees "put things in it", they're not scientists; it contains them because they're part of the bees' digestive system.
Yes, I am not suprised, but as a waste product, and so in minute quantities. Proteases are used to produce proteins, which are in turn used to construct enzymes. I do not think they are relevant to tenderising meat, which was the question.
"Proteases are used to produce proteins, which are in turn used to construct enzymes." No - enzymes are a specific kind of protein (well, some of them are RNA, but nearly all are proteins), and proteases are a specific kind of enzyme (they break up proteins, which means they do have an effect on meat).
Also, for reference, pineapple easily has enough protease to have a strong effect on meat. And it doesn't take much protease to have that effect: nutrition facts say it's 0.5% protein by weight, so it's at most 0.5% protease. Similarly, nutrition facts say honey is 0.3% protein by weight, so if all of that were protease, it could well have significant effects. You might well be right that it doesn't contain much protease, but your claim isn't really supported.
"Although the quantity of bromelain in a typical serving of pineapple fruit is probably not significant, specific extraction can yield sufficient quantities for domestic and industrial processing.[10][11]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromelain
But I agree that I dont make the point how much is enough I guess. I think it is probable that honey has not nearly enough, and not of the right stuff, to matter. But yes, figures would be definitive.
It's possible that a specific variety of honey may contain enzymes that would tenderise meat, but standard commercial honey would act as a preservative.
How do you know that there aren't enzymes which are present in all honey? Is it because you think they're denatured by heat processing in commercial honey?
There are enzymes present in all raw honey, but I was thinking of the difference between honey derived from, for example, sage blossom and that derived from manuka. Different pollens create different honey
Sure, I know there are differences (mostly fragrance, as far as I know), I'm asking why you think that the enzymes in question are one of those differences.
Only because of something I half remember regarding the more specialised bee-keeping practiced in Japan. I'm also pretty sure that the Asian bee produces different enzymes in the digestive process than the European honey bee. I'm simply saying that it's possible to create specialised honey, like manuka, which is purely medicinal in use as it tastes like reduced sarsaparilla
Honey is not a tenderizer, pineapple juice is. It's the acidity of the pineapple juice.
Honey has a low pH but it is far too viscous to penetrate pores.
I was under the impression that it's not just the acidity, it's the protease enzymes in the pinapple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromelain#Meat_tenderizing_and_other_uses It's potent enough to use on its own, without the acidity. (You sort of said this in a comment, so I think maybe it's just an accidental overstatement in the answer?)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.855342
| 2016-01-27T05:16:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65927",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Crystal Taylor",
"Dan Peterson",
"Escoce",
"Joe M",
"Josh",
"Kevin Ramey",
"Kimberly Aure",
"Lisa Lapiska",
"Marc Luxen",
"Mary Smyth",
"Optionparty",
"Robin Griffiths",
"Sarah Hentschel",
"clive The GOAT",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42902",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman",
"user42902"
],
"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.