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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
75083
|
blood in cooked chicken
I roasted a chicken at 180 using the fan for 1 1/2 hours, when I got it out of the oven, I pierced it and the juices were clear, I ate some slices of the breast, and the first ones looked fine, but a later one had blood or what looked like blood in it, will I be ok or do I need a doctor?
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. I presume you mean 180°C (355°F)?
More than likely you'll be fine as long as you don't start to feel ill. The recommended cooking temperature for meats is based on the temp required to kill the yucky things in the meat.
Sometimes chicken (especially near the bone) cooks a dark red color, nothing dangerous about it.
+1 for 'you'll be fine as long as you're not' :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.855977
| 2016-10-28T17:49:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75083",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"ElendilTheTall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76746
|
Why do spots appear on iceburg lettuce during cold storage？（0~4℃）
Why does round lettuce appear spot during cold storage？（0~4℃）Is it still edible?
I would like to extend the storage time.
Lettuce is packaged with other vegetables, like red chicory, NewZealandspinach, Romaine Lettuce, etc.
May be my expression is not clear, my English is very poor, please forgive me. I want to know the reason of the spotting, so I can avoid it.
I assume by 'round lettuce', you mean iceburg lettuce? (as it grows into a ball-like shape, and tends to be that pale green, almost translucent at the base, which seems like what you have in your picture)
Sorry, please forgive my poor English. The lettuce is iceburg lettuce.
Your English is clear enough that I understood what you mean. I was just trying to verify, and make sure that others (which might be relying on translation services) understood.
It seems to me that there is a little bit of slimeyness on one piece of your lettuce, this can be discarded.
There are a few reasons why this happens. Firstly, bruising from picking, packaging and general movement. Secondly, how cold is your fridge. Is the spotting only on the exterior of the lettuce? If so, simply remove the effected area and consume the rest. If your fridge is too cold it will have a detrimental effect on your produce. Try keeping all your salad items in the crisper drawer away from severe cold. Hope this helps...
I disagree with a lot of things in your answer. Any discolored produce is not immediately "bad". The visual appeal of produce is nice, but much of the time there is no actual problem with the produce. I also disagree ethically with ripping a few leaves off that the store can no longer sell so you can save a few pennies.
Is it ethical for a store to insist that you buy produce that you cannot use? Stores have a duty of conscience to sell products that are usable and fit for purpose, in fact, I believe that the 'fit for purpose' is a legal requirement. A good green grocer preps his stock. an analogy would be buying a six pack, but one can is leaking - therefore it is no longer a six pack, but a 5 pack, the store should no expect you to purchase the sixth can.
Another analogy - expecting the greengrocer to sell ready-peeled bananas. With many vegetables you expect to discard an outer layer of leaves.
Without wishing to appear rude, that is a ridiculous statement. If you are personally happy to buy substandard produce, where half of it goes in the bin, then that is your choice, personally, I like to be able to eat what I pay for.
Please focus your on actually answering the question, not on responding to other answers. It's fine to refer to them if it helps improve your answer, but discussion between answers doesn't really work. I've edited accordingly; feel free to edit further, just keep that in mind.
@Hoooray Thanks for your answer ! I remember only the lettuce stored in the freezer, it doesn't have spots...
The fridge temp is about 4℃ and the spotting is only on the exterior of the lettuce.
The brown spots you see are known as "russet spotting". This is a reaction which is believed to be caused by ethelyne gas emitted from citrus, such as apples, bananas, etc.
Bottom line, the lettuce is completely safe to eat. It's certainly less visually appealing, but it is indeed safe to eat. For ideas on preventing russet spotting, check out the source linked above.
Interestingly this is a big enough deal that at least one refrigerator manufacturer has a page telling people it's not cause the fridge is broken: http://products.geappliances.com/appliance/gea-support-search-content?contentId=22477
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.856080
| 2016-12-23T06:00:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76746",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Daniel",
"Hoooray",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84067
|
Is it necessary to keep vinaigrette in refrigerator?
I made vinaigrette which is composed of red wine vinegar, olive oil, salt, and sugar. Does this need to be refrigerated, or is it safe to leave it out of the fridge?
None of the listed ingredients require refrigeration so you are safe to leave the vinaigrette at room temperature as long as it's not fluctuating much. Leave it in a cool, somewhat shaded area (out of direct sunlight if possible). If you wanted, you could absolutely leave your vinaigrette in the fridge.
-1 for implying that if each ingredient is shelf stable on its own, the mixture will also be shelf stable. This is one of the more dangerous myths in food safety.
Source, please?
@StevenXavier Flags are not for contacting moderators to ask them to reply to a comment; you can @-reply to rumtscho directly here if you wish (though I think she'd have been notified without it because she was the only person who commented before you).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.856368
| 2017-09-01T15:15:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84067",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"StevenXavier",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61074",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83703
|
How to keep biryani hot and moist for a long time
I am looking forward to opening a biryani stall in my area, but my supplier of prepared biryani is far away. What method can I adopt to keep biryani rice fluffy, moist and hot for longer period of time? I want to keep it hot in a prepared condition for eight hours.
I think trying to keep food warm for a long time (8 hours) is very difficult (food safety and "fluffy and moist")
I would check with local regulations in regards to handling warm food.
Are you transporting it for 8 hours or keeping it in one location?
A Holding Cabinet
I'm assuming by your supplier being far away, you mean you can only get a delivery once per day. Keeping food overnight and then serving it all day is probably unfeasible.
While 8 hours might be a stretch, it sounds like your best bet would be a warmer cabinet. Here's an example. They're temperature and humidity controlled.
The Hatco Flav-R-Savor® Portable Energy Efficient Holding Cabinet is capable of holding an array of hot foods at optimum serving temperatures for extended periods of time, saving you money through increased energy efficiencies, and allows for advanced preparation ahead of peak-serving periods.
Totally. A holding cabinet that is capable of holding the rice at a temperature which prevents the growth of Bacillus Cereus is the only safe solution.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.856476
| 2017-08-15T13:42:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83703",
"authors": [
"ChefAndy",
"Max",
"Wolfgang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60668"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71199
|
How to use lemon or other fruit acid in Brigadeiro without curdling?
Here in Brazil it is customary to make Brigadeiro of varied flavors. The basic recipe is sweetened condensed milk and butter cooked until sticking to the pan.
It is known that, when the acidic fruit juice comes into contact with the milk, it curdles. This is the problem.
How can I cook 395g of sweetened condensed milk + 15g butter + 25ml lemon juice (or any other acid fruit juice) without it curdling?
PS.: I do not want to use essences or anything with artificial lemon flavor.
It should be quite easy to find lemon extract that's made with actual lemon, specifically oils extracted from the zest. Do you not want that either? And... do you want it to taste like lemon zest, or lemon juice? Lemon zest provides the actual lemon flavor people more often like in desserts; lemon juice has some citrus flavor but it's mostly just sour.
The extract may satisfy me. Use only the zest leaves only a slight lemon aroma, and the exaggerated use bothers me, I don't like the texture of grated zest.
Lemon juice will curdle regular milk, but sweetened condensed milk should not curdle. Key lime pie uses 150 ml lime juice to 1 can of sweetened condensed milk and does not curdle.
Wow. With me always curdles, especially when I take to cook.
As someone pointed out, key lime pie (or "torta de limão com merengue" as we know it) shouldn't curdle, but it is a different type of heat we're talking about, so bear with me for a while.
A few tips:
1) Add less zest at the end of the cooking. If you add everything together, the essential oils evaporate during cooking and you lose the flavor;
2) If you want to use juice, make a white brigadeiro and add the lime juice (our "limão taiti" is actually called lime) after cooking so it doesn't curdle and preserves the flavor
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.856604
| 2016-07-04T03:51:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71199",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Debbie M.",
"Suhany",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37988"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73343
|
Swedish/Finnish dinner pancakes
I was reading a Moomin book (Comet in Moominland) recently and there was a part in which Moomintroll and Sniff fry up some pancakes for dinner (40). I don't know if these are normal pancakes or if they're meant for dinner, but if possible, could you give me the name of this type of pancake (if it is in fact a different type of pancake)?
What do you consider to be a 'normal pancake'?
Good point. Sorry, I had forgotten to say what that is. I am writing from an American perspective, so I would consider a normal pancake to be the kind generally associated with breakfast that are sweet, sometimes topped with maple syrup and butter, and are cooked on a griddle or skillet.
That's a decent description of them. Of course, there are multiple varieties of pancakes that would meet that description, and most of them Americans wouldn't consider to be 'pancakes'. See the link in my first comment.
Okay, thank you. I would consider a Flapjack to be what I'm referring to.
The American pancake is very unusual in Europe. It is not completely unknown, but it is never called simply "pancake", it is rarely made at home, and it would be very weird to mention in a children's book, as those tend to lean toward tradition. So whatever that pancake was (I don't know the Scandinavian traditions in detail, else I would write an answer) it won't be your pancake.
The terminology in this area is really confusing. "Flapjack" in British English is an oat-based bar. In American English it's a form of pancake. Pancakes (American style) would be closest to "Scotch pancakes" while just "pancakes" are similar to French "Crepes" but slightly thicker.
I have also heard tortillas referred to as pancakes, there are savory crepes that are sometimes called dinner pancakes, Moo Shu at least in the US is usually served with a pancake similar to a tortilla, and so on. Pancake tends to be a very generic term with very regional definitions.
Probably a variety of potato pancake, I'd guess.
Here's the original:
-Ole varovainen, sanoi Muumimamma Muumille tämän lähtiessä.
-Tule pian takaisin, minä teen lettuja iltapalaksi.
Be careful, said Moominmamma to Moomintroll as he was leaving. Come back soon, I'm making lettu for an evening snack.
The Finnish lettu here is essentially the same as the French crepe. In Finland, they're typically eaten for dessert, in which case they're sweet and served with jam (always) and whipped cream (often), although there are also savoury variants that mix in spinach, blood (!), etc.
Also note that the word iltapala (literally "evening piece") is a bit ambiguous, but usually implies a snack, not a full-sized meal.
+1 and it was a Swede who told me his family also does savory versions :D...
Perhaps tea would capture some of the ambiguity of iltapala, by referring to either an afternoon light meal or a main evening meal. A late evening alternative might be supper
Surely it would be pannukakku, the custardy vanilla pancake that is oven baked. The basic formula per serving is 1/4 cup flour/1/4 cup milk/1 egg. It is eaten, and loved, for breakfast, lunch, or dinner, and paired with sweet or savory such as jam, berries, smoked fish, meat sauce.
Here an example from Kotikokki
Finn here: pannukakku is a dessert, period, and pairing it with anything savoury sounds strange in the extreme. Canonically, it's eaten on Thursdays after a main dish of pea soup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.856877
| 2016-08-23T01:16:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73343",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Giorgio",
"Joe",
"Morella Almånd",
"PoloHoleSet",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lambshaanxy",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64528
|
I have a frozen brown bear (roast?) from somewhere in Alaska
I have a small 1.3-pound brown bear roast and don't know what to do with it.
It looks pretty lean thru the plastic wrapper.
I am certain it was handled and prepared well, though have no more info.
I tried a marinade on 2 small steaks and have 2 more left. It was pretty good overall, though the (connective tissue?) was stringy.
Would chunks in the crock pot be best?
Any advice appreciated.
I love this question and don't want to see it closed. Since we don't allow recipe requests here, I am editing your question to eliminate that possibility. Thank you for the fun question, and welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Like any meat, the best cooking method for bear depends a lot upon the cut of meat. Brown bear, even if taken in the early spring (before they start eating salmon), is pretty strongly flavored. A lot of hunters in Alaska don't even eat brown bears that they take, preferring to use them for taxidermy purposes only. (BTW, I don't like that, I firmly believe that hunters should eat what they kill, but that's beside the point)
Considering the gaminess of brown bear, that your cut appears lean, and that you're not entirely sure what cut it is; I recommend that you make sausage. Trim away any noticeable pockets of fat since bear fat is not particularly pleasant. Grind the roast with about 25% fat by weight. Since pork is the closest easily available fat to bear, I would go with that if you can. You can use a meat grinder, if you have one available, or food processor. If you don't have either of those, you can also use a knife. Just pound it as you mince it as finely as possible. From there, you can use any recipe for pork sausage that appeals to you, just increase spice a bit to compensate for the strength of bear meat flavor. You don't need to stuff sausage casings or anything like that unless you care to. Smoking or any other specialty technique is also entirely optional.
The one thing that isn't optional is that bear meat should be cooked to a minimum of 160°F (71°C) because many bears carry trichinosis.
Quit looking at my avatar!
Lean, gamey meat benefits from braising - it will result in a somewhat more tender dish, taking some of the unpleasant intensity from the game and imparting pleasant complimentary flavors.
With game as strong-tasting as bear, a braising liquid with a similarly strong base component would be ideal. Try braising recipes that include red wine as the primary ingredient, with fresh herbs and aromatics more on the intense side of the spectrum.
Juniper berries go very well with strong flavoured meat like venison and hare - it might have the strength to go with bear
This could be the perfect instance to cook the roast sous vide which would tenderize the connective tissue without drying out the meat. It works wonders on the toughest cuts of beef.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.857152
| 2015-12-17T21:49:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64528",
"authors": [
"Carol Roberts",
"Jolenealaska",
"Judith Hine",
"Kari Pratt",
"Lee Chudley",
"Madlynn Chandler",
"Norma Menjivar",
"Patsy Cheverier",
"Paul Greenlees",
"Roberta Conklin",
"Wedding Videographer Ltd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37751",
"sandra spencer",
"user23614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123754
|
Is this yellow substance on my chicken meat a fat deposit, and is it ok?
This was a Plymouth Rock chicken from my own yard, the first one to be eaten, hopefully. I am not sure about this yellow substance. Is it just fat deposits? Is it normal, and should I just remove them?
It just means your chicken eats naturally and is not fed only grains or pallets.
This is a beautiful piece of meat, from a well treated animal. Enjoy it!
Highly related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108939.
According to this website (linked below) yellow fat is a good thing! Says it's
"the result of a grass-based diet which is high in chlorophyll.
The cartenoid beta carotene in the grass is the same as the orange colour found in carrots. This is what produces the yellow fat in chickens as well as the bright yellow yolks in pastured eggs."
https://www.dirtycleanfood.com.au/blogs/unearth/why-is-our-chicken-fat-yellow
Please do not post answers that consist exclusively of copied text and always mark the copied contents clearly. See here for the rules.
Had the quote in quotes with a link. Only other thing was author, which isn't stated in the article. So that's the website. Which is in the URL.
Strictly speaking, this answer could be deleted as it is not primarily your work. I will keep it for now (as an explicit exception), as it’s information is correct and helpful. Please remember that for future answers.
@theonlygusti a little ironic but Stephie's link does say "Do not copy the complete text of sources; instead, use their words and ideas to support your own. In particular, answers comprised entirely of a quote (sourced or not) will often be deleted since they do not contain any original content."
Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
Home grown, free roaming, chicken can be recognized by those yellow deposits of fat, and by its meat being more firm to the bite, due to the muscles being actually used during the roaming.
Source: I have grown up in a family which used to keep some chickens for laying eggs and then butcher them when they were no longer productive.
The butchered chicken was never as pale as the one we would buy from the local butcher, its fat was never white but rather yellow and, once it was grilled, biting away the flesh from the bones and chewing it needed more effort. But also the taste was way better.
I've bought chicken with these yellow fat deposits in the supermarket but yes, having these is a sign of a high quality chicken that lived a (relatively) happy live.
Was the taste better or worse? It's not clear.
@PiotrGolacki it was better
Poultry and beefs fat get a tinge of yellow when the animal was fed it's natural diet. When livestock are only fed corn then that high-protein powder gives the animal white fat.
Generally, the diet of animal is made clear in the taste of the fat. A lamb from the semi-desert landscape of the Karoo takes to the taste of the desert pepper-bushes.
The lambs from the grasslands of the North-West province have a much milder and agreeable taste to there fat.
In general practice you will not see the yellow fat often, because corn base diets of livestock brings them to slaughtering weight much quicker.
In the case of beef it is difference between tending to an animal for three years or tending to it for five years before you get money for it.
With the margins in poultry farming being so razor thin, you will not get yellow fat from anything but the highest quality of free range poultry.
There is a growing movement in South Africa where people are getting more involved with how the food they consume is produced.
More and more people are willing to pay extra for grass-fed beef and yellow chicken. It is good to see. Your body is your temple. You should not pollute it with anything like a battery chicken.
May I suggest emphasizing the degree of yellowness? All the chickens I've ever bought have had yellow fat, possibly due in part to getting things like marigold petals in their feed, but none have had fat that's as deeply yellow as the OP's photo shows.
-1 for making improper generalizations. The question wasn't about lambs. In chicken, 1) corn is not an unnatural diet, and 2) corn is what makes it yellow, and is considered a sign of quality. See also https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108939.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.857434
| 2023-03-28T13:40:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123754",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"J Chant",
"Journeyman Geek",
"L.Dutch",
"Piotr Golacki",
"Stephie",
"Vladimir Cravero",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98174",
"quarague",
"rumtscho",
"slebetman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52266
|
Does the location of where an octopus was imported from determine the flavor/quality of the meat?
I recently bought frozen octopus that was caught and imported from Portugal because the local stores were sold out of the octopus from Spain. There was also a package of octopus imported from Vietnam but the seafood department employee said that wasn't as good. Does anyone know if there is a difference in taste or quality of the octopus meat depending on where it was caught? If so, how extreme is the difference and would the difference be apparent to the person eating it?
I looked into it some, I couldn't find anything that credibly compared quality of frozen octopus from different counties, however I did find sustainability issues. Vietnam, Mauritania and Morocco appear to have the worst sustainability record, Spain the best. South Korea is the largest importer of Vietnamese octopus, and SK does eat a lot of octopus, so I won't say that the quality isn't as good, but the sustainability issue alone would steer me away from Vietnamese octopus. http://safinacenter.org/documents/2014/06/octopus-common-full-seafood-watch-species-report.pdf
Thank you for your input, you certainly cleared up a few things ive been pondering for a while now! Also thank you for providing the link, very helpful. @Jolenealaska
I would think that there'd be the water equivalent of terroir at the very least (temperature of the water, what the octopi had to eat, if they were stressed), and possibly issues with how quickly they are cleaned & frozen after catching. If nothing else, the speed at which they are frozen could affect the quality in terms of texture (is it prepped & frozen on the fishing vessel, or brought to the harbor to be processed? Is it frozen slowly (and large ice crystals may form) or quickly? But I have no idea how extreme the difference is, as I don't think I've ever had Vietnamese octopus.
Αn issue that potentially relates to sustainability is that -in Greek folklore at least- female octopus that's recently given birth is inedibly salty. I can't find a reference for this in anything other than Greek fishing forums so it may well be an urban legend but I have definitely encountered Asian-imported octopus in the UK that was salty beyond edibility. In general octopus is salty as it is so you should avoid seasoning it until the very end
actually seafood's country origin does make a very relevant difference. Why? ocean floor type, water tempearture, tradewinds, upwelling and feed availability. Best octopus comes from Spain and Portugal (actually portuguese octopus is the best) Viet, China, Indonesia or Mexican octopus live in hot water. Portuguese coast has a very mild water temp, from 10 C to 20 C and a lot of sun exposure that triggers phytoplankton blooms. I could expand on this as I am a professional fisherman. Now, any country can import any seafood from anywhere and then label it as "theirs" so one must know which species are native to a certain location. Sustainability is also very imnportant and both Portugal and Spain are EU members where sustainability is a very serious matter.
Also, genus and species of octopus will vary from region to region. Turns out octopus is an Order:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus ,so there's room for a lot of variation there.
So it's the same as beef and poultry: where the animal comes from and what they eat matters to the final product's flavor.
Usually spanish and portuguese octopus is "Octopus vulgaris" and vietnamese octopus is "Eledone"
And yes, there are gastronomical differences. Eledone is smaller, with less muscle and tougher.
By the way, 80% of fresh octopus sold in Spain and Portugal (Octopus vulgaris) come from Morocco and Mauritania
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.857839
| 2015-01-04T15:34:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52266",
"authors": [
"Alexisnicole3",
"Emma",
"Giorgos",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Julia Milam",
"Luciano",
"Premium Sash Windows Ltd",
"Sid Tucker",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"ian heptinstall"
],
"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
}
|
88970
|
Using sous vide to warm canned vegetables
Has anyone attempted to plunge a can of vegetables into the sous vide bath given it is already vacuum packed? I would, of course, take off the label.
Of course, canned vegetables are already cooked. So, there is not problem warming them, if that is your intention.
Just make sure it does not explode.
Also, when you open the can, beware the heat pressurized contents do not burn you. Pv=nRT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law
If you were to do that it would be closer to poaching the vegetables assuming that most canned vegetables are in a liquid and the water in and out the can would be kept below the boiling point.
You would have to be carful of built up pressure by the heat (should be fine since you're not sous viding in boiling water nor is there air in the can.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.858154
| 2018-04-07T16:20:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88970",
"authors": [
"Rodrigo de Azevedo",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30111
|
How to add a salty/bacon flavor and texture to vegan collard greens?
As a vegan of nearly a year bacon has come as a "great loss" and my collard greens have suffered for it greatly.
I have been experimenting with tvp bacon bits, vegan bacon strips (both frozen and refrigerated), tempeh, liquid smoke, soy sauce, butter, etc. to get something of the salty and fatty flavor/texture that I used to get with pork bacon but have yet to be successful.
Additionally I have tried boiling, slow cooking, sauteeing and a few other methods of cooking. The slow cooker seems to be the best, helping everything cook down as far as I want, but it does take a good while and does not get the animal fat infusion that I used to enjoy so much.
Suggestions for helping add some fat and texture to my way too healthy and way too mushy pot of vegan greens?
I've never made collard greens myself, but have you tried mushrooms and extra salt?
@Yamikuronue: I have used salt to the point of making them inedible, haha. I have also tried mushrooms, and they may be the closest I've come texturally, but I still lose the fattiness of bacon. I want that kind of animal grease thing going (seems silly, doesn't it?), but can't get it with the 'shrooms.
Are you sure you actually want to be a vegan? :) Collard greens always seemed like just an excuse to eat bacon "healthily".
@Sobachatina: Haha, I am very sure I want to be (an ethical) vegan. Casting aside my aversion to animal cruelty and the impact on the planet, maintaining a plant-based lifestyle helps me keep the 110# I've lost off. Generally I find it to be the easiest way to stay healthy, but there are foods I miss. I didn't quit eating meat/products because I don't like the taste.
Have you tried sprinkling some straight MSG onto your Mushroom version? It might Umami that you're missing.
@nicoleeats Fair enough. I respect your motivations.
@JacobG: I actually have used some MSG, though more might help. Additionally I have used mushrooms and tomatoes, to help get the "all around" flavor, hoping to hit that umami vibe. So far, no such luck. Additionally, while mushrooms do help, I do need to add some crisp texture to match that of bacon. Perhaps, ultimately, I am expecting too much of myself, hoping to hit the mark?
Have you tried smoked salt?
As a vegetarian, I regularly try to compensate for the lack of meat in a normally meat-containing dish using a number of methods, though I feel none can truly replace the addition of meat perfectly. In my experience, duplicating the effects of the addition of meat to a dish requires considering individually the effects the addition would have.
First I'll address the fat added. Since the lard present in bacon is high in saturated fats, you can attempt to duplicate that using vegetable oils that are high in saturated fats, like hard margarine or palm oil. While I wouldn't normally advocate with using an oil specifically because it has higher saturated fat content (for health reasons), in this case it will likely help the quality of the finished greens. Consider using a smaller proportion of the more saturated fats by adding in a lighter/healthier oil, like canola or grapeseed, as a portion of the added fat. There is no single rule for getting the fat content of a dish like this right, and it's often a matter of taste.
The smokiness added by the bacon is also a consideration. While liquid smoke could work, the volatility of the product can contribute to the flavor getting poorly concentrated in the food. I have had good results with both smoked salt and smoked black pepper in concentrating smokiness in a dish, and I have found that adding either more near the end of cooking encourages the flavor to be retained more prominently.
For the savoriness added by the aminos in the pork, there is a wide variety of vegan options for its substitution. A good place to start, in my opinion, is to use a vegan not-meat bouillon (e.g. from Edward & Sons) as the base of the broth. The addition of nutritive yeast (and to a lesser extent mushrooms) can also help infuse the broth with umami, and is a common ingredient in vegan broth preparations. If desired, the addition of liquid aminos (e.g. Bragg's Liquid Aminos), and/or MSG can help further improve the savoriness of the greens.
For the texture added by the bacon itself your intuition of using TVP or vegan bacon is likely the way to go. While neither adds much flavor itself (vegan bacon being far more mellow in its baconiness), they are probably your best bet for duplicating a meaty texture.
I would just like to add that kelp powder also has flavor enhancing compounds that can help to replace the amino acids missing from the pork.
Most of the varieties of a product called Bacon Salt (originally semi-local to my area, but I think now available nationally in the US and online) are vegan, and all, to my knowledge, are vegetarian.
I've used it in concert with various fats (olive oil, butter, neutral vegetable oils) to get fairly convincing result, usually adding it directly to the fat a short time before adding the greens if I'm using a slow braising green like collard greens. Just make sure you don't get the oil so hot that it burns the Bacon Salt. It does a nice job of infusing the smoky flavor into the oil that way.
Alternatively, you could go a different direction entirely and reset your expectations: I'm very fond of various Ethiopian preparations of collard greens, sometimes written as "Abesha Gomen", which may or may not use butter depending on the variation, but does use various spices. There are fairly reasonable recipes for that online if you search for either Abesha Gomen or Ethiopian Collard Greens.
The normal approach we have tried has been salty, smokey, sweet. Salty and smokey has been done with smoked and kosher salts. the smokiness is aided by the addition best of not just a liquid smoke product, but earthy things like toasted sesame oil. A freshly ground shiitake powder can also be added.
The sweet is generally managed by adding maple syrup. This we normally cut with liquid aminos or vegan Worcester sauce and onion powder and nutritional yeast (less the latter, my partner dislikes it).
The most important technique element to apply would be to cook the tempeh strips, or whatever you're preparing, very low and very slow for at least thirty minutes. We typically use a cast iron skillet for the task as the reduction will continue needing attention. (obviously, add the greens after the tempeh or mushrooms are done cooking). You can also marinade and dehydrate portabella.
Dried mushrooms are bound to work best for a crisp texture, and will likely provide a better counter to the greens than mushy tempeh (which are well suited to A tofu scramble). We have generally been disappointed by both pre-packaged vegan bacon substitutes as well as any TVP 'bits' approaches as the first doesn't cook up or modify well to achieve flavor, and the latter just don't hold up at all. The fatty lip and mouth feel will be boosted by adding a final bit of toasted sesame and a better amount of a mild oil at the end.
We aren't huge fans of nutritional yeast either, but I have yet to add maple syrup to my collards- will do that in the next batch for sure. With @Stefano's comment with the "make mushrooms taste like bacon" method I may just hit my mark! Thanks!
@Nico as a last ditch, Bacos are vegan, tho I wouldn't really say they taste like bacon, or food
Coconut oil. As OmniaFacial mentioned about solid fats, a good tasting raw coconut carries all the the spices well and softens up the collards brillantly.
Dried onion is also somehow more compatible than fresh with collards, IMHO.
Secret weapons: coiander seed or root and either a bit of yeast extract instead of soy sauce or Braggs (very high umami); or a few drops dark sesame oil with tiny bit prickly ash oil and a dribble of black vinegar for an Asian Fusian kick.
I was watching Diners, Driveins and Dives the other day (yes he's annoying, but some of the dishes are interesting), and one of the chefs had smoked coconut as a bacon replacement -- he shaved it thin, put it on a wire rack, then put it in his smoker. It was lightly browned by the time it came out. So cocnut could give you the texture, fatty, sweet, and smokey.
oooh, I gotta try that!
I really like how this web page at the inimitable herbivoracious.com describes the spirit of experimentation that lead to his version of a "vegan bacon" - in short, the flavor comes from the salt and sugar that some others have already mentioned, and smoked paprika. I was sufficiently intrigued that (as a "true bacon" eater) I tried it out over a salad last Christmas and I can wholeheartedly recommend it. The flavor is awesome - pretty close to bacon but it definitely has some awesomeness that's all its own. Texture is spot on, too.
Toasted pumpkin seeds are to my mind the perfect solution + a bit of salt, paprika. You'll have a very similar crispy, caramelized fat taste that makes bacon so tasty.
Try J&D foods bacon salt...its vegan! Bacon Salt
You might look into a product called Vegan Magic Bacon Grease. It is a seasoned coconut oil product, intended to replace bacon grease as an ingredient - so it has sweet, salty, and smoky flavors. One of the uses mentioned on the website is frying greens southern style, like collard greens, so it seems like it might work to add some of the flavor you're looking for (instead of or in addition to any vegan bacon, depending on your recipe, I'm not really familiar).
I can't say if it tastes like bacon, been too long without, but it does taste pretty good, I recall.
Additionally, if you wanted to include pieces of veg bacon for texture and not just the fats and flavors, let me add a suggestion for another product, Hickory and Sage Smoked Seitan by Sweet Earth (also sometimes called benevolent bacon), as it is one of the best bacon alternatives I've seen, it has a lot of flavor and is pretty good for adding into recipes (I've used in soups, etc, for flavor and texture). Again, not sure if it tastes like bacon (I'm actually inclined to think "no", it's an alternative not a replacement) but it tastes really good and packs a lot of flavor.
Maybe,
roast 1 pack med sliced fungi in 1/4ctamari, 1T maple, 1T liquid smoke, 2t natural oil in a coverd pan 400 25-30mins, til they've released their juices, then uncovered til they've sucked them almost all the way back up, then toss them in your 3/4 of the way cooked greens?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.858285
| 2013-01-15T16:53:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30111",
"authors": [
"AdityaDees",
"Bianca",
"Chitholian",
"Dan",
"Dawn",
"Jacob G",
"Joe",
"Meg Norman Brown",
"Mimma Copeman",
"Otso",
"Pat Sommer",
"Robert Leger",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Werdnabd12 Selwob",
"Yamikuronue",
"colejkeene",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94937",
"mfg",
"olegario",
"spiceyokooko",
"yaya",
"zsn"
],
"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
}
|
45191
|
What can make a radish lose its flavour in a dish?
I wanted to try something new so I had the idea of putting radish in with my tuna salad. I really like the spicy punch of radishes so I was excited to taste the end product.
I got a bunch and chopped them all up, then I added some miracle whip, Philadelphia cream cheese, a chopped up pickle, a little mustard, and a touch of the maggi liquid seasoning (oh and I used a little bit of pickle juice). I thought I had too many radishes and it would over power the dish, but it turned out that it didn't really taste like radish at all. I don't understand what caused the radish taste to be completely absent.
Is there something among my ingredients that would react with the radishes to make them lose their bite?
When preparing a radish dish, should you be careful about including acids or bases?
If I were to make it again, how can I keep the radish strong?
I can't find enough information right off the bat to answer the question, but his line from Wiki might help you or another user towards the right path: "The raw flesh has a crisp texture and a pungent, peppery flavor, caused by glucosinolates and the enzyme myrosinase which combine when chewed to form allyl isothiocyanates, also present in mustard, horseradish, and wasabi."
I don't think anything reacted, just that you smothered them in other stuff.
Some of your additional ingredients (the cream cheese and the miracle whip) will soak up any taste present and dilute it. If you just made cream cheese with radishes, it will still taste a bit like a radish, but much weaker.
But you didn't just dilute it, you combined it with other, very strong tasting food. Mustard, pickle and liquid "seasoning" are all little taste "bombs" which will easily overpower lots of other stuff (and tuna isn't so weak either). Especially the mustard has a taste and aroma which is very similar to radish, but much stronger - it will probably mask the radish. The actual radish taste (beyond the hotness) is very delicate and easily covered up. The hotness itself is the same as mustard hotness, only weaker, so it disappears into the mustard taste.
With this mix of concentrated tastes and dilutants, it's no wonder if your radish taste just went under.
If you want your salad to taste of radishes, you should remove most of the stronger seasonings. Or just replace the miracle whip with radish paste.
I doubt that adding an acid or a base will have much effect, or that you'll be adding any bases at all. Basic food doesn't taste too good, especially in combination with fat.
I am not familiar with the concept that tastes can be overpowered by others. Could you suggest to me how I might alter the recipe so that I can get the radish and tuna taste.
@Klik I suggest skipping ingredients like cream cheese and miracle whip.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.859437
| 2014-06-29T05:46:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45191",
"authors": [
"David Hare",
"Jerred Shepherd",
"Jolenealaska",
"Klik",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"suyash",
"www.tvactivatecode.com"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89016
|
Steaming with oil instead of water
Can you cook some foods just placing them in a metal frame above hot oil? In the same way as steaming vegetables, but with oil. Is that a thing?
Given how badly you can get burned by steam, I'd be really, really afraid of hot oil vapor
@Joe Unlike water vapour (steam) oil vapour would most likely explode before it gets a chance to burn you. Google fuel-air bombs
@Joe: Calimo already pointed out what makes steaming so effective (2230 J/g heat of condensation), that's also what makes steam dangerous. Oil is safer in this respect - until it catches fire, of course.
If you like your kitchen ceiling to be a nice yellowy brown colour.
Are you already cooking something else in the oil, and just trying to reuse the heat?
The boiling point of oil is higher than the catch on fire in a dramatic way temperature of oil
I can't help but think of one of my medievalist friend's experiments in making boiled linseed oil. The resulting fireball is quite famous around these parts. (Thankfully, nobody got hurt.)
With "catch on fire in a dramatic way temperature" being the correct scientific term to use there.
Another probably dangerous but at least feasible idea would be to do the same thing with alcohol, which would cook the food at a lower temperature than traditional steaming (since its boiling point is lower) and probably make the food quite boozy... the risk also being that the alcohol could catch on fire. One could also play with the cooking temperature by adding salt to the water to raise its boiling point.
That really wouldn't work.
With steaming the water is heated to boiling which creates steam. Since the food is colder, the steam condenses on the food which transfers heat to the food.
With hot oil there is no boiling and vapor of the oil. So in an enclosed container it would be more akin to baking, the hot oil heating the air, than steaming. (There would be some oil in the vapor above hot oil, but not enough to transfer much heat.)
(1) Another factor here is pointed out by user "Lorel C" in another answer. Cooking oils tend to decompose and smoke before reaching their boiling point. If you could get oil to boil without smoking, then "steaming" in the boiling oil vapor would be very close to frying in oil, but at a temperature much above what is normally used.
(2) Also as user "yo" points out in a comment below, the bubbling that you see when frying something isn't the oil boiling. Rather it is the water coming from the food that is vaporizing.
I think the suggestion is the oil is so unbelievably hot that it vapourises. I can't see any good outcome from this (in particular I don't think oil vapourises before it denatures, i.e. reaches its smoke point)
@RichardTingle - The OP specified "hot oil" not "boiling oil." Being a southerner in the US we like everything fried. But I've never fried with boiling oil.
"In the same way as steaming vegetables" implies vapour. I'm not arguing that this is a good idea but you could try to do it (and either produce vast quatities of smoke or burn your house down)
@MaxW It may be important (to someone) to note that when people see "oil boiling", it's actually water content of whatever you fry that's boiling, and not literally oil boiling.
... and the water vapour created by whatever you are frying is what carries the small oil droplets around the kitchen until the water either condensates or evaporates and leaves the oil droplets falling down on the top of your cabinet =)
I have never heard of anyone "steaming" vegetables using oil instead of water. Placing them in a metal frame above hot oil would not be as effective as cooking them surrounded by steam (from water). The hot oil would need to be boiling.
According to
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_boiling_temperature_of_cooking_oil_palm_oil_Any_reference
Q & A on cooking oil,
"The exact boiling temperature depends on how pure the oil is. The boiling point for palm cooking oil is estimated in about 300 C (or 572 F)." That kind of temperature seems like overkill for vegetables. Also the smoke point for cooking oils is lower than their boiling point, so it would be messy, unpleasant (with all that smoke in the kitchen), and, judging from the comments contributed by others, it would be extremely, crazy-dangerous as well.
The smoke point being lower than the boiling is the important part. The smoke would given an awful taste to the food. // There must be some other liquid that you could use for steaming. Ethanol comes to mind, but vaporous ethanol is a significant fire hazard. I certainly wouldn't try it in a home kitchen.
@MaxW would ethanol even work? Would it have the opposite problem from oil - it would evaporate well before it reached a temperature that would cook any vegetables?
Steaming works not because water vapor is hot, but because it has a very large latent heat for the water-vapor phase transition (around 2,230 J/g if I can trust the Internet), which is released when the water condensates. I can't find the equivalent for oil, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is way lower than that.
If you can ever produce a significant amount of oil vapour it is actually an explosive. Same with any other kind of situation where fuel gets mixed with lots of air. Sawdust and flour explosions are known phenomena. Fuel-air explosions are in fact used by the military to create some of the most powerful non-nuclear bombs in the world
@immibis, wow, I guess I didn't know the half of it! ... I better fix that, eh?
@stannius - ethanol boils at 78 °C (173 °F). Not sure if that would be enough to cook any vegetable or not. But again, vaporous ethanol is a significant fire and explosion risk so i wouldn't try it.
@Calimo Exactly. Water has a very high heat of vaporization compared to most other compounds. There's no other common liquid that is both safe to use with food and can release as much energy on condensation as water.
@MaxW steaming with ethanol in a pressure cooker so it doesn't escape. like lower temperature steaming. I'm a tiny bit curious if that would work.
@userLTK - But some vapor (water or ethanol) does escape from a pressure cooker. Such ethanol vapor in a kitchen is a significant fire/explosion hazard. Somewhat idiotically I mentioned ethanol because as a chemist it was the only other liquid that I could think of that would safe for human consumption. Ethanol would boil and not smoke like any of the various cooking oils that are used in a kitchen. The flash point of pure ethanol is less than the average room temperature. Again trying to use ethanol for steaming in a home kitchen is not safe.
As already said, this wouldn't work at all with any normal fat. I'd further emphasize that it's really quite dangerous: fat can spontaneously ignite when heated substantially over the smoke point. And if you drop anything water-containing (like one of the pieces of vegetable) into hot fat, the water will boil with a sudden violent expansion. When the fat is already aflame, this can result in a literal fiery explosion. (The reason why fat fires must never be extinguished with water.)
That said, if you use a pure, saturated, short-chain fatty acid like lauric acid, you could get this to work because it chemically withstands the 300°C needed to get it boiling. These vapours would then indeed “steam” your vegetables. It would not actually get the vegatables to 300°C because the water content has a high heat capacity; a lot of fatty vapour would need to condense on the surface to even reach 100°C. I reckon the result would actually be more like soaking the vegs in a cold deep-fryer, which is then heated up slowly. If you'd do it long enough, the water would eventually evaporate, after which the temperatures would go up much higher – the food would eventually be dry-singed.
Pure lauric acid isn't toxic, but it would probably impose a soapy/waxy taste on the food.
This sounds like it could become a new technique :)
Also... what would be if you started off in a lowered pressure environment, letting it saturate with oil vapor until atmospheric pressure is reached.... is thermal conductivity of an oil vapor no better than air?
@rackandboneman: Steaming doesn't work by thermal conductivity. It works by convection, and very efficiently so when the heat transferred is released by condensation.
Even if you could steam oil without it combusting, it wouldn't transfer nearly as much energy as steam does.
Water has an obscenely high specific heat, just around 4. Here
Oil has a specific heat around 2, depending on the type of oil. Here, Table 6
it takes approximately one crapload of energy to turn water into steam. That energy is still in the steam as it rises, and is transferred to anything that it touches. That is why steam has a such a high scald hazard despite being 'only' 100 C. Oil, with its lower specific heat, would not transfer energy as efficiently.
Possible to do this safely in an atmosphere without Oxygen, but it would still taste bad.
As other answers mention, the smoke point is lower than the boiling point, so food cooked in oil vapor would taste horrible. By removing the Oxygen, you won't prevent smoking. But you will reduce the fire hazard.
One method to do this, and prevent other reactions between the hot oil and the air, would be to remove all the normal air from a room and replace it with a much less reactive Helium.
For obvious reasons, this is not a frequently used cooking method. When someone does this, it will make a great youtube video. Perhaps the food will taste good too.
“Smoking is a chemical reaction between Oxygen and hot oil” – that's not true. Smoking is simply the decomposition of fat molecules through thermal excitation. The products of that decomposition can then react with oxygen (that's what can kick off the spontaneous ignition), but removing the oxygen does not prevent the fat from smoking, it just makes it less catastrophic. — Using an inert gas is not a bad idea, also for other purposes, but argon is a much better choice than helium.
@leftaroundabout: ah, yes, I've heard about cooking things with argon-oil. Badum and/or tish.
Yes, you can "steam" using oil. When you steam with water, the hot water condenses on the cold food and transfers the heat. With oil, you mist the food with oil and then heat the air. The oil transfers the heat to the food. It's called "air frying."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/michelleno/philips-airfryer-review
How is this not baking?
Unless that airfrier keeps a constant oil mist going? But I would guess it doesn't, hot oil mist sounds like a proper safety hazard...
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. The original question was about heating food over oil (as opposed to over steaming water).
I have one of those. The oil is used for flavoring purposes.
You can in fact. It would not be practical and traditional streaming methods are more precise and less dangerous however, when frying particularly moist foods (like fries) especially in large quantities, steam is produced. This steam isn't enhanced with flavor and there really isn't any benefit to doing it this way. Which is probably why it isn't.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.859716
| 2018-04-10T16:12:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89016",
"authors": [
"A.N.",
"Aaron Hall",
"Calimo",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Earthliŋ",
"Joe",
"Lorel C.",
"MSalters",
"Marti",
"MaxW",
"RedSonja",
"Richard Tingle",
"Steve Jessop",
"aroth",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"leftaroundabout",
"rackandboneman",
"slebetman",
"stannius",
"userLTK",
"wedstrom",
"yo'"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40857
|
Why do my stored cashews smell like fish?
I have a 30 Oz plastic jar of Roasted, Unsalted Archer Farms Cashew Nuts. I've noticed that after having it 'open' for a week or two (i.e. the lid is tightly screwed onto the jar, but the initial paper seal has been broken), the nuts begin to develop a fish-like smell. They are still hard and there is no sign of mold --- the nuts are perfectly good, but they don't taste quite like typical cashews.
First, what's going on here? I read somewhere that this is due to oxidation, perhaps a too-high moisture level in the air when I open the jar. Second, how can I correct this? Would it be better if I were to keep the cashews in the freezer? Should I buy salted cashews instead? Intuition tells me that salted cashews should not be affected by this issue, as the salt would absorb the moisture.
I believe the fat in your cashews is becoming rancid. That would most likely be caused by oxidation. Exposure to air is the chief culprit. However, exposure to light or heat could also accelerate this.
I'd wager you got a jar of nuts that wasn't quite sealed. Have you had this problem before with other jars of these nuts? 1-2 weeks is an abnormally short period of time for this problem to occur in a sealed container.
It's also possible that the nuts are old. Have you checked the "best by" date?
Freezing does not stop oxidation. It would ensure a relatively cool and dark storage place for them, though.
The only way to stop oxidation is to prevent air from touching the food.
Equipped with a new jar with a tight seal and a cool, dark storage place... I think you'll do just fine in subsequent cashew ventures.
Freezing doesn't stop oxidation, but it does slow it significantly.
There are some conflicting statements here that should be clarified. "Prevent[ing] air from touching the food" will not stop oxidation unless you also limit the exposure to heat and light (cool, dark place). A freezer is the best choice for that, as long you also use an airtight container.
Thanks for the clarification guys. I'll have to go back and double-check my research.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.860578
| 2014-01-05T04:39:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40857",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Colin",
"Maltanis",
"Marcos",
"Phenomenal Bundles Spam",
"Preston",
"Ryon Tierney",
"Time Lee Beauty Spam",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95179"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62685
|
Kind of Russian pierogi
When I was younger, we had a yearly "Taste of Tacoma" in Tacoma, WA. There was a booth that had this Russian, I think, pierogi. However, I remember what I had as being round like a baseball with at least ground beef inside. I was fairly young and don't recall what else it included.
Does anyone know if this is a specific type of dish or just a variation on the pierogi?
Thanks.
That sounds like a beef Pirog, a Russian (and other surrounding areas) pie with meat (or other fillings) wrapped in pastry or dough and baked.
There are also smaller stuffed pastries/breads called "pirozhki" in Russian (literally: little pies) that may be baked or fried.
Polish pierogi are small filled dumplings. Similar in concept and pronunciation to Russian pirogi and sometimes similar in filling as well, but with a different dough and generally steamed (or steamed then pan-fried) -- those are also called vareniki (Ukrainian) or pelmeni (Russian).
I would say that Russian pirogi and Polish pierogi are distinctly separate foods. Russian pelmeni and Polish pierogi are different regional variations of the same dish.
If it was fried, than it looks like "Belyash", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremech
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.860788
| 2015-10-20T20:57:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62685",
"authors": [
"Aida Andujar",
"Cindy Ekberg",
"David Jewell",
"Jan Lloyd",
"Jeff Smith",
"Pat Mollenhour",
"Rick Harrison",
"Roxanne Rogers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149089"
],
"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
}
|
83277
|
Temperature at which to pickle herrings
If the pickling process takes approximately 2-3 days, should the pickling process take place at room temperature? Or can it be done in a refrigerator?
Herrings should be pickled in refrigerator. Before the pickling solution fully infuses the fish, there's little to prevent its spoilage - and depending on strength of the solution and size (thickness) of pieces of fish, if the process is fast enough, that's non-issue, but if it's to take 2-3 days in room temperatures, you may end up with pickled fish that's spoiled inside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.860929
| 2017-07-26T06:36:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83277",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51941
|
Why isn't glass ideal for the fermentation of sauerkraut?
I last made sauerkraut over 20 years ago, so embarking on it again I did some reading and chose an Alton Brown recipe. He specifically calls for the fermentation to be done in a plastic container. This answer here on SA suggests that fermentation in glass is "higher maintenance" What's the best container to ferment vegetables?, but that is counterintuitive to me.
I believe it, since it meshes with what Alton Brown recommends, but why? And is there an advantage to the traditional ceramic pot or the newer high-tech container?
SUMMARY: Glass containers are perfectly fine for fermentation. It's usually other design aspects of the container that create fermentation problems.
Do you have any sources that actually say glass isn't a good container for fermentation? I've never heard or read that anywhere. The only negative thing I can say about glass is that it's usually transparent, which means you should store it in a dark place to avoid growth of microorganisms that can sometimes be fueled by light.
I assume the reason your linked question mentions that glass jars are "high maintenance" is because most people who ferment in, say, your standard Mason jar may not use airlocks or weights to keep food submerged. If food stays on or above the surface of the liquid, it is much more likely to mold, especially if the container allows outside air to get in. Some people therefore tend to stir or skim their fermented foods periodically, and this agitation will prevent some surface molds from forming, sometimes even with food that floats. With a standard Mason jar, though, your only other option is to keep outside air from contaminating the container by tightening the lid, but then you have to "burp" the jar periodically to avoid pressure build-up.
"Burping" or stirring/skimming on a daily basis (or even more often) in standard jars would probably be "high-maintenance." But these would be problems with any container material (not just glass).
Of course, neither of these situations is ideal -- what you really want to do is (1) use some sort of weight to keep the food submerged (weights in a big container or a baggie full of water in a small container are typical) and (2) have an airlock of some sort on the container. If you try to ferment in glass jars -- or any container -- without those two things, you need to use "high-maintenance" techniques to try to prevent mold. And even if you do the "high-maintenance" things, you may still encounter growth of bad things, so I wouldn't recommend such a setup.
I have no idea why Alton Brown uses plastic in his recipe other than the fact that it's probably the cheapest option for someone to find a container that holds five pounds of cabbage and likely comes with a good lid. There's nothing wrong with plastic as long as it's non-reactive and doesn't leach anything into the ferment. Most food grade plastic containers should be fine (though many people avoid them anyway in favor of more traditional glass or ceramic).
The two containers you link to both include an airlock of sorts, and both have common methods to keep food below the surface. (The ceramic crock usually is used with weights, while the plastic container has an inner plastic lid that can be moved down to keep food down.) The first is similar to the container recommended in your linked question, and it's those aspects which make it more desirable and requiring less maintenance.
Anyhow, if you want to read more about these issues, you might find this link interesting, which included a microscope study to look for growth of nasty things after a 28-day ferment in 18 different fermentation container setups. Bottom line, as I said: the container material is basically irrelevant as long as it's sterile and non-reactive. The more important things are keeping outside air out and keeping food below the surface.
While I suppose someone can always screw it up, I started my "canning jar kraut" shortly after doing a bunch of canning, and as such was fully aware that the "fingertip tight" (not cranked on or wrenched) canning jar lid is, itself, an airlock of sorts, with no need to "burp" it, as it will "burp" itself if at the correct tightness (though caution does put a container under the jar in case of issues.) As a beer brewer I grok the joy that can be taken in watching an airlock bubble, but such things are not really needed on a properly tightened canning jar.
Just have to add the main reason I dislike mason jars for kimchi and returned to tupperware like a savage: The whole in the top was to small to comfortably pack the kimchi into, and I never felt confident I was getting ALL the air out. As it is, I use mason jars if I want a pretty jar of pickles. I've never had issues with mold, and I've never stirred a ferment. Ecnerwal is right about the seal not being an issue either. The problem with mason jars is how hand-bruisingly hard they are to pack properly. And, no, really, I've gotten bruises and even a blister once. Tupperware for life.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.861009
| 2014-12-24T22:22:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51941",
"authors": [
"Battery Storage LTD",
"Ecnerwal",
"Fire Door Survey Ltd",
"Linda Blanshard",
"Mark Safko",
"Nontokozo Tshabalala",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
517
|
How can I tell if fish is fresh?
I love fish, and I love cooking it. The thing is, I don't have any idea how to buy fish.
Considering common fish in a grocery store (salmon, whitefish, tuna, grouper, etc.), how can I tell a good specimen from a bad one? When the difference is not clear, which way should I err?
Is there any different set of criteria, when I'm buying fish at an outdoor market?
I guess I was thinking filets, but I should be able to expect that they could filet it for me, yes?
Indeed. A good fish monger will fillet the fish for you, Just use the guidelines below to pick your fish.
As a rule of thumb for a whole fish, and not a fillet -
the gills should be bright red
the skin/scales should be bright and shiny like metal
this fish shouldn't really smell of anything except 'watery'
the flesh should rebound quickly when pressed
the eyes should be bright and clear
really fresh fish is also quite slimey to touch if it's straight out of the water. I remember being quite surprised at this from my first fishing trip a few years back.
If you can and if you like fish don't buy your fish at a common grocery store (unless you buy frozen). The places nearby where I live all smell fishy and that's not a good sign. Of course you don't want to be driving for hours, but if you can find a place known for selling fish and with plenty of customers, chances are that the fish will be fresher.
For a fillet, really your only hint is whether it just smells at most like the flavor of the fish and not fishy.
Other than that, follow the advice on other answers.
Be it fish, beef, fruit, whatever. You will always get better somewhere that sells a lot because they go through their stock faster, so you will get fresher items (and of course, they wouldn't sell as much if it wasn't any good).
A few tips. Look at the eyes first, they should be clear and convex (a slight outward direction). If the eyes are cloudy, walk away. Also look at the gills, they should be bright red, not a dark brick red. Finally, smell it. It should smell clean or a little briny, anything else is suspect.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.861417
| 2010-07-10T16:43:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/517",
"authors": [
"Andres Jaan Tack",
"ManiacZX",
"Mike Wills",
"Nick",
"Pulse",
"haseman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/971",
"marcc",
"tbond"
],
"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
}
|
75178
|
How many calories does a home-made marinade add?
I'm planning on marinating my chicken legs with Tabasco sauce.
I have read that a marinade should be one part lemon juice and 3 parts olive oil.
I'm going to be using two skinned chicken legs, lemon juice, extra virgin olive oil and Tabasco sauce
The reason I want to marinate the chicken legs is because I will be eating them on the go and wont have time to add the Tabasco sauce to them yet I still want them spicy.
So basically I'm wondering how many extra calories could I be talking for each chicken leg.
Thank you.
Whats the best way to marinade without adding calories? Thank you
We need more specific details. Otherwise we can't give you an answer. Based on your last comment, if you don't want to add calories, none of the ingredients in the marinade should have calories. That is, of course, unless you plan to rinse all of the marinade off.
Why do you think oil is necessary for marinades?
You're really sort of asking the wrong question... what you really want to do is add flavor without adding calories... the solution to that is to use flavoring elements that don't have calories... use a dry rub... use the Tabasco sauce itself... use an oil free marinade... there are many solutions. And wherever you read that a marinade "should be one part lemon juice and three parts oil"... they're utterly wrong. Neither oil nor lemon juice are necessary.
I tried rubbing Tabasco on turkey breasts today and left it for a few hours before cooking but they were not spicy. so I thought a marinade would be the solution
You might find these questions useful: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17961/marinades-water-vs-oil http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54559/how-does-rub-or-marinade-actually-seep-into-meat
Lots of recipes out there for buffalo wings. I get you are not using wings but you can sub in legs. Cayenne pepper will add a kick.
Oil which ends up being eaten, no matter if it comes from deep frying, marinating or just adding it, clocks in at 7-9 calories per gram of oil. If you add any sugar or thick syrup, calculate around 4 calories per gram. Tabasco sauce, being mostly vegetables and vinegar, is truly trivial in calories.
If you weigh the oil (and sugar if using) going into your marinade, and also weigh all your finished marinade, you can roughly calculate the calories per g of finished marinade: (("grams oil"*8)+("grams sugar"*4))/"total weight".
Now divide the total weight of marinade (minus the weight of marinade wasted -weigh it!) by the number of portions, and multiply with the calories per gram factor you calculated above.
Chances are that oil will penetrate less than other marinade ingredients, which could end up with there being a bit less calories in the finished food than calculated.
Neither oil nor other ingredients will penetrate. The marinade being eaten is the marinade which sticks to the surface, which is unlikely to have a different composition than the full marinade.
On the kind of food the OP refers to, probably true. Do you think this can be applied to all cases of marination (especially when food is poked, or dehydrated, or very salty marinade is used to force water out and other stuff in)?
There may be some edge cases, but the typical rule is that nothing, or almost nothing goes in, even in those situations where the average cooks assumes that the marinade is going in. "Poked" doesn't really create much space for something to flow in, and it will be very difficult for liquid to actually go into such a narrow hole. Dehydrated food is likely to soak up water via osmosis, but a lot of the stuff dissolved in the water will stay on the outside, especially fat and carbohydrates. Similarly with the very salty marinade, you are not forcing stuff in.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.861724
| 2016-11-01T19:48:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75178",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"Mark Osullivan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51632",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76567
|
Is there a good way to make vegetarian carbonara?
My partner is now a vegetarian, and one food I miss cooking for dinner together is spaghetti carbonara. What would a good substitute for the pancetta/bacon be? The role of the pork is not just the flavor, but the hot liquid fat also emulsifies the rest of the dish and cooks the egg. So a different approach would need to fill both roles of the pork.
Sorry, I don't see an answerable question here. "Taste good" is subjective. "egg+bacon+hard cheese" - if you are looking for vegan ingredients which will taste like this specific combination, then you won't find anything. A general "what ingredients I use" will end up in a generic, unordered list of umami products of which we already have several. If you knew what's wrong, for example tried an existing recipe and found that you are OK with the flavor but it turns out too dry, that would be a much more answerable question.
@rumtscho : it's effectively a bunch of substitution recipes. I wouldn't even know where to start to find something that would thicken like the eggs in this recipe ... the common replacement for baking is a 'flax egg', but that won't set up correctly for carbonara. The pork product you might be able to use a really hearty mushroom (possibly dried & reconstituted). Cheese might be nutritional yeast or miso, but that could throw off the thickening ... and I have no idea where to even start for the eggs -- "flax egg" won't thicken correctly, and it'd be gritty. Would egg replacers work?
If you can't even figure out how to start the recipe, it's impossible to say "my version came out too dry" because you can't make a version in the first place.
For the bacon (an American adaptation; can also be guanciale or ham (prosciutto cotto .. NOT prosciutto crudo (eg, di Parma)) : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/30111/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/4601/67 ; for cheese, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/41935/67 ... still no clue on eggs, but to make a sauce closer to besciamella w/ stuff in it, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/676/67 ... and also consider cooking down white beans in vegetable stock 'til they're creamy, then blend it (and thin more if needed). And see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/15475/67
@rumtscho I removed the "tastes good" piece of my question. The reason I included that is because it's quite possible there is an alternative approach, but it's so contrived it won't taste good. Some vegan replacements are best left un-veganized. Hopefully this one is not!
@Caleb I am pretty sure that there is a good answerable question hidden somewhere in your problem, and without the "taste good", it already is much better. I still have the feeling that it is missing a goal. I mean, if somebody adds avocado puree with marmite to their spaghetti and calls it carabonara-like, and another one adds cashew cream with olive pieces, are these answers sufficiently good for you, or do you say these are totally different dishes? If they are good enough, how can you say which version "wins", since both are random tastes with roughly similar texture? If they are (cont.)
(cont). not good enough, can you describe what you expect from a substitution to be declared good enough? I will reopen as it is, but your question could still use quite some improvement. If you focus it further, you are likely to get better answers. Also, seeing how many results you get when searching for "vegan carabonara recipe" on the internet, the usual way would be to try these and see if they work for you )and if not, why) instead of wondering from scratch how to produce a completely new recipe.
Is your partner vegetarian or vegan? The question sounds like you're trying to drop the egg, cheese, and bacon - do they not eat any of those?
Good question. Vegetarian, prefers vegan. I went with vegan in the question because I thought I would be able to find an interesting vegan replacement, but it sounds like it will just end up with a bunch of substitutions that don't work very well I'm going to change the question to vegetarian which will greatly simplify the matter.
I just came across this on Serious Eats: http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2017/03/vegan-carbonara-pasta-recipe.html
Do not look for all these functions in one off-the-shelf ingredient.
For the smoky taste and bacon texture, try various brands (there are differences in taste and texture) and cuts (as in, HOW you cut it) of smoked tofu. Dulse seaweed is also often recommended as a bacon substitute (but can taste too fishy).
Where hot saturated fat is needed, you will need to add that separately at the right time - or separately fry the abovementioned ingredients with excess butter/oil (getting some smoky flavor infusion) and add them with (or before) that excess oil. Butter or ghee/clarified butter (probably preferrable due to heat tolerance) are chemically closer (mostly saturated fat) to bacon fat than an oil.
I'm going to give this a try after the craziness of the holidays and will report back!
Have you tried it? @Caleb? How did it turn out? I miss carbonara, too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.862021
| 2016-12-17T07:31:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76567",
"authors": [
"Ada Lovelace",
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68637
|
Replacements for baking soda in a cake
Sometimes I wish to bake a cake, but the country where I am in doesn't have baking soda. I have tried using actual soda, but this has limited success and the cake tends to just rise and then fall.
I've already read this question on substitutions for baking soda, but that's for pancakes and the main problem seems to be that the pancakes would taste funny. For a cake, where there's a lot more ingredients, I'm hoping that other substitutions would be possible which would not otherwise be possible in a pancake (would the cake also taste like metal by tripling the baking powder?).
Thanks for any help!
Not that it's an answer to your substitution question but... if you're traveling and know you're going to be baking and that you have particular ingredients that can occasionally be hard-to-find, you might consider taking them with you. Boxes of baking soda are extremely cheap and relatively small so even if they only go one way on the trip, that's not a big loss.
@Catija That is indeed what I'll be doing on my next trip! But it's not something that I'd like to rely on - I would feel a lot safer with the knowledge that something like the absence of baking soda wouldn't completely nullify my ability to bake.
It would help to know what countries you're going to that don't have baking soda, and what kind of cakes you're looking at -- for example, some modern pound cake recipes call for baking soda and/or powder, but the original way to make it involved creaming the sugar and butter together for long enough rather than use a chemical raiser.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54670/how-to-make-baking-soda
What you might not find at the "grocery store/market" may be found at the "chemist" (pharmacy) in some countries; probably as "sodium bicarbonate" rather than "baking soda."
Not necessarily an answer, but traditional french cakes don't use a leavening agent, they just rely on stiffened egg whites. It would be challenging but you could experiment with adjusting your recipe to use beaten egg whites instead of a leavening agent. Otherwise you could probably find a similar cake recipe in a french cook book.
You could also look for yeast-based recipes. You can't get away from the bready texture completely but you can still make some very nice things.
What about yeast?
Every substitution is probably going to require other alterations. Baking soda's effects extend beyond leavening: it generally reacts with acidic ingredients (making the batter less sour) and also provides sodium ions which can affect flavor. If the substitute doesn't react with acid as strongly, you may need to decrease acid ingredients or substitute neutral ingredients to obtain the same flavor (e.g., milk instead of buttermilk or yogurt, regular cream instead of sour cream). If the substitute doesn't have sodium, sometimes adding a bit of salt may be necessary.
As for the leavening action itself, any substitute will introduce its own issues in adapting. Unless you're experienced with this sort of thing (or like to "experiment" and possibly have cakes that fail in various ways), I would generally recommend finding a cake recipe that has leavening agents you actually have on hand, rather than trying a substitute.
There are really only two common substitutions that often won't affect texture or flavor in major ways:
(1) Potassium bicarbonate - can usually be substituted 1:1 for baking soda, but is generally tougher to find than baking soda. (Look sometimes for it at drugstores; baking soda itself can often be found as "sodium bicarbonate" or some other name in other countries at drugstores too.) Without the sodium ions, you may need to add a bit of salt, roughly 1/4 or 1/3 of the amount of baking soda will be sufficient for flavor.
(2) Baking powder - also often harder to find in other countries than baking soda. Also, other countries may have other formulations than what is found in the U.S. For standard U.S. baking powder, you'd generally use 2-4 times the amount of baking soda in the recipe. The reason for this inexact ratio is a trade-off in flavor vs. reactivity. If you want the same reactivity with acidic ingredients, you'd need 3-4 times more baking powder, but this often results in a "baking powder flavor," sometimes described as "metallic." But if you decrease the amount to avoid this flavor -- maybe twice as much as baking soda -- you won't react with as much acid, so you probably would want to reduce the amount of acidic ingredients in the batter. For baking powder outside the U.S., you'd need to look up the exact formulas/mixtures used and perhaps make further alterations.
(I'm not going to go into the less common chemical alternatives -- like baker's ammonia -- which are even less common for baking today. And I'm not even going to bother with possibilities like homemade potash from wood ashes, which theoretically can provide some leavening. If you're in a country where you're that desperate for chemical leaveners, I'd doubt you'd have access to basic baking materials.)
Unfortunately, as mentioned, these two options are generally less common to find exact equivalents than baking soda. So, we move onto less reliable options that will require further recipe modification.
(3) Egg whites as leavening - separate eggs and beat whites separately, generally to soft or medium peaks. Usually, fold into batter at the last moment (generally in stages, first mixing in a portion of the egg whites more thoroughly to lighten, then gently folding in the remainder) and bake immediately. This will only work by itself with relatively light cakes that don't have a lot of heavy ingredients. Adding a small amount of sugar toward the end of beating may have a stablizing effect and prevent early collapse of a cake. Cream of tartar or a very small amount of other acids like lemon juice or vinegar can also prevent overbeating.
(Note that even if eggs are not separated, beating whole eggs or yolks until light colored will add in small amounts of air.)
(4) Creaming method - ignore recipe instructions and begin by creaming butter and sugar together until fluffy, often requiring at least 10 minutes of steady beating with a mixer for maximum results. (By hand, this generally would be done for an hour or more traditionally.) This will trap air bubbles that will ultimately leaven the batter (the traditional method for pound cakes). This works better than egg whites alone for heavier batters (e.g., with more flour and/or butter), but it still will result in a denser cake than one with baking soda. Generally, continue after creaming butter and sugar by adding eggs one at a time while mixing vigorously, then fold in other ingredients more gently toward the end. (If the recipe calls for a liquid sugar, like molasses or honey or whatever, substitute with dry sugar for more creaming action.)
(5) Yeast - there are entire questions here devoted to the problems of converting a chemically leavened cake into a yeast-leavened one. Yeast is probably the only way to actually get the same volume without baking soda or other chemical leaveners, but it will usually change the cake texture significantly. Basically, yeast cakes tend to be tougher and more bread-like, while chemically leavened cakes tend to go for a softer crumb. You can't quite get such a soft crumb with yeast, since the rising time will create more gluten connections, but you can sometimes get something that's like a "quick-bread" cake. (My experience with baking yeast cakes is that they're really a different genre. But if you're up for experimentation, it might be able to work passable for converting some types of cakes.)
(6) Carbonated liquids - these are more commonly used along with baking soda which will react with their acidity. But substituting a carbonated liquid of some sort (carbonated water, soda, beer) that would complement the ingredients of the recipe could assist in a small amount of leavening action. Again, these should be added quickly at the very end just before baking. I doubt that these could result in adequate leavening alone in most cases, but they perhaps could assist sometimes (along with creaming, beating egg whites, etc.). As noted in the question, the bubbles here tend to be short-lived, so carbonation works best for cakes that bake rather quickly.
Lastly, it should be noted at aerating all ingredients can potentially help a bit -- whether that's just fluffing or sifting flour before mixing, whipping butter, beating whatever parts of eggs, etc. Whether these are at all effective will really depend on the details of the recipe and the order of steps taken, but they generally won't hurt.
The simple fact is that many modern cake recipes depend on chemical leavening to produce adequate lightness. Be prepared for a denser result even with these options, or find a recipe designed to be baked without leavening.
To replace baking soda, you can use four times the soda's measurement of baking powder. There are other alternatives, such as Natron if you live in Europe or have access to a European marketplace, but they tend to get complicated as acidic ingredients become involved.
New Health Guide has a specific page here dedicated to this question. with not only substitution amounts worked out, but classifications as to when it is best to use one substitute over another. This includes substituting other ingredients for baking soda. So far, they have never steered me wrong.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.862407
| 2016-04-28T22:34:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68637",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"Gyro Gearloose",
"Irregular User",
"James McLeod",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"tsturzl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81762
|
Condensed milk doesn't mix well into iced coffee
I enjoy Vietnamese/Thai/Brazilian iced coffee with the signature condensed milk. However, my efforts to reproduce have fallen flat.
Using either condensed milk from a can or squeeze bottle, it never really mixes well and falls to the bottom. It ends up as a 'strand' down the length of the class. What is the proper method of adding condensed milk to iced coffee and having it mix well?
Steps I am taking:
Fill regular glass to near-top of the rim with ice
Add toddy brewed iced coffee (refrigerated)
Add milk or half and half
Add tablespoon+ of condensed milk
Stir with spoon or straw
Is the secret heating up the condensed milk? That seems terribly inconvenient.
Added 5th step, stirring.
Mix warm (nuke 15sec) then add crushed ice which thickens mix. If no crushed ice machine, mix in blender after all ingredients are concentrated and blended then diluted with ice and crush 30 seconds.
It definitely works if everything is room temperature or a bit warmer, maybe 20-30C (68-86F), and it definitely won't work if it's all pretty cold.
It sounds like you may be a little too far on the cold end. You have coffee at 0C, plenty of ice to hold it at 0C, and a small amount of condensed milk at room temperature that'll rapidly cool down as soon as it's added. The upshot is that you're basically stirring at 0C, not even room temperature, and condensed milk at 0C is indeed pretty darn thick.
To keep things simple, I'd start out by just stirring the condensed milk in without ice. You could even stir it into just the milk/half-and-half, since with a smaller quantity of refrigerated liquid, the temperature won't drop as much. Stirring that into the rest of it should then be much easier. You may also want to stir continuously as you're adding the milk, rather than after adding it all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.863046
| 2017-05-17T20:57:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81762",
"authors": [
"Taylor Ackley",
"Tony Stewart EE75",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57964"
],
"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
}
|
89342
|
How do I reduce kitchen temperature during cooking?
My kitchen gets too hot during the summer while I am cooking. I have exhaust fans installed in the kitchen, but it's not really helping. I have four questions:
Is there any other way I can reduce the kitchen temperature?
Does the kitchen chimney help reduce kitchen temperature? I read one ducting kitchen chimney is as powerful as 15 exhaust fans. But I also read that kitchen chimney mainly help to fight with odors, oil, etc, but not temperature. My friend said using kitchen chimney will definitely give some relief. I really want some expert/experienced advice, will it really help to reduce kitchen temperature by at least some degrees?
Are there other appliances like air purifier, humidity controller that can solve this issue?
Should I stop trying to reduce kitchen temperature, as it's essential for cooking? (But, I really want food getting cooked, not myself :'( )
Could you describe what you mean by a kitchen chimney?
Advantages of high temperature in a kitchen: Your coconut oil will be liquid, your yeast dough will rise and your pickles ferment faster, you will actually use less energy to cook. Disadvantages: Everything stored will spoil/degrade/stale faster, your fridge will use more energy, and pastry will be a pain to work with because the fats melt.
Leave the fridge door open. Just kidding, ill show myself out. Natural ventilation would be the best. Are there windows on opposite sides of the house you can open to get cross ventilation?
@DuarteFarrajotaRamos Agreed.. a through-draught (preferably in the right direction) is the best way.. perhaps a 'kitchen chimney' would provide this.
Not an answer but, a dehumidifier may help. It probably won't lower the temperature in your space but it should make it more comfortable by lowering the humidity.
@RobinBetts I was talking about kitchen chimney. Some more images of kitchen chimneys. You must be aware of it right? In fact I was to create separate question asking whether such kitchen chimney indeed help reduce kitchen temperature, or its just capable of reducing the smoke and odors. Also its an issue that we have one window in our kitchen, but not really much air comes in from their...
@Mahesha999 They're more commonly known as cooker hoods or extractor hoods
Sucking hot air out of the kitchen using the hood ("chimney") will cool the room, though possibly not by much on a hot day. A nice big open window to allow fresh air in will maximise this effect. Even on a hot day, the hood will cause a through draught, and the lower humidity, slightly cooler air blowing over you as you cook will be much more comfortable.
In very rare cases where the outside temperature is above the inside temperature (traditional buildings that are designed to cool at night and heat as slowly as possible during the day) there's little you can do. Such buildings aren't really designed for use with air conditioning (and they often come from a tradition involving outdoor cooking)
Some other things you can do that make at least as much difference:
Cover dishes when cooking and turn the heat down (yes, even if it's not traditional). This is especially useful when boiling/simmering as the steam contributes to the discomfort.
Some dishes can be brought up to boiling point then insulated to continue cooking.
In a heatwave I've been known to get a long extension lead and an electric hotplate and cook outside (probably not an option in an apartment unles you have a balcony).
The outside temperature is almost never above the inside temperature. My home's layout is something like this. I can install exhaust chimney to take out hotter air. Now I was guessing if I can keep something like these air circulators(which have super ratings on amazon) or smaller versions in the middle passage (where all doors open) facing kitchen to create input air current to replace hotter air. Does it makes sense?
The extractor will create a through draught if the window is open but a fan pushing in the same direction will help, and may make the kitchen more comfortable. You need to be sure that the hood can actually extract to the outside world (not a recirculating one, they're rubbish)
yup I said "ducting kitchen chimney" in original question. The recirculating ones are ductless.
From a semantic point of view, ducting doesn't days anything about where the other end of the duct is, so I wanted to reinforce the point
Thanks for your clarification of 'kitchen chimney'. A lot of the readers of this SE come from places where it would be called an 'extractor hood'.
In my experience, an domestic extractor hood which draws air to the exterior of the building can really help remove steam, and oily vapours / occasional smoke from searing, grilling and frying. Their effect can be quite local to the hob; depending on how your kitchen is arranged, they can have surprisingly little effect on say. a separate oven. They can really help to keep a kitchen clean, reducing oily deposits around the room.
But I think they would have to move very large amounts of air (more like an industrial extractor) to have a significant impact on temperature in the room. Also, before choosing one, carefully imagine the steps involved in cleaning and maintenance, so you can be sure they suit what's available to you.
The best way to cool your kitchen would be to create a through draught, moving large amounts of air from a cooler place, through the kitchen, and out again. You will have noticed that sometimes, to cool a room, it's not enough to open one window in it - you must also open another window on the other side of the building. You have exhaust fans fitted, you say there is only one window - make sure there is somewhere to draw the air from without resistance, maybe by opening/venting doors or windows elsewhere.
In the days before air conditioning, traditional buildings in hot places took advantage of these natural phenomena much better than they do now, making use of light and shade, water-cooled central spaces, and chimneys, to create flows of cool air. If there's any way you can emulate that, I would try it before resorting to A/C.
Cooking sous vide and using induction burners both reduce kitchen heat.
a pressure cooker is also very good at minimising waste heat
The term I am more familiar with is exhaust hood (there are also recirculating hoods). Sometimes they use the terms ducted and ductless.
A powerful exhaust hood is about 1000 CFM. A small kitchen 10x8x8 = 640. So it would turn over the air in less than 1 minute. That is enough to pull off some heat. Is it more than a couple degrees would be hard to say.
Humidity controller should drop the humidity but it produces heat.
Your refrigerator produces heat. Be organized and pull all you need in one sweep.
Let dishes cool outdoors (if you need them to cool).
An outdoor BBQ keeps the heat out of the kitchen.
Cook with lids when possible. Turn off the heat and let it continue cooking as it cools.
High end highly conductive cookware will have less lost heat.
A crock pot probably uses about the same amount of heat but if it is spread over 4+ hours it should have less effect on temperature.
The schematic of my home looks something like this. (I know it might be almost impossible to judge anything looking at that image.) Only bedroom and hall windows open at road side and get incoming air current. other windows open inside apartment. How efficient exhaust hood will be in reducing temperature, if there is very little air incoming to the kitchen?
A window is a lot more than no windows.
A more long-term solution could be to invest in an induction range/cooktop. The lack of excess heat is one of induction cooking's lesser-known eco-friendly attributes. Traditional gas and electric ranges heat up the air around the pan, losing up to half their heat to the surrounding environment. Not a good thing for large kitchen spaces like restaurants and warm climates - which are often made hotter with cooking.
This means having to crank up the air conditioning (if you're lucky to have it) when you're cooking - but not so with induction, where all the heat is transferred to the pot and very little ambient heat is generated. So induction cooking essentially reduces the heat in the kitchen.
Hi James, your old answer was removed on suspicion of spam. Your new one is more informative, thank you for that. In any case, I have removed the link - we don't require citations.
The only way you are going to reduce the ambient temperature in your kitchen during the summer is with air conditioning. Yes, I know it is not the answer you wanted to read, but it is the reality.
I've no idea what you are talking about with a 'kitchen chimneny', but if it is some sort of exhaust, you have got to makeup the air it sucks out of the kitchen from someplace. Is that air in that 'someplace' hot to or even hotter?
Any appliance you think up other than an air conditioner is going to consume energy that euauals more heat.
I think "kitchen chimney" means an extractor hood. There would be no problem blowing the air someplace hotter - however, if you are sucking air out of a room, the temperature of the air filling that vacuum determines room temperature...
Air conditioning like you said or a proper ventilation for air to cycle through the room.
@rackandboneman I was talking about kitchen chimney. Some more images of kitchen chimneys. You must be aware of it right? In fact I was to create separate question asking whether such kitchen chimney indeed help reduce kitchen temperature, or its just capable of reducing the smoke and odors.
@JadeSo air conditioner?
A rare downvote from me as you're flat out wrong. Replacing heated air with cooler air will always reduce the room temperature. The only situatiojn in which you could be right is if the outside was hotter than inside, and without an air conditioner that's highly unlikely in a kitchen
And where does this cooler air come from?
If air leaves, air will come in to replace it. Doors and windows are nevert perfectly sealed however tightly they close. Outside air will enter.
I would consider the unlikeliness of air being hotter outside on certain times of day very regionally dependent,,,
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.863240
| 2018-04-22T16:17:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89342",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"Cynetta",
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"Jade So",
"Mahesha999",
"Robin Betts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89433
|
What is meant when a spice is water-soluble?
Coriander and basil are said to be water-soluble. However, I'm not quite sure what this means. If you put the leaves into water the leaves do not dissolve. They are still there at the end.
I know certain nutrients can be water soluble — e.g., vitamin C — but what is meant by a spice?
Coriander and basil are herbs, not spices. Coriander seed is a spice.
Probably regional - some would say "Cilantro" if they mean the herb.
"Water soluble" vs. "fat soluble" refer to the flavor of the spice, rather than the physical leaves, seeds, or grains. That is, if you put a bunch of basil leaves (especially dried ones) in a glass of warm water, and leave it for a few minutes, the water will continue to taste like basil even after you've strained out the leaves. With fat soluble spices like whole cumin seeds, you generally need to "bloom" them in hot fat (like butter or vegetable oil) for their flavors to spread. As a rule, all spices are fat-soluble but some are water-soluble as well.
Of course, in reality almost all spices are both water and fat soluble to some degree. It's just that some spices spread their flavor much better in fat that in water.
Table salt is fat soluble?
Salt, sugar, extracts, artificial flavourings - stuff that can be ACTUALLY water or fat soluble in its entirety - likely is not in the scope of "spices" :)
Salt is a weird one, because it's considered a spice (sometimes) but isn't a piece of a plant. I think it's unique in this.
yah, @rackandboneman, this use of the word "soluble" is kind of abuse. But it's also common in cooking literature.
And btw, salt is not fat soluble at all - however, adding salt to hot oil can be a brutally effective way to draw flavor from aromatics :)
Salt is commonly used to break emulsions between water and oily liquids.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.864087
| 2018-04-26T23:18:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89433",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107723
|
How do i improve my hot and spicy chicken breast recipes so that the heat isn't an after taste?
This was my recipe from last week:
Chicken Breast Marinade (this is after cutting them up into small pieces):
Yogurt
Sriracha
Lemon Juice
Black Pepper
Marinate for 30 minutes.
Caramelized Onions
Black Pepper
Salt
Turmeric
Soy Sauce (when the pan looks dry, only add a little bit)
Cook 2 minutes on each side on a hot pan or when the sauce dries up which gives the best flavor.
My other recipe for whole grilled chicken breast:
Marinate (30 minutes)
Salt n Black Pepper
Chili Powder
Lemon Juice
Toss on grill for 6 minutes on each side.
above are just a very roughly written recipes
The problem I have with both is that the hotness or spiciness does not kick in when you eat the chicken; it kicks in as an after taste. I want it to be enjoyably hot, not excessively hot: I've refrained from adding in chili peppers--we have a ton of dried peppers that are very spicy at home. I don't know what to do to achieve what I want: hot but kicks but not too hot but also enjoyable.
What's your serving temperature?
um i'm not sure; i don't measure the temperature anymore ever since i've cooked chicken breast very often
Try adding a different chili. I like the heat of Arbol powder myself. Or add a little more Sriracha at the end of cooking. Cooking does reduce the heat of peppers.
This is based on purely observation, over 40 years, it contains no actual scientific basis whatsoever.
Something I've always noticed is that if I'm eating an Indian curry & it's starting to feel a bit too hot/spicy, then the more of it I eat, the hotter it's going to get.
If I eat a Thai curry - let's just consider the plainer green or jungle curry for this - then the hottest mouthful is the first. It doesn't build up as you eat, it gets easier.
I started to examine the essential difference between these two. We can't blind test every single ingredient, so let's ignore the aromatics.
In fact, to cut a long story short [I'm over-simplifying a lot], you can ignore everything except the chilli type.
Indian curry's main heat potential is black pepper & red chilli, usually dried or ground.
Thai curry's main heat potential is fresh green chilli, finger or unripe bird's eyes.
Red chilli powder builds over time, fresh green is right there at the start, but you slightly get used to it as you keep eating.*
So, see if you can incorporate fresh green chillis into one of those recipes. Probably the smaller/thinner the better to keep the liquid levels down. You'll probably have to blend or very finely chop it without the seeds & adjust your liquids accordingly.
*The simplest way to double-check this is by making variations on a pico de gallo theme, no cooking required, but cold chilli powder really takes a long build-up compared to cooked.
For these purposes, sriracha is going to equate to dried chilli powder.
You need chili. Most of your heat comes from black pepper, which is different from the heat in chili, and isn't as strong or long lasting. Chili heat is immediate, persistent, lasts and builds up as you eat more so that's where you want to go. The thing is to control the heat by modifying the strength and amount of the chili you use. There's so much variation in chilis, from mild to tonsil-destruction, you just need to find a one you like and add the right amount. Some experimentation is in order.
One easy step would be to add some chili powder to your marinade and see how you like it. A more immediate chili may come from fresh chili in a salsa or barbecue sauce that goes on the side. Marinades only penetrate a little way, all the flavor is on the outside, a sauce would give you heat throughout, and fresh chili tends to be a more immediate flavor. There are plenty of mild varieties to try.
They both already have chilli - one in sriracha & the other as powder. I don't think the OP is asking how to make it hotter, per se, but that the kick should come earlier.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.864275
| 2020-04-20T05:59:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107723",
"authors": [
"S. Coughing",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83096",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108179
|
Should I rinse chicken livers before cooking them?
I bought some fresh packed chicken livers from the supermarket (refrigerated). At home I froze them. Today I've thawed them and they were bloody. I've put them into a bowl with cold water, then drained them. The water was reddish and small pieces of tisue were floating.
Was my approach ok/safe? How is it done in restaurant kitchens?
Should I just drain the blood and water after thawing or wash them with cold water?
You should prepare the chicken livers by trimming away any fat, sinew, etc. You shouldn't need to rinse them, but it's OK to do so. Just be aware any time you are washing chicken or chicken parts that the bacteria can get all over your sink and kitchen, so I generally just confine to the cutting board and then wash it with warm, soapy water or put into dishwasher.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.864608
| 2020-05-06T18:58:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108179",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109033
|
For the life of me I can't get my nougat to set hard
Recipe:
Syrup
1 cup sugar
1/2 cup corn syrup
1/8 cup water (I dont think this does anything)
Dash of salt
Egg white
1 egg white whipped
Dash of cream of tartar to stabilize the egg white
2 tbsp rose water after eggs are whipped before syrup is added
As many nuts as I want
I get the syrup up to 300F. I whip the eggs, then before I temper them with a little syrup at around 220-250F, I add the rose water. Then I slowly add the syrup to the eggs while mixing and beat the mixture until it hits the right consistency and add nuts. It seems like it's thick and it should set right, but it just ends up being softish.
What could be going wrong? I've checked my thermometer and it's correct. Do I add more sugar or decrease the egg whites (or both)? Is it something I'm doing wrong with the eggs? I beat them until they have a peak when I remove the mixing things. Am I beating it too early and it falls apart (is that even a thing)? Should I not add the rose water after I beat the eggs? What can I be doing wrong?
FYI, the water in the syrup is there to help the sugar dissolve, which avoids the syrup crystallizing. By the time you hit 300F, most of it will have evaporated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.864710
| 2020-06-14T04:48:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109033",
"authors": [
"LSchoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102903
|
Does capsaicin lose potency with oxidation?
I have a packet of ground garam masala and if I make a stew with it it tastes very bland and has no taste. Two of the ingredients in the garam masala include pimento and cinamom which I know contain lesser amounts of capsaicin.
However even so I cannot taste any heat in the stew. Is this because the capsaicin content is too low or does the capsaicin lose potency with oxidation and time?
The problem with saying yes is that most chilli powders seems to be hot even after they have been oxidised over time.
Cook too long, and the capsaicin will degrade. I check heat at end of cooking process.
Garam masala is not a "hot" (piquant) spice mixture. It doesn't taste spicy because it's not supposed to. I'm not sure if cinnamon contains capsaicin, but it certainly doesn't contain a lot; otherwise it would taste hot, like cayenne does.
I suggest that you try to think less about chemicals and more about tastes. Taste some garam masala; that's what (your) garam masala tastes like. (The taste will change somewhat during cooking, but it's not a night-and-day difference.) If you're going for heat, taste other spices until you find one that's what you're looking for.
For tasting you may want to dilute or mix into a suitable liquid, as dry spices taste different and the sensation is dominated by the mouthfeel (I've tried it, they're actually quite hard to even identify). Suggestions: mix into yoghurt, mashed potato, or melted butter which you then spread on bread. In fact compare between these, with carefully measured proportions, and you'll see how different one spice can taste
@ChrisH Good point about mixing it. I think the key there is moistening, not dilution, and yogurt or butter are both good ideas: You want both water and fat. I disagree about the bread, though, which is going to dilute the flavor. Just taste the stuff. It's an experiment, not a meal. :-D
I've tried tasting garlic butter before, and (for me) the overwhelming greasiness makes telling much about the flavour very hard. I think you would want to dilute with neutral flavour to a bit stronger than you'd use in a dish, rather than tasting merely moistened spices, assuming you want to get an idea of what they'll do in real food. If you really want to compare fresh-ground against aged then appropriately moistened probably is the way to go
One bit of persistent confusion I've seen is people conflating "spicy" as in spices and "spicy" as in piquant. I don't know if this is just a US English problem or if it happens other places as well, but it is often frustrating.
The word "Garam" actually means hot in Hindi, so there is hotness there. The ones sold in the market are tempered to make them suitable for western tongues, so they don't have any heat in them. Native Indian ones must be hot. But I think the heat comes from pepper and not from chili.
@user79421 That's an oversimplification. "Garam" is better translated as "warming" or "body-warming", referring to the cinnamon/cassia, cloves, black pepper, etc. (Words describing flavors are culturally specific and don't generally translate well.) But it definitely doesn't contain significant capsaicin, which is what the OP was asking about.
Pimento is yet another vague pepper term - some people in some places define it as hot, others don't. I've never seen garam masala called hot though, so whoever labelled that was probably using a mild definition of pimento. A basic curry recipe might even use just garam masala plus chilli powder for the spice - with all the heat coming from the chilli.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.864853
| 2019-10-16T02:44:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102903",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Preston",
"Sneftel",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79421",
"user79421"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24362
|
What's the difference between Prosciutto, Jamon Serrano and Speck?
Jamon Serrano and Prosciutto appear to be pretty much the same thing. Both are dried cured (and pressed) pig legs. Speck appears to be the same thing, but made with different cuts of pork.
Is there actually a functional difference in them? Or is the difference in flavour simple due to regional variations (climate, moulds etc.)
I don't know why English speakers always misspell that... it's called "prosciutto"
Maybe because the "iu" vowel combination is almost nonexistent in English aside from "-ium" suffixes and foreign words.
@smcg: that could indeed be an explanation. It just sounds weird to me because you would really read it in a different way :)
Differences are mainly a question of origin. Speck comes from Tyrol (it actually means "bacon" in german, which is misleading) and is prepared with a specific blend of spices, usually including juniper, Jamon Serrano from Spain (it means "mountain ham" in spanish) and is a dry-cured ham, and prosciutto just means "ham" in italian.
There are plenty of differences in flavor, consistency and aspect, depending on the difference of preparation: ripening, spices and herbs and so on.
Note that in Italian we distinguish "prosciutto crudo" (lit. raw ham) which is similar to Serrano (but sweeter I would say) from "prosciutto cotto" (lit. cooked ham) which is what you would call white ham in English.
Different kinds of Speck are made in all German speaking parts of Europe and not only Tyrol. What do you mean that it is misleading that it means bacon? Speck is usually made of the same cut as bacon, but it is cured and usually eaten raw.
It's misleading because it's not ham at all, actually. Bacon comes from the thorax or the abdomen, and it's mainly fat, with some layer of meat. Ham comes from the thights or shoulders, and is mainly meat (muscle).
Disclaimer:
This answer doesn't include anything about Speck.
There is a great article by Roberta Schira where the differences between Prosciutto di Parma and Jamón Iberico are explained.
I'll try to summarize the article below, but please check the full article which has many more details...
... they are both raw hams but entirely different. Both belong to the category of top quality cold cuts, both are eaten sliced and both are made from the leg of pork.
The essential difference between these two ham varieties is that Parma raw ham can be enjoyed as an ingredient or accompaniment, while Jamón Iberico is religiously consumed on its own.
Appearance
Prosciutto di Parma has a rounded shape. The ham slice is red with white fat only around the outside edge. When cut, the slice should not look shiny but moist.
Jamón Iberico is coral red in colour with infiltrations of fat and the cut slice is small and rectangular in shape.
Production area
The Italian prosciutto is produced in Parma province in Italy, whereas the Spanish ham comes from the regions of Salamanca, Extremadura and Andalusia in Spain.
Aging process
Prosciutto di Parma is aged for at least 12 months. The ageing process of Iberico ham ranges from 24 to 36 months.
Pig breeds
Only the 100% Italian natural meat of traditional pig breeds of Large White and Landrace are selected, raised on a diet of genuine foodstuffs such as corn, barley and whey, aged at least 9 months and weighing on average 160 kg.
Authentic Iberico ham must be made entirely from the meat of black Iberian pigs, left free to roam in a pasture where they feed off oak acorns, as well as the aromatic herbs growing wild.
Cut
Prosciutto di Parma is machine cut into extremely fine slices.
Jamón Iberico is hand carved.
Ingredients
Nothing but salt is used to produce Prosciutto di Parma and it is forbidden to use chemical substances, preservatives or any other additives. Neither is smoking or freezing permitted.
Preservatives are allowed in the production of Iberico ham, even though producers do not all use the same ones.
But isn't there a difference between Jamón Iberico and Jamón Serrano, the latter of which the question asks about?
Jamón Iberico is made of the black pig, is fed differently and is aged longer than Jamón Serrano (these are the major differences). They are different in taste, texture and price, but are much closer to each other than to Prosciutto or Speck.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.865198
| 2012-06-11T14:15:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24362",
"authors": [
"Alexis Dufrenoy",
"Anirudha Gupta",
"Asalle",
"E. Cook",
"Muhammad Usman",
"Owen D.",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"Trygve Flathen",
"demongolem",
"gevra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70070",
"interesting-name-here",
"nico",
"smcg"
],
"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
}
|
2145
|
How would I go about home smoking a ham joint?
I love the flavour of smoked meats, such as ham, and have wondered if it would be achievable to to do some smoking in a domestic environment? Would I need to hot-smoke, or cold-smoke? what would the smallest practical amount to attempt?
Always hot smoke pork. Unless you know what you're doing. In which case you'd know that.
Look at this for ideas on how to make a cheap home smoker that will work for you.
In general, you need:
a heat source (hot plate works well)
container for wood chips/sawdust (skillet works and helps modulate and spread heat)
housing (any kind of box thing: cardboard, wood, ceramic, an existing grill... it just needs to seal and maintain a bit of heat)
a rack for the food to be smoked (or you could use rope and hang food as in smoke houses)
thermometer (poke it into the top or the side to keep an eye on things)
Put it all together, put the sawdust into the skillet, turn it on, and adjust for desired temperature. I'd recommend 200-250 for pork.
You may also want to put a second hotplate in with boiling water, or splash a bit of water in the smoke pan on occasion to keep the inside moist when smoking for long periods.
Before smoking anything, brine it and let it sit uncovered in the fridge for a day. This allows the surface protein to dry, and this helps to develop the smoke flavor.
On the housing -- I have relatives who made a great smoker with an old refrigerator from the "pre-plastic" era. They had to cut vent holes and have a tray at the bottom for coals. I anxiously await every fall for Columbia River smoked salmon.
Since this is the OP's first time curing and smoking, it might be advisable to try a smaller piece like a shoulder roast... A whole ham could be a pretty intimidating place to start.
You can smoke ham at home for certain, but I would strongly advise buying one that is already cured. The reason ham is pink, and ham-like in texture instead of white/grey and roast like in texture is that it is cured with salt and nitrates. Curing a whole ham is a moderately advanced feat of meat curing as it is difficult to get the cure clear to the bone in a timely fashion.
I second Adam's comment about hot smoke for reasons of food safety, despite the fact that the modern pork supply is usually quite clean, you are talking about a very large piece of meat. Holding it at a low but slightly elevated temperature for long would greatly increase bacterial risk.
I buy a gammon and then hot smoke it using the Cobb BBQ.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.865920
| 2010-07-19T19:50:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2145",
"authors": [
"Didgeridrew",
"Khanzor",
"Rich Mercier",
"Stewart Haynes",
"Tom Carter",
"coldholic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3848",
"joshaidan",
"livetolearn",
"salina salvatelli",
"wdypdx22"
],
"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
}
|
40922
|
How to cook extremely soft chicken?
I had this chicken that was extremely soft at a thai restaurant in Portland, Or. The cashew nut chicken dish had small strips of extremely soft chicken.
As you can see, the chicken is not cripsy or seared, it is just cooked in some fashion that makes it extremely soft.
Any ideas on how to reproduce?
That chicken has been "velveted". The technique is to briefly marinate the chicken chunks in a mixture of egg whites and cornstarch. The result is delicious, very soft chicken. It's a simple technique, great for stir-fried dishes and soups. There are several variations, so here are a bunch of them.
The simplest is to mix 1 Tablespoon of cornstarch into 1 egg white. Marinate thin slices of chicken (breast meat is most commonly used) in the mixture for 30 minutes. Drain the chicken by just letting the marinade slip through your fingers. Now just treat the chicken however you care to cook it; stir-fried, deep-fried or poached are all commonly seen. For something so simple, the result is really quite dramatic.
That's interesting, any idea why velveting would cause the chicken to be more tender? I don't quite understand why it would have that effect
I don't understand it either, but I do know that it works.
@jalbee It doesn't really answer the question, but here's what Serious Eats has to say on the topic. http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/04/velveting-meat-asian-cooking-technique-cornstarch.html
I think as the egg white cooks it creates a barrier around the chicken pieces that stops the liquid evaporating out of them. The meat them partly steams itself, becoming really tender and moist. The cornstarch just helps it bind to the meat.
I'm pretty sure it's also partly an illusion created by the mouth-feel of the outer coating.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.866196
| 2014-01-07T06:30:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40922",
"authors": [
"Anand bansal",
"David258",
"Geoff",
"Jolenealaska",
"Paula S",
"Robin Betts",
"Tahlil",
"Whack-a-mole",
"bobbie pahl",
"canardgras",
"damphat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95334",
"jalbee",
"pdarbee",
"slot depo ovo spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2798
|
Alternative to Marsala?
Is there a good alternative to Marsala wine? particularly in this recipe
For what purpose? Marsala can be sweet or dry, young or old, dark or light...
Don't use dry cooking sherry. Our Marsala and sherry are in near identical bottles and next to each other. I once grabbed the wrong one for chicken Marsala and the whole dish tasted off.
Consider using:
1/4 c. white wine + 1 tsp brandy ... or go as high as a 2:1 wine to brandy ratio. I like this substitution best personally.
1/4 c. white grape juice + 1 tsp brandy
Madeira wine - I've heard you can use this, but I never have
Port - again, I've heard it but not used it
Brandy alone, though I find this to be a bit strong
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.866433
| 2010-07-22T15:20:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2798",
"authors": [
"Dinah",
"Erin Brandt",
"Graviton",
"Jason",
"Pete Alvin",
"Pulse",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5043",
"Željko Živković"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37945
|
Can Guava seeds be used to make a coffee-like drink?
According to this website containing info on strawberry guavas:
The seeds can be eaten carefully or roasted as a coffee substitute.
Apart from that site, I can find no other references anywhere suggesting that a drink can be made from guava seeds. That site doesn't give much detail about how this would be done.
Does anyone know if guava seeds can be used in this way, and if so how to go about it? If you went to all the trouble, would it taste any good? You can dry, roast and grind the seeds of anything but that doesn't mean the end result would make a drink that tastes better than hot sand. My understanding of coffee production is that it is a tricky process to go from the raw beans to the final product so perhaps careful steps need to be followed to make a perfect cup of guava seed?
Is it possible that somebody mistook guava for guarana? Guarana is used as caffeine source in energy drinks, while guava has no stimulant effect to my knowledge. If they are talking about a non-stimulant substitute, you can use just about any seed or roasted root to get a muddy liquid, but I don't think that this is relevant outside of cultures where poor people are trying to keep up social appearances.
I tried making some today with seeds I collected by blending, straining and separating with water. Then roasting using a method I have seen used with coffee beans. Honestly was not that great, it was very weak, I tried a drip method and also french press, but both were very watery. Here Is a short video of what I did, not including the seed separation process. I am sure some coffee roaster is turning over in his grave, I am by no means experienced in this so you may be able to produce better results. https://photos.app.goo.gl/yVKNpwnF5Dpl91fm1 (sorry about vertical video.)
Wow! Way to go, original experimentation! Too bad it wasn't delicious -- wouldn't that have been a trip?!
I am unable to find a single reference to guava seed coffee when searching the internet.
While lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existence, it seems highly unlikely this practice, if it actually exists, is wide spread or well known. It is probably it simply is not true.
This answer is to help put this question to bed, and remove it from the un-answered list. I will be happy to delete it if someone comes up with substantive information
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.866674
| 2013-10-28T02:16:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37945",
"authors": [
"Betty Lighthold",
"Henrique Jung",
"Lorel C.",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tarun Mittal",
"Vickie Schafer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92074",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85946
|
How can I prevent my house from smelling like the food I've cooked for hours afterwards?
Often when I cook on the stove top, it will involve something fragrant like garlic, onions, seared meat, etc. I'm fine with smelling it while it cooks, but it seems to permeate the air and linger for hours afterwards. To make matters worse, my house has an open floor plan, so the smells spread to the living areas as well.
I have tried running the vent fan, which is connected to the outside, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. It's also very noisy, so it's not pleasant to use. (Maybe something is wrong with it?) It gets cold here for every season except summer, so opening windows is not ideal. I clean up the dishes while or immediately after cooking, so it's not a dirty kitchen that's causing the smells.
What can I do to prevent these smells or get them to dissipate promptly? I own my home, so solutions that involve modifying or replacing something are fine.
Possible duplicate of How do I eliminate a lingering smell of fried food?
I believe the answer is contained in the question above, even though your question is not specific to "fried."
Thanks @moscafj I checked for duplicates before posting, but didn't see that question. I think my question is a bit different, though. My house doesn't smell like oil afterwards, so I don't think it's due to oil splattering, like it is for deep frying. I also do not want to open a bunch of windows, and am asking about a stove top with a hood over it, which I'm guessing doesn't help much with a counter fryer.
basically the answer is fresh air and ventilation. It applies to your question. So, I do believe it is a duplicate. The community can weigh in to support that assertion, or leave this question open.
@moscafj my view (which is why I answered) is that "How do I eliminate a lingering smell...?" is a different question from "How can I prevent a smell from building up so that it lingers?", the latter being the question here (and the easier question).
I, for one, think that a house smelling like food is lovely :-)
When using a hood you need to think about where the fresh air comes in to replace the extracted air. It has to come from somewhere. If the rest of the house is completely sealed the fan will be useless.
Opening ventilation close to the source of the smell can mean that air is drawn from the inlet to the hood bypassing the cooking. So what I find most effective is to leave open the trickle vents over the windows in the living room, and close the ones in the kitchen (not exactly open plan but open double doors in between). Leave the fan on from when you start cooking until after the heat is turned off, by which time most foods will be covered, and the waste dealt with.
Cleaning or replacing (as appropriate) the filters in your cooker hood can improve airflow quite a bit and may even reduce the noise. Unfortunately they usually are noisy, but mainly for the cook. In an open plan house that's an issue because you probably want to hear your guests.
I think you are onto something with the filter. Upon inspection, it is pretty filthy. I'm not sure what trickle vents are, but I'll try cracking a window in the living room. Hopefully between the two, it'll fix the issue.
Trickle vents are common in much of Europe, especially where air conditioning isn't common. They allow just a little air into a house, and are normally part of the window frame. Our modern windows and doors otherwise seal quite tight; combined with central heating, condensation can be a problem without a little fresh air
You can place a bag of activated charcoal in your kitchen, this absorbs all the odors and your home won't smell even if you are making something extremely funky
That would only absorb odours which pass through the charcoal. It doesn't attract bad odours like a magnet. It's a misconception, much like the "open box of baking soda in the fridge" thing.
Whenever I'm cooking something that is likely to have a strong smell to it I leave a bowl with a small pour of distilled white vinegar in it on the counter during and after preparation. Leave it out on the counter overnight afterwards and it should help neutralize any leftover odors.
But vinegar smells terrible. Won't having it out make the place stink like vinegar?
In my experience, I find that cross ventilation during cooking helps.
Also cook nice smelling spices, like cinnamon, and citrus, like lemon. Let these nice aromas fill your house.
Another option is to burn beautiful smelling candle in your house. This always works for me.
Vinegar helps! It does not smell like vinegar so much as absorbs the offending odors. After several hours, remove it as the vinegar smell may start to take over.
A good candle works but backed up with a few moments of high quality incense is even better.
I second boiling a pot of water with spoonfuls of cinnamon, cloves, nutmeg, orange peels, lemon -- you can buy cheap spices for this purpose.
For the life of me, I do not understand the appeal of "open floor plans" for this very reason! I love cooking -- with garlic and onion! -- roasting veggies, and so on, and the stench that permeates the house is ok in the kitchen but I don't want it lingering in the rest of the place. I LOVE a separate kitchen! :)
I'm a little confused -- what are doing with the vinegar to remove the smell?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.866913
| 2017-11-26T18:14:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85946",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Kuykendall",
"Chris H",
"JohnEye",
"Kat",
"WackGet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"moscafj"
],
"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
}
|
63858
|
Can I toast pecans the night before?
I'm making pecan bars in the morning and I was thinking I'd get a jump on the work by toasting the nuts tonight. Is there a downside to toasting the pecans and then letting them sit overnight vs toasting them tomorrow and tossing them right into the recipe?
I'd just make sure to seal them afterwards to keep them dry.. jar or sealable bag.
Nope, no problem with that at all. Toast away!
You can toast them and keep them for much longer than one day if you wish.
Yep. Whaddya think, about a month for maximum quality? I'd add a time frame to my answer if I really knew how long. I know that stores sell perfectly good toasted nuts in the bulk aisle (so no airtight packaging).
I've kept roasted nuts for up to a month but why would you want to? Eat them if they're good. Anyways, roasted nuts will keep for longer than un-roasted, since the moisture is removed / reduced.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.867329
| 2015-11-26T01:28:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63858",
"authors": [
"Gordy Robertson",
"HerrBag",
"Jolenealaska",
"Philip Schiff",
"Roddy McDevitt",
"Sam Hall",
"Sonja Cooper",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40705"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62574
|
What are these little balls in my sardines?
I opened a container of sardines and found loads of little round balls in what appears to be its belly.
What are these things? Are they eggs the sardine was going to lay (or whatever it's called for a fish) or something it ate? Are they good to eat, or should I throw them out?
Yes, that is sardine roe. In Portugal it is considered a delicacy on a par with caviar.
I found roe in mine for the first time today and was a little off put until I realized within seconds what it was. I did a search to confirm, YEP! It's roe. Just finished eating every last bite of it. I'm not easily grossed out.
Try it on toast with some butter...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.867453
| 2015-10-16T15:37:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62574",
"authors": [
"Frank Gibson",
"Gene Rogers",
"J Crosby",
"John Gomes",
"Karey Fountain",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237"
],
"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
}
|
46006
|
How does velveting work?
The Chinese technique of velveting works. It creates a lusciously tender bit of meat, and I'm a complete advocate of making the small additional effort. If you've ever done it, you're already a believer, it's amazing. (I usually do it this way BTW)
I'm velveting shrimp as I type this, and once again I am wondering what is taking place. How does this work? At its simplest, velveting is nothing but marinating in egg and starch. How does that translate into lovely, tender pieces of all types of meat?
EDIT: A little history here would be interesting too. How long ago and how did this technique start?
I've never tried this process, but I will soon; thanks! Your linked article describes the process as marinating, then briefly poaching, then stir-frying. Have you contrasted the result of poaching, then stir-frying, without marinating? This could bisect the contribution of the marinade itself; i.e., would pre-poaching alone work? I suspect there's an astringent effect from the marinade... (or v/v: marinating without poaching; i.e., is it truly the combination of these two methods? Yaay food chemistry!)
@hoc_age My first experience with the technique was probably about 30 years ago, with a Frugal Gourmet recipe for Chinese Chicken Velvet Corn Soup. In that recipe, there was no stir-fry. The chicken was marinated in egg and cornstarch, then poached in oil (low temp). It was then added to the soup just before serving. The cooking methods are all over the map, and it's not always done in 2 steps. The only thing that seems to be consistent is the marinade in egg white and starch.
The fact that I still remember that recipe well enough to find it online speaks volumes. If you look at it you'll see that there is nothing to it, but it's amazingly good. The velveting of the chicken just transforms the soup into something special.
Follow up question: What's the minimal recipe for velveting? Can I use just egg white and corn starch for the marinade, followed by poaching in plain water? Some recipes call for other ingredients, such as a rice wine in the marinade or a tiny amount of oil in the water. How important are these other ingredients?
I think what's really happening here is mostly physics, rather than any magical reaction between the meat and the "velvet" (i.e. egg and cornstarch; I'm going to use this term for brevity).
The largest effect is that the velvet adds a thin, clingy coating to the outside of the meat. When introduced to heat, that's providing a barrier to the movement of thermal energy into the meat proteins. The proteins in the egg are denaturing, the starches are gelatinizing, and that absorbs some of the energy that would otherwise have gone into your meat. The presence of sheer additional mass from the velvet also means that it simply takes more energy to raise the overall temperature. This means that the temperature increases more slowly, and can be better controlled (sort of like sous vide cooking).
As the starch gelatinizes, it's also forming a moisture-resistant barrier around the outside of the meat. That could very possibly prevent moisture from leaking out of the meat as it's squeezed out of cells with denaturing proteins. Ordinarily it would leak out into your poaching liquid (or wok if you're stir-frying, where it would rapidly boil off) but now it's trapped in the pieces of meat. This is also somewhat analogous to sous vide cooking, or maybe to poaching in oil - the food being cooked stays moist, because the water is trapped inside (by a bag in sous vide, by hydrophobic oil in oil-poaching) and has nowhere to go.
Another factor is the very gentle cooking being done, in a barely-simmering water bath for a short period of time. This is cooking the meat just up to the point of doneness, by doing so at a rather low temperature (say 210 F or so, compared to 500 F or higher for a properly hot wok) and only very briefly, with the velvet coating for additional thermal protection. After that, the meat doesn't really need to be cooked much at all - it can be tossed into a nearly finished stir-fry just to the point of being re-heated. That seems to be why this article tosses out this interesting comment:
The meat remains soft and tender. (You've probably noticed in Cantonese restaurants that stir-fried meat is almost never browned or seared.)
I hadn't given it much thought before now, but that seems to match my experience in good Chinese restaurants, at least with certain dishes. Contrasting this with stir-frying sans-velvet, think about a browned piece of meat: the surface is covered with a delicious Maillard-browned crust, but those proteins have also been cooked to the point of losing their moisture. Even if the interior of the meat is moist, the outside's been dried, literally to a crisp. With velveted meat, that's not the case - each entire piece remains moist, and there's no browned, crunchy layer.
I'll be the first to admit that much of this is conjecture, but I think it provides a reasonable explanation for some of the processes that keep velveted meat moist. Might be interesting to dig up some scientific references on the thermal gradients of proteins vs. starches - I'll see what I can find.
I think you're dead on. We had a small conversation about it in chat and your speculation mirrors ours.
According to MelindaLee.com
... stated by noted chef Ken Hom, that "velveting" is "a technique used to prevent delicate foods from overcooking.... The velvet coat protects the flavor and texture of the food when it is placed into hot oil or water." So, velveting is not exactly a tenderizing method – but it keeps foods from becoming tough.
I'm not sure that I completely accept this as a complete 'reason,' myself, as there are other factors. The method you've cited uses boiling instead of 'passing through oil.' and in addition to that and the stir-fry steps, there's a risk of overcooking and toughening the meat.
There are lots of things I don't understand :-)
"There are lots of things I don't understand" - wise words.
That seems less like a reason and more a description of the effects of velveting: it protects the flavor (from being lost) and the texture (from becoming not-tender). But how does it do this? I guess the implication is that it does so by simply making it cook less somehow?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.867563
| 2014-07-30T20:09:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46006",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Easter Bunny",
"ITI Permit",
"Jolenealaska",
"Luxury Adviser",
"M. Ali Hassni ",
"Profile Spam Account",
"Spam clones california",
"Spammer",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"isabelfer",
"ken birkin",
"mrog",
"qwerty_99"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100882
|
Stewing meat with vinegar or adding it after
Wild turkey legs are rather tough, and some hunters even throw them away, but I decided to give it a shot in a slow cooker set at the lowest setting for 8 hours, with vegetables. I definitely like vinegar or citrus in my stews but as a condiment before eating. I was wondering whether adding it before or while stewing might be a good idea, such as helping tenderize a questionable piece of meat as is the case here.
At the same time, it's a rare cut of meat so I would rather not experiment too much: Is long stewing tough-ish meats with vinegar a good idea or should I add it after stewing or before eating?
Probably the turkey legs are frozen right now. Why don't you experiment on some turkey legs from the store?
Probably acid would be good to help break down tough cuts. I have not heard of stewing in vinegar but definitely stewing in wine. I stew in V8 juice pretty often. If vinegar is what you dig, try stewing some regular turkey legs, with an onion, cinnamon stick + star anise and some navy beans to soak up flavor. I would pick apple cider vinegar for turkey if you had to use vinegar. If I were doing it I would use apple cider +/- cheap white wine and save vinegar for a condiment. Or I have heard of these things "recipes" you might find.
If you like what you make with the farm turkey, then you can try it with your wild turkey. If you screw up farm turkey it will still be edible and you can tweak it for round 2, and round 3, until you get it right.
I don't really eat store turkey...
It's a good idea, and pretty common. That's the basis of Filipino adobo, as well as various other Filipino dishes. Meat is marinated in a vinegary mixture and then braised in that mixture. Braising in the vinegar mixture is much more effective than just marinating would be. While I've never had game bird adobo, it sounds quite tasty.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.868075
| 2019-08-21T20:02:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100882",
"authors": [
"amphibient",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15114"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62401
|
Why boil octopus with wine cork?
I saw a recipe (in Croatian, check out if you understand) for making octopus salad that says boil the octopus with a piece of wine cork. The article doesn't explain what effect the cork gives. Do you know what the purpose of it may be when added to boiling octopus?
Interesting read: http://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/how-does-cork-tenderize-octopus-6607998, also: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/dining/05curious.html?_r=0
@Jolenealaska That first link doesn't seem to work any more... :(
@Catija: here's a working version of the link: http://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/how-does-cork-tenderize-octopus-6607998 (It doesn't actually answer the question, though.)
The muscle fibers of octopus are very thin compared to other species, arranged in multiple layers and alternating rings, which are then even further reinforced with collagen, 3-5 times more than regular fish muscle fiber. It's basically the reinforced concrete in the world of muscle fibers.
There are exactly two ways to get tender octopus:
Destroy the collagen by force or to cook it for a very long time like a stew
Barely cook it to a core temperature of not more than 130-135°F/55-57°C. At 140°/60° temperature the collagen layers will contract and you are screwed.
Note that these two methods generate edible octopus, but with different texture.
The wine cork serves no purpose. If it has any effect at all, it will negatively affect the destruction of the collagen, as tannin is actually used to cross-link, a process to make the collagen stable and durable, which is the complete opposite of what you want, when you want tender octopus.
References:
[1]: On Food and Cooking
[2]: Stabilization of Collagen by Its Interaction with Tannin
[3]: Tannin used for the conservation of leather by stabilizing collagen
As an unrelated side note, octopus and squids have the least flavorful flesh of all fish and molluscs, as they use Trimethylamine N-oxide for osmotic balance; which happens to be completely tasteless. Other species use tasty amino acids. Unless you happen to have one as free by-catch on your own fisherboat, there is not much reason to invest the time and costs to make a dish out of it.
good answer, but I'm a bit perplexed by the notion that Octopus and squids are not worth eating?
I cook octopus from time to time, and I always put a wine cork in the boil water together with the octopus, because my mother in-law told me that the high content of the tannin from the cork (of red wine) makes the octopus tender.
I like your answer. Could this be more of a "we've just always done it this way" sort of thing?
All respect to his/her mother in law, but It's not an answer.It's following another recipe, namely the one of his/her mother in law. More interesting would be: Does it increase tenderness? Why? How? Alternatives? Did you try without putting a cork? "Because they told me to" does not constitute an answer.
In Galicia, corks were tied to squids. That made it easier for the cook to raise and lower the squid out of boiling water - the historic recipe calls for doing that to the squid 5-7 times. With modern cooking utensils, that practice became obsolete, and wine cork is thrown in the pot purely as a historic tradition.
This must be an ancient recipe indeed if it predates the invention of the modern "big-spoon"
....hours later: oh, haha, good one! [sorry, gullible wasn't in my dictionary]
I would guess that it is the wine residue in the cork that helps.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/dining/05curious.html?_r=0
Roger,
In my humble experience, cooking squid or octopus is either very short or very long and slow.
Squid or octopus in any Mediterranean salad is parboiled for a minute or less in acid liquid, water with either lemon, vinegar, wine and then cooled. This results in something 'chewy' for a salad. I doubt large pieces of octopus would work.
If you desire tender, then long and slow is the way to go.
Roger,
This doesn't really answer his question. I think he wants to know what effect the cork has on the creature he's cooking, not how to cook it well. Although i would like to try a bigger piece slow boiled.
I do not believe a simple cork adds or helps cooking octopus or squid, a cork saturated with a good wine may help, I think the idea is to add some acid to the cooking liquid.
I do not have the science at my finger tips, but when octopus or squid is cooked for several minutes, it gets very tough, if you cook it much longer at a lower temperature, it will finally break down and tenderize.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.868254
| 2015-10-09T02:33:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62401",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Catija",
"Chris Westbury",
"Janet Kriz",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kazren Ridgway",
"Lale Davidson",
"Lorel C.",
"Marian Davis",
"Marti",
"R. Beno",
"Terry",
"Tom Hernandez",
"Val Cartwright",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"kristine gehrke",
"marjorie velik"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32574
|
Should I use whole eggs or only yolks in Spaghetti alla Carbonara?
I tried to cook spaghetti alla carbonara and searching out I found out that some recipes use whole eggs and some only the egg yolks. Which way gives the better result?
Rather than ask which way gives better results(that's subjective), you should ask what the difference in the two resultant products are, and you personally choose which one is better based on your criteria of better.
Fwiw, I use Heston Blumenthal's recipe, which uses 3 egg yolks only (serves 2). Never fails.
I've asked this question to many friends of mine from Rome, and they all agree that only yolks should be used. Then I managed to find out the scientific reason behind this.
The real challenge with this recipe, which makes the difference between a perfectly made creamy carbonara and just pasta with omelette, lies in temperature control.
As a matter of fact, the problem of keeping the sauce from getting curdled arises when you mix pasta just taken out from water boiling at 100 °C with egg components that coagulate at a much lower temperature. In particular, as anyone having fried an egg knows, egg white coagulates earlier than yolk (protein coagulation temperatures are approx. 60-62 °C for the former, 68-70 °C for the latter).
This means that egg whites are more susceptible to ruin your carbonara, if you can't manage to rapidly decrease the overall temperature below 60 °C. Since egg whites function is just to provide a more fluid substratum (creaminess and flavour come mostly from yolks), they are usually left out and replaced with starchy pasta water.
So, put yolks only (one per person) in a large bowl and whip them, add pasta al dente without straining it first, using a large fork or kitchen pliers to take it straight from the pot, and then quickly mix them together while adding the remaining ingredients.
In this way, cooking water adhering on pasta surface will provide both the liquid base for the sauce and enough heat to thicken it, while the mixing will disperse the heat in excess.
The more stable sauces I've seen use the 3 whole eggs to 1 yolk ratio.
However, the reason the recipes disagree might have to do with the following:
Published March 1, 2013. Cook's Illustrated:
The hardest part about making carbonara isn’t coming up with the right ratio of egg whites to yolks to make a creamy, rich sauce; it’s figuring out how to make a sauce that doesn’t curdle, turn gritty, or tighten up into a glue
They suggest using half as usual water to cook the pasta and using 1 cup of the starchy pasta water to stabilize the sauce. The starch interacts with the protein in egg whites to prevent tightening.
Note: if you are using half as much water, then make sure you stir the pasta gently for the first minute of cooking the pasta and do not put a lid on the pot. Hang around the pot and make sure the starch/foam doesn't crawl out of the pot and start dancing around your kitchen.
The egg yolk only version might lead to a less creamy sauce but as suggested, it may be less susceptible to the tightening problem.
I think "using half has usual" should be "using half as usual", is this it?
Felicity Cloake has done the hard work of comparing carbonara recipes, and her conclusion is:
Eggs is eggs
Of course, as ever, it's not that simple. Should I use whole eggs, as in the Nigella Lawson, Silver Spoon, Elizabeth David and Ursula Ferrigno recipes, egg yolks, as the River Cafe and Prawn Cocktail Years suggest, or a mixture of the two, like Anna del Conte? Yolks alone I think too cloying – when mixed with the grated cheese, they become a stubborn paste, difficult to loosen and toss through the pasta, which means adding more cooking water, pointlessly, given you've just thrown away the egg whites. Whole eggs work well, but I'm going to add just the one extra yolk, just because this really isn't a dish you'd eat every day, and it does add a glorious eggy richness to it.
For me only ever the yolks. I don't add them to the sauce while I'm cooking. I just sit two egg yolks on top of everyone's portion covered with chopped dill and black pepper so it looks all cheffy.
This is because I want to get as far away as possible from the gooey white muck you get in a jar. The egg whites act as an emulsifier for the sauce, so the more you use the closer you get to a mayonnaise.
I like to think of a carbonara as a way of showing off a really good pancetta and a really good quality pasta. So I like to try and go for something very light and summery with few ingredients. So I don't use the egg whites because they make it too stodgy.
If your idea of a Carbonara is a thicker creamier dish then you should add egg whites.
Although you can achieve the same effect by using more cheese. Add the pasta to the pan on a high heat, keep adding finely grated cheese and ladle in the water you cooked the pasta in. Too loose more cheese, too dry more water. Be careful though. I've never found a limit to the amount of cheese you can add this way, but if you add too much you might need to go and lie down for a bit after you've eaten it.
As several people have pointed out they coagulate at lower temperatures than the yolk, which can lead to a takeaway pizza, so turn the heat down when you add them. Beating them lightly with a bit of water and\or sugar helps too.
A few concepts here are a mistake. I'm a Rome native and all I can say is that my mom would kill me if I use the whole egg. As stated before, temperature is key, having said that, the whites and the yolk cook at a different temperature, once you start cooking the whites it won't be creamy, it turns hard. The recipe for Carbonara calls for yolks only, and please don't use cream like I've seen. Yolks never see the fire, it is cooked with the heat of the pasta after draining and stirring or jumping around together while adding some water used to cook the pasta with, it has the starches that helps to amalgamate everything, add it by the spoon as needed, after that add the sautè Guanciale (pig jowl cured like bacon) mix a little and you're done.
Separate the yolks and mix into your Parmesan. Beat the eggs whites. When the pasta is cooked remove from the heat, add the Parmesan yolk mix and the lightly fried speck (bacon) and stir in. Once the pasta has dropped a few degrees then add the beaten egg whites.
Done.
Why oh why the egg whites?
Literally every single Italian recipe calls for yolks only. Just google "ricetta per spaghetti alla carbonara" and you will see "tuorli" (yolks) and never ever "uova" (egg)
Put in the whites in your pasta by all means.
What you get is probably a quite good pasta dish.
What you definitely do NOT get, is spaghetti alla carbonara.
Considering the origin of that dish (poor coalmakers in need of a simple dish they could cook in the woods), I don't think throwing away the egg whites has ever been an option there.
Applying the etymological fallacy to a recipe doesn't make it any less a fallacy... :(
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.868649
| 2013-03-10T16:20:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32574",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jan Steinman",
"Jay",
"Marti",
"Marvin Taschenberger",
"Tad Jones",
"brasofilo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"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
}
|
102507
|
What green chilli is being referred to in an indian lamb sheek kebab recipe?
I'm looking at a recipe for an Indian lamb seekh kebab and it says green chilli without specifying the variety. I am assuming green chilli can mean anything from green bell peppers to hot green peppers. So what would this typically be?
This question [& the answer] is basically a duplicate of your earlier question https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102487/what-is-the-difference-between-red-pepper-and-cayenne-pepper but just substituting the word 'green' for 'red'.
It's similar but there is a different answer @Tetsujin, this is because skeekh kebab is a dry recipe, you can't just substitute bell pepper.
I'd never dream of substituting bell pepper for chilli, whatever the colour. They're never substitutes for each other, even though they may be opposite ends of the same plant type, their flavour & texture profiles are utterly different. That being said, your answer works for me ;)
For reference, a sheekh kebab is spiced minced meat pressed onto a skewer and barbecued. There are no binding agents like egg or breadcrumbs in a traditional recipe, so you want to avoid any extra moisture in your ingredients or it may not hold together.
An authentic recipe will call for green chilies, not green peppers. The chilies need to be the your birds eye style, narrow tapered chilies with thin walls, not thick walled chilies like jalapenos because they contain too much moisture. Bell peppers are not a substitute for the same reason.
There are many green chili varieties which would work in the recipe, and they vary from mild to tonsil-searing. Which to use depends on how hot you want the result to be and what's available in your local area. If you don't want that spicy and all you can find are hot ones then de-seed them and just add less - it's all getting pureed anyway.
Tips for making good meatballs and mince-based kebabs:
Microwave and then eat a small amount after mixing the ingredients to make sure you get the right levels of salt and heat from the chili. Keep adjusting, microwaving and tasting until it's right. Keep in mind that the spices won't necessarily come out right away which is why you do 2.
Let the mix rest in the fridge for at least an hour, preferably several, to let the flavors combine. It also helps the kebabs to stick together
Interestingly there is an Indian/Bangladeshi chili that translates directly to "Green Chili"; Kancha Morich AKA the variant name Kasa Morris.
As I found in my answer to this question, this name is very non-specific to the type, but seems to be most closely associated with a form of longish green chili common in Indian green-grocery shops, very similar to those posted by Mobasir hassan. These are moderately spicy chili in the sort of Jalapeno range of heat.
![enter image
This type green chili is often used in seekh kabab to make it spicy. It is optional to use you can avoid green chili with red chilli powder or cayenne. Lamb is a red meat, it is better to use red chilli powder than green chili.
You can use jalapenos as well if you finely chopped them. Bell peppers are not substitute for green chili but you can use it for a lamb seekh kabab. You can read the recipe of lamb Gilafi Seekh Kebab in which finely chopped bell peppers are used.
https://www.hassanchef.com/2019/02/best-lamb-mutton-gilafi-seekh-kebab.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.869318
| 2019-09-25T00:46:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102507",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37781
|
Are there ingredients I should avoid in a brine?
I see good answers to What brine ingredients are effective?, and I am looking to really push the envelope. I realize that there is some debate as to the effectiveness of brine to add flavor to the meat itself, so I'm going to experiment to answer that question for myself. My intention is to brine a big (6 lb) chicken overnight in a 5% salt brine adding tons of flavor to the brine. After brining I think I'm going rinse and dry the chicken and throw it on to my "set-it-and-forget-it" counter-top rotisserie. When the chicken is just about done I'm going to glaze it with a very basic soy-based glaze Mr. Yoshida's.
Some of the ingredients I'm considering, just because I happen to have them on hand, are brown sugar, finely minced preserved lemons, powdered ginger (I'm out of fresh), hot pepper flakes (lots), crushed fresh garlic (lots), any combination of the myriad of whole spices I used in my recent successful pho (star anise, cinnamon stick, cloves, cardamon, fennel), Ras el Hanout, harissa, onion, dry sherry and even fish sauce.
I'm confident that I can play with those ingredients (selectively, of course) and create a brine that tastes good at that point. One of my concerns is the tendency of some ingredients to become more powerful over time. For example, if I use star anise to flavor the brine I will fish it out before I add the chicken. I don't want the final chicken to taste like licorice. Another concern is the possibility that a particular ingredient might cause a chemical change that I don't want. Alcohols and acids come to mind.
Are you aware of any particular ingredients that should be avoided in a brine, or any caveats concerning specific ingredients?
A brine serves two purposes: to make the meat moist and flavorful.
How the moist part works: "Brining makes cooked meat moister by hydrating the cells of its muscle tissue before cooking, via the process of osmosis, and by allowing the cells to hold on to the water while they are cooked, via the process of denaturation." (Wikipedia)
It makes the meat flavorful by acting the same way a marinade does. So you're pretty safe following "standard" marinating rules. Chief among those being that you want to avoid using too much acid or using acid for too long because it might make the meat mushy.
Avoid alcohol as well. "If your marinating anything with alcohol, cook the alcohol off first. Alcohol doesn't tenderize; cooking tenderizes. Alcohol in a marinade in effect cooks the exterior of the meat, preventing the meat from fully absorbing the flavors in the marinade." - Thomas Keller, the French Laundry Cookbook
Remember to use a nonreactive container (no metal) and avoid ingredients like olive oil that solidify when chilled.
The short answer is to just stick to salt, because nothing else is going to meaningfully impact the brining process. But there are certainly some things that would be actively harmful.
Your question and another answer correctly identify acids and alcohols as two of the biggest culprits. Common acids used in cooking include vinegar, any citrus fruit, yogurt, tomato, buttermilk, coffee, soy sauce (and many other fermented products), pop/soda and some teas. From your list, .
But you wouldn't want a very basic brine, either. It's less of a concern because there are so many more low-pH (acidic) foods and ingredients than high-pH (alkaline) ones—people tend not to enjoy the bitter taste and sometimes soapy mouthfeel of bases. Still, for the record, don't using baking soda in your brine unless you need it to neutralize the pH of a particularly acidic water source. (And even then, there may be a better solution; consult a water treatment professional.)
Baking powder, by the way, is a mix of base and acid (commonly baking soda and tartaric acid, but commercial products vary) that probably balances out as neutral-to-acidic when all's said and done. It has some applications in dry brining, and I've personally had success using a mixture of up to 1:4 baking powder to salt in a dry brine for a whole chicken. But the caveat here is that it didn't really improve the moistness of the meat at all, compared to pure salt; what it did was produce a crispier skin, and I've found it really difficult to get that crisping effect without also introducing some amount of bitter flavor, which is why I stopped using it. Personally, I don't think it's an improvement over the more traditional (?) method of rubbing fat between the skin and meat and/or basting. And if you're strictly interested in a wet brine (which I believe is implied when you say "5%") then I'd stay away from baking powder altogether.
Another thing I would avoid in overnight brines is any tenderizing enzyme such as bromelain, papain and ficin (found naturally in pineapples, papayas, and figs, respectively). In particular, products sold as "meat tenderizer" (whether enzyme-based or not) should probably not be applied for this length of time.
All that said, there's a much better approach in my opinion, which is to resist the urge to get fancy and just use salt! Table salt (sodium chloride) dissociates into very simple ions that transport far more easily through osmosis than the larger and more complex flavor compounds that you're looking to add to your brine. And even then, it takes many hours for those simple salt ions to fully penetrate your bird. Other compounds, like proteins and lipids and esters and all the various complicated molecules that we use to impart flavor to food, either can't or won't penetrate the meat in the time it takes for the sodium chloride to do its job.
I understand the temptation to do something extra-special by including aromatic herbs and spices, citrus rinds, etc. and look for a secret ingredient, and the brine that you create may itself smell heavenly—but I think Serious Eats puts it best:
For the time and effort it takes to make a flavored brine, heat it up,
and let it cool completely, you're much better off making a flavorful
rub or herb butter. You'll get just as much (if not more) flavor into
the bird, use fewer ingredients, and save yourself some time in the
process.
Honestly, I wouldn't add any of the ingredients you list to a brine. You may add a little flavor to the outside of the bird that way, or you may just be adding some nice smells to your kitchen the day before the meal; either way, my question is why do it in the brining step at all? You can just add these to your bird directly, using other techniques. I hear your concern about spices like star anise that you don't want to become overpowering (whole cloves also come to mind) and if you really want to put those in your brine, I can't think of any whole spice that would hurt the chicken—but I expect it would always be more efficient and effective to extract their flavors into a fat or alcohol beforehand, which you can then apply to the bird after the brining step. This gives you more options and, I think, a finer degree of control over your flavors since you can't exactly taste a bucketful of raw salty birdwater to see how things are going.
Of the ingredients you listed, there are approaches for all of them outside of brining. I'd tuck garlic, herbs, or herbed butters between the skin and the breast after brining and before the bird goes into the oven. The fat of the skin renders as it cooks, extracts the flavors from the "tuck in" ingredients, and bastes the meat. I'd rub sugar, dry spices, and spice mixes onto the skin before cooking (in moderation, so they don't create a thicker crust that will burn). If "onion" means a raw onion, the traditional approach is to halve it and put it in the cavity of the bird with a bouquet garni, or try half a lemon (instead, or in addition); and the sauces I would always save until the end. They work great in glazes (note that the glaze you plan on using already has soy sauce and alcohol as ingredients), for deglazing the roaster to make a quick brown gravy, or even as condiments in their own right (fish sauce, ooooh-mami!).
For all of these, a huge disadvantage of adding them via a wet brine is that the water of the brine will dilute them so much that you'll end up having to use a lot more of them to even have a chance at imparting the same amount of flavor.
This is the current on-trend answer, but is provably false with real world a/b testing you can do yourself. If you don't wanna, this popular YouTube channel has done it for you: https://youtu.be/w0DKT67edBU
@RISwampYankee Would you mind clarifying what aspect of the answer you take issue with?
Tracking down the links are difficult because I'm on mobile, but the YouTube channel Mythical Kitchen had a decent informal experiment where they had a wet brine - a mix of sugar and salt and whole spices in water - and a dry brine, just a lot of salt slathered on the bird, and a no-brine turkey, as well as basted and not basted, and then tasted by professional chefs. Wet brine and basted had the crispest skin and the best flavor. By a lot. Dry brine had some trouble with texture, and did not taste as good. This matches with my own experience. (Found the link - https://youtu.be/w0DKT67edBU )
@RISwampYankee Yes, I watched the video and was really not sure what the problem is. This question does not seem to me to be asking for a comparison of different techniques or for how to make the best turkey, so I focused only on how to make sure you are brining effectively. There is nothing wrong with using sugar in your brine, if you have lots of sugar on hand; but as I warned, the video demonstrates a wet brine that requires 3 cups (!) of sugar to compensate for dilution.
@RISwampYankee Also, not that this really changes whether the advice itself is good or not, but none of the hosts of that video are foodservice professionals. "Mythical Chef" is a title they made up for the program. Their conclusions are also in conflict with a lot of more popular, credible, and respected sources (e.g. Alton Brown, Serious Eats, America's Test Kitchen).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.869604
| 2013-10-20T22:34:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37781",
"authors": [
"Air",
"George O'krepkie",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91627"
],
"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
}
|
99986
|
How to understand flavors and when to use combination of them?
I want to be a home cook and at some stage to become a chef having my own café or restaurant.
Marco Pierre White always says when he likes a dish in masterchef:
Great dish. It tells me that you understand flavors.
What does he mean? How to understand when to combine salty and sour, sweet and sour and salty, sweet and hot, umami and sweet, and all the other combinations? Should all dishes have flavor combinations?
This is really broad and opinion based unfortunately. There's no right or wrong answer to this. What I would say is to understand what flavors work together you have to eat a lot of different cuisines and try things.
The phrase "you understand flavors" has become widely used in cooking shows, but IMO it doesn't actually mean anything. It's really shorthand for saying it tastes good in a way that sounds more meaningful.
Well there are entire studies dedicated to flavor profiles and such, so it can be that they reference a natural feeling with complimentary tastes. Like for example caramel sea-salt or pairing a wine with a dish.
Yes, all dishes should have flavour combinations, unless the dish consists of one single ingredient with no seasoning added, no oil added, it can't help but have them... even then a tomato for example has different flavour in the skin than it has in the pulp, than it has in the seeds, the inner leaves of a brussels sprouts will have less bitterness and more sweetness than its darker outer leaves... flavour combinations are almost impossible to avoid.
So to balance flavours you do have to understand them. Not everyone might agree with the combinations you choose to create and not everyone enjoys the same taste combinations, but even so, to reliably create the blend you do like, you need to understand how it is composed.
There are any number of resources online which will break flavours down to a few key groups, though not everyone describes it the same way. Essentially you need to understand what is meant by basic terms such as sweet, bitter, sour, umami and salt. To those five you can also add 'spiciness/heat' which is often considered to be more sensation than flavour.
You should read up on what it already accepted knowledge about the effects these flavours have on each other, how salt changes perception of bitterness, how sweetness can counteract excess salt but leave the umami clear. Read up what chefs have to say about these interactions and test them out, see if you detect the same effects they do.
Spend time tasting your ingredients and training your palate (I was so busy thinking of flavours as a palette from which one can choose the equivalent of colours to paint a dish as you might paint a picture that I originally spelled 'palate' as 'palette') so that you can analyse a dish and detect what makes the difference between a combination you like and one you don't. Understand your ingredients, both fresh and storecupboard ones well enough to know quickly what will make that difference.
Thank you for the explanation. I understand it now. On the side, does really sweetness leave umami taste clear ?
Well, try it and see what you think... certainly in my experience many recipes call for a little added sugar to, for example, a roasted tomato soup without diminishing the umami and tomatoes naturally have both flavours, as apparently does breast-milk.TBH, I haven't found much written about that combination, but I included it as part of my perception and kind of to encourage the idea that you you should test out stuff for yourself rather than just read up on it. :)
To try take one small aspect of a really really broad topic...
Try making the simplest salad in the world.
4 tomatoes, 1 onion. Chop into chunks & put in a bowl.
A little salt & pepper & it's done.
..but wait - over there we have a choice of three fresh herbs we could add.
Cilantro [coriander], flat-leaf parsley or basil.
Add cilantro it's instantly 'Mexican'
Add flat-leaf parsley & it's 'Turkish' or at least 'Mediterranean'.
Add basil & it's 'Italian'.
So with just three ingredients we have three recognisably different cuisine styles.
You could easily dress those to accentuate each cuisine.
Mexican would take lime juice nicely.
Mediterranean, olive oil, vinegar or indeed lime juice again.
Italian, oil & vinegar.
This is, of course, vastly over-simplified - but I bet even done as simply as that, each would be tasty ;)
No, not all dishes need to have flavours combinations. I would also say that it's not about "sweet and hot".
IMHO it's more about particular flavour. Like when people drink wine and say "an earthy flavour with a note of pineapples and just a hint of pining for the fiords".
Knowing the flavours means that you know what impact have different ingredients on the overall taste.
For example you might not add nuts for nutty flavour but replace it with chickpeas. Or that, in certain parts of the world, any combination of two out of "five Chinese spices" will give your dish "Asian taste".
Like GdD wrote in their comment. You need to taste a lot of food, spices, herbs, make a lot of combinations and from that be able to know what you can mix to achieve certain goal.
In terms of just flavors, get to know each flavor on its own and then you'll be better equipped to combine them in ways that show you "understand flavor". Like colors to a painter, or sounds to a musician. When you taste things by themselves, you begin to develop an intuition as to what to add to what to have the outcome you're looking for.
You want to be able to ask/answer yourself things like: what does garlic bring that onion doesn't, what does ginger bring that cayenne doesn't or why would you choose to sweeten with agave syrup instead of muscovado sugar (or vice-versa)? Knowing what each flavor brings to the party (even if it's subtle) is literally what it means to "understand flavor".
When you're doing it right, it blows people's minds :)
So its all about testing and trying flavors in solo and then start to combine.
Yes, exactly. I did this when trying to reverse engineer a chai tea that I bought at the store. I made a pot of plain black tea, then poured into several small cups with just ginger, just black pepper, just cardamom, just cinnamon, etc. I was able to taste exactly what each ingredient brought to the party. I replicated the store bought one close enough and to my surprise, found black pepper had a bigger role than I thought (and processing lots of ginger is hard work). I eventually came up with my own easier to make recipe which was quite spicy, sweet and delicious.
great. Can I get the recipe by the way? I always wanted to try chai tea and can't find it in my country.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.870402
| 2019-07-05T06:04:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99986",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Spagirl",
"Thomas",
"alim1990",
"coblr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108393
|
What is this sauce-making technique called?
My mother was not the best cook, well she cooked because she needed to, but I don't think she ever enjoyed it. One of the things she did was if she was making sauce, is to take a spoonful of margarine or butter and use a fork to knead a little bit of flour into the fat.
She would then slowly add milk to the butter paste to get the thickness she wanted, and then flavour it depending on what sauce she wanted to make.
Is there a name for this? Was she making a roux or a beschamel without even knowing what either is? Is this a French technique?
If she was doing this in a pan on the heat (melting the butter, stirring in the flour, then adding milk), this is called making a roux, then a béchamel. If, instead, she kneaded the flour and butter 'cold', then added this to a hot liquid, it is called beurre manié. Notice that in both cases, the sauce is heated. From your question I could not tell if, and at what point, your mother introduced heat to the butter-flour(-milk?) mixture.
I think my mother did in fact melt the butter to make a roux. My mother was always a maize starch user, I do think she was just making beschamel
She may not have been a great cook but she was practical @NeilMeyer, a bechamel is a versatile starting point. You can add cheese, stock, and many things to take it a variety of ways.
lol, maybe my mother was a better cook than I give her credit for.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.870952
| 2020-05-15T08:17:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108393",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Neil Meyer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110237
|
Benefit to covering pasta while cooking?
Taking a quick poll of several bags of pasta in my kitchen, about half recommend keeping the pot covered while cooking1.
This is not very convenient for me, as I don't have a good tightly fitting lid and the pasta often foams and boils over and cleaning the stove takes longer than cleaning the pot and plates.
So what are the benefits to keeping the lid on while cooking pasta? The main ones I could imagine are less heat loss (but my stove even on min setting maintains a boil, so I can't save any gas) and hotter air above the water (but the pasta is full submerged, so this wouldn't seem to matter).
1 Admittedly, some of the packages were fairly ambiguous as to whether the covering should be done only for the initial heat-to-boil or for the entire cooking process.
I see a benefit to covering the pot while bringing the water to a boil, as you will reduce evaporative cooling and get to temperature quicker. I might also allow, that in some cases (maybe frozen pasta or too much pasta to water), when you add the pasta (thus cooling the water) replacing the lid will help return it to the boil quicker. However, boiling pasta with a lid simply invites a boil-over situation. Once boiling, covering is not influencing the cooking of the pasta. Just leave it off.
I recently saw a video where they said that you can actually kill the heat after putting the noodles into the water (or at least halfway through), since you really just want something above 85 degrees or something like that. (I did not try that myself to that extent, though.)
@Inkblot I've done it, it works perfectly, even with minimal extra water. I do put the lid on.
Keeping in Heat - if not holding on a boil.
DRY pasta cooking -
means you can bring the water to a boil, kill the heat, put in the pasta and then
just let it sit for 8-10 minutes - you don't need a tight fitting lid - just one to keep in the heat for that length of time.
for more on this awesome never have pasta boil over again tip, see
https://www.seriouseats.com/2015/09/tips-for-better-easier-pasta.html
You'll save not only energy (turn off the gas) but also stress of pot watching
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.871128
| 2020-08-16T18:41:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110237",
"authors": [
"Ink blot",
"Kat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84058"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76941
|
Flammable gas emitted by sausage
While cooking a kielbasa in a toaster oven today, I noticed that periodically there would be flashes near the heating element. At one point there was a very large, bright flash of light and pop as though a flammable gas was being detonated. Some of the ignitions I was able to see in detail. Next to the heating element a small round flame would illuminate and waver then go out. It was obvious that some lighter than air gas was rising up and upon reaching a high enough concentration, igniting.
What gas would the kielbasa be emitting? My first guess would be methane, but why would a cooked kielbasa be giving off methane?
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/76381/20413
See also https://books.google.com/books?id=kqRaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=Finley+Peter+Dunne+sausage+explode&source=bl&ots=ibb6MGSWP6&sig=M2wazTk0lJI4qiMk5zrAJXf88OM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkq9K-qZ_RAhUH_IMKHaKaBfsQ6AEIODAF#v=onepage&q=Finley%20Peter%20Dunne%20sausage%20explode&f=false, for the original exploding sausage incident.
Cured meat should not be emitting methane- or any other flammable gas. That would be an indicator of advanced spoilage and you would notice the smell.
A more likely culprit, in my opinion, would be fat.
Fat burns well, of course, and sausage is full of it. Tiny splatters of fat can become aerosolized and travel a good distance where they would ignite on the burner.
You beat me by a few seconds
That makes sense. It would seem to be clouds of fat vapor.
@DrisheenColcannon : yup, that's completely normal. A popular way to reduce this (and other consequences - such as bursting - of heating up a mostly air-tight food container, which is what a typical kiełbasa is) is to simply make a couple of regular shallow incisions of the food's skin.
@DrisheenColcannon - Note that it isn't actually a vapour, but as stated in the answer an aerosol. This is important, because it means you can avoid it igniting simply by moving your sausage further away from the source of heat. If it were a vapour, that wouldn't work, as it would eventually fill up all the space and you'd just end up with an even larger flash detonation.
It's spitting hot fat - still a liquid rather than a gas. This then touches the element and ignites. Sometimes more ignites than other times. You get the same effect when frying, even without added fat. I've had flames up to face height from frying sausages on a rather fierce camping stove.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.871444
| 2016-12-30T19:22:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76941",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Drisheen Colcannon",
"Periata Breatta",
"bmargulies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50776",
"mikołak"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90614
|
Is allspice traditional in the Levant?
From the Wikipedia entry for allspice:
Allspice is also indispensable in Middle Eastern cuisine, particularly in the Levant, where it is used to flavour a variety of stews and meat dishes.
I am confused by this because I thought allspice was a Central American spice. Is this spice an American commodity that has been widely adopted in the Middle East (after the age of exploration), or is there a source of allspice that is native to the Levant?
Allspice is, indeed, the only commonly used spice* native to North America. It is also very commonly used in various Arabic, Central Asian and Middle Eastern cuisines. It is a standard part of the cuisine-defining North African spice mixes baharat and ras al hanout. The vast majority of global Allspice is still grown in Central America.
You ask a good question, because I can't find any information about how it got to North Africa and the Middle East. Allspice was original brought back to Europe by the Spanish and Portuguese as "Jamaican Pepper" or "myrtle pepper", back when they were still claiming that North America was China/India.
Given this, I have two theories about its introduction into those areas:
Allspice was traded to North African slave traders as part of the slave trade into the Americas in the 17th century. From there, it spread through the Arabic-speaking world.
Allspice was traded to Indians (who also use it) in exchange for black pepper (just as capsicum peppers were) by the Portuguese. From India, it spread through the Arabian trade routes of the Indian Ocean.
I don't have any documentary evidence towards either of those theories; my books on the history of spices largely omit allspice.
References:
https://iwp.uiowa.edu/silkroutes/allspice-jamaica-pepper
https://www.britannica.com/plant/allspice
http://theepicentre.com/spice/allspice-2/
(* spice, as opposed to herb or fruit)
Allspice is very widely used in the Levant, and it is from Central America originally, and it's not a contradiction. Corn, potato, tomato, bell pepper, chili pepper, vanilla, tobacco, beans, pumpkin, cassava root, avocado, peanut, pecan , cashew, pineapple, blueberry, sunflower, cacao (chocolate), and squash/gourds are also all native to the new world and many of these have become staples clear on the other side of the world.
Chili peppers, for example, are widely associated with Asian cuisines, but were brought there by the Portuguese. Global trade has over hundreds of years spread foods far from their areas of origin.
In Jordan, we have a universally used spice mix that is consumed throughout the country. I don’t know of “allspice” being part of this mix, so I theorize that it’s somewhat of a misnomer. What I mean is that, in the Levant, our spice mix may sometimes be referred to as “allspice” but it’s not necessarily a reference to this particular plant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.871672
| 2018-06-27T21:34:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90614",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86907
|
Difference between yellow and gray bacalao (salted cod)?
In her book on Spanish cooking, Jenny Chandler writes that a cook should prefer the gray bacalao to the yellow fillets which she seems to imply are of lesser quality, the supermarket version of the authentic bacalao found in market stalls. What's the difference?
According to the Norwegian Cod lobby, a grey-blue cast indicates that the cod was caught in the deep sea, as opposed to cod caught in shallower, warmer waters. Presumably the deep-sea cod tastes better. Based on my own experience, salt cod which is too old or poorly stored will also turn yellowish. For example, the supermarket cod in the little wooden box, which is insufficiently dried and salted, is often yellowish with ageing. Again, based on my experience, this cod is noticeably inferior to the cod I used to get in the Sao Paulo Mercado Municipal, which was snow-white in color.
That said, if the yellowish stuff is all you can get, it's better than no salt cod.
Do you refer to the skin or the eaten part? Always saw it white. As usual I am afraid that without strict control there are tricks to make it white, by the way.
The flesh. And yes, of course bleaching is possible, as is substituting other fish (particularly haddock) for cod.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.871903
| 2018-01-05T20:17:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86907",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49436
|
Can/should I use baking soda when cooking beans?
My recipe for hummus says to cook the garbanzo beans with a little baking soda to soften them. Does this work with other legumes?
I've often seen the advice against salting the cooking water for beans, as it supposedly toughens them. Will a different sodium compound, bicarbonate, have the opposite effect?
Would love to know the science of this issue.
Relatedly: I read that a pinch of baking soda in cooking water preserves the bright color of vegetables, but tends to make them soggy. However, substituting lime (calcium hydroxide, or "cal") is said to preserve both the color and crispness. I wonder what it would do to beans.
As a strong alkaline, calcium hydroxide does a lot of interesting things to food, especially maize/corn but to other foods too.
In his book On Food and Cooking, Harold McGee writes regarding beans and legumes:
Plain salt at a concentration around 1% (10 g/L, or 2 teaspoons/qt)
speeds cooking greatly, apparently because the sodium displaces
magnesium from the cell-wall pectins and so makes them more easily
dissolved. Baking soda at 0.5% (1 teaspoon/qt) can reduce the cooking
time by nearly 75%; it contains sodium and in addition is alkaline,
which facilitates the dissolving of the cell-wall hemicelluloses.
Basically, you are right that sodium is important, so both salt and baking soda will have effects that speed cooking. (The idea that salting toughens beans or makes them harder to cook has been covered in another question; brief summary -- it's a myth.) Baking soda is even more effective than salt, because it produces an alkaline cooking liquid. Acids slow the cooking and softening of beans, while alkaline solutions will hasten it.
The main drawback of baking soda is that it also affects the taste and texture (as McGee describes it, "an unpleasant slippery mouth feel and soapy taste"). Also, the effects that lead to a faster breakdown of the beans for softening can also result in destruction of a lot of nutrients, as I discussed in detail in a response to a related question on baking soda, beans, and gas.
To me, the drawbacks of baking soda are too great to justify its use unless I had an emergency situation and had to cook beans very quickly. But it can in fact decrease cooking time significantly, so it can be very effective for that goal.
This question has become more or less moot since I discovered pressure-cooking: 2c well-rinsed (not soaked) dried garbanzos in 8c water with 1t salt, pressure-cooked for 1 hour yields beans that are a bit firmer, less mushy, delightfully creamy & flavorful vs. soaked and boiled.
Baking soda in your court bouillon only destroys the cell wall of your vegetables.
Hello! We don't deal with nutrition information here, or the purpose of eating vegetables. So I'm removing that part.
Granted. Added baking Soda to boiled vegetables makes the veg very soft. Trick that grandmas like to use and it also makes the veg a very bright color.
Apparently the addition of cooking lime (calcium hydroxide) achieves the bright color but doesn't turn the vegetables to mush. It's claimed, for example, to make pickles crisper.
Perhaps you can experiment a bit with a two pot approach, cooking the beans in an alkaline solution for only a little while and then straining them and transferring them to a non-alkaline solution (a normal pot of boiling water). Your results may be of value to the community in more of an applied science sort of way compared to the more vaunted book learnin' or academic strain which I for one tend to lean toward in an almost reflex fashion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.872049
| 2014-11-01T19:24:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49436",
"authors": [
"Brentwood Haymon",
"Henry",
"Jasmin Shah",
"Kleyl",
"Linda Rentz",
"Lori Hackbarth",
"Melissa Fulton",
"Omar Devon Little",
"Rob Lewis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"steve wheeler"
],
"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
}
|
15898
|
What to do with unused scallops' roe?
I just prepared my first scallop dish. The recipe instructed to remove roe (the orange part) before searing, as it cooks much faster than the rest of a scallop. As this was my first try, I ended up not using it for the dish.
Afterwards, I read a bit about scallop roe and it seems that many cooks actually sear it together with the rest of the scallop. Also it's a delicacy in China. Some instructions indicated that I should dry roe in oven, powder it and use it later to give extra taste to broths etc.
What is the best way to use it? If I dry and powder it, how should I store it and in which kind of dishes should I use it?
This doesn't particularly answer the question, but the use of roe seems to fade in and out of fashion every so often. I remember 10 years ago (and back in the UK) scallops were always served with the roe, and cooked with them. Now it I haven't seen a roe anywhere near the scallops. Certainly, the more sea-food and authentic the restaurant, the more likely you are to find the roe still attached, in my experience.
Personally, I would just leave them together, and cook them still attached. The flavour is a nice contrast to the white, and it can pretty up the plate.
Doesn't directly answer your question though, I'm afraid.
Thanks Alex, this roe fashion-cycle is interesting nevertheless.
I always use the roes, an interesting way to use them is cook them seperately, and in a different way to add another dimension to your dish, for example, i char grill the Scallop meat, and just before serving, i pan fry the roes in garlic,lemon, chilli and parsley butter, and serve with them, on a rocket and herb salad...Fantastic!!
I deep fry mine in tempura batter at my restaurant as
Garnish for my scallop dish, give a different texture to
The dish.
Scallop roe parfait is a firm favorite in my kitchen. Gently poach the roe then blitz with soft butter and whatever spices/flavours take your fancy. Then set in a mould lined with cling film. We use small PVC pipe to set it as it's a garnish for dish. But served by itself spread on toast is a real treat for everyone
You can use it to thicken a seafood stock or a cream sauce and give it a nice colour. It would go well also with white veal or chichen. I got the idea on the site of Chef Simon here
http://chefsimon.lemonde.fr/corail-saint-jacques.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.872635
| 2011-07-02T19:22:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15898",
"authors": [
"Bogdan Habic",
"Maarten",
"MacKenzie McFadden",
"Pizza",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97245",
"tequilatango"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13714
|
Can I use fresh okara without cooking it?
I started to experiment with home-made soy milk, which means that I have a lot of okara and I am looking for various ways of using it. I grind the soy beans before boiling the milk, so that the okara I get comes from the beans that have just soaked in water overnight and boiled for one or two minutes before grinding. Can I use such okara directly in spreads and other recipes without boiling it or steaming it? Can my body use the proteins and other nutrients?
Its been a while but I found this thread as I was wondering the same thing... Not much info on raw okara but I just googled raw soybeans....
"For human consumption, soybeans must be cooked with "wet" heat to destroy the trypsin inhibitors (serine protease inhibitors). Raw soybeans, including the immature green form, are toxic to humans, swine, chickens, and in fact, all monogastric animals."
From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean
If you made soy milk in a soy milk maker, the okara isn’t raw, it’s cooked. But if you made it in a blender before boiling the beans, and then cooked the milk on the stovetop, then the okara really needs to be cooked before eating.
Okara is not very appealing raw It should be cooked into something.
It is used in some foods but I have never heard of it being used raw.
So far I have used it in spreads and breakfast cereals. It tastes good (or rather it takes over the dominant taste quite willingly) and it creates a nice texture. I’m mainly curious if my body can absorb the nutrients from okara without cooking or baking it.
From what I know, I suggest to cook it. Here are many examples of people being poisoned after drinking uncooked soybean milk. The toxin in raw soy milk may be trypsin inhibitors and saponin. Okara is part of soybean, it may contain the toxin.
I was trying to figure out if okara powder is safe to use in smoothies and came across this question.
As other commenters mentioned, the question is whether it was cooked, and how long. This is presumably easy to determine if you're making soy milk at home, though 1 minute is probably not sufficient. This paper notes:
Boiling them at atmospheric pressure during 20 minutes was required to destroy 80% of the soybeans antitrypsin activity [...] Nevertheless, the soybeans texture was not satisfactory; therefore, longer boiling periods were tested so as to establish the most suitable time needed to achieve a softness similar to that of common beans as usually consumed. Softness was measured instrumentally, and the optimal conditions found were: 40 min boiling after 8 hr soaking in a 0.25% bicarbonate solution.
Ground soybeans probably cook more quickly than whole soybeans, but it seems like 20 minutes would be a minimum to avoid toxins.
For commercial dried okara flours, this site notes:
Fresh okara made from raw uncooked soybeans (like what we get from our soya milk recipe, where we process uncooked beans, filter, then cook the milk) has a flavor similar to raw mung bean shoots.
Raw uncooked okara must be cooked before consumption because uncooked soy protein is poisonous - see our article on "What to do with soy bean pulp" for details on How To Cook Raw Okara.
Fresh okara made from cooked soybeans (where cooked beans are blended and then filtered) has a neutral or bland flavor.
Dry okara granules and powders have a nutty flavor to them.
So it's apparently possible to tell by taste (neutral/nutty implies cooked; "beany" implies uncooked). Additionally, the manufacturer would probably mention that it must be cooked prior to consumption if it's made from raw soybeans. If their package mentions adding it to smoothies or other raw applications, it's either safe to eat, or they are opening themselves up to serious liability claims.
I made my soy milk by soaking 1 cup of beans in hot water for a day and removing the translucent skin. I steamed the soaked soy bean and blended it in my vita mix with 7 cups of water.
Then I strained this and the okara was unbelievably delicious - like almond paste with no bitterness, but nutty and creamy. The milk turned out very delicious and creamy.
I am going to add it in my carrot tomato soup.
I'm sorry, but how does this answer the question?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.872878
| 2011-04-04T13:18:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13714",
"authors": [
"Bolender Monta",
"Brenna Flint",
"Jivraj bhandari",
"Marti",
"Pat",
"Random Task",
"allie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66874",
"ruifn",
"zoul"
],
"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
}
|
21968
|
Can I use “All-Purpose flour” instead of “cake flour”?
Possible Duplicate:
What is the difference between various types of flour?
The recipe calls for cake flower, I have all-purpose flour. Can I use what I have? Or should I go get the cake flour? I know some things can be substituted, but not all the time. I’m making a n old fashioned pineapple upside-down cake.
This duplicates What is the difference between cake flour and AP flour? which was merged with What is the difference between various types of flour? The short answer is no; the long answer is yes if you happen to be very experienced with the recipes and flours and know how to adjust ratios and/or baking times to compensate.
This can depend on the specific recipe and the goal, but in general know that cake flour has a lower resulting gluten content than all-purpose flour, thereby resulting in the cake having a "lighter" texture. Experimentation with the specific recipe can tell you whether it matters, but in general I would caution substituting if any of the following conditions are called out by the recipe;
a very specific kneading/mixing time, i.e. with breads
a specific attention is called to the temperature, i.e. with pie crusts
the cake should have a very fluffy, spongy, or otherwise specific texture (as opposed to a more loose end result as with cake brownies or other hybrids where some flex either way could yield a nice result)
In some recipes, and especially mediated by the type of fat you use*, it may not matter if you use cake flour. However, if you want to make a spongier or fluffier loaf of cake, it will be detrimental to have all-purpose flour as the main building block. Some recipes can be specifically cut with cake flour to reduce gluten in the end result. The inverse obtains as well.
*If a recipe with a higher gluten flour calls for a room-temperature liquid fat (canola oil), and you substitute it with a lower gluten flour and a room-temperature solid fat (i.e. coconut oil, shortening) you can tweak to approximate a similar end result with pleasant nuances. I do this with otherwise oatmeal and whole-wheat cookies relying on a puree (i.e. pumpkin, sweet potato) for flavor, and cut in some APF with coconut oil instead of vegetable oil, thus resulting in a crisp cookie with a pleasant toothiness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.873239
| 2012-03-03T20:33:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21968",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37680
|
Fenugreek Sprouts - How am I doing? Am I done?
12 hours ago
Now
They're definitely slowing down. They're pleasant as is, I could throw them into a salad or sandwich right now and they would be a nice addition. I'd like them even better if they would grow longer, fatter tails (heads?), but I don't want to go too far and wake up to dead stuff. Should I keep going or quit while I'm ahead? I think I first soaked them 4.5 days ago.
According to Sprout People. sprouting fenugreek should require about 2-3 days, which you are already passed.
They show pictures of the various stages; yours look quite similar to their "ready to harvest" picture:
The sample ones show a sprout length of about 2.5 - 3 times the length of the initial seed; the ones you show are close to 3-4 times as long. This would suggest they are quite ready.
Note that in some sense, sprouting is a zero-sum game. They are not rooted in soil, and so cannot absorb any nutrients. Any growth of the sprout is paid for by consuming the calories and nutrition in the initial seed. Waiting too long will just cause them to die.
Hmm, mine were barely poking their heads out at 2 days. Maybe it's because I keep my home quite cool (I'm right about 65F). At any rate, they're tasty as is, so into the fridge they go. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.873421
| 2013-10-17T12:04:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37680",
"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
}
|
53402
|
Spongy ground venison
How do I keep my ground venison from having a spongy texture? We have tried making it into burgers, into chili and into patties in gravy. It still has the same spongy, tasteless flavor — almost what I would expect tofu to have, if I ate tofu! Is the problem in the grinding or are we doing something wrong in our cooking?
Update: As far as I know, beef fat was added to the meat. My cousin shot the deer and has his own processing equipment; he is the one who processed it for us. His other meat (sausage, etc.) has never had this consistency so we were wondering what caused it.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I've worked with venison a bit, and ground meat a lot generally. Do you grind your venison once or twice? Do you add any fat (from other type of meat) to it?
The meat itself
From my experiencing working with venison, I have come to find out that venison meat is quite "soft" compared to other red meat like beef. You can find a similar kind of "softness" in veal, so it appears the age of the animal, or more specifically, how developed/tough their muscles is related to the texture (and flavor) of the meat.
Here are a few things you can try to improve the texture and flavor:
Fat content
I believe this is the main culprit for venison. The meat itself is very lean, and when butchering it is common to trim out some of the fat. I recommend to leave a decent amount of fat on the meat, and if you can, keep the harder pieces of fat from the carcass. You can cut those up and add it to the meat before grinding for give it more flavor and firmer texture.
Short of that, or perhaps in addition to that, I can say that by adding beef suet, which is the harder fat of the beef, prepared for processing, really enhances the texture and flavor of ground venison. You should be able to find some at your local independent butcher shop (probably not at the supermarket, but you can ask). Cut it up in small bands and add it to the venison before grinding.
Dry-aging
You can try dry-aging the meat. It goes without saying that it has to be done before grinding it. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
The process changes beef by two means. Firstly, moisture is evaporated from the muscle. This creates a greater concentration of beef flavour and taste. Secondly, the beef’s natural enzymes break down the connective tissue in the muscle, which leads to more tender beef.
Do note, even though aging is most often used for beef, that other red meats like bison, venison, moose, etc. are not very dissimilar.
Temperature
I have noticed that meat which is warmer before grinding tends to make for a more mushy grind. I would recommend to leave your meat in the fridge until immediately before grinding. You can even freeze it slightly (until it has a slight crust) "naked" (unwrapped) for about 30 minutes. This won't improve the flavor, but it will help it retain its shape during processing.
Coarse grinding
It's most common to process meat through the grinder twice (especially for beef) to give it a more appealing, "silkier" look and texture. If you have been doing that, you may want to try grinding it only once. This is most common for things like pork sausage, and it will leave it with a more "chunky" texture.
Ground Venison has a very low fat content. This is the main culprit for its texture and lack of flavor. I always add ground pork to mine in roughly equal proportions. This raises the fat content and gives it a better over all flavor.
I also recommend that you skip the processor and butcher the deer yourself if possible. Skin it as soon as possible and then let it hang and set up for approximately 24 hours at around 40 degrees Fahrenheit prior to actual butchering. Processors tend to have many animals to skin/butcher and they tend not to get around to it as quickly as they should. This results in gamier tasting venison.
Oh that pork a great idea, never though of that!
I find your advice somewhat contradictory. If a processor is likely to provide the OP with gamier venison, and the OP is complaining of "tasteless flavor", then it seems better to go to the processor, so the meat will have stronger taste.
@rumtscho I used to work at such a processing facility. Please trust me when I say that it's about more than just the flavor, but in my experience, you get better tasting meat all around if you butcher the animal yourself.
@Phrancis I've gotten venison ground with a mixture of pork fat, which helps with its natural leanness and adds similar flavor. Highly recommended. Tasty burgers were had all round.
We process our own venison (4 - 5 deer per year) depending on the weather. If it is cold and we can hang the meat, then we do our own. If it is too warm, then we take the deer to the processor minus the backstraps. OK- I grind the vension using an old Oster kitchen center. When I thaw the 1 pound package, then I may add raw pork sausage, shredded cheese, onion soup mix, Worchester sauce, or soy sauce in any combination. I make 1/3 pound hamburgers with a 3/4" hole in the center. The burgers will cook evenly and quickly. I use the same holey method for beef burgers too. No ore raw centers and cooked outside.ss.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.873561
| 2015-01-08T16:09:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53402",
"authors": [
"Daphne Detty",
"Deborah Swaitkewich",
"Emmy",
"Geneve Wanberg",
"Katerina Minoli",
"Linda Butler",
"Lisa Steny",
"Nurul Hamzah",
"Phrancis",
"RubberDuck",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46666
|
What is the correct order to both marinate and velvet the meat?
Velveting a meat is a Chinese technique to coat meat with oil and egg whites and can prevent overcook. In the process, it needs to be left for about 30 minutes in refrigerator for the coat to apply then stir the meat in simmering water for about a minute. The meat then is ready to be used for anything else.
The problem is, I wanted to also marinate the meat in mixture of sauces, salt and pepper. When should I put the marinate into play? At the same time as the 30 minutes refrigerator? (That would make the meat not versatile to use in other dishes, as the sauce applied is specific to a dish I wanted to prepare.) or after the 1 minute stir? (I worried that this would somehow destroy the velvet effect, or not?)
Be sure to look at this related question too: How does velveting work?
Serious Eats just kind of took this on. They added some nice flavor to the velveting marinade, and then sauced the chunks after cooking. Some kind of adaptation of that concept would probably work well for you.
I have done some small experimentation with adding flavors to the egg/cornstarch marinade, and so far I haven't had any problem. As long as you've got enough egg white and cornstarch to make a light batter, you can add other things for flavor. BTW, the flavor of the velveting recipe in the question I linked to is lovely.
Adding other ingredients to the egg/cornstarch mix will make it more likely that the velvet surface will break down. So marinate in advance of velveting. Use Soy sauce in the marinade as osmosis will draw the marinade into the meat in exchange for meat fluids. The velveting that follows will trap the marinade in the meat and give you the double effect you search; flavoursome velvety meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.874098
| 2014-08-26T09:09:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46666",
"authors": [
"Gary Foley",
"Gelato per Tutti",
"Pam Bjork",
"Rogério Silveira",
"Saragani",
"TERESA PLANE",
"carlos frunze",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138749",
"mehta"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49939
|
How much fat should be added to venison when making sausage?
I'm making a venison sausage using the front shoulder of the animal. It appears to be a very lean meat; how much pork belly should I add to the grind?
What kind of sausage are you intending to make? Common sausages have a fat content in the range of 0 to 50%, making it hard to give you a general advise. Depending on the amount of fat in your pork belly, even that alone may make a rather lean sausage.
Michael Rhulman recommends 3 parts meat to one part fat when making sausage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.874297
| 2014-11-20T16:52:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49939",
"authors": [
"MARY GARCIA",
"Martin Simba",
"Pixie",
"Robyn Cole",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119328"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73594
|
Could you smoke a sauce?
I want to add smoke flavour to a somewhat runny pepper sauce. I thought of letting it simmer on the barbeque and also have some wood chips in water to provide lots of smoke. Keep the lid of the pot off and just put the lid of the weber on.
Can you actually impart smoke flavours to a liquid like this or would it be better just to roast the peppers before you make the sauce?
The title made me think of Cheech & Chong when I first saw it in the "hot network questions" sidebar. "Duuude, you can't smoke that..." / puts sauce in bong / hilarity ensues.
I'm not too sure about the water -- that will give you lots of steam but the wood won't start to smoke until the water boils off. Some people like to soak the wood in water. The outside can char and smoke before the inside fully dries, so that might work. I've built a cool smoker so dry wood works better for me
Tempted to try macgyvering something from a cheap "bong" (not a used one obviously), and a small vacuum cleaner or reversible compressor...
If it's a pepper sauce, there's always the option to add something like smoked paprika (if you don't want to add spice) or chipotle pepper powder (if you do want spice).
@PeterCordes I had a bit of a more sitcom-style reaction to that title. "I asked for smoked sausage, you idiot! Sausage!"
What you're describing isn't all that different from how they make various products like Liquid Smoke (make smoke along with steam, then condense that steam). You will need to make sure that some actual condensation occurs (for example, by having a lid for the smokey vapor to condense onto).
However, it may be simpler to add a liquid smoke-type product directly; at least the main brands are actually smoke distillates (and not artificial flavorings or similar) and thus should be effectively identical to this process, but quicker.
I've definitely done this with ketchup before, with a couple key tweaks:
Spreading the sauce onto a rimmed baking sheet. This is to maximize surface area for smoking.
I used a Traeger pellet-smoker, so I'm not sure how a Weber might work.
I'm not sure how effective this'll be in your case, but the general principle is sound (and delicious).
Example recipe using the same process
This will definitely work, but I would recommend stirring it every once in a while as it will mostly be affecting only the surface. A shallow vessel with a larger surface area will also impart more smokiness faster.
Better or worse is a judgement call. Smoking the peppers then making the sauce v. smoking the sauce will produce different results, but both will impart smokiness. So, you can, in fact, impart smoke flavor in a liquid by using a smoker. For example, I've smoked water, then used it to cook eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.874389
| 2016-08-31T16:40:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73594",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"J...",
"Mason Wheeler",
"Peter Cordes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73736
|
Vacuum-packed unfrozen Polish sausage left out overnight. Safe to eat or not?
I left a new, vacuum-packed Polish sausage (kiełbasa) out accidently overnight.
Should I toss it or cook it and eat it?
What does the pack say about storage temperature? If it mentions refrigeration, toss it. Cooking does not make unsafe foods safe.
This is not really a duplicate of the other one, because of the specificity. I'd say the rule is, to be safe, throw it away, but consider - if it's fully cooked, vacuum sealed and unopened, and loaded with salt and preservatives (as store bought polish sausage often is), you're probably okay. If it's "fresh"/uncooked, no way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.874630
| 2016-09-05T17:03:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73736",
"authors": [
"PoloHoleSet",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57840
|
Is there a papaya substitute in salads?
Is there a substitute for green papayas in green papaya salad?
The papayas in U.S. supermarket are not the same, even if you use them green.
The "key property" of the papaya and the reason why it is used is its texture: crunchyness. I think you can use anything else that is crunchy and has a quite neutral taste, like cucumber peel, cabbage, kohlrabi, carrots, young lotus stalks (like the ones in this receipe, not these), or unripe mango. I had them in salads similar to the green papaya salad and found that these ingedients are quite neutral in taste.
After all, replacing the papaya makes the salad to not be a green papaya salad anymore. ;) You could try other gỏi -- vietnamese salad -- receipes.
It seems there are a few options for you.
This recipe recommends:
But, if you don't [have] a green papaya, try substituting shredded cucumber, carrot and daikon radish.
Another recipe notes the possibility of using:
You will probably have to go to Chinatown to find green (unripe) papaya. Alternatively, substitute a crisp vegetable such as jicama or celery.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.874714
| 2015-05-28T20:41:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57840",
"authors": [
"Amy Teoh",
"Dorothy Hall",
"Kim Morgan",
"Michael makowski",
"Mihret Kedamo",
"Raquel Rodriguez",
"Rebecca Birch",
"The 100th Monkey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137693"
],
"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
}
|
93018
|
Does natto really need to be fermented at body temperature?
I want to make natto, and recipes say that it should be fermented at ~38°C/100°F. My oven doesn't have a bread proving or defrost setting, and previous experiments with just the oven light on haven't reached that temperature. I keep my sourdough starter and kombucha at room temperature (~21°C/67°F) and it works well / I like the result. Will that work for natto?
You may find the oven light can maintain roughly that temperature after warming it up by turning it on properly for a few minutes. I can do that for proving dough in winter. I would expect the light to take many hours to heat the oven to equilibrium. (Not an answer, but maybe a solution)
My grandmother made natto by making her kids sleep with it under their feet at night, like a hot water bottle. That's old school Japanese. Japanese futons are rather thick and you sink into them so it traps body heat rather well. If you could attach it to your body, or place it under your arm so that it doesn't get away from you during the night, it should work sufficiently.
I've just found out that some people use yoghurt makers or other insulated boxes. I might try that. I've also got a batch going at room temperature. It's starting to smell good so I guess I'll find out if it works soon!
From my research, the problem with fermenting nattō at lower temperatures is that it doesn’t inhibit the growth of other bacteria which can either inhibit the growth of the target bacteria, bactilis subtilis, or potentially introduce and incubate pathogenic bacteria which can harm your health. Natto bacteria are very comfortable with high temperatures and you should aim for between 38 and 42 degrees for a full 20 hours.
Try looking at Natto Dad - he has a blog and YouTube videos which were very helpful to me. My second batch of nattō is currently fermenting.
Thanks! After experimenting a bit, I agree. I ended up buying a cheap electronic yoghurt incubator with a natto setting.
You could investigate the possibility of exchanging the oven light with a higher wattage, f.x. from 15 w to 25 w. Just might make the difference.
Does a 10W difference provide enough heat energy for fermentation? Would it not depend on the volume of the oven and length of time? This might be a good solution to the problem but it needs more detail to show how it actually solves the problem posed in the original question.
If you have a new question, please ask it by clicking the Ask Question button. Include a link to this question if it helps provide context. - From Review
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.874858
| 2018-10-18T11:55:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93018",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65277",
"squidlydeux",
"z0r"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68328
|
Sweetening cranberry juice impossible?
I have used sugar to sweeten things and it usually works.
Lemons - Yes
Limes - Yes
Blueberries - Yes(they get tart when they are overripe and most overripe blueberries are used for blueberry juice)
Grapefruit - Yes
However with cranberry juice the sugar dissolves but doesn't sweeten the juice. A few more tablespoons of sugar, no change.
I have had sweetened cranberry juice before when I was young and I don't like cranberries or pomegranates by themselves. However cranberry pomegranate always is sweet(which I can't believe since sour + bitter does not usually equal sweet).
So is there something in cranberry juice that changes the sugar so that it is inactive or something(I use just sugar and juice, no water or extra acid or anything else)?
I just can't sweeten cranberry juice for some reason. I think it has to do with the difference in the acid(but then again blueberries have a different acid than citrus fruits and blueberry juice can be sweetened just fine). Is it a difference in the acid or what?
You can definitely sweeten it. Try adding a pinch of salt to suppress some of the bitterness and see if that helps?
Cranberry juice is veeery powerful, you need a lot of sugar to make it sweet. If you keep adding you'll get there.
Sugar is good at covering up a sour acid taste. If you want to eliminate it, you have to raise the pH with something like calcium hydroxide.
Examining a commercial version (a not HFCS commercial version, for a wonder) it's mostly water, "27% cranberry juice", sugar, and "flavors."
So if you have 100% juice, you'll probably have something the consistency of a syrup by the time you have enough sugar to make it sweet. The widespread solution is to dilute with water - thus, "cranberry juice cocktail"
There is nothing about the chemistry of cranberry juice that makes sugar not work - you just need more of it, since the juice is very sour.
Note that the sugar is 34g per 240 ml (of which, if they are to be believed, 65 ml is cranberry juice) so on a rough basis for every two units of juice, there's slightly more than one unit of sugar. Unless you have only 6 tablespoons of juice, 3 tablespoons of sugar is not going to get you to "sweetened."
Agreed, though there might be one special thing still - I think cranberries are a bit more astringent than most fruit, which is harder to cover up with sugar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.875070
| 2016-04-17T02:47:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68328",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"SourDoh",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"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
}
|
28322
|
What is the rind of Brie cheese made of?
We were eating brie cheese last night, and someone asked if the rind was edible.
I was tempted to say "yes, it's not plastic". But then I realized that while it doesn't look like plastic or wax, I really have no idea what it's made of.
Is it chemical? Is it organic? Maybe fungus or bacteria? In that case, what kind (and would eating too much of it be unhealthy)?
I've seen the question Are you supposed to eat the rind of Brie cheese?, but none of the answers mention what the rind is made of.
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20323/what-does-the-rind-say-about-a-cheese
The rind of Brie is Penicillium Camemberti it's a completely harmless fungus which gives brie its taste. You can eat it, or not, up to you: you are supposed to.
If it smells very strongly of ammonia the cheese is just a bit too ripe but it won't do you any harm.
Interesting. I would have never thought it could be penicillium. I wonder if it could affect people with allergy to penicillin. Edit: after a quick google search it seems there are many cheese eaters allergic to penicillin that have no symthoms when eating cammembert, brie, or blue cheeses.
What an interesting question......... ok after a couple of mins googling it looks like the two allergies (to the mold or antibiotic) are not related
@vwiggins, yeah, thankfully the only thing the two share is the name. Otherwise I'd be breaking out in hives every time I ate Brie.
@Marti: penicillin is called like that because it is produced by members of the Penicillium genus.
Not sprayed with the penicillium, that is added in the milk mixture. The curds are put into molds to form the round shape, then the rounds of cheese is brined, that is when thesalt comes in. The rounds are then placed on racks in climate controlled rooms, and are flipped a couple of times. The rind is a friendly mould that forms naturally, and is very safe and tastey.
The rind of Brie cheese, as well as other soft cheeses like Camambert, Boursault, etc, are generally edible. There may be some types that aren't, but I haven't seen them. The rinds are simply dried, hardened outer layers of cheese that have come in contact with mould. So eat away.
So, it's made of the same stuff as the inner part of the cheese, and should have the same composition. Isn't it?
It's the same raw material with some chemical changes from the exposure to air and microorganisms. Sometimes there's some salt as well I think.
-1 for being wrong. The rind of some cheeses is the dries outer part...... like parmigiano reggiano but not any of the cheese you name.
It is perfectly edible, but calling it "the same stuff" goes too far: exposure to air changes it radically. If you cut off some brie, then let it sit where air can reach it for a day or two, you will see a flat, white fur developing on the cut, which eventually turns into the same kind of rind. I presume it's the same fungus that gives the brie its taste.
@vwiggins: maybe you should read how Brie, Camembert etc. are made, because GdD is actually right, the rind is composed of the same material (milk + bacteria + salt + rennet. Once coagulated it is put in molds and then sprayed with Penicillium).
@nico: what is your source? From my reading of a few Brie "how tos", Penicillium camemberti (or Penicillium candidum) is added to the milk along with the rennet and cultures. I haven't seen that it is sprayed on after coagulation. What I have read seems to confirm vwiggens' assertion that the outer layer is a white mold.
@ChrisSteinbach: you can actually do either.
@nico I've been trying to think of a good way to explain this but coming up short. I think the best way I can think of is that the white bit is the bloom of the fungus, in the same way a mushroom cap is. To say it's the same substance as the cheese would be like saying a mushroom is a log just because it grew on a log. I'm not sure if that helps.......
Brie and Camembert are known as "white mold cheeses", and yes eating the rind will do you no harm, and is actually believed to be helpful for your immune system. Enjoy!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.875280
| 2012-11-09T11:11:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28322",
"authors": [
"Cerberus",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Davit Tran",
"Elaina",
"Fran Kie",
"GdD",
"Ginny Atwater",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jeff",
"John Militer",
"Marry210",
"Marti",
"Mien",
"Prashadamfood ",
"Sarye Haddadi",
"Vanessa McKnight Humbird",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico",
"patricia langford",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43460
|
Presto multi cooker sous vide- clarification?
I read Marc-André LaFortune's post about using the Presto multi cooker as a secondary sous vide machine.
I'm interested in doing this but it would appear to me that the machine is not accurate enough without modification to hold the pot to +/- .7 F.
Do you do this by monitoring temperature with a thermometer and switching it on and off, or with a PID controller like others have used?
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about technology.
Equipment is specifically on topic here, so my opinion is that it doesn't need to be closed.
The standard hack is to use a PID controller. IF you google, you will find many articles detailing exactly how, such as this detailed one from Over Engineered.
There are now also a couple of vendors of moderately low cost circulators intended specifically for this application such as Sansair that you insert into a pot or cooler. They are new to the market, so there are some early adopter issues being reported, but the idea is quite elegant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.875653
| 2014-04-12T15:34:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43460",
"authors": [
"DHDHDHDH",
"Iriomote",
"MickyMir",
"Mien",
"abovewaters indy",
"eventquip",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112183
|
Can putting frozen food in a hot ceramic pan cause a thermal shock?
Can putting frozen food in a preheated ceramic coated non-stick pan cause a thermal shock and ruin the pan?
I'm gonna risk getting chastised and answer from first principles, rather than any referenced sources!
The pan will not be affected at all from this. A home freezer will chill foods down to around -20C, a refrigerator to around 5C and the stovetop can heat your pan up to around 350C. Putting food from the fridge into your preheated pan (its most common use-case) could expose the pan to a mass 345C cooler than it, from the freezer 370C. The temperature differential between the two cases is really not that different (~10%) and well within the ability of any pan to withstand. If it were possible to damage a pan with such a small variation from its most common use case, it would also be just as likely that a more efficient/higher temperature stovetop would also damage it.
In short, the only pan that would be damaged by this would be a pan that was not fit for purpose.
Don't put it into a preheated ceramic (not coated, but clay) or glass casserole dish, though. That can cause cracking.
It depends. As @RadioRaheem has said, any pan that would be damaged by this is probably not fit for purpose. However, many non-stick pans should not be placed on direct heat without any oil or liquid in them, as this can cause the coating to detach or deteriorate. So while I doubt frozen food would actually cause your pan to fail, preheating it is probably much more likely to do so.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.875784
| 2020-10-18T18:57:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112183",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108570
|
Is using commercially available yeast to create a sourdough starter effective?
Numerous starter recipes talk about capturing wild yeast from the environment.
Many recipes, as well as questions and answers here, directly say or imply wild yeast is better and that deliberately added yeast is counter productive, but the explanations (if offered) seem to be vague handwaving more than fact.
The most reasonable sounding argument against (to me as a lay-person) is that the yeast will not live long, but that seems specious to me. After all, that commercially available yeast was just grown somewhere a few weeks before it made it to the shelves.
It frankly makes little sense to me to gamble on the contents of the local environment at the point in time of trying to make a starter, when known safe and effective yeast exists that could be introduced.
(The question is not about safety or efficacy of wild yeast, not about substitution of yeast for a starter, and not about mixing yeast and starter at baking time; the point is to predictably, safely, and effectively make a starter.)
Are you talking about adding yeast to a starter that's already showing signs of life (as your title implies), or about trying to create a starter from commercial yeast (as the body of your question suggests)? The answers will be different, as you could fairly easily keep a starter culture of commercial yeast going, it just wouldn't be sourdough.
I updated the title to be more precise per Chris H's question
If you don't want to take on the risk and hassle of capturing a wild starter, you can get some of a great long-pedigreed starter instead.
FWIW, a poolish is kinda doing what you say. Taking commercial yeast and letting it bloom.
Don't do this. A sourdough starter contains several strains of yeast and bacteria in a fairly delicate balance. These consume sugars and produce CO2 and a range of byproducts. Commercial yeast is a different species of yeast, engineered to eat and reproduce much faster than any of the wild yeasts in your starter. Adding commercial yeast to a starter will lead to the commercial yeast outperforming the wild yeasts and gradually replacing them. You will end up with a commercial yeast culture, rather than a sourdough culture.
Edit I realise I have somewhat misunderstood your question. The answer still holds, though: you cannot start with commercial yeast and expect to create a sourdough starter. The commercial yeast would prevent any wild yeasts and bacteria from colonising the starter. You can keep a culture of wild yeast (to some extent), but as @Chris H's comment states, it won't be sourdough.
If you want a better guarantee of success, your best bet is to somehow obtain an offshoot of someone else's starter. Some bakeries will be happy to give/sell you some, or you can try buying a starter online.
I agree about that the commercial yeast will out-compete the natural yeasts. But my experience is that the starter retains its bacterial population, so you still get some of the sourdough tangy flavour.
@MarkWildon That would happen if you would introduce commercial yeast to the starter. With the updated question (asking about creating a starter from commercial yeast), I am not sure this would still happen.
@LSchoon Short term the commercial strains absolutely out compete, but my experience is that long term they cannot sustain and slowly are replaced. If initially they are introduced too heavily, they will simply burn out. Use all their energy and fade and the starter will fail. Though they are more vigorous and consistent that wild strange, they are also more delicate and tend to be replaced. For reproducing and multiply beyond short term, the commercial strains seem far more prone to thrive in controlled lab settings. Not for years in a starter.
It is certainly possible to culture commercial yeast using the same method as a sourdough starter, but adding the yeast at the first step: see e.g. Culturing Yeast in Dough and Baking lots of bread - keeping a yeast starter. Your starter will also pick up natural bacteria, giving it some of the sourdough tang.
The commercial yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, will, at least in the short-term, out-compete any wild yeasts that drift in, so your starter will not have the diverse strains of yeast in a sourdough starter. (See the section on yeasts in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourdough and http://microbialfoods.org/yeast-profiles/.) I expect you will still make good bread, but it may not have the same depth of flavour as sourdough bread made with a mature wild yeast starter.
There are many instructions that tell you to begin sourdough starter exactly as I think you are suggesting, to add commercial yeast to the initial water and flour to give it a jump start. It gives you a jump start and you can begin using your starter much sooner. It is not a true sourdough, yet, as a sourdough is normally defined as a self sustaining living starter which is from local wild yeast balanced with the complementary bacteria which give a distinct texture and taste. You will not have that. But note, in the early stages of using a new sourdough start, you also have not achieved that balance yet either and the results are still pleasant if not as nice as they will be later.
You absolutely can do this. The results will be a little harsher and faster acting rise than the subtle, slower action of a mature sourdough. You will be more prone to early success and then a start that dies. If you use too much yeast to begin, it will quickly burn out, use too much of to feed and then starve, or your environment might not be right for it to sustain. The commercial strains tend to be very reliable for immediate use, but less tolerant of long term environmental variation, so fail more often when using them to create a sourdough starter from all reports I have seen and from my experimentation. If it works, your sourdough will change over time as your local wild strains will slowly be captured and replace the commercial strains as they are more suited for your local environment. If you keep it going long enough, you will eventually end up with exactly the same starter you would have had you only captured wild strains to begin with, it will simply take longer because it will be slowed by the wild strains needing to displace the domesticated ones. They will, it just takes time.
Some will say nonsense, you just can't do it, but I personally have and have seen others. I kept a starter begun that way for about 4 years. I would not do it again myself unless I lived in an environment that I had repeatedly failed to get one begun "correctly". From memory, I think it took almost 2 years before that starter was at the same place a wild strain started one made it in maturity in about 3 months. From that point on though, you could not tell the difference between the two. Myself, I would not want to wait 2 years for it to mature to that level, but others might. For those who say no though, I would point that common advice given to boost a slow initiated starter is to add things like rye or other whole grains. This works by adding a boost of yeasts from the whole grains. These are still outside, introduced yeasts. They may be a lot closer to your local strains, but unless that whole grain was grown in your location, they are not the same strains, so exactly the same process occurs. You artificially boosted the yeast colony from outside sources to get going, and then that outside original colony is slowly displaced by local. In this case, you are starting closer to the final colony, and the transition is much easier and quicker, but the process is the same. Starting with a fresh or dry sample of someone's start from another area, again, exactly the same process.
I like getting the the final balance sooner. But when I lived in the desert and got discouraged, I used the technique and it worked. What I could bake after a month I thought was OK, after two years was very good. When I tried again and started the more traditional way, what I had after a month was good, after 3 was very good.
I never heard a definition of sourdough that requires local wild strains. Where I am, sourdough starter cultures are something you can buy if you like (just like you can buy a wine yeast starter culture). If you like, you can even get the lactobacteria and yeast separately...
There's overlap between wild yeast and the commercial kind: A recent study performed by the Wolfe lab in the Department of Biology at Tufts University, which uses fermented foods to study microbiomes, showed that the dominant yeast species in most sourdough cultures is Saccharomyces cerevisiae—the very same species used in store-bought yeast.
Here is one study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33496265/
Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a species of yeast found in both commercial yeast and sourdough cultures. However, wild Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a different strain than the commercial variety. Commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a monoculture, engineered for speed and reliability in the baking process. And also unlike wild yeast it doesn't exist in a symbiotic relationship with lactic and acetic acid bacteria present in a sourdough culture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.875934
| 2020-05-23T06:23:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108570",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"LSchoon",
"Mark Wildon",
"Neil Meyer",
"Phil",
"cbeleites",
"chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic-",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84559"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109055
|
Adding a smoky flavour without adding spiciness
I rather like a strong smoky flavour in some of my food - I've tasted some rather lovely smokey vegetarian Mexican bean wraps for instance. However, I've struggled to replicate this in my own cooking without making things rather hot!
I've tried smoked paprika, which is lovely but the smoky flavour simply isn't that strong in any that I've tried. Cumin didn't seem to do much, and Chipotle has a lovely smoky flavour - but unfortunately a fair punch of heat to go along with it.
Is there anything else I can try to get a nice, strong smoky flavour but without the heat?
As a point of clarification, do you mean heat as in spiciness/piquancy?
@Tristan Yup,.sorry - heat as in spiciness.
You need to smoke it. That will always be more flavorful than adding artificial or "second-hand" smoke.
Depending on what food you are trying to imbue with a smoky flavour, you have multiple options. I here focus on methods that will just give you a smoke flavour, rather than smoked ingredients.
Actually smoking the food seems an obvious suggestion. The internet will suggest any number of ways to set up a smoker at home, although you might not want to go through the effort or have to deal with the smoke.
Cold smoking is often done with cured meats and fish. As the name suggests, this is smoking (actual smoke from actual fire), but without the heat, often accomplished by creating some distance between the fire and the food, and having the smoke travel from the former to the latter. This guide seems quite comprehensive, including some ideas for a home setup. Cold smoking has similar drawbacks to hot smoking.
Some companies make 'smoke guns' such as this one by Breville/Sage, that accomplish the idea of a cold smoker on a much smaller scale. Thus, no need for elaborate setups, nor the risk of smoking up your whole house.
Finally, you can look for ingredients or additives that give you a smoky flavour. Liquid smoke is reasonably common. I have also seen powdered versions of this.
And, you can make liquid smoke at home if you have some time and basic equipment.
@SnakeDoc I've never heard about this! Maybe add a link to a method for that?
Sure thing - it's basically condensed water that happens to trap some smoke in it: https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Liquid-Smoke - and a video: https://youtu.be/uep7fdkcV8c
Smoked salt is also quite common.
You don't need to set up a smoker to impart a smoky flavor to the food - there are plenty of ways to smoke food using a grill (either gas or charcoal). The usual approach is to put wood chips over one side of the grill and your food on the other. This does best with a relatively long cooking time, though, and for a quick jolt of smoky flavor I'd go for smoked salt to replace (a portion of) whatever salt is already in the recipe or liquid smoke.
In addition to the other good answers, I would add that a lot of the smokey flavour in Mexican foods comes from the chili varieties used.
A good variety for smokey flavour is Ancho (dried Poblano), which are very mild, but have a delightful smokiness to them. They are a key ingredient in some of the very popular sauces like Adobo and enchilada sauce. I think some of the smokiness comes from the drying process, which may include smoking, so substituting fresh poblano will not work
A (much) hotter smokey flavour is provided by Chipotle, which is dried and smoked jalapeno and is also commonly used in Adobo sauce. This one is most likely too spicy for what you want, but is certainly a nice smokey flavour.
Good quality mild/sweet smoked paprika does have quite a smoky flavour. Pimentón de la Vera is a Spanish variety that's reliable whatever the brand (dulce is what you want, not picante).
Adding some cumin helps bring out the smoky flavour, though the flavour of cumin isn't exactly smoky.
If that's not enough, and using more gives too much of a paprika flavour, smoked garlic is a good addition. Smoked onions should be good but I can't buy them and have never got round to making them.
yes my initial reaction was that OP has not had good smoked paprika if they didnt find it smokey
I distill my own whisky (it's legal here in New Zealand). Occasionally if I want a really nice smoky flavour to the endproduct and I can't be bothered with actually smoking oak pieces, and I cheat a little bit instead - I add a few teabags of a chinese tea (Lapsang Souchong tea), which is basically liquid smoke in a tea bag. You may be able to use that idea for your cooking as well.
Another additive that I don't see mentioned much is smoked salt. Obviously it will add salt to a dish, but it capable of delivering quite a bit of smokey flavor.
I have some that my sister in law gave me as a gift in a ziploc freezer bag and the smoke smell was so strong that I had to put it in a mason jar as well. Very, very smokey.
Caramelizing sugars will give you a nice smoky flavour, but you have to watch it every second or you just get burnt. I soak raisins in juice (peach, apple, tomato) plus vinegar and cook them over low heat until they start browning and dissolving. It produces a rich smoky taste perfect for BBQ sauce. Just add more tomato paste for body and you have an amazing condiment for any type of meat - or to give tofu and the like a convincing grilled flavour.
Molasses / Maple
Molasses and real maple syrup each add a depth of flavor that can enhance smoky flavors. While neither alone achieves the effect you want, adding either may help you along to your goal.
A little goes a long way, if you want the flavor enhancement without much sweetness.
You will find various barbecue sauce recipes contain either of these ingredients.
For maple syrup, you would want to use the darker grades.
It turns out that smoke is partially a liquid a room temperature. Alton Brown even did a segment on liquid smoke on Good Eats: https://youtu.be/R3JetOoEngs?t=544.
After seeing that I've been using liquid smoke in a lot of food. Most of them are not made of fake plastic chemicals. They're made from smoke that's been cooled off.
Also, this is how most BBQ sauces get their smokey flavor. They literally pour in liquid smoke.
This isn't quite correct - smoke is not a liquid at room temperature - otherwise you would see many a smoking chimney forming a fluid on a winter's day. You can however capture some of the flavour compounds in water and oils coming off the smoking material at room temperature (or cooler).
@bob1 You are correct. I changed the text a bit.
@bob1 Not to say you are wrong (I don't know) but solids and liquids float almost indefinitely if the particle size is small enough.
@piojo - true indeed, as many are finding out with the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic currently happening. However, what Ryan Shillington was referring to was that you can capture condensate from a fire - this will involve more than water, probably a bunch of oils (assuming they don't burn completely) etc. Liquid smoke production is pretty similar to distilling in essence. Actual smoke (at least the bit you see) is solid particles of ash and the like, the liquid fraction is a vapour, much like the invisible water vapour in the air you know as humidity.
@bob1 Thanks, that's informative! I'll watch the video about liquid smoke now.
If you want to know how they make the BBQ flavour (of which smoke is an ingredient of), you can watch this episode of a dutch television program which investigates these things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuZkmPStZv4
You could try to use auto generated subtitles, I don't think there are English variants, so sorry for that.
Please add a summary of the video to your answer. Links degrade and have geographic restrictions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.876703
| 2020-06-15T09:34:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109055",
"authors": [
"LSchoon",
"Michael Berry",
"Ryan Shillington",
"Silenced Temporarily",
"SnakeDoc",
"Tristan",
"bob1",
"gnicko",
"henning no longer feeds AI",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85097",
"jk.",
"piojo",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104426
|
Is there any way to predict/calculate the pH level of a recipe when the level of individual ingredients is known?
Is there some sort of math formula that can be used or is it
more complex than that?
Is it as simple as just adjusting for the different amounts of
ingredients and calculating the average pH? So a recipe with
100g of ingredient X with a pH of 3 and 200g of ingredient Y
with a pH of 6 would be (3 + 6 + 6) / 3 = 5? Or am I completely
off?
This sounds like a chemistry question, rather than a cooking question.
why do you need to know pH of your food? Qs here should be practical
@aaaaasaysreinstateMonica if you're canning, pH is very important to know.
I would think not, because it would surely depend on how much water is retained in the food after cooking. More water would mean a more dilute mix, right? So even the same dish overcooked might have less water and so a different average pH.
This is quite practical and I've wondered the same thing. For instance, in developing my own recipes, I've often wondered "if I use X amount of acidic buttermilk, how much baking soda should I use?"
You are completly "lol" as you can't calculate pH with mass. You need volume. From there it's simply chemical reaction.
Short answer — it's definitely not that simple. For one thing, the pH scale is logarithmic, not linear. For another, almost every acid and base you're likely to encounter in a kitchen is “weak” - meaning there's an equilibrium between neutral and ionized forms. When diluted, the equilibria shift. When the temperature changes, the equilibria shift. When mixed, the equilibria interact with each other.
If you're working for a big industry and filling railroad cars with your recipes, and doing the same reactions again and again, and trying to maximize profits, it could be worth doing the math. But for a small scale cook - you could probably get as far as accurately predicting the pH of a mixed drink, but not a lot further, I think.
There are a number of problems with this:
First, pH is a log scale, as RalphMudhouse explained. This means you cannot simply average the pH of your components--it's a lot more complicated than that. Still, this point would suggest that you could somehow calculate the pH, except...
pH is only well-defined for water-based solutions. The definition of pH is based on the concentration of hydronium ions in a water based solution (other solvents not really being relevant for this particular question). Since food is usually a mixture of states (stews, breads, etc.), the concept is ill-defined: the different components of a stew might have different pH, for example.
Additionally, stuff reacts. chemically, food is very complicated, and reactions will happen that may affect the pH. Different ingredients may behave differently, and the resulting reactions are unpredictable for a quantitative, a priori calculation.
However, pH is still important. Just because it can't be calculated doesn't mean it's not relevant: it will still affect stuff like browning. In my experience, you can still gauge acidity by simply tasting as you go: the more acidic something is, the more sour it is (basicity is a bit harder, and I don't have a good solution for that). Also, I don't think a calculation is actually that necessary--a simple intuition of things being basic or acidic is more than enough for home (or even restaurant) cooking.
What do you mean by “other solvents not really being relevant for cooking”? Fat and ethanol are solvents that are highly relevant for cooking.
@KonradRudolph, sorry, I meant for this particular question. I've edited the answer to make it more clear.
You can purchase professional pH meters online from modernist cooking websites, eg. Modernist Pantry. They are somewhat expensive, however. I don't have one myself, but I might invest in one if I ever get into canning / spherification / other pH sensitive techniques.
Note that if your acids and bases react, there's no guarantee that your overall pH would combine linearly; that's why measuring tools exist.
Be careful with pH meters though: The electrodes may not react too well to different components in foods (e.g. thiols or fats) and you might easily break an expensive electrode just by using it once to measure the wrong stuff.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.877301
| 2019-12-28T23:30:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104426",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Icyfire",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"MPW",
"Matthias Brandl",
"NSGod",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"aaaaa says reinstate Monica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76013",
"jdf"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112518
|
How to add lemon flavor to tea?
I am trying to add lemon flavor to tea so that it has ginger and lemon flavor to a noticeable extent. If we boil tea water with ginger, the ginger flavor can be brought almost to the way it is okay.
But I am having trouble adding the lemon flavor to tea. If I use lemon juice just before drinking tea, it makes tea sour, which is not acceptable.
Another way I tried is that I used the lemon peel, a chunk of it, but the tea became bitter. Note that the tea already contains ginger and it has no sugar.
Is there any other way to add lemon flavor to tea without changing the flavor of this non-sweet, ginger tea?
'it makes tea sour, which is not acceptable' - well, I mean, to be fair, the sour taste is the taste of a lemon...
have you tried a slice of lemon?
@crizzis But the sour taste is not the flavor of a lemon! Lemon zest has "lemon flavor" but isn't sour.
@crizzis The sourness is from ascorbic acid, the "lemon" aroma is from limonene. It is possible to separate the two.
The white rind of the lemon is what causes the bitter flavour. To get simply the lemon flavour you just want the zest. Use a zester, microplane, or fine grater to scrape off only the yellow bit of the peel and nothing white and you'll get a lovely lemon flavour without the bitterness or sourness.
If you don't have a fine grater, you can use a paring knife or a vegetable peeler. Take the resulting strip, then place it yellow side down on a cutting board, hold the far edge and then scrape the white pith off with a sharp paring knife. (it really is scraping ... if anything, have the blade angled away slightly, not towards the direction you're pulling)
Alternatively, you could cut a strip of peel and squeeze it by folding it onto itself (with the yellow part inside), the aromatic oils will puff out into your drink.
Four additional options:
Lemon oil - be sure to get one intended for cooking, not an essential oil
Lemon extract - made from alcohol, lemon zest, and sometimes lemon oil; you can buy this or make it at home
Dried lemon zest - available as a seasoning, check the spice section of your grocery store
Frozen lemon zest - you make this yourself, just zest a lemon, divide it out into single-use sized portions, wrap each portion tightly in plastic wrap and store it in an airtight container in the freezer
Using fresh lemon zest (as explained in Johanna's answer) will give the best results, but these are decent substitutes if you don't have fresh lemons on hand.
It's worth adding that the quintessential citrussey tea, Earl Grey, is made with bergamot oil – the equivalent to lemon oil from a related fruit.
Tea, Earl Grey, Hot
Lemon zest is one way to go for what you want. You can shave just the outer yellow part off with a sharp knife, or a sharp carrot grater will work.
Something that might be even easier is to buy a bottle of lemon extract. $3.89 at Target. It has a longer shelf life than lemons and is not sour. I have never bought lemon extract but I have some orange extract right now and I am pleased with it. I wish I had bought it before the Cointreau which cost 10x as much and which cannot be tasted in the french toast.
There are 2 other things that can give you lemony flavor and both are available to use as tea which makes it easy..
Lemongrass - this stuff is lemony for lack of a better word- it is kind of its own thing. Tea made from lemongrass is very popular. You can buy dried lemongrass intended for making tea. Or you can get fresh lemongrass in a grocery store that carries asian foods.
Lemon balm. This is a plant in the mint family and it has a super lemony aroma and taste. Overpoweringly so in my opinion. Lemon balm is also used to make tea and you could also buy lemon balm tea and add some to your regular tea to lemonbalm it up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.877676
| 2020-11-07T18:23:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112518",
"authors": [
"Aaron F",
"J...",
"JS Lavertu",
"Joe",
"Sophie Swett",
"crizzis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85730",
"leftaroundabout",
"marsnebulasoup"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47493
|
My ciabatta dough hasn't risen after 2 hours!
I mixed my ciabatta dough 2 hours ago, and it's barely risen at all.
I put it in a greased plastic container in the hot water cupboard, and marked the level to know when it "tripled in volume". The hot water cupboard isn't particularly warm, but it's not cold. The container is a tall storage container (it used to hold flour), and I had put the air-tight lid on lightly which the dough has opened (with air pressure).
I made a biga last night, which had fermented for about 6 hours before I put it in the fridge. I made the ciabatta dough with biga, high-grade flour (although recipe called for AP flour), yeast (1 tsp), salt, cold water. No sugar. I mixed it with a food processor.
Sorry about all the details, I don't want to miss out anything that might be a silly mistake. Is there any obvious reason it's not risen?
(I can provide more details about the recipe if that helps...)
Edit: I just touched the dough and its pretty cold, so no wonder its not rising! I guess it would have been a good idea to "wake up" the biga before mixing the dough? Any suggestions how to proceed from here?
Did the biga look frisky? Did you let it come to room temp before mixing with the dough? I'm not sure about closing dough in an airtight container, I've never done that. Don't apologize about details, the more the better. If you go to chat and just say anything, I'll know you're there. I'll help if I can
I'd put it in the oven (oven off) over a large bowl of water that has been brought to a boil. No airtight cover over the dough, just loose plastic wrap or a towel.
Thanks for that, @Jolenealaska great tip. I ended up just giving it a warm bain marie in the sink, seemed to wake it up pretty well!
As it turns out, my dough was very cold. Due dilligence: here's a full answer.
One of the requirements of yeast for fermentation is appropriate temperature. Cold dough straight from the fridge won't rise, or it will only rise very slowly. 25-30°C is a recommended temperature range for rising, although cooler temperatures can work.
Duh.
It is indeed recommended to wake up (warm up) preferments before making the dough with them, typically 3-4 hours outside of the fridge (this will vary dependeing on the size of your batch). But if you forgot to do it, there is a good chance that your dough will nevertheless rise once it warms up. Time is not especially important in rising anyway, it only allows you to get better time management, but it will only stay invariable if you are working under controlled conditions (proofing box with constant temperature and humidity). Just rise by volume, which you seem to already be doing.
Old old question but I can add some basics about yeast mechanics -
Yeast will die mostly due to - a) Extreme Old Age; b) Extreme Heat (like 50*C+); c) Extreme Cold (freezing CAN puncture the yeast cell walls). Other than that, they are hardy little creatures.
Yeast is happier in warmer temperatures, it works much faster at 35* than at 15*. It slows down a lot at 8* in the refrigerator. Going closer to 0-2*, the yeast can even go to sleep. When you take it out of the fridge, the yeast will be either slow or even asleep. It take time to become fully active after a nap, just like us humans. Take it out, put it in a warmer place and as the dough begins to come closer to the yeast's happy zone (17-18*), it will start to go to work. It works vigorously as the temperature keeps increasing. Obviously, how long your dough will take to reach 15-20* depends on various other factors. But, as it reaches that zone, the yeast happily goes to work.
Knowing this much will make you worry a lot lesser about whether the yeast is working or not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.878018
| 2014-09-28T01:57:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47493",
"authors": [
"Adeel mona Ahmad",
"Donna Doherty",
"Jolenealaska",
"Larry phipps",
"Shirin Shiekh",
"Zaha Sumrain",
"aaaidan",
"c k",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"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
}
|
65202
|
What was Indian food like before the arrival of the chili pepper from the Americas?
One of the things associated with Indian cuisine is heat from chili peppers. Yet, chili peppers can only have been introduced to Asia from their Central and South American homeland after the Spanish conquests of the 1500s.
What was Indian food like before this time? Did heat come from elsewhere or were Indian people eating bland, boring food? Or have I got my food history completely back to front?
Wikipedia does say "It was introduced in India by the Portuguese towards the end of 15th century." so I don't think your history is too far off.
Don't forget that India was where things like black pepper and most other spices came from ... so there would have been lots of flavor, and maybe some heat (although not from capsaicin)
It should also be noted that some curries do not depend on chilli for heat, but use pepper and other spices (probably as an influence from the middle east) for heat. cumin, coriander, black pepper, nutmeg, garlic, shallots, ginger, turmeric, star anise, cinnamon, cardamom, daun salam leaves etc were/are all present in India. Some or all of these could have travelled or have been present in India before chilli.
Heat from black/white pepper tends to be underestimated... piperine is usually rated as about 100000 on the scoville scale, and black pepper is said to be 5-9% ... Also, raw ginger or garlic can pack some punch depending on variety...
When I was discussing this with an Indian colleague, the ingredient that was imported from the Americas and was most typical of Indian cuisine to him was ... the potato.
@rackandboneman Galangal also has quite a kick to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galangal
Hardly - pepper was exported from India before chillis were introduced. Some linguistic subgroups still use it in preference to chillis, and certain dishes use it in preference to (or in addition to) chillies.
Ginger's also native (or at least an early import) to India (and while not always used in 'traditional' cooking), I do believe that garlic and ginger were as well.
Many other spices - one of the cinnamon varieties, cardamom and quite a few other spices were native.
While fairly well known, chillis aren't essential to cooking.
Oddly enough, the 'source' I used to try to reverse engineer what are 'native' and what aren't is the traditional funeral anniversary or 'thevasam' menu. While essentially vegetarian, it would use mostly native produce and spices. You can find an example here, though specifics tend to differ with cultural groups or even families
How confident are you that the spices used on that menu weren't added at some point in the last 500-1000 years? That's plenty of time for them to become traditional. (I'm sure plenty of things are native, of course, just curious.)
Reasonably so, but not completely. My answer's entirely based off anecdotal/cultural knowledge, though a quick check on wiki confirms these are plausibly available reasonably far back. That said, we're pretty hidebound on things like this. If my mother was answering this, she'd probably back it up with references from classic tamil literature. I'd probably still consider this plausible.
"While fairly well known, chillis aren't essential to cooking." - but how are you going to be a revolutionary?
@JourneymanGeek Interesting. I do wonder if the methodology (of using a Thevasam menu as the basis) is sound - it's often the case in Hinduism (and elsewhere of course) that ritual meals of this kind involve a strict subset of permissible ingredients (garlic and certain spices, for example, are omitted from meals cooked in temples during Puja). Good leads for further exploration though - perhaps there is a 15th Century cookbook out there somewhere that can shed some light.
The recipe 'thevasam' in the link is authentic ( but regional ) pre-columbian exchange cuisine, made with ingredients from species largely native to the indo-malayan ecoregion, and is pretty much reflective of Indian cuisine before the columbian exchange.
I study crop dispersal, as I had an agricultural background from South India.
Other heat giving ingredients would include Xanthoxylum spp. (timur) - relatives of sichuan pepper, long pepper, roasted garlic, ginger, mustard, cinnamon, cloves - all native or widespread in South and South-East Asia well before the columbian exchange.
There are evidence of the use of chili pepper in Asia centuries before the Columbian Exchange.
The thirteenth century stone inscriptions from the Bagan period of Myanmar (formerly Burma) documented the use of chili pepper as either donation or payment towards the cost the construction of its many pagodas.
Farther to the east, Korean researchers (Yang et al., 2017) also concluded that it would be genetically impossible for Mexican chili (aji) to evolve into Korean red peppers just in the time frame in the historical misconceptions that “Red peppers (chilies) were introduced to the country through the Japanese invasions of 1592–1599.”
References:
Myanmar Language Commission (2009). "Bagan Period". Sarkoe-Abidan: Myanmar Stone Inscriptions and Ink Writings. Yangon, Myanmar: Ministry of Education. pp. 61, 143.
Tun Nyein (trans. & ed.) (1899). "Inscriptions of Pagan, No. (16). - Obverse". Inscriptions of Pagan, Pinya, and Ava: Translations, With Notes. Rangoon, Burma: Superintendent, Government Press. p. 114.
Yang, Hye Jeong & Rhan Chung, Kyung & Young Kwon, Dae. (2017). DNA Sequence Analysis Tells the Truth of The Origin, Propagation and Evolution of Chili (Red Pepper). Journal of Ethnic Foods. 4. 10.1016/j.jef.2017.08.010.
Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for Capsicum peppers to reach Asia before the Columbian exchange, therefore, they did no reach Asia before the Columbian exchange. A much more likely explanation is that some other pepper (of which there were many) was used in the Burmese instances noted. The Korean antipathy to things of Japanese origin seems like it is clouding the judgement of the researchers in the case of that third paper.
@kingledion I would like to respectfully disagree with you on " there is no mechanism for Capsicum peppers to reach Asia". You are assuming too much here that the vector must be walking and talking human beings especially of European kind. I disagree with you on that. Firstly birds can carry undigested seeds very very far. And secondly there are evidence of pre-Columbian travel and dispersal of food from America. Please find
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/01/22/169980441/how-the-sweet-potato-crossed-the-pacific-before-columbus
Floating bird carcasses carried across the ocean by a tsunami from Ecuador to Kyushu ? Plausible!
@kingledion: It is now known sweet potatoes spread between Taiwan & Oceania in ancient times, as did chicken/jungle-fowl that originated in India.
I asked myself this a lot about Thai food...what would that be without chillies? The best I can come up with is to look at the classical Chinese kitchen. They don't use chillies, but pepper, and they get the kick of salt and sugar instead of capsicum. So yes, my guess is that Indian food would have been made with the same spices...maybe not in the quantities they are used now, but it would be sweeter and saltier. But that is really just a guess...we don't even really know what European food was like in the middle ages for example....which is amazing when you think about it.
India is rightly called the Land of Spices. From black pepper to sunth (dry ginger powder) there were a wide variety of spices for inducing heat in food. Indian traditional cooking, also called Paak Shaashtra that derived from Ayurveda (a traditional Indian medicinal system), mainly rely on balancing of tastes for developing better digestion.
It is based on 5 ras (flavours): sweet, bitter, acidic, salty & heat.
Ayurveda originated in about 2000 - 5000 BC (some consider it older), depicting use of chillies as painkillers and for relieving stress. Various chillies which are only cultivated in India are Bhoot Jholakia, Naag Jholakia, Boria Marcha, Bhavnagri Marcha, Surti Marcha, Lavingyaa Marchaa have found place in Ayurveda & Indian Cuisine from the oldest available reference.
Though Indian Cuisine is rich in variety of flavours with spices, facts say that it's unlikely to that Indian cuisine existed without chillies.
Although India is now the largest producer of capsicums in the world, the spread of capsicums through Indian cuisine in the late 1500s is well documented. The prevailing theory is that the were brought by Portuguese traders and then spread to the rest of Asia. Using search terms from your post, I can't find any reference at all to capsicums in India before 1500- especially in reference to Al-Biruni.
Thanks for the answer! While I completely agree that nowadays it's hard to imagine Indian cuisine without chilies, claiming that they've always been there (that is, completely contradicting the OP) is going to require more proof than a claim that it was mentioned in Tarikh-Al-Hind. As far as I know, they were originally native only to the Americas.
Could you provide the actual quote you're talking about from Tarikh-Al-Hind? I found a copy online (volume one, volume two - the pdf versions are searchable) but can't find any reference to this.
This feels a lot like anecdotes and opinion @Vikram S. Parikh. Can you please provide links to documents which support your comments?
Sorry but the "prevailing theory of Portuguese and Columbus" carting chillie all the way to India and asia BUT (BUT) not eating it themselves seems odd to say the least.WHY else is chillie not used extensively in Portugal or Spanish cuisine??? I think Chillies left South America long before for Asia via a Pacific route taken by Asian traders, Polynesian traders and popularised before 1000 AD.
Hottest Chillies are in North east India Bhoot Jalokia. Korean, Padang, Andhra, Szechuan food is Chillie Hot but Columbus' spain and Portugal are not chillie hot. Hungarian food is chillie hot too - was it left over by the Khans - i e Ghengis Khan ??
There really is no evidence polyponesian traders spanned the pacific all the way to the Americas. Genetic research debunked the idea a few years back showing there was no polyponesian genetics in endemic South American people as was once proposed. If there was trade going on, there there would be genetics left behind as well. It really is an insurmountable distance to travel by canoe or any seagoing vessel the polyponesians had.
Europeans stopped eating spicy food when spices became cheap.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/26/394339284/how-snobbery-helped-take-the-spice-out-of-european-cooking
@Devdas that's really neat, thanks for sharing!
Chillies were cultivated and used for various dishes in Sri Lanka long before Christopher Columbus was born.
I am sure Chilli Pepper existed in India during the same period. Many traditional Sri Lankan dishes contain chilli. And these are not the cuisine introduced by European invaders.
Do you have sources for that statement? Plus, we are looking at a time frame of 400 years, that's a lot of time for something to become "traditional".
Interesting (and contentious) answer, but without evidence I cannot entertain it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.878484
| 2016-01-09T00:26:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65202",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"C M",
"Carol Burnett",
"Cascabel",
"Chrissy Moser",
"CriglCragl",
"Devdas",
"Escoce",
"Isha",
"Jerry Butler",
"Joe",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Ken Kraemer",
"M Soe",
"Martin Bonner supports Monica",
"Mervin Pillay",
"Moly Ray",
"Nat Bowman",
"Padgett",
"Ramesh Emss",
"Sam Brett",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"Sue Walker",
"Tolami John",
"Victoria Deane",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89534",
"immutabl",
"kingledion",
"marco wassmer",
"rackandboneman",
"saleh adem"
],
"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
}
|
100916
|
Removing sugar from baking recipes
I just baked a batch of chocolate chip cookies (https://www.bonappetit.com/recipe/bas-best-chocolate-chip-cookies). I felt like they were just a tad bit on the sweet side, so wanted to know if there would be any negative consequences from reducing the sugar? (like 1/2-3/4 of the sugar in the recipe) Would the cookie not bake as desired or something like that?
Sugar contributes to the texture in cookies. In particular brown sugar is softer than white because of the hygroscopic molasses. If you like your cookies soft I'd reduce/remove the white sugar first (plus you don't lose the brown sugar flavour). If that's too soft you can adjust the ratio in the next batch (or, to some extent, bake a tiny bit longer, but the texture really only becomes apparent on cooking)
Baking time might change a little, so keep an eye on them when they should be nearly done.
Sugar does have an impact on more than flavour, so the texture of the cookies will change. You will have to experiment to find something that you like.
On the other hand - if you don't want to change the texture of the cookies, you could try to replace some of the sugar with Isomalt - it's a sugar substitute that has very similar mechano-chemical properties, but doesn't taste sweet.
It's fine to deduct the amount of sugar, just based on your desired sweetness.
Sugar will do more chemical reaction in Meringue-based desserts, like Macarons or topping creams on cake. It's more likely to impact the result if the sugar amount changes then cookies, which texture comes primarily from flour and butter.
Anyway, just give a try and do some adjustment after tastes :)
(You could make small portion first, then to make normal portion while you've fix the sugar amount based on your desired sweetness.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.879696
| 2019-08-23T04:48:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100916",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89457
|
Are these knives safe?
I am wondering if these painted knives are safe to use.
Safe in what way? it looks like a cheap knife.
I was referring to the paint/coloring.
Also: nasty to resharpen, since you will get abraded paint stuck in your sharpener/one your stone.
I have a couple of painted knives. They were inexpensive, and came with a protective sheath. I specifically bought them to keep in a bin of stuff that I keep in my car of misc stuff that frequently come in handy (plastic utensils, serving stuff, plates, cups, bowls, straws, napkins, take out containers, birthday candles, etc). I had a no-name one where the handle broke off (unpainted) but the painted Kuhn Rikon ones have held up well
A knife that has a painted blade is best thought oof as a 'gimmicky' knife. There will be limited uses before sharpening starts to flake away the paint on the face of the blade.
The paint itself is pretty chemically non-reactive in most cases (it has to be to harden and stick to the metal).
There are some cases where paints may have harmful compounds. This would have to be evaluated by looking at condition of the knife and the paint adhesion. So, evaluate whether the blade itself is worth using, then keep an eye on it.
In essence, a knife like this is perhaps used under low stress conditions, or as a decorative piece, but any serious cook will not use it for long.
@Adam If it is a good strong blade, it can be usable. Just watch for signs of wear...
It depends - I have a few “painted blade” knives and so far no flaking whatsoever. And claiming unsafe ingredients in the paint sounds a bit like fear-mongering.
@Stephie Agreed. I was pushing a little there for max caution. I usually am on the other end of the spectrum... I'll edit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.879879
| 2018-04-28T10:44:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89457",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"Joe",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Max",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87543
|
Sour cream peach pecan pie
In this recipe it says to use 2 tablespoons of peach preserves what can I use in place of the preserve? My supermarket does not have it.
Pauline, welcome! Could you please post the whole recipe, that makes it easier to suggest suitable replacements.
'Preserve' suggests jam - peach jam would be my substitution, at 2tbsp the purpose is most likely to accentuate the peach flavour and potentially add to consistency. Hard to know without recipe context.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.880055
| 2018-02-05T07:00:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87543",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"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
}
|
83535
|
Trouble frying an egg on a stainless steel pan
I recently purchased a stainless steel pan from AllClad, but I'm struggling to use it. Food, and in particular eggs, seem to stick readily to the pan, making it hard to use. There is a question on Seasoned Advice that pertains to cooking an omelette on a stainless steel pan, but I think the challenges of frying an egg are different and more challenging. I've been able to cook an omelette in this pan, but have yet to succeed with a fried egg.
Looking online, I learned that stainless steel pans, like cast-iron, need to be seasoned in order to be non-stick. The process that I followed to season my pan was as follows:
Pour in 1/4 cup walnut oil.
Heat pan on medium heat until the oil begins to smoke.
Turn heat off and let the pan cool completely.
Remove the oil and wipe the pan dry.
I tried this process, but when I try to fry an egg in the pan, it still sticks readily. There is some improvement, but it is still not possible to cook an egg without sticking that destroys the egg in the end.
I'm not sure what I may be doing wrong, or is a stainless steel pan just not something that one can use for frying eggs? Should I just expect that there will be some stick whenever I use this pan?
Update
After watching this short course on pay frying, I tried to pre-heat my pan, using the water-test as a guide, and adding just a bit of oil to the pan before dropping the egg in. The results were the same. The egg stuck to the pan thoroughly. So again I'm not sure what I'm doing incorrectly. Maybe the oil I'm using isn't right? I've been using ghee.
Update 2:
I've yet to succeed in frying a egg on this pan, but a few additional questions/issues have surfaced:
Some answers here have suggested that despite the presence on the web of tutorials for "seasoning" stainless steel pan this is not necessary and may not be advisable.
The trick may be to fry the egg starting at a much lower heat then you might with something like a piece of meat. For meat, you often encounter the suggestion to use the "water test", but as at least one answer has suggested here that may not work with a fried egg.
These are the possibly insights I've gleaned so far, but I've also yet to succeed, so these may turn out to be wrong as well.
Satisfying Answer (May be others)
The solution that I have settled on here -- i.e. what finally worked for me -- was to work with lower heat than I thought was needed, and not to season the pan. There is definitely a lot of conflicting information out there about stainless steel pans. There are a great number of blog posts and YouTube videos that talk about how to season a pan. Seasoning may still be a useful thing to do, but I was able to fry an egg on an unseasoned pan finally.
The method I used is more or less as follows:
Clean pan thoroughly.
Take egg out of refrigerator and let it sit in warm water for five minutes or so. (This may not be necessary.)
Put pan on stove on medium flame/heat. (I only tried this on a gas stove.)
Let pan pre-heat until it is warm when you hold your hands over the pan. Warm, not hot! This might take 20-30 seconds, maybe less.
Add the oil (1-2 tbsp), and lower the flame to low. Let the oil heat a bit, perhaps another 10-15 seconds, or less.
Crack the egg into the pan. The whites should stay clear, only slowly whitening. If the egg begins to turn white immediately, the pan is too hot. And the egg should also not stick at this point. There may be a bit of sticking, especially around the edges. You can dislodge the sticking gently by hand, but don't mess with the egg too much. Cook until done or ready to flip. Make sure heat stays low. If you see some sticking it may be (I'm not sure about this) because the pan has become too hot.
So that's the best I've been able to do with help from the selected answer.
Did you add oil before frying? Just because it's seasoned doesn't mean you don't need to add oil before cooking.
I did. But I think my problem may have been not properly pre-heating the pan
Possible duplicate of Can't make an omelette in my all-clad pan because of sticking
I'm curious. Is there a reason you're trying to do this in stainless rather than in non-stick or on a seasoned pan? Sometimes you just shouldn't use stainless for stuff. When I go to restaurants where I can see the chefs working, they use non-stick for eggs. What are you trying to achieve with the stainless?
cold eggs vs. not cold eggs ?
@Catja I see your point. I guess the question is simply: can, and if so, how can this be done with stainless steel. If the answer is it cannot, so be bit. But there are plenty of videos on YouTube where people do succeed and so I am curious why I cannot. Also, I don't currently have a nonstick pan, and am not crazy about their chemical surface.
From your description there are two things that stand out to me:
1) stainless steel pans should NOT be seasoned in a manner similar to cast iron. These are completely different materials, and if you "seasoned" your stainless pan, such that it has a coating of basically burned oil on it, you have to first clean that pan until it's nice and shiny/bare steel again.
2) using the sizzle test for eggs suggests to me the pan is too hot. For eggs, you always want to use lower heat to prevent them going dry and sticking (even in a non-stick pan, you will have some sticking if you use high heat for eggs, especially when scrambling)
so try this: clean your pan. when ready to cook the egg, heat the pan on medium heat. to test for hotness, hold your hand close to the surface to see if it feels warm. obviously, don't burn yourself ;) add your ghee to the pan and let it heat a little longer until it looks very fluid and shimmery. swirl the pan to distribute the oil, then add your egg(s) and do your thing
I tried to do what you said as best as I could, but achieved basically the same result. I first cleaned the pan with Bar Keeper's Friend. I dried it thoroughly, and then I put it on a medium to medium low flame. When it was warm (may 30-40 seconds on the flame) I put in the oil and waited for another 15-20 seconds, and then cracked the egg into the pan. But it stuck again. You can tell it's sticking without touching it because the egg's surface fissures, especially around the edges where it's thinner. I tried this twice, once with Ghee and once with Walnut oil. No luck.
This is a bit of a timely technique I might try that seems similar to what you are suggesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deSZka-j0Y0
After watching this video, I wonder if I need to start with even less heat...
Finally had some success follow your instructions, or the spirit of them, a bit more closely. In my first attempt, I allowed the pan to get too hot. When you said warm, I didn't really think warm the first time. But taking that more literally I basically added the oil after about 20-30 seconds on medium flame. Then waited another 10 seconds maybe and dropped the egg in. The heat was so low that the egg only slowly began to whiten. It didn't stick at this temperature.
I like this answer. The one tip I would add that seems obvious now but wasn't obvious to me when I learned is to wait a bit before trying to move the egg.
Like the OP in this previous question (Why do scrambled/fried eggs stick less when cooked with butter instead of oil?), I believe you are blaming the equipment when the fault may well lie with the operator...
See this answer and the linked material there (especially the Alton Brown video) to improve your technique.
The keys are thoroughly warming the pan and oil to a medium heat and patience.
(should this be considered a duplicate question?)
if you had read my question, you would have seen that in my question I stated: "I'm not sure what I may be doing wrong..." Also, in my update, which you apparently also did not read, I stated that I'd tried pre-heating the pan according to the so-called "water test." I will check out your links. I'm quite sure I haven't learned to use this pan correctly. But what I'm looking for is some sort of guidance about how to improve my "operation" of the equipment.
First, I assure I did read your question completely and several times. My comment about the equipment vs user comes down to whether we should judge this as a duplicate (to several other candidates) in which your question differentiates solely on the pan. Secondly, the 'water test' tells you the pan is 'at least' hot enough, but does not address the question of whether or not your pan may well be "too hot" (which..ooh.. can cause sticking).
You wrote: "I believe you are blaming the equipment..." That's wrong -- as the question makes clear. What you say about the "water test", I believe, is also wrong. If when you drop water on the pan, it breaks apart into several beads, that's an indication that it's too hot (according to the course I linked in the update to my question.)
In the video linked from that Q, Alton Brown appears to be using a non-stick pan.
I have had a set AllClad pans for over a decade and I had this issue at first but here's what I do that mostly avoids sticking:
Heat: I throw small drops of water on the pan. If they dissipate immediately the pan might be a little too hot. If they turn into little balls that roll around as if there is no friction, then it's perfect.
Use Butter: I prefer this to oil mainly for the flavor but it also is helpful to know whether the pan is the right temperature. If it starts bubbling hard and browning, it's too hot. You can still use it but turn the heat down.
Once the butter has laid down flat and the water has left it, you can drop the eggs in. My eggs are cold from the fridge so I usually turn the heat down after they have warmed a bit.
Wait a bit before breaking the yolks. The yolk sticks a lot more than the whites. For scrambled eggs, I typically wait for the white to go translucent and then gently break the yolks. Let the yolk harden a bit and then fold. At this point I let turn the heat way down (off even) and let them get to the desired consistency.
This typically results in no sticking that would require more than a brush or scouring pad. I would recommend getting some Bar Keeper's Friend powder for maintaining the pans especially if you want to keep the outside of them looking nice. What's worse than eggs is burned-on oil and you are bound to do this at some point especially if you use the pan for searing. Detergent won't put much of a dent on that. The oxalic acid will take it off in seconds with a little elbow grease. Baking soda is also a decent option for this. Kosher salt can be used in a similar manner for eggs if you really get them stuck.
If you mean to clean I'd say just boil diluted vinegar; that'll get pretty much any food off. To get polymerized oils and the like steel wool is the easiest.
@Casey It might be easy but it will scratch the finish on the pans.
@Casey And boiling vinegar is super-overkill otherwise. Detergent and a non-scratch sponge or soft brush are more than adequate if you cook the eggs like a explain here. And, they taste amazing.
If you prize the look of the finish on the pans it's probably not the way to go, I guess, but it doesn't really hurt the functionality of the pans at all. Anyway, I found Barkeeper's Friend next to useless for a lot of stuff that I could scrub off easily with steel wool.
@Casey If you rough up the finish, things will stick more readily and not release as well. All-Clad pans are not cheap and if you take care of them you can pass them down to your grandkids.
My stainless steel pan was $20 and I have 2 identical ones I never use in the closet somewhere so I'm not sweating too much. I don't notice much more scratching than normal use (except if you use it on the outside)
@Casey I can totally understand why you aren't concerned, then. The OP mentioned AllClad specifically. With those, there's a 'satin' or glass-like finish on the cooking surface which is part of why you pay a premium. I just cooked some eggs actually and after I washed the pan, the water rolls off like it's a duck's back. It's worth preserving.
I have two All Clad tri-ply stainless steel pans. First things - these pans are much more efficient. The highest heat level I use is medium high. That's for searing only, then reduce heat to medium for cooking. Seasoning the pan, I preheated the pan on the stove you can trust with a drop of water. If it bubbles the pan is ready then turn the heat off.
Use whatever oil you cook with. Remember this well - Oil will affect the taste of your food. Use a paper towel to wipe excess oil off the pan. I did this twice before I cook on it. You could check All Clad website for more details.
PS. I only use high temperature to boil water in the pan. Always wipe pan thoroughly dry after washing it with soap and water and soft sponge only.
Welcome! I've attempted to improve your post by adding some punctuation. Please review the edit and feel free to fix anything that was wrong. If you could, in future, please attempt to use proper punctuation so that your meaning is more clear.
This answer doesn't really address the question.
Use plenty of fat! I always fry my eggs in butter - I love the flavor. Use plenty so it creates a nice puddle for your eggs. I have no difficulty in my pan either on high heat (you must stay there and babysit it!) for brown butter; or lower and slower. Yumm. Always delicious, easy, never seasoned a stainless steel pan in my life. Chandler. Good luck.
I have an All Clad SS pan, a non stick pan, a lodge cast iron and I have fried an egg with a small amount of butter on low heat and the egg does not stick.
It slides around the pan more easily than any other pan.
This doesn't answer the OP's question about what they're doing wrong.
I see this post as an answer telling us that low heat + little fat is a successful solution. Even if it is a very partial answer, I am inclined to keep it, since it doesn't seem to hurt the guidelines.
Here’s the best answer, based on decades of cooking at home and decades of life experience and much time spent researching this:
Don’t use stainless steel to cook eggs. At all. No professional chef does this. At all. Use cast iron or nonstick pans for eggs. Period.
Please do not insult other users here. This time, I edited it out, but it is our job as moderators to also sanction users who repeatedly break our Code of conduct.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.880160
| 2017-08-06T18:30:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83535",
"authors": [
"Casey",
"Catija",
"Cos Callis",
"GdD",
"JimmyJames",
"Karl Bielefeldt",
"Max",
"Sneftel",
"Wolfgang",
"fraxture",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"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
}
|
100912
|
Can mayonnaise be infused with coconut, without getting watery?
I want to make a mayonnaise-based sandwich spread with coconut milk in it, but I'm concerned that adding enough coconut milk for any flavor will make the spread too runny.
Note, I do not want to make mayonnaise from scratch - I have seen recipes where you infuse the oil in homemade mayo first then use it to make mayo.
I'm talking about using packaged mayo as the base, ending up with the texture of mayonnaise and the additional taste of coconut milk.
Depending on the type of coconut milk you have access to, you could only use the upper, creamy part of the coconut milk. Here in Germany (and the Netherlands, as we often buy there) the out of the box coconut milk is not homogenized, so the fat and the watery part have split.
Coconut Cream might be an option, but it is quite sweet. Perhaps a light variant could do the trick.
If you do not want to dilute the mayonnaise with liquid, coconut milk powder is an option. Depending on how much you add, you might find that your mayo is too thick. If that is the case, you could get around this by making up a paste beforehand with a little water.
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/268726658
You can add some liquid to mayonnaise without breaking it. I've added smallish amounts of soy sauce and hot sauce and such to mayonnaise with success. The question would be, could you get enough coconut flavor into the mayonnaise before breaking the emulsion?
Hard to say without trying.
If it doesn't work, you can try using coconut cream instead of coconut milk. Like the name suggests, coconut cream has a higher amount of fat and a lower amount of water than coconut milk. This should allow you to add more of it to the mayonnaise without making it too liquid.
This is speculative, as I've not tried this, and I'm assuming that by 'the flavour of coconut milk' you mean 'coconut flavour'.
Creamed coconut/coconut butter, rather than coconut cream, may be your answer. It comes as a solid block, in solid form in individual sachets and jars.
Creamed coconut, also known as coconut butter, is a coconut product made from the unsweetened dehydrated fresh pulp of a mature coconut, ground to a semi-solid white creamy paste. It is sold in the form of a hard white block which can be stored at room temperature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creamed_coconut
I use this rather than canned coconut milk or cream when making things like Rendang, because it doesn't have all the emulsifiers and thickeners of the brands I can buy locally, and at around 70% fats should incorporate more successfully into mayo than coconut milk which can be around 70% water.
When cooking you can just add solid chunks of the product to a sauce and it will melt and dissolve, but you can also melt it first and in this melted form you may be able to successfully whip it into a pre-made mayonnaise.
With the sachets you just place the sealed sachet into a jug of hot water until the contents liquefy, but you would also be able to melt some in a bain-marie as you would do with chocolate.
According to wikipedia
Coconut oil melts at around 24°C, so in warmer weather it is a liquid paste.
so you may need to do very little to get it to a state suitable for incorporating (I live in the north of Scotland so haven't experienced it in that state.)
I would suggest that to improve the chances of spreading the flavour evenly through your mayo, it would be best to add the mayonnaise to the creamed coconut a little at a time rather than dumping the coconut into the mayo. Having the mayo at room temperature rather than fridge-cold will also help avoid resetting the coconut cream before it is incorporated.
It is likely that quite a small amount would be needed as the flavour in this dehydrated product is more concentrated than in coconut milk, in my experience.
Edit to add: If it is just the flavour of coconut you are looking for, the other option might be a much more concentrated natural coconut extract.
If you want coconut flavor in something that is already a semiliquid I would not use liquid coconut products at all.
Use shredded coconut. Unsweetened shredded coconut is powerfully coconutty. You can put it thru a blender or coffee bean grinder to pulverize it further if you do not like the stringy consistency in your mayo. The addition of these coconut solids will not affect the creaminess of your mayo base unless you add a lot.
It is worth mentioning that you can also just add coconut flavor if that is not cheating for you. Coconut flavor comes in a little bottle like vanilla. Along those lines I used to keep a bottle of Malibu coconut rum to add to stir fry; Malibu is also powerfully coconut flavored and you can cook off the alcohol in a few seconds using a saucepan. If you go that route, cook down the Malibu by itself then add to mayo.
Borrowing from Spagirl's answer -
Don't use milk or cream, use coconut oil, neat. It's the most 'coconutty' of all the options, & is a pure oil [no water or solids] so your mayo won't crack or become watery.
You need them both 'warm', about 25°C or it will either spilt or solidify in lumps…
This is about the temperature needed to make mayo in the first place, so don't worry too much.
Depending on where you live, coconut oil is either a liquid or a solid - the transition is at about 24°C [75°F]. If it's still solid where you live, then a really short burst in the microwave will transform it, or if your mayo is cold too, a bain marie at 25° for both of them.
Again dependant on your local ambient temperature [or fridge] don't try to blend it into very cold mayo, have it at room temperature [but don't be tempted to microwave mayo if you live in a cold climate, the result will not be pretty].
Once blended, straight back in the fridge.
Not all coconut oil is strongly coconutty in flavour. Refined coconut oil has often been through a deodorising process. Even with virgin oil, which I use when making rendang, the food doesn’t really have much coconut flavour until I add the creamed coconut.
Maybe I've always got lucky in my random brand choices ;) I actually use it the other way, to add more 'coconuttyness' to things where cream or a can of milk aren't adding enough punch. One thing I make sure to do is I never buy it [or anything, if I can avoid it] in the 'foreign-ish food for westerners' aisle, always in the 'imported food for people from that region' aisle.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.881383
| 2019-08-22T20:10:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100912",
"authors": [
"Spagirl",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43709
|
Fresh blueberries vs dried blueberries in a cookie recipe
Can fresh blueberries be used instead of dried blueberries for baking cookies? This is for a cookie recipe that calls for 1/2 cup dried blueberries.
No, that's not going to work. The fresh blueberries are mostly water, and all that water will definitely be enough to throw off the cookies. Other options:
use a different kind of dried fruit
dry the berries yourself, probably more work than you want (see this question)
turn them into thumbprint cookies, and use blueberry jam (if that works with your recipe)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.881880
| 2014-04-26T21:01:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43709",
"authors": [
"Brenda L Teeters",
"Java Weenis",
"Martha C Moore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102601",
"rabia rizwan",
"xyz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44137
|
How do I open a brand-new (plug-top) oval canister?
Shockingly I can't find an answer to this anywhere I look online. I have an oval canister of cocoa that I received as a gift with no directions on how to open it. A can opener is not going to work here due to the shape.
http://mcstevens.com/elvispeanutbuttebanana.aspx
It says it is a plug top. But I can't seem to unplug it with brute force using my hands. How do you open a new plug top?
At least for round plug tops, I use a butter knife for leverage. Have you tried it with your oval container?
I did. Although I used it on the short end. After your comment I tried it on the side (the pointier end) and it worked like a charm. My guess is it created more leverage. Would you like to write an answer so I can accept it?
Too late, but I was going to recommend a flat head screw driver. That kind of lid is like opening a can of paint.
I've always found a regular tablespoon to work really well.
As described in the comments by Jolenealaska and rumtscho, the key to opening plug-tops is leverage; it "is like opening a can of paint." Use a butter knife, screw driver or any other object that is both long, flat and sturdy to pry open the can. It is nearly impossible to open a plug top with your hands. If the can is oval pry open from the end of the can that will yield the most leverage (i.e. your rod should be parallel to the long axis and perpendicular to the short one).
The flatter the better- I had a similar problem with a can of paprika and first pried it open with a meaty butter knife that ruined the seal.
I would suggest... using a paint can opener. A clean one, of course.
Also, if using a butter knife or screwdriver, use the leverage-rotate-leverage technique: Apply leverage, release leverage, rotate a few centimeters, repeat. This will avoid undue bending or damaging the top.
That is generally what I thought this piece of a can opener was for (prying the lid off):
As opposed to keeping a screwdriver or paint can opener in your kitchen.
To avoid damaging the rim (and making the can unable to reseal), I'd use a paint can opener, available for under a buck (or sometimes free!) from the local hardware store. A screwdriver or butter knife could slip, and injure you or damage the can.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.881984
| 2014-05-14T19:36:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44137",
"authors": [
"J Chant",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kylie Schobel",
"Mr Whale",
"Nelson Mc",
"RICK",
"Spammer",
"WetlabStudent",
"Zavala Texas Law",
"alex-e-leon",
"catcoder",
"derobert",
"fls",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jsanc623",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44201
|
What "all-in-one" single serving tea device(s) are sturdy, make "teapot quality" loose leaf tea, and are two pieces or less?
I am looking for a convenient office/portable tea making/drinking system. Ideally the device should be portable and very easy to clean in an office setting and still extract the same quality of flavor that a traditional teapot would, but also be sturdy. Hence the following requirements
maximum of two pieces to clean, for all devices used during infusing and drinking
is covered during steeping
separates tea leaves from liquid after steeping
will not burn your hands when drinking (either due to material or handle)
Is sturdy (will not break from a 1 foot fall)
Preferably, no plastic or rubber touching the hot water. However, given the somewhat recent advances in plastic, this may be an irrational fear - in which case it would be nice to link to a relevant thread/article easing "plastic touching boiling water concerns" if recommending a style of product that is only available in plastic.
The only device I ever found that meets (1-4) is the quick gongfu style (a tea pot with holes in the spout area, where the drinking cup is the lid). But unfortunately it is fragile (not meeting requirement 5). Here are pictures of the device in various materials (from left to right clay, porcelain, ceramic, ceramic)
Now there are "all in one" devices that satisfy (1,3, 4, & 5) but not (2), for example, tipping cups,
and ones that satisfy (2-5) but not (1), for example the double wall glass/plastic travel brewers (note some glass products are quite strong)
But is there a device that satisfies all 5 desirable qualities in an office tea drinking/making system?
Note: This is not a product recommendation question. This question is about styles, types and materials, not specific products or brands.
Fine porcelain is the strongest material, but often poorly made, especially from China. I have quality German porcelain plates that can drop 1 m off the bench and survive!
What is quick gongfu? Is it a brand name?
You might be able to get more practically useful answers if you are willing to focus less on the exact "quick gonfu" style you've mentioned. There are other ways to make something that's good for traveling or the office.
@Jerfromi Drastically edited question to meet this suggestion
Something along the lines of these dispo tea-french-press cups might work for you: http://www.amazon.com/SmartCup-Disposable-French-Press-Cups/dp/B00HT3K3WG I've not seen a non-dispo version of the device, but it probably exists, or could be easily made.
So... something with an infuser in the lid isn't okay because the infuser might be harder to clean?
I own this and I love it: http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/96bb/
Are you overthinking this? A small teapot, sized for one person, would meet your criteria, wouldn't it? Unless you count the infusion basket separate from the teapot itself, you just have a teapot to rinse out (no scrubbing needed) and a mug to wash.
This is mine:
It holds around 20oz of water, so I can fill the pot, steep for a few minutes, then lift out the infuser basket and dump the leaves. You can easily do this in a breakroom or kitchenette area of an office, and then take the teapot back to your desk and voila, 3-4 cups of tea with one trip to the breakroom. Mine's made of cast iron and easily keeps the tea warm longer than it takes me to drink it. When you're all done, rinse out the teapot (cast iron won't need much more than a brief rinse) and wash your mug in the sink.
Based on my tea this afternoon (admittedly, taken in my home office today rather than at work):
It's super easy to clean out the teapot, I just ran water through it a few times. The infuser basket took a little more work, but no more than 30 seconds or so of running under the water to make sure I got all the leaves out.
The teapot has a lid, to cover the tea while steeping.
The infuser basket lifts out when the tea's done steeping.
I was able to transport the pot by the handle from my kitchen to my office without any burns. It's a little warm, but not hot enough to burn you.
I'd love to see the drop that damages cast-iron!
If you are asking which one of the four you listed will be sturdiest, I think that there is no way to answer your question.
All four pots you listed are made of ceramics. "Ceramics" is a broad class of materials, it covers all earthenware (clay) materials, all porcelain, and the synthetic stone in your four example. (It also covers many more materials not used for food containers). Practically all ceramics in the kitchen have some chance of breaking when you drop them from one foot height. It is more than zero and less than 100%. But for each specific ceramic, only the manufacturer (or somebody with access to the relevant parameters and the knowledge to interpret them) can tell you exactly how prone it is to breakage.
People with experience working in ceramics may give you a good guess once they have held the object in their hand. But I don't think anybody can tell from a picture. And each of the names you give (such as "porcelain") covers a large range of materials with very different chance to break. And because the chance of breakage depends not just on material but also on the exact three dimensional shape (how thick it is, what shape are its curves, etc.), nobody can give you a statement saying "porcelain is always easier to break than purple clay" - there is too much variety in break proneness both within porcelain teapots and within clay teapots.
If you want a truly unbreakable pot, you will have to choose some other material. But ceramics are traditional for oriental teapots, so I can't promise you that this style exists in another material at all. If you have to choose a ceramic one, there is no way to predict which one will survive the most drops, but each will break if dropped often.
Update: The device I mentioned as measured by the new points in the question:
It was similar to the ones you call "travel brewers". I think that it has three parts to clean: the cup, the cover and the filter "basket" (like a plastic cup with holes). When assembled, it resembles a sippy cup with a closable valve, and the basket extends from below the cover down into the liquid. It is assembled both during steeping and drinking, although I guess you could open it for drinking and use it as an extralarge cup; then you'd be losing the thermos effect and you'd have as much of a spillage risk as a normal cup (closed, it would leak only a little if it falls over). I think you had to drink some of the tea before the level falls below the basket bottom and the leaves stop steeping; it is possible that the tea still flowed once through the filter when you tilt it for drinking, I am not sure about that part. It was double-wall plastic, and became quite warm, but didn't burn your hands. I don't have it here, and have no idea where it was bought from or how it is called, so I can't make or find a picture. I think it is just a version of a travel brewer.
I generally agree, except a related style might well exist in something stronger. I'm sure someone's made a durable all-in-one camping teapot that'd be easy to travel with and clean like this style, but it'll definitely be a different style. I'm not sure if that'd satisfy the OP or not; it'd meet the goals from the comment but it's not "quick gongfu".
@Jefromi indeed, I have used a travel "pot" made from double walled Nalgene type plastic (actually a 0.7 l mug with a permanent filter screwed into the lid). Looked nothing like the Gongfu pots here, but it is compact and shatter-resistant. Sadly, I don't know where it comes from, the friend from whom I borrowed it has travelled in East Asia, so it may be from there.
@rumtscho does the device you are describing in your comment satisfy the 5 desirable qualities in the edited question? If it does could you add a description and perhaps even a photo if you have one to your post?
Stainless steel. They won't won't break or shatter, and some can be quite pretty.
I suspect these may not exist in the style the OP wants, because if the lid is also a cup and is made of stainless steel, it'll conduct heat too well to be a good cup.
thank you for this recommendation, I should have been more clear that I am restricting the answers to the materials in the post. Sorry for the confusion; edited the question.
If you will only accept answers from the materials you have listed, they are all breakable, and there is nothing to answer.
will they all break from a 1 foot fall?
I don't know, but that is more a materials science question than a culinary question.
I think the restriction is really to materials that you'd make this style of pot out of, not necessarily only the ones in the post, but either way stainless steel is probably out (unless you find something that's got some plastic or something over the top to insulate the lid/cup).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.882235
| 2014-05-17T18:45:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44201",
"authors": [
"Adiyarkku",
"Alex S",
"Bill Ruppert",
"Bittersweet",
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"Frankie Sneeze",
"Gigiiherb",
"Grone Solutions Wholesale",
"Hoy",
"Hypnotherapist in Melbourne",
"Jerrys Heating And AC Repair",
"Kirill Do",
"Mindfield Wellness",
"N1ftyB1z",
"NickL",
"Preston",
"ROIMaison",
"Racontor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"San Diego Clinical Study",
"Spammer",
"Syed Engineer spam",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Weed House spam",
"WetlabStudent",
"alexandroid",
"brickblock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rumtscho",
"shmosel",
"sugartekno",
"user598527",
"user81979",
"wisard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96666
|
What is the minimum amount of sugar needed for getting the desired texture in this banana marmalade?
I've been trying to make banana marmalade(1) with the least amount of sugar possible. I've tried the following basic recipe - with variations in the amount of sugar, I've tried the following three versions:
500g water;
500g banana;
One tablespoon of flax seed;
70/100/130g sugar.
(Yes, I don't like to follow recipes, I like to make a guess and experimentally trying to find the right ratio of ingredients). When I use 130g of sugar, it cristalizes(2) and the color changes (ambar color) but this doesn't happen when I use 70g or 100g it gets more like sweet boiled banana. Is there a way to know - given certain amounts of ingredients - what is the correct ratio of sugar? I'd like it to be as minimum as possible.
In the first version of my recipe (130g), I've tried without flax seeds. Perhaps the flax is changing the cristalization/coloring process?
(1) The nomeclature seems problematic: In Portuguese we call it "doce", which literaly translates to "sweet" but when I change the languange in wikipedia, it suggests that "doce" is "marmalade" which - for us - is marmelo marmalade.
(2) This is a gross translation of the word we use here, but it refers to the hardening of the substance and color change.
Can you explain more about what you're trying to make? Marmalade is similar to a jelly or jam, a spread for toast. I've never heard of it being made from banana.
@ThePhoton banana jam is a thing, and very tasty at that. It is just not a traditional one, because it cannot be canned, and the typical purpose of jams is to preserve fruit in a shelf stable state.
Since it isn't really preserved, the right term may be banana butter -- if it's a sweet cooked fruit-based spread, like apple butter.
There is no way to predict the amount you want. If you want to know it, the only way is extensive experimentation.
You observed two outcomes, which I will call "amber" and "boiled" for short. If I got you right, you assume that the difference between them is determined by the amount of sugar, and are asking about the minimal amount of sugar to reach the "amber" state.
Preparation: isolate the responsible factor
You admit that the amount of sugar was not the single factor you varied. You also left out the flaxseeds, which is a major factor in texture. So, before you start the experiment proper, you will have to prove that it was not the flaxseeds, by making the 130g version with them. If you get the amber version, the experiment can continue. If you don't, the whole idea is moot anyway, because it was based on a false assumption. You could set up a similar experiment without flaxseed then - or simply make the recipe without flaxseed and with zero sugar, to see if it doesn't provide the effect you wanted all by itself.
The theory behind the experiment
So, assuming that you have proven that it is not the flaxseeds. Then you have two possible cases. Either this is a linear system, or a nonlinear one. In a linear system, there are not really two states of "amber" and "boiled", but a long, smooth spectrum, of which you observed two (or actually three) points. In that case, versions made with a middle amount of sugar will have characteristics somewhere between "amber" and "boiled", it is just your human brain with its penchant for dividing the world that assigns some of them into the "boiled" and others to the "amber" category. If that's the case, then the question of the boundary between "amber" and "boiled" is subjective. The only way to know where you personally will assign that boundary is to continue the experiment by making many more batches with different amounts of sugar and find out where your personal minimum lies.
The other interesting possibility is that of a nonlinear system, where there is no spectrum, but the end state is always objectively either "amber" or "boiled" and there is a tipping point in the amount of sugar which makes the whole system fall exactly into one of those states, without an in-between state. If this is it, you will never be able to mathematically model the process which creates the two states - humanity does not yet have the mathematics for that, and there are signs it may never have them. If this is the case, then there should be a wide swath of parameter space (= sugar amount) that practically always produces the "amber" state, another wide swath that produces "boiled", and a border region between them of unknown width that produces either the one or the other, without a way to predict which one will be. The only way to find out the minimum amount of sugar to produce the amber state, as opposed to being in the border state, will require repeated series of experiments.
The experiment itself
We don't know which case we have, but luckily, the experimental protocol for both will be the same. First, you should do a simple binary search to quickly find something that looks like a border region. This means: make and record batches of 130 and 70 g (the best thing would be to run the experiments in one day and keep samples, since you probably cannot record all relevant parameters in a home kitchen, and keeping the samples will make them change with time), then search in the middle (maybe that's why you tried 100 g already), then the middle between the two changing states, etc. After you have ran that, you will also have a good idea if you are dealing with case 1 or 2 (unless your search converges too quickly). Once you have it, you should enter the second phase, where you randomly choose 5-10 amounts of sugar close to the turning amount indentified in the binary search, and make those. The reason behind it is that your border will have some width in both cases, in the linear case because of subjectivity (if you are faced with something in the middle between amber and boiled, on some occasions you will perceive it as belonging to the amber category, on some as belonging to the boiled category) and in the nonlinear case because the border is not one-dimensional, but fractal-dimensional, so it has some width. In the end, you should have determined what amount of sugar reliably gives you "amber", and what amount produces different results, which you sometimes classify as "amber" and sometimes as "boiled".
A word on why this complicated approach is needed
You said that you dislike following recipes. But at the same time, you want to get to a well defined end state, and do so under a constraint (minimal amount of sugar).
You have a few choices how you can approach cooking. If you want freedom and creativity, and are happy with a random outcome, you can do random experiments. A little bit of kitchen experience will be enough to get good results most of the time. Alternatively, if you want a very specific outcome, you can strictily follow a recipe where somebody did all the work needed to find out how to achieve it. If you have decided that you will not follow a recipe, and if you have set your mind on a specific outcome, you have no choice but to invest the work needed to develop the recipe for that outcome. And the more constraints you have, the more work it is.
If you hoped that it is possible to take a look at the outcome of an experiment and predict the conditions which will give you the same results under a constraint - no, the chemistry and physics of cooking is way too complicated for doing that. The experimental approach is long and boring, but it is still the most efficient (and actually the most effective) one you can take.
Yep. I'd would end up finding it experimentally. I was just curious if there is a right ratio of sugar given that condition.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.883042
| 2019-03-02T20:51:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96666",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Red Banana",
"The Photon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100948
|
New York strip roast came out like beef jerky
OMGosh. Please help! Was I supposed to cover the New York strip roast with liquid? I RUINED dinner because there are no IP instructions so I used the instructions for “beef roast” and “steak”. I’m so upset because I just got the darn thing and was so excited to make this for my husband and it has the texture of beef jerky. Can anyone help?
Hi there. We don't reply directly via tweet. On this site, you ask questions and the community answers them. Your question does not specify how you cooked your steak, but I assume IP means insta-pot. Really, the last place you want to put a strip roast. Anyway, you can first begin by searching the site using the search bar, to see if your question has been asked and answered. If it has not, the clearer and more specific you are, the better.
Please check [ask] and take the [tour] to learn how the site works, and [edit] your question to make it easier to answer.
It’s too bad you don’t use the internet, because using Google I easily found many excellent recipes for New York strop roast.
You made 2 mistakes.
A pressure cooker (like InstaPot) relies on water to make steam to create pressure. You should not put a roast in the pressure cooker without adding liquid.
A pressure cooker is ideal for breaking down collagen in cheap, tough cuts of meat to make them tender. NY Strip is a premium cut that is already tender - just roast it in the oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.883730
| 2019-08-25T01:51:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100948",
"authors": [
"Ernest Friedman-Hill",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29494
|
Roasting large leg of wild boar
I have a very large joint of wild boar that I'm intending to roast, but none of the recipes I can find have in mind the size of joint I'm about to cook and I'm very worried I'll undercook it.
I want to slow cook it in a (electric) oven; it's a leg joint of ~ 6.7 kg/14.8 lbs.
How long and at what temperature should I cook this?
There's some guidance on this here - http://www.brokenarrowranch.com/Recipes/Tips-WholeLegs.htm
What temperature are you planning to use to cook the leg?
Use a thermometer.
I couldn't find a recipe I was comfortable online with as none of them seemed to be able to take into account a hunk of meat that size.
In the end I cooked it for 220 C for 30 mins and then 170 C for 6 1/2 hours, rebasting it every hour with the overflow juices and straining off the (copious amount of) excess fat so it didn't deep fry itself.
Result? Delicious
Generally speaking, time per mass is a poor way to go about roasting any meat anyway. Invest (any by invest I mean a tenner) in a digital probe thermometer and cook it to its safe temperature, and you take out all the guess work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.883886
| 2012-12-27T19:10:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29494",
"authors": [
"Apoorva Nagendra",
"Britta",
"ElendilTheTall",
"P.bgl",
"Petah",
"Sean Hart",
"Victor Daniel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69437",
"spiceyokooko"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89551
|
How to reduce or eliminate the flavor of orange in a stew?
I made a stew that required a couple of slices of orange, and it now has a strong orange flavor. It was cooking for over 3 hours and the orange skin was even dissolved. Any tips? Thanks.
I've normally found that acid (vinegar) and bitterness (sharp herbs perhaps) can lower the intensity of the sweetness of orange. I also think that a slightly bitter herb like rosemary or sage would meld nicely with the orange, burying the flavor a bit. It might already be a little bitter from the pith of the orange.
Skin (peal) can impart a lot of flavor. Garlic and onion will knock it down some.
Salt will knock it down some but I pretty much never add salt for health reasons.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.884031
| 2018-05-02T16:05:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89551",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75144
|
Scientific method to microwave octopus
I want to cook about 300 g of parboiled frozen octopus. I am sorry to say that the parboiled octopus is white, not translucent but good quality, freshly produced.
The octopus therefore needs to be boiled to soften.
If I have a microwave, can I put the 300 g octopus in a glass dish and cook it for two to three hours in a microwave to soften?
Any recipes and formulas to convert the microwave output to percentage setting and time will be appreciated.
Hours? I'm not a microwave expert but I've never heard of extended cooking times like that... Even a whole chicken takes under an hour to cook.
Yeah, the 2-3 hours sounds way too long, based on what I've read (maybe a huge octopus would take a while, but not 300g), but the "can I boil in the microwave" part has pretty much the same answer whether it's 30 minutes or 2 hours.
Testing, 600 g 700 W, only a little water added. It started boiling in about 15 min and I reduced setting to low. Now one hour in a lot of water in the pot and parts are softening...
(JOKE) make sure to lay out your octopus so pairs of tentacle ends are 2.5 inches apart to form optimal dipoles, yielding good reception of the commonly used 2.4GHZ ISM band microwave energy.
If you want to boil something in your microwave, you certainly can. I doubt it'll be as power-efficient as doing it on the stove, but it's possible.
But there's no formula to get you a time and power level. You probably want to heat on maximum power until the water boils, then heat on the lowest power setting which keeps the water boiling until the octopus is done how you want.
On top of that, depending on your microwave, even the lowest power setting may be too high, and cause water to boil away enough that you'll need to replenish it eventually if you're cooking for an extended period.
With 600 g and 700 W microwave with only a little water added. It started boiling in about 15 min and I reduced setting to low. Cook for another 90 min and it tested soft with a fork. I will call it a success. @Jefromi, I agree with 300 g the low setting might be to high and about a cup of water might be required.
Also see Map of Sous Vide Cooking and look for the octopus island at 3 hours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.884123
| 2016-10-31T17:33:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75144",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51611",
"rackandboneman",
"skvery"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77118
|
Frozen Octopus or fresh Octopus for recipes?
Yeah, I wonder with grilled, fried, steamed, salad recipe, which is better?
Frozen Octopus or fresh Octopus
Can you compare Frozen Octopus and fresh Octopus, which recipes for which?
Thank you so much, sorry for my bad english.
I'd guess that where you are would highly change which one you'd use.
This is my favorite reference for octopus. Near the end, Harold McGee considers the fresh v. frozen octopus debate. His results are not exactly conclusive. McGee found fresh octopus, lightly blanched, to be "sweetly scallop-like and not too chewy. But cooking it turned it bouncier than ever." His conclusion: "Freshness isn't the key to relevatory octopus." So, based on my reading, if your preparation only requires a light blanching and thin slices, go with fresh. Otherwise, you are better off considering the cooking technique as the most important variable.
After catching and cleaning them, I usually freeze them.
One day in the freezer is enough to break some of the tissues, which helps making it much softer.
I've heard that buying frozen is the secret to tender octopus, so I'm not surprised.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.884323
| 2017-01-04T18:07:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77118",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"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
}
|
121507
|
Why doesn't Greek cuisine use a lot of spices, compared to neighbors?
According to what I know almost all countries in the Mediterranean which surround Greece use a lot of spices in their cuisine. Greece itself has been occupied by such countries for hundreds of years. There has always been trade and travel between Greece and the other countries. So how come spices aren't being used that much at all?
Compared to say, Turkey, or Italy, Greek food is not spicy at all. I am not saying this is a bad thing, or that it is bland - I just find it curious that over the millennia no significant use of spices has developed like it did in Italy, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Bulgaria. Out of those countries most use a lot of spices including capsicums, and the few ones that don't, still use a lot of spices (like say Syria).
It's known that even in antiquity spices were known in Greece and used for medical reasons. This makes it even more curious. Are there any historical reasons for that perhaps?
Thanks.
Welcome to SA! "Why" questions are difficult to answer definitively, so be aware that this question may be closed due to being "opinion-based". That said, I'll give you something to think about.
Also: you seem vague about what you mean by "spices". Different parts of your question seem to be referring to the common usage (dried seeds), but other parts refer to herbs and even peppers. Please be clearer on what you're asking for. thanks!
@FuzzyChef I hope this question is not closed, because clearly it is exactly what the "history" tag is for: "Questions pertaining to current culinary practices and foods--how did we get where we are today?" This is exactly what I am asking about. Closing the question would be over-eager.
Well, clearly I liked the question. But ... it can be difficult to ever have a definitive answer to "why not", and SE is all about definitive answers.
You mention specifically capsicums - note that those are native to Middle and South America and were unknown in Europe before the Columbian Exchange
Not sure why you think Greek cuisine is less reliant on spices than Italian - I think it's much more reliant on spices. Staples like Moussaka, Pasticcio, Stifado and ground-meat based pasta sauces generally use some or all of cinnamon, clove, allspice and nutmeg quite heavily - I don't think that similar Italian dishes tend to.
@barneypitt It might be worth considering Moussaka and Pasticcio are both relatively modern Greek dishes, their current recipes only dating back to the early 20th century.
Greeks food uses more spices than Italian or Balkan food actually. Cinnamon, allspice, nutmeg and clove are all commonly used in most Greek dishes unlike Italian.
The question of "why not" is difficult to answer definitively, or really at all. We can't ask folks 2000 years ago why they didn't care about cumin. However, there are some historical impacts on Greek cuisine that bear on this, so let's explore them:
You mention Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon as Greek neighbors. But consider that Greece is also historically next to Austria, and currently next to Romania and Bulgaria, and is closer to Slovakia than it is to Lebanon. So if you look at Greece as being midway between Syria and Kosovo, the frequency of spice use also puts it midway.
Greek cuisine doesn't rely heavily on spices partly because it does rely heavily on herbs and alliums. Because of the climate, onions, garlic, leeks, parsley, dill, oregano, thyme, and others grow readily and plentifully all over the islands and peninsulas. So do citrus, also used for seasoning Greek dishes. Many Greek dishes will have onions, garlic, lemon, and as much as 2 cups of minced herbs in them. Given this, one can see why Greek cooks didn't feel the need to add two teaspoons of cumin and dried peppers as well. Italy, having a similar climate, largely takes a similar approach.
One place where Greek spice usage is on a parallel with Syria is in sweets. The palette of spices used for Greek pastries, cookies, and cakes is as great as -- and extremely similar to -- the ones used in the Middle East. This is undoubtedly because most places in the region got their sweet recipes from the Persian and Ottoman empires, so they're really the same recipes.
Greece, like other ancient regions, includes multiple cuisines. Some of these use more spices than others, particularly Thrace.
Note that above I'm using the term "spices" to refer to its accepted use, of "aromatic seeds, stems, and bark".
Thanks, that's a great amount of information to go on. If you'd like to explore this more, I'd be happy to listen!
Excellent answer and distinction of spices and herbs. As I read the OP my first reaction was “because they use a ton of herbs.” To add to your list of flavor-adding ingredients abundant in Greek cuisine: olives.
@Damila why do you think does use of herbs and flavorful vegetables preclude use of spices?
@cheater herbs don’t preclude spices but it makes them less necessary and also in certain combinations can lead to muddling of flavors and of the spice overpowering the herbs. Not always of course. But I defer to the professional chefs!
Like Damila said, it's just that there's a limit on how many flavors people need in one dish.
For comparison: I grow many aromatic herbs in my garden in the summer. I find that, in summer, use a LOT less dried spices, because I'm putting herbs into everything.
that makes perfect sense! @FuzzyChef you could easily expand your answer to a full length blog post or video.
Good answer, but there is a detail missing, it could be pointed out the in Italy nearby there are few dishes that use spice, but generally their cuisine does not rely on spices. That's because once they were expensive. The only exception is the local cuisine in Calabria, but it is in the South of the country, a place with the right climate to grow at least some spices.
In addition to strong herbs and olives, some Greeks have access to fresh, wild capers.
@FluidCode you are using the term "spices" imprecisely. Calabria doesn't use spices, they use peppers.
Could the fact that Greece was never really a unified country until Alexander the Great conquered it also contribute to it somewhat? From what I remember of Greek history, it used to be a very unstable region before AtG took over.
In relation to FluidCode's answer, IIRC Greece also wasn't that wealthy, at least not until Athens managed to conquer the other city states for a bit (up until Alexander the Great messed things up for them if I have my timeline right?). So it would make sense to me that expensive spices, which weren't native to the land, wouldn't have been used much by most people in cooking, but rather that they'd have used what they could grow.
In the same vein, Italy in the time of Rome was also generally quite poor; Rome as a Republic/empire was wealthy and there were some very wealthy Romans, but most of the populace was poor, and often quite poor. So it'd make sense that Romans in general would eat what they had on hand locally (of course the wealthy could eat pretty much whatever they wanted which is true anywhere, any period of history, but the average person probably couldn't). I'm not a historian though; I've just read a couple of books on Roman and Greek history, so I could be wrong. :)
@Bob, NeoPolitan: there isn't a strong relationship between the Greek cuisine of 500BC with the Greek cuisine of today, other than the availability of a few ingredients (notably olives and olive oil). And the spice trade has certainly changed radically since then. So it doesn't really make sense to look that far back.
Alexander the Great is about as relevant to modern Greek cuisine as he is to modern Polynesian cuisine, which is to say, not even a little bit. Keep in mind that things that are considered "traditional" as in "we've always done it this way" rarely go back even a century, maybe a century and a half.
@Marti that's not quite accurate in regards to food. Many "traditional" recipes used around the world do go back thousands of years; look at traditional Jewish dishes, for example, many of which can be traced back to before Judaism was even founded. Food really doesn't change very much, especially when families pass down recipes through generations.
My hearsay answer to this is what I learned growing up in Greece (it might be totally wrong): use of hot spices is way more common in cultures living in hotter climates, and it has to do with something like food preservation, or hiding the loss of good taste in the time period when the food is still safe to eat, which would occur much faster in a climate hotter than ours. So, the short answer I learned from my mom and grandma is "we don't need it", but hots (mostly in form of hot peppers, think of the Mediterranean version of jalapeno) were "contained" to certain foods if someone has the taste for them. And in general, they come with a warning that "too much spice (meaning hot) is bad for your stomach". Sweet spices (e.g. cinnamon, nutmeg) are used in abundance for desserts.
One thing to remember also is availability, especially a few centuries ago. At least for the common folk, it's hard to make a case for expensive things that are grown an ocean away, when you have an abundance of herb bushes growing wild in your backyard - so I would certainly make a distinction between spices are native to the Mediterranean (e.g. saffron, coriander) vs things like allspice. And if you want something to overwhelm the taste, garlic does the trick very easily in (non-Americanized) Greek cuisine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.884468
| 2022-08-30T17:46:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121507",
"authors": [
"Crazymoomin",
"Damila",
"Dimitri",
"FluidCode",
"FuzzyChef",
"Marti",
"Michael Borgwardt",
"NeoPolitanGames",
"barneypitt",
"bob",
"cheater",
"danak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98106"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83186
|
Oat starch to sugar conversion in oat milk
I noticed recently that some commercial oat milks do not have added sweetener but rather say that their sugar content comes from oat starch which was converted to sugar. Is there some reasonably gentle way one could replicate this with home-made oat milk?
Please define "gentle": Is using a chemical at room T° gentle?
Ideally I was thinking of avoiding chemicals which one would not generally find in a pantry. In practice, "gentle" should probably be relative to what is actually possible though.
How about naturally occurring enzymes? Does that work for you (will still not be in your pantry though, but your local pharmacist has it/can get it for you)
As in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylase ? If that is the most gentle way. That Wikipedia page leads me to "malt", which is something I do not have any experience with but looks interesting.
No, but same family. Would that be acceptable?
See this too: http://www.oatly.com/process/
Based on Fabby's suggestion in the comments on the question: oats can be malted (ref: Wikipedia: Malt], which produces the enzymes needed to convert starch into sugar. I am still in the process of trying this out (and will probably edit this answer at a later time); adding some of the dried oat malt to freshly made oat milk should do the trick (ref: Oatly's description of their production process).
Better then I would have suggested: +1 (I would have given you glucoamylase as an answer)
Great topic!
How's your progress so far?
Doing trial and error at home using amylase of barley and the oat itself, turned out to become acidic at 30°C/86°F for 12hrs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.885447
| 2017-07-23T17:54:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83186",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62087",
"michaeljt",
"user62087"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86181
|
Making brigadeiros in Portugal similar to the ones in Brazil
There is a famous Brazilian sweet called brigadeiro (I've seen a few questions related to it around here) that is basically made of condensed milk, cocoa or powdered chocolate, and butter.
I've been making it my whole life using Brazilian ingredients (especially condensed milk) and it has always come out with a shiny caramelized texture, as follows:
I have just moved to Portugal and the results from using the local condensed milk are sightly different in texture: it's a lot more grainy (as if it had flour added) and less shiny.
As from the products labels, it seems that the local condensed milk has more proteins per serving. It makes sense, since I thought that those grains could be small curdles of protein. Also, by having a smaller ratio of sugars, it could be that less caramelization (which is important for the texture) occurs.
So, before I start experimenting and wasting food, I would like to know if anyone knows a way to make this work.
My first guess is to increase the ph a bit by mixing some baking soda before heating as it may inhibit the formation of curdles. On the other hand, maybe just adding more sugar could help, but these things already are damn sweet, it seems wrong to put even more sugar into it!
Any insights on this?
That looks delicious @arvere! Now I need chocolate
After much thinking and experimenting, it seems that mixing the ingredients thoroughly very well before cooking does the job. I used a very powerful hand blender I recently bought to speed things up (by a lot).
My theory is that something there was coagulating very quickly with the heat and mixing prevents it from lumping together, forming smaller particles and thus a smoother texture!
obs: By the way, I'm still curious about the science behind it. If anyone knows, please share!
I never use condensed milk that I haven’t made myself. Just take heavy cream, slowly whisk in 1:1 (by weight) confectioners sugar and simmer for three hours - stirring every 10 minutes. I would also be concerned by the butter you are using. I would melt it in a separate saucepan and filter it through a coffee filter to remove casein solids, whisk in your cocoa and then stir the milk/sugar and butter/cocoa components together.
Depending on your desired consistency (and shine) you could also add honey or sugar syrup...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.885611
| 2017-12-07T14:31:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86181",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"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
}
|
97471
|
Is Calrose rice a decent choice for paella?
I'm making paella.
Most of the recipes I've looked at call for specialty rice varieties that are expensive and/or difficult to find. I have a large amount of Calrose rice (this stuff) in my cupboard already.
I know I want to avoid long-grain, very-non-sticky varieties like basmati, but aside from that I'm not sure what the important considerations are when choosing my rice. Is the Calrose I already have a good choice, or should I bite the bullet and buy something fancy?
Link is just a page of adverts, can't get to the product.
@Tetsujin Weird, it's a link to the product page for the item from Target for me. Does this Amazon one work for you?
Yes, I can get to the Amazon link, the other just forces me to their home page. I'm not in the US, so the geo flag will probably do that for anyone outside. Amazon doesn't do that & lets anyone see, even if they can't buy it.
Arroz La fallera bomba type, the commonly used in Valencia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomba_rice
Some will say no, some will say yes. I'm in the yes camp.
If you want to make paella, and that's the only rice you have on hand, don't let anyone stop you.
Use this as a learning experience.
Be warned that the rice might be stickier than other type or rice, especially paella rice, so be careful about the amount of liquid used.
Rinse the rice thoroughly to remove as much surface starch as possible.
Disregard anyone comparing paella and risotto in any way. In paella you want separate grains, in risotto you want a creamy mush.
Calrose rice is a medium grain rice, it will probably work okay but it won't really have the right texture. If you are in the US there shouldn't be any problem finding short grain Arborio rice, which is all that paella rice is. You can spend a bomb on paella rice in fancy bags imported from half way across the world, but it isn't really a different product from the risotto rice or the arborio rice you get for a fraction of the price at many supermarkets.
Disregard anyone comparing paella and risotto in any way. In paella you want separate grains, in risotto you want a creamy mush.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.885827
| 2019-04-14T18:11:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97471",
"authors": [
"A_S00",
"Oscar",
"Tetsujin",
"hmijail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74098"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109221
|
Why did I get wrinkled bagels?
I made bagels for the first time yesterday. I followed the instructions...my bagels tasted great...but they ended up "wrinkled" after baking. It was a copycat recipe for Panera cinnamon crunch bagels. It may be possible that I didn't boil them correctly, it called for 45 seconds on each side, but I didn't have a timer and kept losing count with family interupting constantly. It only called for "flour" and I used some bread flour and some all-purpose. It didn't call for rising after shaping, only letting it rest 10 minutes. Any ideas?
Can you post the recipe you used and a picture of the result?
Welcome to the site! Is it possible they were wrinkled after boiling?
It sounds to me like you've already diagnosed the problem. Just to cover the basics, though, here's some of the reasons why bagels are unsightly, based on my personal experience making bagels and a few internet resources (links below):
Failure to knead the dough adequately, leading to inadequate gluten development.
Overhandling of the dough while shaping the bagels.
Inadequate proofing after shaping.
Putting them into a roiling boil instead of simmering water.
Leaving them to get cold after boiling before baking -- they need to go into the oven still warm from the pot.
Making them during Passover*.
Per your description, inadequate proofing was certainly one of the reasons your bagels were lumpy. You may have been affected by the other reasons as well.
Resources:
Smooth bagel recipe
Bagel Troubleshooting
Reddit Q on wrinkly bagels
(* the bit about Passover is a joke. However, I did once make the mistake of making bagels during Passover, a Jewish holiday during with you don't make or eat leavened bread, and they were lumpy and flat, so maybe check the calendar just in case)
You boiled them for too long - the water should be a simmering boil and not a rolling boil. You only want 10 seconds each side.
You also left them too long before putting them in the oven. You need to get the bagels into the oven within a minute - enough time to let them drain on the rack, egg-wash and add toppings if you're using toppings.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.886115
| 2020-06-22T16:05:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109221",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Kat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109847
|
Experimenting with garlic, does cooking kill the flavour?
I have been experimenting by adding extra cloves of garlic into my pasta sauce every time I cook it. I make a quick pasta sauce by caramelizing onions in a pan, adding very finely chopped fresh garlic (its practically a paste), and whatever other vegetables is my pick for the night. Then I add chopped tomatoes/passata and reduce.
It seems to me no matter how much garlic I add, I do not get a harsh flavour. I just get a nice, deep, complex yet subtle flavour that I wouldn't instantly attribute to garlic.
I am currently at the stage where I am adding more than half a bulb of garlic to a one person sauce.
Is there any point in adding this much garlic? Is the garlic responsible for this "nice, deep, complex flavour"? Would the same effect be achieved with less garlic which is more coarsely chopped?
I understand that the longer garlic cooks, the weaker the "garlic" flavour gets, but is this flavour disappearing or is it developing into a new flavour?
"Is there anypoint in adding this much garlic?" there is never enough garlic!
What you are discovering is that you can control they way garlic impacts a dish. You do this depending on how it is cut, chopped, mashed...and cooked (from raw to lightly toasted to slowly caramelized...)... and when it is added to the dish. Raw garlic is certainly more "harsh" than cooked. You will have to decide how much is enough...or too much. The flavor will not cook away, but does change.
Yes. I understand that how it is chopped and cooked drastically changes the flavour, but I was wondering if after a certain point flavour is being cooked away. Thank you!
Garlic mellows pretty rapidly with heat. Dropping it 2 minutes before you've completed sautéeing your onions is enough to knock the raw edge off it - in fact that's the common deciding factor as to when to add your liquids, "Fry until the raw smell is gone".
After that, the longer it simmers the more 'relaxed' it gets.
If you want more punch, try adding some more fresh right at the end.
You'd be surprised, too, how much punch you can get adding dried garlic powder right at the end too. I use it in tarka dal to really give some 'front' to the flavour & aroma as it is served.
Adding to what Moscafj said, the reason you get the harsh flavor is a chemical called allicin, which forms as soon as the cell walls of the garlic are broken. That's from this video (check around 6:42 for the discussion of garlic). Some pasta sauces have you introduce differently cut/grated garlic at different times so that you can layer different flavors.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.886313
| 2020-07-25T09:52:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109847",
"authors": [
"Mark Murray",
"Thomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85815"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105590
|
Mold in storage
I've been making my own saurkraut for about 2 years - with 1.5-2% as per the recipe that came with my crock. Today I noticed that two full, as yet unopened jars in the refrigerator both have a kind of mold growing in the top of the kraut. I've never seen this before. Is it bad? Its legs are going to be a long way down, right?
Well, Sandor Ellix Katz writes in The Art of Fermentation that some mould on the top is not a problem, you can scrape it away. But for me, this seems too much, I would not eat it.
From what I see on your picture, your problem might be, that the kraut is not covered with liquid. For fermentation you need anaerobic conditions, meaning that the kraut is not on the air, it is fully covered with brine. Mould needs aerobic conditions, meaning it grows where the kraut is on air. Try to make sure the brine covers your kraut the next time you making it again.
Agreed...when I first saw that photo, my heart just about stopped. :-) Not enough brine and too much mold. Definitely a start-over moment.
This will raise the pH and cause a potential for botulism growth if you stored them >36F. I do this stuff for a living so toss them please. Some mold on the top of a fermentation vat is normal in the jar is not normal. As stated above I think you need to put more liquid in the jars and less product next time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.886539
| 2020-02-28T20:24:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105590",
"authors": [
"Andy Giesler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14282"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110891
|
Does the towel touching the day 1 starter and absorbing the liquid matter?
On day 1, I’ve noticed the towel is wet. Does the towel absorbing anything from the starter ruin the starter and prevent it from reaching its desired outcome?
You should be fine. I would suggest using a container that creates more space between the cover and the starter. That way you won't have a mess to clean each time.
Let alone the problem when the starter really gets active and climbs out of the jar...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.886671
| 2020-09-28T14:06:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110891",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95271
|
How to cook dried red beans faster?
I bought some dried red beans from the supermarket. I learned that in order to cook them well, I need more time. I have to soak them in cold water for one night, then cook for another two or three hours.
Are there any tips or tricks to cook them faster?
NB: For those that may not know, eating badly prepared red/kidney beans will make you quite ill Red kedney bean toxins
@BinaryWorrier sounds like OP is making adzuki beans, not kidney beans. they are notorious for needing a lot of work, but incredibly tasty dessert/snack treat.
@BinaryWorrier Thanks for important information.
Pressure cooker
@rumtscho deleted my answer about toxicity commenting "Hi, this is a good point to make, but somewhere else made it in a comment already, and that's where it belongs". I don't know how to respond except by commenting on the question. I posted an answer because it is safety critical information which should be permanently associated with the question and I thought (perhaps wrongly) that comments were transitory. Happy to be corrected.
If you want to reduce total preparation time, you can skip the soak. Then you can just boil for about 4-6 hours, instead of soaking overnight. This is not a tradeoff most cooks are willing to make, since it wastes quite a bit of energy, and reduces the taste qualities of the prepared beans somewhat.
If you want it even faster, as weets mentioned, pressure cooking is the way to go. Then you can get away with about 45-50 minutes for unsoaked and 25 minutes for soaked beans - that's the time spent at pressure, the total time will depend on the warming up time, which differs with pressure cooker type and total amount of beans you are cooking at once. The same preference for soaked beans applies with pressure cooking.
If these times don't work for you, you cannot reduce them, but you can switch to buying canned beans. The disadvantages there are the higher cost, higher storage volume, and the fact that some brands have off tastes.
Thank you for reply. You are right. It is a tradeoff. Canned bean maybe the easiest. Wait if there is another answer idea.
What is the dish you are trying to make?
If you are looking to soften the beans quickly you can use a pressure cooker.
Thank for your reply. Actually, I want to make dessert. It is red bean soup dessert, which I will add some water, sugar and a little bit of salt.
@K.Sopheak : pressure cooking will work with that. It's especially useful when you cook the beans separately, then add in other stuff. (it can dull some other flavors while cooking under pressure)
Pressure cooker is the way to go for beans. You can get them reasonably soft in under an hour without pre-soaking.
ah! if it's red bean soup then after pressure cooking you'll want to open it to continue boiling, and stir continuously for a bit to get that slightly thickened red bean soup 沙 texture
I generally just do a 10 minute boil, 1 hour rest, then simmer for 15-2 hours. But this blogpage suggests that you don't even need the resting period. Essentially her trick is to avoid packaged dried beans and use the bulk beans available in some stores. No idea where that would be in my area, but... How to Cook Dried Beans - The Quick and Easy Method
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.886756
| 2019-01-02T06:22:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95271",
"authors": [
"Binary Worrier",
"Chloe",
"Joe",
"Paul Draper",
"Rapitor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"kcpheakct",
"user20637",
"weets"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57578
|
What are the differences between using whole wheat flour vs. all purpose flour in batter for frying?
There have been many questions related to whole wheat flower on this site before, but nearly all of them focus on baking. I'd like to know what is the effect of frying with whole wheat flour in terms of flavor, texture, and the complexity of executing the frying properly. I have heard anecdotally that whole wheat flour leads to a crispier batter, but can't find any reliable sources that back this statement up.
I was actually wondering about this very question while breading some chicken yesterday!
As whole wheat contains more various chemical components, chances are that some will cook faster than others resulting in a narrower range of adequate temperature for frying. Just a guess though.
Just as with kneading, stirring develops the gluten in the flour. over-mixing batter is a culinary no-no (fr. non-non). Batters are frequently rested in the refrigerator so the gluten can relax. Foods fried in batter that has been overworked and deprived of adequate rest is like a chef exposed to the same conditions–tough and tired.
Whole wheat flour has considerable difficulty developing its gluten potential because when the outer coat (bran) is ground up and combined with the starchy endosperm, sharp particles of bran chop up the strands of gluten as they attempt to form. So the very quality that makes whole wheat flour such a 'pain' in the ass for bread making makes it highly useful for batters.
Whole wheat has practically become my default flour. It's fine for dusting food articles on their way to the sauté pan, and for making roux. But bear in mind that you may need to use a little more roux than before to achieve a given degree of thickening. That's because the bran coat displaces a small portion of the starchy endosperm.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.887046
| 2015-05-18T00:25:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57578",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"J.B Welding",
"Nancy White",
"P. O.",
"Sarah Parridge",
"Suzanne Simmons",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18343"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107520
|
How can I revive dried out fudge?
Someone gave me a couple pounds of fudge (chocolate and peanut butter) in approximately 1/2" slices. I let it sit in a paper bag for a couple weeks and now it's all dried out and hard.
Is there a way to revive this and make it like new again without ruining it even more?
In order to save your fudge, you need to rehydrate it.
One way to do so is to place the fudge in an airtight container with some source of moisture and leave it to absorb overnight. This could be:
A bowl of water
A damp paper towel
A slice of non-stale bread
You could also gently heat the fudge with some moisture. This could be done:
In the microwave - microwave in short increments with a glass of (warm) water, which creates steam for the fudge to absorb, until the fudge no longer feels/looks dried out
In the oven - wrap the fudge in foil with a tiny bit of water, perhaps 2-3 teaspoons and bake at a low temperature (120-140C or 248-284F) for 10-20 minutes, or until the fudge no longer feels/looks dried out
The old "damp paper towel in a ZipLock bag" trick worked for me. Thanks for the answer, @mestackoverflow
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.887221
| 2020-04-12T22:10:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107520",
"authors": [
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105078
|
Hard boiled eggs in "insta-pot" type device
I am trying to hard boil my eggs so the yolk isn't mushy at all, and the yolk doesn't contain a greenish cast around the outside (which I think means they are overdone).
I am doing this in an "insta pot" style device, on a trivet above the water (the eggs aren't submersed).
Some of my eggs crack and leak, which is unappealing to the children (and for better or worse, that's a consideration).
Generally I lose 2 or 3 out of the dozen.
Any advice on how to stop the explosion?
* Am I releasing the pressure off too fast?
(I have tried doing it in short bursts instead of all at once with no noticeable difference)
* Is this caused by them starting too cold?
(generally they come straight from the refrigerator)
* Is it that I'm using large eggs instead of extra large?
All advice appreciated - sorry it is such a simple question for a site where I sometimes don't recognize the terms being used.
Welcome! Don’t worry, we welcome users on all knowledge levels and sometimes seemingly trivial questions are amongst the most challenging.
Are you cooking your eggs in water (submerged) or steam (e.g. on a trivet over the water)? Could you [edit] your post with a few details about your current process and maybe what kind of pot you are actually using?
Had some success yesterday after experimentation. In case I forget to come back my answer was four cups of water instead of one to slow down the first phase (with one cup it was like... 5.5 minutes which is too fast)
I use eggs right out of the refrigerator, large or extra-large (today's were AA Large, average 57 grams). I have also used room temperature eggs, and the difference was tiny. We can tweak for those variables.
The rack keeps the eggs at least a couple of centimeters above the water. This one has another tier so I can do up to a dozen eggs (actually fourteen) at a time. You can certainly jerry-rig something if you don’t have a rack. Keep the eggs vertical if you want them to be pretty.
Add 1 measured liter of cold water to the pan, put the rack in the pan, place the cold eggs on the rack, and set the cooker for 5 minutes at high pressure.
High pressure on the Instant Pot reaches 11.6 PSI. That’s lower than a standard pressure cooker (they run 15 psi), but it should be about the same as yours if it’s a similar type.
Now, this part's important regarding cracking: Time how long it takes your machine to warm up and start the clock. The warm-up should take at least about 8 minutes give or take a minute. You might even want to do this as a dry run with just the liter of water and tweak from there. If it takes significantly more or less time to heat up, that will affect your final result. So add more or less water as appropriate. You can also use warm or hot water, or add ice cubes to cold water to get that 8-minute warm-up time. If your cooker got to pressure significantly faster than that, that could totally have caused your cracking (see GdD’s answer).
Once it heats up, it’ll cook for five minutes.
After it cooks for 5 minutes (the Instant Pot beeps), let it sit without venting for five minutes. Time it carefully. That’s called a five-minute natural release.
While it’s doing its 5-minute natural release, prepare ice water for plunging the hot eggs. I use a pan with a lid for that. I’ll show you why in a moment.
Once the 5-minute natural release is over, vent the pot (if necessary to open) and immediately plunge the eggs into the ice water.
Let the eggs sit in the ice water for 5 minutes.
If you use a pan with a lid, now pour the water out and shake the eggs with each other and the ice. Peel. THIS is my favorite part of pressure-cooking eggs. Check this out, they just slip out of their shells.
And voilà!
Now, if you follow those instructions and they’re a bit overcooked or undercooked, adjust the natural release time. That you can control to the second. The 5-5-5 time routine has worked perfectly for me with cold, large eggs. If your eggs are extra-large, maybe add a minute to the natural release. If you start with room temperature eggs, subtract 30 seconds or so.
To illustrate how that works, check this out:
I forgot that egg after it cooked, and it stayed in the unopened cooker 26 minutes after the pressure cycle was done. See how dramatically overcooked it is? The natural release time gives you control.
This last egg went straight to venting/ice water (no natural release) after 4 minutes on high pressure, then opening the pot and plunging the eggs as quickly as possible:
I had never actually done that until tonight. That was yummy! An easily peelable, creamy, very soft-boiled egg.
Generally eggs crack when you boil them because they heat up too fast, if you pour boiling water on whole eggs and then cook them you'll get a similar result. When I hard boil eggs I start them from cold water, this reduces cracking drastically.
I suspect your instant pot is getting too hot, too fast. If your instant pot style device (IPSD - the world needs more acronyms) has a power setting try the lowest you can. You could also try heating your eggs up in hot tap water for a minute or two before putting them in the instant pot so they don't get shocked. If that doesn't work I'm thinking your particular instant pot isn't ideal for eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.887340
| 2020-01-31T21:18:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105078",
"authors": [
"J. Chris Compton",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65621"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104430
|
Can you use regular knife sharpeners on damascus steel?
Can you use regular knife sharpeners on damascus steel?
I'm aware it should be sharpened properly once a month on a wet stone, but I want to know if I should keep it bright by using a steel between uses?
Is there anything else to bear in mind? I was thinking of getting a little gadget which was recommended, but I don't know if it can be used.
Yes, you can use a honing steel with a damascus-style carbon steel knife blade. Depending on what you have, you may need to get a harder honing steel, because the carbon steel of the knife is harder than a stainless blade. I have a honing steel from Shun that works quite well.
Do NOT use that "Anysharp" sharpener or any sharpener like it. Such sharpeners are designed to sharpen blades by aggressively removing metal from the blade edge. If you use one of them, you can expect to wear down the edge of your blade and use up the hard steel there in just a few years.
NOTE: Many "Damascus" blades sold commercially aren't actually Damascus-style, that is, folded carbon steel. Instead, they are stainless or standard carbon steel with two face plates of folded steel on either side of the blade, purely for decorative purposes. These blades have the same care instructions as any stainless or carbon blade.
Damascus steel was carbon steel with non-uniform carbon content (to give ripple pattern). It would be sharpened the same as any other steel knife. I don't know how a knife made today with the name "Damascus" is made. For my ordinary stainless ( typically 420 = 13% Cr ) I usually just use the wet stone and don't bother with the steel.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.887740
| 2019-12-29T11:28:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104430",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99167
|
Is spaghetti and bechamel sauce an authentic Italian dish?
I have seen instances where people mix white sauce / bechamel with spaghetti or macaroni but never seen a reputable chef to do so. This mix is sometimes mistaken for carbonara since its creamy white. Is it authentic to do so? If not can please also expound what béchamel usually used for for added information.
Ask Italians what's authentic and you'll get different answers from each.
Well I was hoping to know if the use of white sauce mixed with noodle type pasta is common among Italian. Maybe not common but is there any records of such dish?
What I'm trying to say is that there's no such thing as common in Italy when it comes to food. There's a huge variation in style from north to south, and traditions are different from town to town. However, I have traveled widely in Italy and I've never seen a white sauce with pasta other than lasagna.
@GdD exactly what I meant. I have seen instances of white sauce mixed with noodle type pasta in my country (not italy or french) Also in non Italian youtube sources. This makes me question the authenticity of such dish then I came here if anyone can confirm. Aris answer is also interesting will look further.
In Italy, besciamella is usually only used on pasta when it's going to be cooked in the oven: pasta al gratin, pasta al forno, or as part of lasagne.
As for your question - is it authentic to just toss some pasta with it? I would use the same method I'd use to answer the infamous "is X a sandwich?" questions: if somebody asked for a plate of spaghetti at a restaurant and they came covered in besciamella, I think basically every Italian would be baffled. I've never seen it on a menu, never seen it on a table at anyone's place and never heard it discussed until I read this discussion, which makes me inclined to say it's not authentic. It could still be delicious though!
Yes I completely agree with you. I have seen pasta covered in bachiemela a couple of times even on youtube but never in Italy. They are attempting to make carbonara but dont like the idea of raw egg just tossed with pasta, so they try to make creamy sauce to mimic carbonara. Whats creamy? Milk. I highly disagree with such method.. but after sometime, hey! Isnt milk based sauce is basically bechamel? This inspired me to ask this question. It seems their action is not justified even after calling it bechamel.
I use it to make a slightly less rich 'carbonara-esque' sauce with pasta; bacon [or pancetta] onion, garlic. Make a roux round that, then milk, mushrooms, cheese, done.
I always considered it just a poor-man's carbonara - though it's fabulously tasty.
However, though it seems to have fallen in popularity under its original name, salsa colla, Béchamel actually originated in Tuscany & was later taken to France & renamed.
I'd say that gives us every moral right to put it on pasta & call it 'authentic Italian'.
Interesting reasoning. Though I have never come across a good source that state it is known for Italian to mix white sauce and noodle type pasta.
Traditional (authentic?) Lasagna is made with Bechamel sauce.
Anyway, what does authentic mean, and how long a food tradition makes something authentic.
For example, Pasta Grannies
I know. With the exception of lasagna is it authentic to just toss it with noodle type pasta?
As authentic goes. I am not very sure about the definition but this stack has food history tag. Since I am born in 2000, I would call something from 1980 or less as authentic lol.
one of the key tenets of traditional lasagne alla bolognese is that besciamella is interleaved with ragù. There are tons of "white" variations without ragù, but they are ever more distant from a pasta dish, and definitely not related with spaghetti
I think the ground principle behind the use of bechamel can be worded by saying that it's used to keep things together (and wet!) and to have a surface that becomes crunchy and brown when you bake pasta (or other things, for instance, vegetables)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.887886
| 2019-05-25T03:14:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99167",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75709",
"user23139"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91368
|
Coconut milk in iced coffee
I like using coconut milk in my coffee. However, during summer, I like putting ice in my coffee. Some part of the coconut milk clumps up around the ice. This is organic unsweetened, so only coconut and a gum. Is there any method to prevent the clumps yet have it cold? Store in fridge, freezer, blend, add some additional stabilizing ingredient?
Do you put in coconut milk then ice, or ice then coconut milk?
coconut milk, then the ice.
Do you fully incorporate and mix the milk before adding the ice?
This is a common problem with coconut milk in cooler drinks, most commonly coffee. Coconut milk is approximately 25% fats (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut_milk) which will coagulate in cooler temperatures or exposed to ice. You're essentially cooling the coconut milk fats with ice past their solidification state which is causing the lumps.
You can try using coconut creamers that are specifically designed for coffee since in my experience they do not clump with iced coffee. Or, there are other milks like almond that don't have as much fat content to solidify in cooler temperatures.
Another note, a lot of people seem to have this problem with iced coffee and coconut milk on forums and seem to swear by using a blender to blend the chunks away. Supposedly, this will keep the chunks from returning.
Example of others with the same issue: https://forum.whole30.com/topic/36315-lumpy-coffee-with-coconut-milk/
emulsification, bingo
Ive done it with butter and it must be whisked very well before cooling.
Hi Eileen, we like answers with more detail, which helps provide insight into the solution of the problem. Can you be more specific? How much butter? Just brewed coffee? How was it cooled? What was the appearance and texture of the cooled product? Why do you think coconut milk would be similar?
A pinch of cornstarch will stop the protein from changing shape, leading to the curdled bits near the ice.
Thank you for your contribution! What makes you think it's the protein that curdles, rather than the fat (as the accepted answer suggests)?
And how would the reader use the corn starch?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.888199
| 2018-07-31T17:51:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91368",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Jade So",
"LSchoon",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68223",
"moscafj",
"paulj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56186
|
What can I do with the meat and fat trimmed from the top of lamb ribs?
I'm making rack of lamb tonight. I got the rack at a local farmer's market and it was a bit less butchered than I expected. I can (and did) trim it myself, but there seems to be a lot of meat embedded in the large amount of fat I trimmed off the top of the ribs. I'm not really sure what its proper name is ("rib meat"?), so here's a couple pictures to make it clear:
I'm talking about the large slab of fat and meat in my hand in the second picture. As far as I can tell, it's usually just discarded, but there seems to be a good deal of meat there, and it was expensive, so I'd hate to just toss it. I'm fairly patient and good at separating the fat and meat on membranes, so I can probably isolate a good portion of the meat, if necessary.
Is there anything I can do/make to avoid throwing out so much good meat?
For the record, I got about 12 oz of usable meat out of this. Didn't weigh the fat, but probably 20-24 oz.
Why did you cut it off, that is part of the "rib cut"?
You buy lamb rib for the fat. It is the second richest type of fat known to man. The richest fat on earth is lamb tails.
I always save all my scraps to make stock. I'm not sure what you would do with lamb stock, but it would probably make a good sauce to use on lamb. The fat that renders out is also useful for future cooking of whatever it came from (duck fat for duck confit, for example).
I just throw all the scraps into a slow cooker with celery, carrot, and onion (veggies are optional) and let it cook for a day (or two). You can pick out the meat if you like (after a day it will be easy to separate) and use it for anything you might use shredded lamb for (pot pie, shepherd's pie, etc.).
I use rendered chicken or turkey fat instead of butter for making pot pie dough, to cook more chicken in, or for matzo balls, and beef fat instead of butter for making gravy, replacing the butter in a beurre manié (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beurre_mani%C3%A9).
Interesting uses for the fat, I hadn't even considered using that part.
And when he says 'save all my scraps', I would assume in the freezer. I keep a bag in my freezer for the more sad vegetables (showing age but not rotting) and some vegetable trimmings (eg, stems from many herbs). I bag meat scraps individually (eg, the neck & backs out of chickens).
Note that lamb fat has a somewhat different consistency in my experience, almost somewhat sticky, but it should certainly be flavorful in stock!
Why are you taking it off. This is the most delicious part of the rack of lamb. It is a complete ruination of a beautiful cut. Whoever invented frenching of lamb racks and cutlets should go back to the basics of what gives lamb its flavour. I am hare pressed to find a traditional old fashioned cut style of a lamb cutlet. It is usually a stick of bone with a little bit of meat the size of a 50cent piece attached to it and rare as all get out. No way. Leave the back strap on. Never take it off. People can if they want to when they are eating it but I'll bet you will end up with bones chewed down to bare if you don't. I'm trying to teach my butcher but he just doesn't get it. Get a retired butcher to teach you.
We used to raise sheep. I never liked lamb, but mutton was good. You mentioned your skills with separating meat from fat. Render the fat down and use it to make pie crust. Cut, sear and brown the meat, and use it to make lamb pot pie. This way, all of the "discards" are used up, and supper is delicious!
In the southern U.S., a "crackling" (or pork rind) is the fried skin of a pig. I have found that after cooking a rack of lamb (frenched or not), the fat layer(s) or "skin" of the lamb rack makes a fine crackling with the addition of a slight amount of salt, pepper, or not. Best, you can harvest a crop of crackling every time you skim the fatty side of the lamb cut, after reintroducing it into the oven at 350F for about 20 minutes and skimming; re-enter the balance to the oven for some more.
Another option if you have a meat grinder would be to mix it with a leaner cut of meat to increase the fat content when making sausages.
One solution is to sprinkle it with salt and pepper, place it in a small baking dish covered with aluminum foil, and bake in a 325 degree oven for about an hour or so. The fat will render nice and slowly and the meat will crisp up in certain areas. The meat will be delicious in tacos, sandwiches, over pasta, or on its own!
The correct name is "cap". It's too rich for most people. I've yet to figure out what to do with it other than creating stock. I have had chefs serve small amounts of it, after removing some surplus fat, rendering and then crisping under a broiler. The final effect is similar to pork belly; a little goes a long way. It benefits from a generous amount of wine reduction.
I have found a great use for the little nuggets of meat/fat in between the ribs that you have to cut out to get that bone to hold on to for your lollipop lamb chops.
Just saute meat in a wok over high heat to render as much fat as you can, about 15-20 minutes, pour off all the fat then add a marinade/sauce I like Korean Kalbi or a Red wine demi and slowly cook/braise it out for another 15-20 on low heat. I add a little blanched veggies, diced onion, re-season and let the sauce coat everything well 3-4 minutes.
Serve over rice or noodles..............AMAZING!!!!!
Cate has it all; different cultures have different attitudes to fats, and some of the newer ones thereby lose some of the tastiest and nutritious parts of what could have been their dinner. Don't be a nerd who cuts the skin off chicken – eat rich, eat cheerfully, eat (and then shop) economically. There's a galaxy of Victorian and pre-war cookbooks out here with advice on how to put to use every last scrap and smear. But I think it's within most people's wherewithal simply to figure out whether the freezer, the stockpot, or leftovers for a yummy breakfast is the keening destination for a blob of remaindered protein and fat. Garlic is your friend, and some squirts of lemon juice for that blue-horizon lift.
How about making boneless
Ribs?
Can you expand on this at all? This isn't an answer, it's another question... at best it's a comment. Make it a statement and flesh it out a bit?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.888519
| 2015-03-30T01:06:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56186",
"authors": [
"Adam Wiklund",
"Anna Cash",
"Audrey Cole",
"Catija",
"Crystal Vermeulen",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"Kathy Draper",
"Kevin",
"Love",
"Millie Gillis",
"Neil Meyer",
"Patricia Hand",
"Sara Trewhitt",
"TFD",
"Terry Matthews",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7848",
"kate halbert kate"
],
"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.