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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
87296
|
Unopened canned sardines behaving strangely but not expired
I have some canned sardines that expire in April. It's still January, I opened one and it smelled stronger than I remember, and tasted differently (almost like cheese, sort-of). It may just be because I have been eating a different brand for a while, but how could this be if they aren't expired yet?
These are King Oscar bristling sardines (in a red package)
If the seal had been compromised it would be possible for them to have gone off, but I'd expect mould in that case. Now you've opened them of course you can't tell whether the seal was OK or not.
They do not taste quite right, they are all still in the wrapping, even.
The expiration date is (as it were) a red herring. Food doesn't suddenly go off on the expiration date. Most foods are just fine well past the expiration date; it's just the the manufacturer isn't willing to guarantee it any longer.
And all bets are off if something happened to the can. It might be hard to tell if a can of sardines was compromised. It would require only a pinhole, and sardines are usually packaged with weak spots in the can.
In your case it sounds as if the can was probably fine, since fish tends to go off in ways that are really, really obvious.
It could simply be that this is a different batch of fish. The name "sardine" applies to several different species, living in a variety of environments. That will affect the flavor.
There are many other variables as well: how they were harvested, how they were stored, how they were processed. Any of these could lead to different flavors.
If you didn't like it, you should return the can to the store. They will likely give you a refund, and push the information up the chain to the manufacturer. They're usually pretty good about that: they really, really hate it when people get food poisoning from products they sell. And it's far cheaper to give refunds to the few people who complain than to fight with a lot of customers over $3 worth of canned fish.
When I attempted to eat it, I could not continue, it was moderately unpleasant and I threw one of the cans out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.889098
| 2018-01-26T06:18:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87296",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"bobiscool",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62307"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84437
|
What is the ratio of baking soda to water for lentils?
I am soaking lentils and need to know how much baking soda to add per cup of lentils.
Previously, I had to cook lentils for about 2 and 1/2 hours to get the desired softness of the lentils. It was suggested to add baking soda to the water while soaking lentils. How much baking soda should I use?
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49436/can-should-i-use-baking-soda-when-cooking-beans
I have used much less (more like 1/8 teaspoon for 2 liters/quarts), to some small benefit, but a teaspoon per liter/quart (see the answer to above concerning chickpeas) seems more in line with references I can find online. Be aware that baking soda does have an unpleasant flavor if you use enough to actually taste, so I recommend starting conservatively.
Also: "Older bean recipes often included a pinch of baking soda for its alkalinity, but because baking soda has been shown to destroy valuable nutrients, few contemporary recipes suggest this shortcut" Christopher Kimble, ATK
IMO, if you want soft, just make split lentils in the first place. Red lentils are usually sold this way.
As there are many types of lentils, and many recipes, you might want to tell us what sort, and what you're making with them (not that baking soda is necessary for any lentils I've come across)
None. I have recently discovered that lentils do not require to be soaked prior cooking - and nor baking soda. I have already detailed this in an answer but I am not sure how to find it and link to it. I try and I will edit this.
Another point is that the producers recipes were all clear about this : they recommend a minimal amount of salt in the cooking water, the rest to be added /adjusted afterwards. If there is an unwanted effect related to sodium, it might apply to baking soda as well.
Are you looking for this post of yours?
@Stephie. Yes. Thank you. How to search for older post ? May be on the web version?
Hop over to [chat], I'll show you both ways.
I am on app :)) and still relatively new
It works on the App as well, but chat is easier to explain than via comments. Try clicking on the link in my previous comment. This shoud bring you straight to the chat that belongs to this site.
Forgot my password. Anyway I should start to use the web version. Thanks again Stephie
Ping me, if you need help. In chat or in comments where I have previously posted, just type @ and my user name. (No blank spaces!)
Perfect @Stephie :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.889327
| 2017-09-15T20:34:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84437",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Chris H",
"Ian",
"Jolenealaska",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61668"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77713
|
Storing a bear roast after cooking in a crockpot
How do you store a bear roast after cooking it in a crockpot until you're ready to eat it?
It was done at 8:30am and I plan to eat it around 6:00pm. It was cooked in beef broth.
Need a few more details. How long after cooking do you plan on eat it? Hours ? Days ? Weeks ? Was it cooked in liquid (braised) ?
... E.g. Hours: keep in the slow cooker on low; days: fridge; weeks+: freezer
It was done at 8:30am and I planned to eat it around 6:00pm. Yes, it was cooked in beef broth.
I agree w/ Chris H ... but I'd have used warm for the crockpot if I knew it'd hold the temperature above 140°F
If your crock has a warm that you can trust is above 140 F but not so hot to cook it down then you can leave it in the crock. Otherwise you need to get it under 40 F.
A better option would have been to start it at a time so that it finished at 6 PM.
Why not just start it 8:30 AM?
If you are going to cool then remove from the crock pot as that is a lot of heat to put in a refrigerator.
If you're not going to separate it from the liquid like Adi recommended, I would still recommend heating them separately. (I'd link to the question about re-heating a roast in a crock pot, but I can't find it). But I'd also recommend separating them, as it adds additional surface area to help with cooling things. (also see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/3970/67 )
@Joe The stated question is "after cooking". I sure would not recommend crock dry (even if it was a reheat). Nor would I recommend refrigerate separately.
Upon completion of the cooking, let it cool down to room temperature. Remove excess liquids and store separately. Cover the roast in tinfoil and store in the fridge. Consume preferably within two days for animal proteins.(Freeze for max 3 months)
Hope this helps :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.889586
| 2017-01-23T15:51:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77713",
"authors": [
"AfterWorkGuinness",
"Chris H",
"Danielle Porterfield",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75770
|
Expire dates on coconut milk
I just bought a case of coconut milk in cartons and the expire date says 12MR01. Does this mean it expired 4 years ago?
Not necessarily. It could even be 15 years ago. If it's powdered ("carton" means different things to different people), and the inner bag is sealed, I'd use it anyway (after inspecting). I have coconut milk powder bought short dated years ago and kept sealed until recently. I don't have as much experience with liquid coconut milk, only in tins.
Hello and welcome! Unless stated that it is an expiration date, it could also be a date of manufacture or packing. The best way to find out is to contact the company and ask.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.889763
| 2016-11-23T06:56:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75770",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107540
|
Is it safe to use a disposable microwave-safe lunch box to cook raw rice with hot water directly in a microwave for 15 minutes?
I have for a long period cooked raw rice directly with hot water in a porcelain bowl for 15 minutes in a microwave, totally open without a lid. The water does boil a little bit but not that severely, maybe because of the rice rich in starch which holds the water calm, so that the water doesn’t leak. It works perfectly despite the side which becomes a little bit dry. I usually resolve it by adding some water at the last 2 minutes, or removing the side.
While water boils only a little bit and doesn’t leak, milk does quite a lot, so water and milk must be different in some way.
I am concerned about whether the material, plastic, is problematic. Although disposable microwave-safe lunch box can bear up to 130℃, and a microwave can heat things maximally up to 100℃, any way, 15 minutes is apparently a quite long duration, so I am not sure if it would be harmful, e.g. releasing some chemicals, especially if it releases "secretly" that I cannot taste or smell it.
added:
After use I will discard it. One box'd be used only once.
I've just come up with "instant soup" found in supermarkets, which should be heated as liquid for quite a few minutes in a microwave, and the plastic is disposable. I am not sure if normal disposable microwave-safe lunch boxes sold in dozens online could be the same type.
Plastics will deform easily with heat, either with few uses or over time, may not be an issue if you plan to discard it. There is also the concern of chemicals leaking into the food (getting that plastic-y taste)
How hot does the ceramic bowl get? Some ceramics absorb the microwaves themselves & heat up more than the contents. On the other hand, I've been using disposable plastic containers, some for over a decade, without seeing any degradation. if they taste 'plasticy' you're using the wrong plastic.
If it is a microwave safe plastic container, it should be OK to use it.
After your edit - please don't buy single-use plastics. The planet doesn't need any more of them. If you buy a microwaveable meal from a supermarket, the container can be re-used for a decade. It will go in the microwave, in the dishwasher, it won't melt, it won't stain, it won't degrade.
There are plastic microwave rice cookers for a few bucks that you can reuse over years. Cooking rice for two servings needs only about 12 minutes (depending on microwave). See https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sistema-Microwave-Rice-Cooker-2-6/dp/B00BTIVNT4 as just one example.
microwave can heat things maximally up to 100℃
WATER! Microwave can heat WATER to 100℃. And the temp is boiling point. Water can be heated to much higher temperatures in microwave if it's clear. It's called "superheat" (please see famous "hot coffe in the McDonalds case not the urban legend).
Adding food to water rise the boiling point as you add molecules to water.
Milk already have "additional" molecules. But boiling it in microwave is different as it depends on type of milk you use and how it reacts with rice (fat can separate from water and clinge to rice rising overall temperature making the separated "water" to boil faster and more violent)
For cooking in microwave it's best to use glass or ceramic containers with silicone or hightemp reistant plastic as cover. And never allow food you're cooking to touch the cover.
It very much depends on the type of plastic,the thickness, and the manufacturing process. I highly recommend that if it's not . It's best to just learn about the company and see if they are FDA/ISO/ASTM approved or just some cheap Chinese company (nothing against Chinese things, however, there are good things made there too).
Here's a simple test that can be done: Put the box in the microwave, put a mug with water in the box, and microwave it for 30 seconds. If the box is warm, it probably isn't microwave safe (ESPECIALLY if the water is not). If the box is cool and the water is hot, you should be good. I can't provide a proof that this will work 100% of the time, however.
But may I also urge you to switch to glass? It'll save you money, it'll spread less plastic on our planet, and it feels better too.
I wouldn't just test it - it could be melamine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.889866
| 2020-04-13T15:08:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107540",
"authors": [
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"Johannes_B",
"Max",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117602
|
Frozen stew on transit
I am travelling later via plane bringing a frozen stew in a Tupperware inside my luggage. I don't have a cooler with me so I'm just wrapping the container with cloth to hopefully maintain the low temperature.
I wonder how long will it stay good before it spoils during transit? I plan to reheat or freeze it again once I reach my destination. It will be outside the freezer for around six hours, and I'm not sure if it will stay good.
If it matters, here are some details about my trip and the food.
I'm travelling in a tropical country
Food contains goat meat and has tomato sauce used in it with some pineapple.
Food was prepared yesterday and frozen right after it had cooled down to be prepared for said travel today.
Next time, make sure all food is frozen solid for at least 24-48 hours before you travel. Place in a reliable brand-name cooler with excellent insulation and you can travel with it up to 12 hours in the continental US. Tropical countries may be precluded.
Yes.. The food was frozen well for a day so it was okay when I reached the destination. I haven't got a cooler but for the duration of the travel, it was still okay so I was thankful for that. I used a plastic that was as thicker than your regular zip lock bag so maybe that helped.
Probably not safe, but don't bother, airport customs will probably make you throw it away.
The FDA recommends that perishable food items such as anything with meat in it be thrown away after 4 hours at roughly room temperature. Depending on how long it takes to defrost, it may or may not reach that threshold during your flight- and it's unlikely to be easy for you to check its temperature while you're in the air to determine whether or not it's past the safe time window on a 6 hour flight.
Additionally, you don't state a location, but many countries around the world prohibit the importation of food items that aren't in industrially sealed containers (e.g. cans of soda, packets of potato chips, etc). If they catch you with it, they'll throw it away, and that's a waste of food.
Just eat it before you travel, or leave it in the freezer for after you get back.
Good answer, but OP might be travelling intra-country, so no customs check. With a decent cooling bag, I'm absolutely certain that it won't defreeze (I used to do exactly this when I lived 1 state away from my mom and my door-to-door transit was about 6.5h). With cloth, I fully agree on probably not safe.
You got it @JulianaKarasawaSouza. I'm only travelling intracountry and no customs.. also, 6 hrs was total travel but only 1 and a half for the plane itself.
I successfully travelled with it without any issues. still frozen when i reached the destination. It was packed in a thick plastic and newspaper. no cooling bag used though. Cloth was not necessary.
I was only asked if what is it when it got past the xray. explained it was goat meat and already cooked. Maybe they didnt bother as the travel within the plane is only an hour and a half.
Thanks for the well thought answer @nick012000. It was still helpful and can consider it in my future travels.
If you’re traveling in the US, they might consider it to be a stew to be a ‘gel’, and force you to dispose of it for being more than 3oz. (I’ve heard they’ve done that for peanut butter)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.890234
| 2021-10-24T02:50:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117602",
"authors": [
"ASyntuBU",
"Joe",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96124",
"suse"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109737
|
Should I close the vessel while soaking nuts?
If I want to eat nuts like mung bean, ground nut, etc., then I should soak them in water for certain amount of time before eating.
Is it recommended to close the vessel used while soaking nuts? Why or why not?
It doesn't really matter much one way or the other, if you do it on the counter. Oj16 is making the case for preventing an insect getting in - at least where I live, this basically never happens. The other concerns in that answer are for me misplaced - some dust will fall in, but it is the same dust I breathe when I walk around in the kitchen, and if it is present in large enough amount to be a concern, something should be done about the kitchen, not about the beans! And putting a lid on something never made it pathogen-free, the bacteria were there before you put the lid and will start happily multiplying once you give them the moisture.
If you do it in the fridge, a lid can prevent smell contamination. Nuts are neither likely to give off much smell (to contaminate other foods) nor are they very "soaking" of other smells the way milk is. So, you can cover them as a kind of best practice, but if you don't, it's unlikely that you will notice much difference.
Then why are grains/ other food items which are not refrigerated, stored with a lid closed?
@Oj16 if you store stuff long term, then dust does get more pronounced. Also, there are insects (and other pests like mice) who go into dry (but not soaking!) grains and nuts, you get less exposure to light and to changes in humidity, and if you use a secured lid, then knocking over the container is less likely to create a mess. All these effects are marginal (or don't exist) when soaking for a couple of hours, but more pronounced long term. You can also store lidless in the long term, the effects are not all that strong, they just add up over time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.890523
| 2020-07-19T05:42:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109737",
"authors": [
"Ojasvi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85670",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107746
|
Kitchen Aid KSMC50S stand mixer attachments and dough hook
I inherited a Kitchen Aid KSMC50S stand mixer from my mother. It was purchased new around 1998 or so.
My model has a sticker right above the accessory port that says "No attachments available for this model."
Why not?
What makes this model different than the others that accept accessories?
Is it even true?
The dough hook I have is a replacement. The bowl-lift is calibrated to match the beater attachment depth (it is very tight but doesn't hit the bowl and picks up everything). However, the dough hook sits about 3/4 inch off the bottom of the bowl.
While mixing 4-5 cups of flour (two loaf recipe) dough, much of the dough stayed at the bottom of the bowl and never climbed the hook like the recipe says, even after 10 minutes (much longer than the recipe said it would take).
What is the correct/expected clearance below the dough hook?
The replacement hook is a spiral type.
Is this type compatible with this mixer?
If not can you please direct me to the correct one?
The reason is because it is a commercial mixer, the normal KitchenAid accessories are not NSF rated. Regular KitchenAid accessories should work just fine, but there are stainless steel NSF rated accessories from other manufacturers available if you cross reference the part numbers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.890874
| 2020-04-21T01:09:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107746",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95887
|
Why is mustard irritating for me?
I thought I bought mustard, but when I put it on a hot dog and ate it, it didn't taste like mustard. It irritated my nose and sent a shockwave through my skull. So I bought a different brand, but there was not much difference. I feel that irritating, tingling sensation rippling through my head whenever I take a bite. I think it's yellow mustard, the label says "table mustard". I don't recall having this reaction when eating mustard from McDonald's.
Yes, it was hot/spicy
Was is similar to horseradish? I think the two current answers are probably spot on.
"Mustard" can mean a variety of things, from cheap yellow McDonalds mustard all the way to a condiment so powerful that people literally likened chemical weapons exposure to consuming it, hence the name "mustard gas." Sounds like you got something closer to that side of the spectrum.
Can you post pictures or links to the bottles of irritating mustards?
I'm not sure McDonald's mustard actually qualifies as such.
Ok, I bought the correct mustard this time, labelled as "mildly spiced" with a hot dog picture on it. I didn't knw there were very hot varieties.
@alephzero don't insult custard - that stuff's delicious. (It's called "English cream" in french for a reason!)
@GdD Er, why not? I get that you're just making a joke, but McDonald's mustard is certainly mustard. It's standard yellow mustard. Ingredients: Distilled Vinegar, Water, Mustard Seed, Salt, Turmeric, Paprika, Spice Extractive. That's how you make yellow mustard. It's not like they put anything weird in it... it's literally just mustard.
There are US brands of mustard that actually contain horseradish and can be pretty hot. Really good (hot) horseradish will hit your sinuses and may induce tears. These mustards are a regional thing, to my knowledge but with the expansion of Wegmans, these could be more available nationally.
It would be very helpful to know what country you are in and what brands of mustard you are talking about. The answers below are making guesses, but you could very easily supply us with concrete information about which products, specifically, you are talking about.
I find McDonalds mustard incredibly sweet, not much to it bar sugar, colour and a teeny bit of mustardness, not like most mustard products I have tried previously.
I know it's technically mustard @only_pro, it just doesn't taste like it, very weak, just turns things yellow really.
@GdD It does taste like mustard. It tastes like yellow mustard. Other types of mustard taste different, and that's OK.
@ggdx There is no sugar in McDonald's mustard. It contains nothing that would make it taste sweet (at least in the US...). I'm confused. It tastes pretty much like any other yellow American mustard. Are you sure you're not talking about their ketchup?
As a straight answer to "why" it's the quantity of mustard oil in any given mustard type.
There are many types of mustard, but the two you may find the most confusing visually are English & American.
Though both are a fairly bright yellow in colour, that's about as far as the similarity goes.
Mustard seeds themselves come in many different 'heats' - the mildest generally being pale yellow, almost white & the strongest are dark brown.
Additionally, mixing mustard with vinegar tempers the heat & lengthens the shelf-life.
Mixing instead with pure water increases the punch, but the flavours will dissipate over a much shorter period.
American mustard is one of the mildest available. It starts with a mild seed, pale yellow/white in colour, but the colour is then boosted by using turmeric. The mixture is then diluted with vinegar.
This is your 'standard' mild American mustard, found in many places, including McDonald's. You can slather it in huge quantities on a hot dog with no ill-effects.
Almost at the other end of the scale [Chinese mustard can be even hotter] is English. Made with a mixture of yellow & brown mustard seed, then mixed with water not vinegar, this will take the roof of your nose out if used in injudicious quantities. It can quite literally make your eyes water & your nose run - though if you did it by accident, take solace in the fact that the hit is very short-lived, not like eating a blindingly hot chilli pepper.
The full impact & flavour of English mustard is quite short-lived even in the jar, once made up from powdered mustard. Even ready-made, store-bought has quite a short shelf-life for a condiment. Made at home & mixed with water it will lose its punch in just a few days, so the trick is to buy powder & mix it just 15 minutes before you eat it, for the full experience.
If you're ever uncertain visually which you are about to add - taste it first.
Personally I love English mustard on hot dogs! With ketchup too [one of the only things I will ever put ketchup on]. The balance between the sweet, vinegary ketchup & the hard hit of the mustard is really quite the feast. Bring on the junk food!
There is an in-depth article on the various types at Serious Eats - Mustard Manual: Your Guide to Mustard Varieties
I swear English mustard can remove paint, it's good stuff but a little goes a looong way.
American? It's Bavarian! ;)
Once, many years ago, we had a visitor from the US who asked for mustard to put on his steak. He was unaware of the potency of English mustard and proceeded to put nearly a teaspoonful on a single bite sized piece of meat. We tried politely to warn him of the likely effects but... The effects were spectacular and it required nearly a jugful of water to put out the fire. The hardest part was not laughing as he was an important customer.
I never thought I'd eat something that'd make me want a hotdog, but this did :D
+1 for this good answer thank you! But you were close to getting a -1 for putting ketchup on hot dogs ... at the last moment I realized that was just a personal comment of yours and not the informative part of the answer so I relented. FYI: The only correct point of view on ketchup + hot dogs.
"English mustard" is also yellow and very very different from typical American yellow mustard as I've encountered it with hot dogs or burgers (French's, for example). A smear of something like Colman's (a typical hot English mustard) has about as much flavour as a spoonful of hot dog yellow mustard.
What you describe is typical for when you think you picked up a mild mustard and it was actually a hot one. It's a mean trick we pay on foreign visitors in the UK (not deliberately). I suspect you're bought a similar product, though I don't know where you are. The heat is different to chilli heat, felt much more in your nose or sinuses than chillies.
Dijon mustard is somewhere in between. A brand available in the US is apparently "Grey Poupon" (originally from France). The Wikipedia article on mustard has more details.
If it is the case that you've bought something hotter than you expect, you can either use it sparingly or dilute it with something of a similar texture - mixing it with ketchup would work if you like both on your hotdog.
How much is a "smear" and how big are your spoons? When preparing hot dogs, I typically take a spoonful of mustard and smear it on the dog, so it's very unclear to me what your first paragraph is meant to indicate in terms of relative flavour.
@jmbpiano it was meant to be illustrative rather than a measurement. But let's say something like 1/2 tsp of English mustard on the tip of a knife and spread evenly would be appropriate for a ham sandwich or one sausage, vs a tablespoon of French's (or a generous teaspoon of Dijon). My French's is in a squeezy bottle but if I spoon out similar mustard from a jar I'll probably lick the spoon. Definitely not with the others.
If you want to dilute it use yogurt. It keeps the colour and texture and makes it much milder.
I understand that you were attempting to be illustrative. I was attempting to illustrate why your illustration was unclear. I'm not asking you to quantitatively answer my questions, I'm suggesting that your first paragraph doesn't actually help all that much and your answer would be improved by reworking (or possibly even removing) it. As it now stands, it's not even clear until the second paragraph which product (French's or Colman's) is meant to be milder, and then only by elimination, assuming that Colman's (which I'm unfamiliar with) is something one would find in the UK.
@jmbpiano I invite you to downvote if you disagree that in the context of condiments any reading other than "a smear is much less than a spoonful" is daft. You do raise a good point about fo those unfamiliar with Colman's which I'll address
@ChrisH When dressing a plate for a meal at a restaurant, a "smear" of condiment or sauce is usually a full teaspoon of it, placed on the plate, and then run through with the back of the spoon so that between half and a quarter of it is drawn out into a 'tail'. So, a "smear" and a "spoonful" would be equivalent amounts, with differing presentations
@Chronocidal OK, I've never come across "smear" as a noun describing that presentation, let alone the quantity. As a verb "smear a spoonful of sauce across the plate", yes.
To my mind, a 'smear' is about how much butter the army puts on bread; barely enough that it shows. The same for a strong mustard - as little as you can achieve with the end of a knife. I've never heard it to describe any kind of 'lavish' quantity. if you start with a spoon, you have a 'dollop' [to not be hugely technical ;) which you can then smear - ie spread in a thinner layer over a larger area.
@Tetsujin I wonder if this is yet another surprising US/UK difference (you're in the UK aren't you?)
Yes, I'm UK - & no, it wouldn't surprise me ;-)) We really are two countries separated by one language in many many circumstances :) These are what I call the "bum/tramp/hobo" moments.
@Tetsujin I'm in the UK - could be a regional thing, but I've always known that amount of butter as a "scrape" (as in, "scrape it on, scrape it off, and use it on the next slice"). As for the "smear" of sauce thing - blame too much time spent watching Masterchef!
Here in Germany, mustard is sold in a variety of "grades".
The mildest variety is called "sweet mustard" or "Bavarian sweet mustard" (süß/Bayrisch süß), it is usually dark/brown in color and only roughly ground.
Then come mild - medium hot (mittelscharf) - hot (scharf) - extra hot (extra scharf). These are usually (but not always) also finer ground.
There is quite some variation in color from pale beige over yellow to darkish brown or even with a reddish tint.
You can not conclude hotness from color, though.
Nor from grinding/grain size.
Also, while a few brands are specialized on some end of the hotness scale, many sell a wide variety, e.g. brand Löwensenf has products ranging from sweet and honey mustard all the way to extra strong and chili mustard. Bautzner goes from sweet to strong. And so on.
The grade is writting on the package
If not, the local default is medium (mittelschaf)
Bonus material:
Spicy hotness/pungencyy in German is called "Schärfe" (literally sharpness) and the same word is also used for images being in focus. There was a IMHO really cool ad a while ago for medium hot mustard (Senf mittelscharf) with a slightly blurry (= not really scharf, only mittelscharf) picture of a mustard tube.
Thomy? EGADS. Löwensenf! Careful with their extrascharf, though, that stuff rivals english mustard.
@rackandboneman: Well, I admit I do I distinguish between ads that are funny to look at which does not imply anything about mustard brands and varieties I eat and buy... But I do say that Thommy had the ad to look at ;-)
I missed an irony smile here :) Though I kind of ... resent the idea of a brand that makes medium quality condiments of all kinds, for brand name prices, to represent german mustard :)
mustard comes in tubes?
@davidbak: For quite a number of brands you can choose whether you want to have it in a tube or glass (e.g. the Löwnsenf extrascharf mentioned above). Glass is obviously better if you want to get out the mustard by spoon, but the tube leaves less area exposed to air after opening and you can be sure noone sticks a dirty knife in leaving food rests that spoil soon. The standard medium mustards are also sold in larger plastic bottles and buckets (I've seen up to 10 kg). You'll see them at hot dog/Bratwurst/BBQ stands (e.g. Biergarten) or also at your local sports club near the BBQ place.
Thomy pack all condiments in tubes, except ketchup: Mustard, remoulade, mayonnaise, horseradish... since they have done so for a long time, all practical jokes regarding substitution of toothpaste or marital aids have probably already gotten boring decades ago.
Any type of mustard contains poisonous substances, as every plant, to protect it from being eaten by insects and other animals. Some people tolerate more, some less. It depends on ones state of health, specially if one has a lack of body fluid and other substances to cushion aggressive substances, it feels irritating.
this is interesting, as for the fact of people downvoting you.... they are clueless.
@DeerSpotter I downvoted this answer because while it explains why mustard is hot in the first place, it doesn't provide any useful advise for the OP for how to tell how hot different kinds of mustard are. Also "mustard contains poisonous substances" implies that eating mustard is harmful, which is wrong (unless you are an insect).
Funny that the most to the point answer is getting down voted :)) plus 1 if chemistry matters
@Philipp saying that mustards contain poisonus substances and mustard is harmful are two different things. Mustards contain at least a poison but mustards are not harmful. That allyl isothiocyanate is a lachrimator explains the OP symptoms much that listing various types of mustards. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allyl_isothiocyanate
@Alchimista people are so brain dead they need more details... Chemistry does matter.
@Alchimista By that logic, everything is poison. Find me something I can eat that doesn't have an LD50. Being dramatic with terminology like this is not constructive. Liquorice is deadlier than mustard and it tastes like candy. Birds eat capsaicin and it's not an irritant to them. The logic here is fundamentally broken.
I don't see anything broken.If a ridiculous extension of Paracelsus principle is carried out then you can be right. However you can't fabricate tear gas granade with sugar but with onions yes. OP dislike mustard not because is English or dijon or whatever. But because that molecule is there, at first The same if coffee gives you tachycardia. Caffeine is there and is quite a poison. I don't want to claim that mustard and coffee are poisonous, tough. I really don't see what is wrong in the answer beside the reference to the current state of health of the taster.
@Alchimista The point is that the toxicity of the chemical is largely irrelevant. Plenty of things are extreme irritants but are not terribly potent toxins or poisons. By the same token, plenty of plant-based chemicals are extremely poisonous and are not irritants at all. Bringing up toxicity is just running off in the wrong direction.
It is fine for me. Try to do this with mayonnaise or ketchup, by the way: https://www.botanical-online.com/english/mustard-toxicity.htm. :)
Tomato is in the nightshade family, and mayo is WAY more likely to kill you than either.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.891069
| 2019-01-23T17:14:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95887",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Alex H.",
"Chris H",
"Chronocidal",
"DeerSpotter",
"GdD",
"J...",
"JimmyJames",
"Mason Wheeler",
"Matthew Read",
"Philipp",
"RedSonja",
"Robert Tattorn",
"Tetsujin",
"UKMonkey",
"cbeleites",
"davidbak",
"djsmiley2kStaysInside",
"ggdx",
"henning no longer feeds AI",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7685",
"jmbpiano",
"rackandboneman",
"rrauenza",
"user91988",
"uɐɪ"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108540
|
How to prevent oil splattering when placing steak in pan?
Lately I've been trying to cook steak.
I pat the meat with a paper towel, then I put salt on it. I wait another 10 mins, then when I put the meat on the pan, the oil splatters and burns my hand.
I am wondering if I should dry the meat one more time right before I put it into the pan? But if I do that, then am I going to wipe the salt and pepper off the meat?
Or what else can I do differently?
It's the water superheating on contact with the oil causing the splattering. The advice in the answers below is good, I would add that you will still get a bit of splattering even if you follow it, so having a lid or splatter guard for the first few seconds is a good idea.
Does your pan have a lid? Sometimes I use the pan's lid as a "shield", by lifting one side, slipping the item through the gap with tongs, and promptly removing utensil then lower lid until all the popping slows down.
Three recommendations:
If you pat the meat with a paper towel, it will absorb some of the moisture without removing salt or other seasoning.
You need very little oil (if any) in the pan to fry a steak, since fat will melt out of the steak. Use less oil, or put the oil onto the steak rather than in the pan. Then there will be much less oil to spatter.
Use a tool such as a spatula or tongs to place the steak in the pan, so your hands are further from it.
Oil on the steak itself is the way to go. Alton Brown does it... good enough for him, good enough for the rest of us. Pat dry with paper towel, salt and pepper, then oil it lightly in a plate so you can get all sides, then directly into the hot pan for a sear.
I do mine without adding any, just placing the (patted-dry) steak straight onto the hot pan.
I think the oil helps with the mallard reaction, and get that real nice seared crust by letting heat transfer into the steak faster during the high-heat part of the cook.
Culinary schools also teach you to hold the steak by one edge, then place the opposite edge at the front of the pan, laying the steak toward the back, so that the initial splatters are directed away from you.
A few things that might help avoid splattering:
Let the steak come up to room temperature before patting dry and seasoning. This avoids extra condensation forming.
When laying the steak in the pan, lay it "away from you". I.e., hold the steak at one end, lower the other end into the pan on the side nearest to you, then 'roll' the steak until the end you are holding reaches the side of the pan furthest from you.
Oil the steak instead of the pan and suse tongs or a spatula, as dbmag9 suggests
Heat the pan with oil. Once you are ready to transfer the meat, hold the pan in an angle so that oil settles to one side. Place your meat cut on the side with no oil. let the meat get some temperature and you can then lower the pan. This also makes sure that your don't lose any flavour from the meat but removing moisture before hand.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.892532
| 2020-05-22T08:09:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108540",
"authors": [
"Criggie",
"GdD",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"SnakeDoc",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109232
|
Soy bean cooking safety
I looked online and most recipes called for 3hr of cooking dried and soaked soy beans. My question is if it's instead safe to boil for 10-15min then simmer for 45-60min? As I understand there are bean toxins that need to be cooked out. Also, is cooking after the boiling going to have any efffect on food safety or is it just a matter of texture? My reason for asking is below. On a related note, most recipes call to remove the foam that forms from cooking the soybeans. Is this foam safe to eat?
I've been cooking dried beans more regularly recently. Mostly kidney, pinto, and lima beans with lentils. I boil for 10-15min then simmer for at least 45-60min until it reduces to the consistency I like. I know some beans come out more mushy than others since they normally cook for different times but I like the convenience. I tried soy beans today but they were crunchier than the rest. So I'm just a little paranoid that this means I might not have cooked the soy beans long enough for their bean toxins to be eliminated.
It is immaterial at this point, as you have eaten them you are going to find out. I would suspect they were safe, if undercooked. Anyway, you have learned you need to cook them longer so they are soft, which is why they say 3 hours.
I suppose that's kind of fair but I'm not sure if it's entirely accurate to conclude that it's safe just because I didn't get sick that one time. Someone can eat undercooked chicken and not get sick, doesn't mean undercooked chicken is safe. Anyways I actually liked the crunchiness of the beans as they were so my only concern was safety.
You can't cook "past the boiling point" , unless you are using a pressure cooker...and a simmer is, technically, just below the boiling point.
You can learn about bean foam here.
Soybeans need to be cooked for human consumption in order to destroy the tripsin inhibitors. According to the information in the linked page, boiling soybeans for 14 minutes inactivates about 80% of the inhibitor...for 30 minutes deactivates 90%. You can reduce this time with the higher temperatures of a pressure cooker. However, while the inhibitor will be taken care of, as far as I can tell, your beans will not be "cooked", or pleasant to eat yet. The recipes I find suggest 3 to 4 hours of cooking on the stove-top. Again, this can be shortened dramatically using a pressure cooker.
Thanks for the reply. I didn't mean cooking at a temperature beyond the boiling point of water, I meant cooking them on a lower temperature after having boiled them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.892835
| 2020-06-23T06:55:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109232",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"clm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85257"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83211
|
Is it safe to eat venison tartare from an animal that was harvested in the wild?
I recently watched a cooking show on how to prepare venison tartare. There was an explanation given by the host stating that the venison was acquired at a local deer farm. There was no mention regarding meat that was harvested in the wild.
Deer farming keeps the deer in a controlled environment where their diet is controlled as well as the deer receiving the proper vaccinations.
Since wild deer don't have a controlled environment or vaccinations, would it still be safe to eat raw meat from deer harvested in the wild?
If you really want to eat that raw, freezing the meat at -4 deg F (-20°C) or lower for 30 days or more should kill most if not all the types of parasites found in deer.
Different parasites die at different temperatures, for example:
Anisakiasis (fish worms) can be treated at -4°F (-20°C) or below for 7 days (total time).
Trichinellosis (pork worms) treated by freezing pork less than 6 inches thick for 20 days at 5°F (-15°C) to kill any worms.
Venison -4°F (-20°C) or below for 4 days.
30 days! Oh, wow!
Do you have a reference for this claim? I'd have suspected a lower temp would have been needed.
Ok, I guess I was off by 4 degrees. I revised my answer to be more accurate and linked to the articles
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.893045
| 2017-07-24T07:50:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83211",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Netduke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43744",
"steelersquirrel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91751
|
Is very slow smoking of meat allowed commercially in the US?
Many Portuguese sausages, especially in the Trás-os-Montes region, are prepared by smoking for weeks or even months. Examples include chouriço, salpicão, paio, etc. I don't seem to be able to find Portuguese sausages in this heavily smoked style in the United States.
Do USDA regulations allow the production and sale this type of sausage?
I am not familiar with the specific products you ask about, but there are other items such as Virginia or Country style ham that are commonly slow smoked for weeks in the US so time is not a disqualification. However, those hams are heavily cured. If these are not cured sausages, there may be health related issues. I would suspect though it may be a cost vs. demand issue with processors not finding enough market to justify costs. Someone familiar with the specific sausages may know of a specific disqualification though.
I'm unsure about the inclusion of curing salt commercial manufacture in Portugal, but the traditional products do not use it.
Chouriço is made of chopped pork, garlic, wine and spices (in particular paprika). Salpicão is a whole muscle product, pork loin soaked in wine and garlic for many days then encased in hog middles before smoking. I'm less certain of how Paio is made, but I believe it is similar to the salpicão only the loin is chopped before stuffing. None are heavily salted like a country ham.
Good question! I can't find anything online, mostly because I keep finding advice for home smoking instead of commercial regulations. The USA may require that sausages that are going to be smoked more than a few hours also be cured, but I'm not sure,
Isn't this regulated state by state ?
There are several additional questions that your original question brings about, if you are in the context of the USDA and regulations. Whether or not the USDA allows for this kind of sausage production is a different question to whether or not there are producers who are actually doing it.
Are you interested in producing the sausages yourself to sell, or are you just looking for people who might be producing them for you to buy?
The USDA website for its Food Safety and Inspection Service, who would likely regulate this kind of production, is here: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/home
This would be where you would look to find out if the regulations prohibit the production, or if there are specific prohibitions to ingredients or processes that are part of the production.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.893174
| 2018-08-16T22:19:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91751",
"authors": [
"Cory Schillaci",
"FuzzyChef",
"Max",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68744",
"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
}
|
77150
|
I never succeed in thickening sauces with pasta water. What am I doing wrong?
Every cook praises how starchy pasta water is great for thickening sauces and helping the sauce cling to the noodles.
But no matter how much pasta water I add, it never thickens the sauce.Yesterday I cooked one pound of pasta in a liter of water (which should yield extra thick pasta water) and the pasta water was still not nearly as thickening as a cornstarch slurry.
Is it over hyped, or is something wrong with me?
I use Barilla and DeCeCo pastas
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/16982/67
You seem to have the wrong expectations. No, it will never be as thickening as a cornstarch slurry. If that's the level of thickening you expect, you are really better off using the slurry.
Don't forget that pasta water thickening is a traditional technique from the time when people did not go to the supermarket to buy a pack of cornstarch. They cooked down ripe tomatoes for several hours, and the starchy water saved from needing a few more hours of evaporation. Also, they cooked with homemade pasta, which had some flour residue sticking to it, not the perfectly-gelatinized industrial pastas we buy today.
If this is not how you cook, and if you prefer pudding-thick sauces, then the slurry is probably the better method for you.
I notice Kenji from Serious Eats has also tested pasta water and recommends it for flavor reasons. He also tested it for thickening - but against salted water, not against a slurry. That's what people mean by "it thickens" - it thickens when compared to random liquids, not when compared to thickeners.
There is also another thing that might have been meant in connection with "pasta water for thickening sauce". It is actually a very specific kind of sauce: an emulsion between pasta water and a liquid fat. There, you start with the pasta water, cook it down sufficiently, and stir in the fat into the hot pasta water. It produces a "thick" sauce - not as thick as, say, mayonnaise, but it is certainly thicker than the oil you are putting in, or than the pasta water itself. It may have been in this context that you have been hearing of "pasta-water-thickened sauce" and thought it meant that pasta water is a thickener for random styles of sauce.
My takeway from Kenji in The Food Lab was to cook the pasta in much less water than you usually use, then when the sauce is added it will bind / thicken onto the starchy pasta. Seems to work well for me.
Think of your pasta water as a tool for emulsification, rather than "thickening." Adding pasta water to your condiment pan has the benefit of helping the condiment form an emulsified sauce that adheres to your pasta. Add it a little at a time and swirl the pan vigorously. It also allows you to control how "wet" you want your final result to be without having to create other liquid components. Also consider that praises of starchy water generally come from restaurant cooks who are cooking many servings of pasta in the same water. Dry or fresh, as the evening wears on, that water gets pretty starchy, thus dramatically increasing its viscosity. We just don't cook that way at home.
Emulsification, by definition, involves oil. That's not what's happening when you add starchy pasta water to a sauce.
@DanC actually an emulsion only requires two immiscible liquids, not necessarily oil. We are probably still not talking pure emulsification here, but more colloidal dispersion (although pasta sauce can contain oil, and that can get emulsified) but cooks tend to overlook these fine distinctions and just use the "emulsification" term for any process which makes a sauce smooth.
@rumtscho - given that one of your liquids is clearly going to be water and that the definition of "oil" includes just about anything you'll encounter in a kitchen that's immiscible with water, the distinction you draw is pretty irrelevant. :)
@PeriataBreatta I know - that comment was my way of saying "if we are going to nitpick, here are the exact details" but I think that nitpicking at both mine and DanC's level is irrelevant
@rumtscho - out of interest, I'm currently trying to figure out what (room temperature) liquid there actually is that isn't either water-miscible or an oil, and the only thing I've come up with so far is mercury.
@DanC - most sauces start out with the sauteing of some of the ingredients in oil, but your point is taken, since any emulsification of the oils would already be done.
@DanC : What about primavera? Pesto? Aglio Olio? There are lots of pasta sauces that are oil based.
As moscafj said, pasta water cannot be understood as a thickening agent at all. In fact, I understand it as a thinning agent: after your sauce has boiled down to more of a paste (great taste, but not very immersive to the pasta), you'll need some way to make it proper liquid again. What you do not want at that point is to make it runny, watery, hence adding pure water is problematic. Likewise with wine / juices / vinegar etc.: these can make a lot of sense for deglazing at the beginning of the cooking, but adding them at the end will make the sauce watery and also add too much of a raw, unsavoury note. And such pure hydrophilic liquids often don't completely merge with a hearty sauce with considerable fat content, making for an unappetizing phase separation: the water will tend to “wash off” the flavourful parts from the pasta on the plate.
Hence the pasta water: it liquefies the sauce, but at the same time improves contingency due to the starch content. Stock or cream can perform a similar role, but are less neutral. Depends on the kind of sauce what you want. Since you always have the pasta water, that is the first candidate.
I agree, in fact, what I usually do, I dump the noodles (2 or 3 minutes undercooked) directly into the thinned sauce and let them sit there for up to 5 minutes. You'll still get them "al dente", if you turn off the heat as soon as you add them. Of course, you need good quality pasta for this.
@OskarLimka : I totally agree about finishing the pasta in the sauce if it seems abnormally runny. Unfortunately if you gave it as an answer, people would likely downvote you for 'not answering the question' even though you solved the actual problem that led up to the question being asked.
@Joe indeed, this was not an answer, just a comment.
@OskarLimka : I know ... I just wish it could've been an answer so more people were likely to see it, as it solves the actual problem.
All answers given here look right, and the folks that answered your question demonstrated they know what they are talking about. But there is a trick that was not mentioned: in case you have a proper pan and are cooking a short pasta (e.g., fusili or penne), you can use the sauce to cook the pasta. It is a different approach, but it is delicious - and the sauce will become thicker naturally. Give it a try!
True, except you probably missed my comment above, which said essentially the same thing (but I still give the noodles a simmer on their own before dumping into the the sauce...) Starting from dry noodles you probably need a soup rather than a runny sauce, a bit like the "pasta e fagioli" which entered the hall of fame in the "soliti ignoti" movie.
@OskarLimka: Ops! Indeed, you have specifically mentioned that!...
An additional comment: I've made some pasta directly in the sauce (without pre-cooking them beforehand) and it worked well. The result is surprising, without the "soup effect" you referred to. Anyway, I'll try the pre-cooking stage in my next experiences. Thank you for the tip!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.893412
| 2017-01-05T10:54:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77150",
"authors": [
"Dan C",
"Humberto Fioravante Ferro",
"Joe",
"Oskar Limka",
"Periata Breatta",
"Phil",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"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
}
|
100899
|
Cashew flour in Kaju Katli
All of the recipies for Kaju Katli I've looked at says I should make my own cashew powder but I was wondering if I could substitute it with store bought cashew flour. I'm not sure what the difference is if there is any to begin with.
Some nut flours have had oil removed from them (they're actually ground-up "oil cake", a byproduct of extracting nut oil). If your cashew powder doesn't say "defatted" or "oil cake" or "press cake" in the ingredients list, then no, there shouldn't be any difference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.894169
| 2019-08-22T13:36:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100899",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100971
|
What can I do with leftover almond pulp?
After making almond milk, I'm left with almond pulp that is flavourless. How can I use it instead of throwing it out?
did you consider compost?
I wonder if you could dry it out for almond flour?
Why was this closed? The off-topic criteria specifically says : "Exceptions are made for items which are not generally considered to have any culinary use"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.894244
| 2019-08-26T08:22:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100971",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Steve Chambers",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88648
|
Is it safe to cook with food grade mineral oil?
There is a thing such as "food grade mineral oil". Does "food grade" means it is safe to cook with?
I know it is used widely for oiling cutting boards. Also, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permits using mineral oil for food (with limitations).
Is it dangerous even in limited amounts? Or can it be used instead of or mixed with vegetable oil?
If you're also wondering what food-grade mineral oil is for if it shouldn't be used as an ingredient, it's good for oiling open-wood cutting boards and unfinished wooden utensils. An advantage it has over food based oils like olive or peanut oil is that mineral oil won't oxidize and become rancid.
Well, food-grade means you can ingest some without poisoning yourself. It does not mean it’s a suitable replacement for cooking or baking. If you do use it, you will soon learn that it’s a laxative, which means you won’t get to enjoy the food in peace.
In hard times, people have used it and during World War II, the British government suggested using liquid paraffin in place of other, rationed, fats. The already mentioned side effects were also observed. You can find a sample recipe here.
Rose Levy-Berenbaum's recipe for "creme ivoire" calls for mineral oil, 3 ounces to a pound of white chocolate, spread over a whole cake. I dunno if that's enough to cause the laxative effect.
@JoshuaEngel I don’t either. But I am not planning to do an experiment. In case of doubt, stick with Paracelsus. You could always try and report back with the ultimative answer?
I have made it and been just fine, though I seem to be able to eat a lot of things that might cause upset. I ate more than most, in licking the beaters and such. Other people ate the cake, without any complaints, though they may not have connected the two if there were problems.
Is it a substantially stronger laxative than cooking oils, if ingested neat and in quantity?
@rackandboneman dosage varies, depending on manufacturer etc., but one source says 15 to 45ml. Compare this with a classic vinaigrette, I would say yes, it’s stronger.
A vinaigrette is an emulsion, maybe that does have some effect on the ... effect? I would not trust 45ml of raw cooking oil, drunk straight on an empty stomach....
@Joshua Engel chocolate is known to cause constipation. If you are lucky, the recipe has it all balanced.
It may be worth mentioning that the European Union does not allow the use of mineral oil for food preparation.
Food grade mineral oil just means it has been filtered of impurities that would harm you. It is meant to be used as a lubricant on food machinery and as a cutting board oil to help preserve the water repelling properties.
Do NOT eat or cook with mineral oil. Mineral Oil is a PETROLEUM product that is made from oil, refined, and distilled. Your body can't use it as food, and because it has been filtered it won't kill you, but its only usage in human consumption is as a laxative for forcing your bowels to empty when you have constipation. Not something a healthy person should touch!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.894320
| 2018-03-26T14:38:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88648",
"authors": [
"Joshua Engel",
"Stephie",
"Todd Wilcox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57310",
"rackandboneman",
"yan yankelevich"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89598
|
How do I make my bread heavy when baked?
What ingredient do I add to my bread dough to make it heavy when it's out from the oven?
Do you mean dense, when you say "heavy"? We generally think of heaviness as the weight of the finished loaf. Other than "heavy" can you explain what goals you are looking for in your bread? What kind of bread are you making? Do you have a recipe for it that we can see?
I mean the weight of my finished loaf because it's always light.how do I make it heavy
Why do you want it to be heavy, though... What kind of bread is it? If you're making ciabatta, for example, the entire point is to incorporate air so that you have big holes in the loaf. Can you please give us more information?
I make whole meal bread for sale because my customers always complain my bread don't have weight
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, Chika! If you have a moment, please view the [tour] and the [help]. You may also find [meta] useful for learning about the site. Have fun!
This question would benefit if you could [edit] it to include the recipe and method that you are using right now. And while you are at it, take the [tour] and browse our [help] to learn more about how the site works. Please note that all of our contributors are volunteers that write their posts in their free time - complaining (even indirectly) that it may take a while to get an answer is going to rub the wrong way.
This is personal experience, and I am not a professional cook. However are you sure you are using the right kind of flour?
I personally find making bread using anything except strong flour makes bread that is light and almost cake like, not very pleasant in my opinion.
Strong flour has more protein and gluten and gives an overall heavier feel to the bread, both in weight and texture/taste.
If you are already using strong flour consider using less yeast, this will cause the bread to rise less and be heavier, but this may make the taste and texture less pleasant.
(A Friend informed me strong flour may have different names depending on your region and part of the world, so if you are not sure exactly how to get it I would suggest researching online to find a good supplier in your area.)
Hello, and welcome to Seasoned Advice. What area of the world are you from (and which knows this as "strong flour")?
@DanielGriscom "strong flour" is a standard term in British English for high gluten flour.
In the US I think its "Bread flour" rather than "All Purpose Flour"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.894587
| 2018-05-04T22:55:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89598",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chika",
"Daniel Griscom",
"FoxElemental",
"Norm",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66957",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89302
|
How do I know if US lettuce is safe, given the E. coli outbreak?
I'm gonna order a turkey and swiss sandwich soon, on a spinach wrap.
Is it safe to get lettuce on it?
I know that in 16 states, over 50 people have gotten e.coli from lettuce, so I'm not sure whether I should get lettuce or not.
You should not sign your posts (the always-present username suffices), use all caps (shouting is not nice), or demand urgent answers (people will answer when they can).
Use iceberg instead of Romaine.
The CDC's current advice as of April 20 2018 is quite simple:
Do not buy or eat romaine lettuce at a grocery store or restaurant unless you can confirm it is not from the Yuma, Arizona, growing region.
So, by the CDC's definition of safety, it's not safe if it's romaine possibly from the Yuma area. It has nothing to do with where you are; things get shipped all around.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.894822
| 2018-04-21T03:32:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89302",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90249
|
Emulsifying homemade coconut milk?
I've been experimenting with fresh coconuts lately (they are amazing), but one thing I haven't figured out yet is how to make a nice creamy coconut milk. Mainly to make hot chocolate and eat with fruits like an yogurt,
So I put the coconut water and the meat in a (not very good) blender, strained it through a sieve and refrigerated it, this is the result:
The part at the top is a grainy, watery coconut mush, I was expecting it to be like cream/yogurt
And the part at the bottom I assume it's really just coconut water.
Looking at a carton of store-bought full fat coconut milk it contains chemical emulsifiers and thickeners, so is there no way of achieving a natural creamy coconut milk?
And the store bought one never mentions it was pasteurized, one of my ideas was water bathing the glass.
I also thought abount whisking it but not sure about it yet.
So, what can be done to achieve a homogenous, creamy, eat-by-itself, homemade coconut milk?
In regards to the duplicate question, I want to know how to emulsify it, the store bought ones do not completely separate this way and the top part is creamy unlike mine.
I don't think it is a duplicate, I'm asking for techniques to emulsify it
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.894917
| 2018-06-08T17:41:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90249",
"authors": [
"Mojimi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65403"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89300
|
Bad tasting avocados recently
I'm new/ignorant to using avocados and never really enjoyed them until 3 months ago when I bought some on a whim. The avocados actually tasted great. They were creamy and had the consistency of butter. The seed was a bit of a pain to clean, as the skin around the seed would stick to the avocado, so I had to pick it out. Also the avocado skin would tear easily if I were to eat it with a spoon.
For the past week, the avocados I've been buying taste awful. It feels like I'm eating Aloe Vera or some other type of plant. The avocado is easy to clean (the seed pops out easily) but they taste watery, grassy and bland. It reminded me of why I didn't like avocados. Also they're not mushy/creamy like the previous ones I was buying. In fact, they're hard, even if they seem soft on the outside.
My question is, are these just bad/unripe avocados or are they a totally different type? If so, which are the nice type?
Maybe the were not ripe enough or a different quality. Hass avocados, when ripe tend to have a brown-ish darker skin tone. Different varieties may remain green and have a bitter taste when unripe
Avocados have had a couple, three rough years with drought fire and disease from CA thru Mex. Things seem to be getting better. I even got a good smooth Florida one the other week, but like onions, we just have to wait it out.
Unripe fruits can be bitter, rank, and just nasty. I've had the odd fully-ripe fruit that carries that off flavor as well.
Over a year later, and production is still spotty at best. There are some giant pebbly skinned ones from the Caribbean. Excellent flavor, but you have to be very lucky to find them. The California crop looks stunted again this year.
It also depends on where you live. For example avocados from Thailand taste nothing like avocados from northern Mexico...
"Watery, grassy and bland" and "not mushy/creamy" (a.k.a hard) match my experience of avocados that aren't sufficiently ripe. An avocado should be very soft and creamy when it's ripe. (But not brown/grey/gross - that's over-ripe.)
At least in Israel, avocados are sold somewhat unripe, since that prolongs their shelf life, and because soft ripe avocados bruise much easier than rock-hard unripe ones. If you buy an avocado that isn't ripe yet, you should wrap it in some newspaper, and leave it out of the fridge until it's ripe. depending on how unripe your avocado is, that can take a week or more.
I'm afraid I don't know the names of American Avocado varieties, but my experience has been exactly the same with the green smooth-skinned elongated ones, small black rough-skinned ones that peel easily, and roundish, leathery-skinned green ones. When ripe, they all taste pretty much the same.
All the avocados I know are obviously too hard when unripe; and brown/gray, stringy, and visually grossly unappealing inside when overripe. So I think it is likely that your new avocados aren't bad or unripe, but you are now getting a different variety of avocado than the ones you previously enjoyed so much.
There are quite a few different varieties. One clue is when you said, "the avocado skin would tear easily if I were to eat it with a spoon." The variety, "Hass" has a very thick leathery skin, not probably the type you liked, since the skin of Hass is quite robust.
The Hass is also very common in grocery stores (at least in my area), and I get the feeling lots of people think it is the best. So it wouldn't surprise me if you initially happened upon some other type of avocado, liked it, and then your next purchase was of the ubiquitous Hass, which maybe you don't care for.
I have had some avocados with such a thin skin it's almost like a fine cellophane layer on the outside of the avocado flesh. Unfortunately, I don't know name of those, so sorry, this is only a partial answer. Someone more knowledgeable than I am will certainly be able to tell what they are. There really are lots of different kinds.
I have sometimes had Haas avacados with skin that tears easily -- not paper thin, but the skin seems to get thinner as the avocado ripens. (Or maybe it just adheres less to the flesh underneath, making it easier to tear.)
Those thin-skinned, (shinny?) is likely a so-called Florida Avocado - less oily in my experience. Proper cultivar names can be found here
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.895047
| 2018-04-21T00:46:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89300",
"authors": [
"CNSKnight",
"D3vtr0n",
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"Erica",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106"
],
"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
}
|
89352
|
Can I keep home-made salad dressing un-refrigerated?
My salad dressing has extra virgin olive oil (EVOO), raspberry wine vinegar, chives, sugar, salt & pepper, lemon juice and lemon zest. Can I keep it un-refrigerated for 18 hours?
Who downvoted - this is not a stupid question I'd say. Needs more quantities to determine whether it qualifies as a vinegar pickle or just a random mixture of stuff :)
Can you provide your recipe?
Me think you should be OK.
The dressing does not contain garlic which can be an issue in regards of botulism.
I don't know if chive has the same botulism problem as garlic, you might check that out
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.895388
| 2018-04-22T21:53:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89352",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89371
|
Fish for Sushi/Sashimi
I finally learned how to make Sushi at home. Here is a link to a recipe that shows how to prepare store bought salmon. I tried it and it works beautifully. The chef's speaking and tone are annoying, but the recipe works.
I soaked my salmon for 5 minutes and my tuna for 3 minutes. Blot it dry and you are good to go. My question is, based on the attached video, what other fish or seafood can I do this with? Snapper, scallops, etc?
I’m going to take a wild guess that it’s that Food Wishes video we had a question about the other week. Ebe1125, if this is the same video I’ll edit the link into the question if you want.
Can you describe the part of the process you want to know? It's faster to read a short paragraph than watch a video.
Luciano, in other words, what kind of seafood can you cure in salt and sugar foe a few minutes and then eat it as sushimi/sushi? I know it has to be previously frozen to avoid contaminates.
Cajita, use the link in Spagirl's comment.
Chef John's recipes are available on Allrecipes.com, so I've replaced the broken video link with a link to a text recipe.
Any relatively firm-fleshed fish can be cured with salt & sugar, including by the speed method Chef John describes. This would include "snapper" (usually actually rockfish in the USA), swordfish, mahi-mahi, striped bass, or halibut. It would not include sole, flounder, trout, or perch, all of which are too delicate to slice small or brine. Cod could theoretically be handled this way, but I don't think you'd appreciate the result; there's a reason you never see cod sushi on a menu.
However, fish other than salmon doesn't really need to be brined at all to be used in sushi. Salmon is generally brined because it can otherwise carry parasites that infect humans and can survive freezing. Most ocean-going fish do not. So you could just slice, rice, and eat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.895467
| 2018-04-23T16:23:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89371",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Luciano",
"Spagirl",
"ebe1125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66764",
"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
}
|
88554
|
Does anybody know what company made this spatula?
I received the following spatula and I want to buy another one, but I can't find it. Does anyone recognize the company?
Inox 18/0 is a grade of steel, not a brand. Could you post a picture of the actual spatula?
@GdD I guess the owl(?) could be an indicator.
I tried with the owl, but doesn't appear on google.
Yes, I know that inox 18/0 is a grade of steel. I didn't know what is the owl.
"Inox" is typical of European manufacturers; standing for " not oxidizable" meaning stainless steel .
I've had a little try at reverse image searching with suitable companion terms, and not got anywhere
I think the answer is right there. It is an INOX spatula.
This one has the same ridges on the handle.
http://www.100x100chef.com/index.php/eng/shop/collection-retail/inox-retail2/retail-plating-spatula-detail.html
INOX isn't a brand.
INOX is a pseudo-brand used on all kind of stainless steel items. 18/0 means 18% chromium, 0% nickel. The brand on the item on that website is actually "100% Chef". The one you have might too be from "100% chef", or something by the same OEM maker sold to a different label.
@Catija : yes it is : http://www.inoxkitchenware.com/ . There are a few others, though, too. But this does look like the spatula in the picture
@Joe that's not a brand. That's a generic site that specializes in products made from inox... I found no items on that site that have that logo. The items that do have logos say "Cuisinox".
The 18/0 is odd . There is an 18 Cr ferritic stainless ( SAE 430) but this would be a strange application. A magnet could decide ; if magnetic it likely is 18 Cr . If non-magnetic , it is likely 18-8 or 18-10.
Based on the link provided in the answer, the brand is 100% Chef. In this link, it does appear to be the same spatula: http://www.100x100chef.info/index.php/eng/novelties/accessorios-plating-retail-detail.html .
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.895655
| 2018-03-23T11:54:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88554",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"blacksmith37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66004",
"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
}
|
81614
|
A lot of foam while cooking a cod with steam
I was cooking a cod with steam, but unexpectedly a lot of foam came out. First, I thought that the pot has not been cleaned but after re-cleaning the pot and refilling the water the situation repeated. My fish is surrounded by foam (like from the dish soap) instead of the pure steam. Any idea what is going wrong?
The fish was bought in the supermarket as "fresh" (not frozen), looked and smelled normally.
Was the fish already patted dried before steaming? And was it completely thawed if once frozen?
It is not unusual. Condensate on the fish washes small amounts of protein into the water which causes the foaming. If you have ever had an egg cracked a little during boiling, you will see the water foaming too.
@user110084 the fish was not frozen - it was sold as "fresh" - looked well and smelled normally. Nothing was added by my side.
@user110084 I have seen some foaming from broken egg while boiling but never to that extent. I have also never seen such a foam (or even similar) while steaming a fish (I admit, no experience with cods).
there is a chance that your fish might be a bit off. A bit hard to tell from here. Did it smell ok? Was it slightly slimey? Degradation products could contribute to your foaming.
@user110084 As i wrote, it smelled normally. Maybe it was a little unnaturally dry (rather than slimy).
Sorry @kuszi, I should have re-read your question before just blurting out my last comment (deserves a -1!). I think it really was just protein washed down into the water then. As water evaporates from the pan, it is normal for foaming to become more intense.
@user110084 nop. Thank you for you valuable comments. I just worry if it could be an effect of some preservatives or other chemicals added to the fish.
one can never rule that out completely. Did you wash or rinse the cod before cooking? I generally do. I have had foaming water during steaming before and when I was done steaming, protein foams would subside and I was left with some white floating bits in the water. I cannot think of any preserving agent one would put on the fish that would have a surfactant effect off the top of my head. Zein may do that but it is expensive. It is hydrophobic which may cause a dry look. Zein is harmless and inert for humans (coating on M&Ms is a very similar product).
This sounded quite normal. Steam condensing on your fish is washing small amounts of protein into the steaming water below. It is quite harmless. As mentioned in my comment above, most of us have experienced that when boiling cold eggs too quickly causing the shell to crack and some egg white to leak into the water. That always make at least a bit of foam and often enough to overflow that pan.
There are a couple of things you can do to minimise that:
pat dry the fish before steaming
use a container under the fish to catch any juices so that none of it goes into the steaming water
More water in the pan and a gentler boil might help too
Have a bowl of ice cubes while you’re boiling any type of seafood because it will foam over and out of the pot
As you see the foam start to come up drop an ice cube or two into the center of the foam and the foam will go down immediately this helps break the protein release only use one or two ice cubes at a time so that the boil continues and it doesn’t cool off the water continue to do this for the first 20 to 25 minutes that’s how long is gonna take to process the protein off now you can also get a fan on high setting and let it blow over the top of the pot that way it minimizes the foam from forming as well
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.895945
| 2017-05-12T11:40:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81614",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57838",
"kuszi",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110046
|
What to do with the olive oil from canned sardines?
Olive oil is good for you, and it seems wasteful to throw it away. Yet all recipes call for draining the sardines prior to usage.
Any good ideas on what to do with that olive oil?
Is it some bad kind of olive oil maybe? Very low quality? What would that even mean? Some of the canned sardines say it's "extra virgin olive oil", which should be a good kind.
Asking what you can do with an ingredient is off topic, it may be better to edit this to ask if can you use the oil like regular olive oil.
You can use them as fuel for oil lamps or candles?
First, if you are going to use it, do so within a few days, and if you are not using right away, put in another container and store it in the refrigerator. As for uses, you can employ it anywhere you would use oil, and where the flavor works. Certainly a vinaigrette or dressing. I've seen suggestions for using it when roasting potatoes, and even on focaccia. So, no need to dispose of it. It is not going to be the best quality olive oil, and in some cases it is other types of oil. However, if you enjoy the flavor and have a near term use in mind it can be used.
I'd suggest dropping some oil on a slice of bread. Probably too simple to be called a recipe, it's just a sardine-flavoured version of bread with oil.
I'd would prefer to do this with the oil from canned anchovies, but with sardine or even tuna it's also fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.896245
| 2020-08-05T18:09:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110046",
"authors": [
"Arctiic",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43720"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102599
|
How to make creme brulee without egg yolks?
A mixture of milk, fat, sugar and egg yolk will thicken once a certain temperature is reached, but if this temperature is exceeded by a few degrees the resulting product will not be palatable. Polysaccharides as a thickening agent may be an alternative, but I do not find this alternative to be appetizing. Perhaps compounds extracted from egg yolks or their analogs will provide sufficient thickening without sulfur, bacteria and other unpalatable and unappetizing constituents of eggs?
P. S. "Sufficient" thickening is as is enough for creme brulee.
I'm having trouble parsing "I would like to obtain a custard utilizing minimum ingredients of maximum nutritional value". Do you mean, you want to make a low-fat custard? You might want to edit your question to focus less on chemicals and more on what food you want to make. Chemistry is a tool of cooking, not its goal.
Please clarify the reason you want to substitute the egg yolk, it's tough to answer without knowing that. (If it's bacteria that you find problematic, consider pasteurized eggs; the sulfur issue is a different question.)
@Erica, the reason is that custard with egg yolks at least in my experience have taste and smell of eggs that I do not find palatable in a dessert.
@Noir if you simply want a dish that is as close as you can get to creme brulee, but without an egg taste, cooking tradition has found it: you make a starch pudding with your milk. You can look around for other options, but they will not only be difficult logistically, they are highly unlikely to be closer to the original than starch pudding.
Your title asks what thickens an egg yolk. Your description sounds like you want to replace them in creme brulee.
Egg yolks have quite a bit of protein, though not as much as the whites. When cooked, these liquid proteins unravel and tangle up with liquid forming a gel. If cooking continues they tighten up and squeeze the liquid out making soggy scrambled eggs.
Egg yolks don't have much sulfur (the sulphur is in the whites) and bacteria isn't a risk as they are sufficiently cooked in a custard. Not overheating them is not difficult.
I submit that the premise of your question is flawed. Creme brulee is a delicate, but very rich, custard and as with most custards it's texture is defined by egg cooked with high fat dairy. You may be able to produce a firm gel with a polysaccharide but it won't have the texture of creme brulee.
Additionally, the reasons you listed for wanting to avoid egg yolks are not a concern. Little sulphur in yolks, cooked to avoid bacteria, use a water bath to avoid over cooking, etc. If your objection is nutritional consider that the fat in the egg yolks is dwarfed by the cream and sugar in the rest of the recipe.
Good answer, thank you. Do you not know what proteins specifically contained in egg yolks exert gelling activity?
@Noir all of them. Raw proteins clump together when cooked, regardless of type. And, if you were to isolate only the proteins from an egg yolk, you would never get a creme brulee like texture, since it needs also all other ingredients to get as it is.
Dehydrate the milk and maybe try transglutaminase?
Activa YG is formulated for thickening dairy https://www.modernistpantry.com/activa-yg-transglutaminase.html
I think the OP's objective is not yet clear, but transglutaminase is an enzyme that bonds proteins. It's not really used as a thickening agent. However, there are all sorts of starches that might replace egg for thickening, and gelatin or agar cold work as well.
I know what the normal ways to to it are, my assumption is that if he finds polysaccharides unappetizing (agar, xanthan) he's also not interested in starches. Activa YG is made exactly for thickening dairy products. https://www.modernistpantry.com/activa-yg-transglutaminase.html
This is interesting. Have you used it? If it is just gelled milk protein is the texture like yogurt?
No, have not used it. Just trying to think outside the box for OP's rather specific requirements.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.896385
| 2019-09-28T19:15:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102599",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Noir",
"Sneftel",
"Sobachatina",
"goboating",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78701",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77591
|
Not able to juice a guava
Well I have a Jack LaLaine Power Juicer Express. This did not work so well with the ripe guavas. Twelve washed and whole guavas and no juice. Lots of pulp though. Decided to scrape all this pulp out into a Ninja processor and pureed with about 1 cup of filtered water. Pulp is still quite dense even with the added water. Then strained it through a wired sieve. Going to freeze these in some neoprene ice cube trays with push out bottoms and seal them up in 1 gallon FoodSaver zip lock bags for individual uses, mix & match. Cubes equal roughly 1 tablespoon each.
I keep hearing you should use any juice asap but that isn't always possible so I decided freezing was the next best option.
Any thoughts on this?
Welcome! Can you please clarify what your question is? We're a Q&A site and it's important that questions be clear... are you asking why you couldn't juice the guava? Are you asking how soon to use the juice? What is it you want us to answer?
You might try a cold press juicer instead, they tend to have a higher juice yield than the centrifugal type. I juice guavas with no issues in mine. With all the filtering and freezing and grinding you're doing to make that juice now there probably isn't much guava left in it anyways.
It is a bit complicated. I suggest you look at this website for preparation instructions: http://www.vegrecipesofindia.com/guava-juice-recipe/
Guava strands are pretty strong, so I can see how the Jack LaLane blades wouldn't cut them well. Surprised the (20krpm?) Ninja didn't do better. Perhaps still too thick with one cup water. You've got to let the thing get up to speed, without cavitating, to get the best blending. I tilt my Ninja around while running to ensure the best flow past blades.
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/20878/48351
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.896707
| 2017-01-19T04:18:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77591",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Jason C",
"Rodrigo de Azevedo",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"moskaut"
],
"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
}
|
90877
|
How to cook and store fresh okara for safe consumption?
I just made soy milk for the first time in my slow juicer and want to utilize the leftover okara. I've heard that without cooking it and breaking down the enzymes, okara can be toxic to consume. I juiced the soybeans before boiling the milk, so the okara hasn't been exposed to heat yet. Apparently you're supposed to cook it down for 25 minutes or so.
I want to cook the batch and store it in the freezer so I can easily add it to meals later. What is the best method for cooking down okara that you're not ready to eat yet? Steam? Boil into a mesh? I live in a student flat and unfortunately do not have a stove, only a stovetop burner, so I cannot dehydrate it.
Much thanks!
related https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13714/can-i-use-fresh-okara-without-cooking-it
Just freeze raw is an option.
I have never heard that uncooked okara is toxic to consume, so I don't know about that part, but you could try dry roasting it in a pan until it is dry and golden brown, that would cook it and also dry it out for storing. I have made muffins and brownies with okara with success (more or less), and I've also added it to scrambled eggs for a bit of protein boost.
Thanks for that idea! Did you add dried or fresh okara to your scrambled eggs? I won't worry about pre-cooking if it's fine to eat after just a bit of cooking, like stir frying for 5 minutes.
I used dried okara in my scrambled eggs, because it's what i happened to have. Honestly, the texture was a little weird, but i didn't use too much okara and i was willing to put up with the weird texture for the extra nutrition (and to use up a bit of my okara, haha -- I make soy milk weekly, and I tend to end up with a LOT of okara. I've taken to putting it in my compost pile because I can't use it up fast enough.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.896882
| 2018-07-07T21:55:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90877",
"authors": [
"Ryan",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68069",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90246
|
Characteristics of lupin and soy flours
I have to prepare something that will be eaten for breakfast or as a snack in the afternoon, using mainly lupin flour and (full fat) soy flour and without using eggs or milk/butter.
Since I'm not a chef, I would like to know which are the characteristics of these two flours so then I could choose the proper ingredients touse with the two flours.
Example of characteristics:
how they mix with liquids ?
does the high protein (~40g/100g) content influence the solubility ?
what are their strength (W) ?
Hi Soundwave, your question touches an interesting topic. Sadly, I have to agree with logophobe here: Our site is optimized to deal with objective questions which potentially have a correct answer, and we cannot deal with questions where any number of answers can be equally correct, such as deciding whether to make crepes or cookies. So we just don't take that kind of question, even though they are legitimate questions for the person asking them. But if you have something more specific in mind, you are free to come and ask again.
@rumtscho thanks for the replies and sorry for the off-topic I wrote my question really bad, in fact the main aspect I'm interested about is the behaviour of the two flours when mixed with a liquid, this is an objective question. I should have not put the focus on which kind of food to prepare (subjective) but on the properties of the flours (objective).
You can always edit your question to better match your intention and make it answerable, we are always happy when the posters do that! I think you are on a very good path there already. I am still struggling a bit what answers you need exactly - obviously, if you just ask "what happens when I mix the flours with liquid" and we answer "you get a mixture" that's not useful for anybody. What do you want about the properties of that mixture? What do you need it to be able to do, or what are you afraid that will happen? If you can focus on that, I see a good question there.
Sound wave, thank you very much for taking the time to improve your question! I have reopened and upvoted. I don't know the answer myself since I have never cooked with these flours, but I hope others will be able to give you some good info on them.
A really good edit @soundwave. Question, what do you mean by their strength?
@GdD it's a measure related to how well wheat flour binds. It has some theoretical underpinnings, but at the end it is simply determined empirically for each batch of flour. I haven't heard of it being defined for gluten free flours though.
Some soya flour in a recipe helps to replace the eggs as soy has more fat than regular flour. I don’t know about lupin flour. You could use aquafaba to keep it moist etc, it replaces an egg in a cake recipe.
Try google for ingredients and quantities as we can’t give them here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.897041
| 2018-06-08T13:33:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90246",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67533",
"rumtscho",
"sound wave"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88675
|
Preserving bread with vinegar
If you use vinegar to preserve a piece of bread by pouring it over, will the vinegar affect the bread's taste?
I am not clear about what you are asking. So, unless you rephrase this, it will likely get closed. Further, your question implies that pouring vinegar onto bread will act as a preservative. It will not...and you will taste it.
I think if that was possible there would be ample recipes for "pickled bread". Alas, all you find is rather savoury puns and jokes.
I can’t actually answer this question, but I can tell you what I’ve heard. Ascorbic acid (vitamin c) added to the bread ingredients can increase its shelf life. This is just a comment, though, because I don’t know A) if it’s true, and B) if it is true, I don’t know how to incorporate it, or how much, or in what form.
Also, a starter known as tangzhan can help the loaf retain freshness longer, although it won’t prevent spoiling.
@Just Joel is that the boiled-flour dough used for some chinese breads?
Actually, some bread recipes do include vinegar in the raw dough, for various reasons. Given the boiling point of acetic acid is higher than water, and the fact it doesn't form an azeotrope, it is unlikely that it all will be lost - it might even concentrate. Be aware that acidity strong enough to preserve is likely to also effect gluten structure!
Yes, tangzhan is the Chinese “water roux.” The Japanese use it also, for Hokkaido milk bread. And the tangzhan works well with other breads too. The water’s not boiled though. The water and flour are mixed together then stirred over low-med heat until the mix reaches 149°F, when it thickens. Try it in a basic white bread!
"X can preserve food" does not mean that you can mix X with food and have preserved food. Anything which has preserving properties only works under certain conditions. You have to stick with existing recipes for shelf stable foods.
This is a duplicate of a similar question: "If I smear feces on my food to prevent my roommates from eating it, will it affect the taste?"
Using boiling water certainly works nice for flatbreads (like roti) - they stale less quickly, and the flour gets pre-cooked a bit so the main cooking can be real short and hot.
Yes, most varieties of vinegar (all the ones you would use for preservation, at any rate) have an acidic taste, which is imparted to the foods preserved with them. Additionally, if the vinegar has a flavor (e.g. red wine, sherry, ...), it will also affect the taste.
It's sort of inevitable, given that vinegar is a diluted acid. You can mitigate this by adding salt, or further diluting the vinegar with water (though the latter affects the preservative properties of the vinegar).
In any case, I would not recommend using a liquid-based method to preserve bread, as it'll probably promote mold growth more than inhibit it, or ruin the texture of the bread. You usually want to use dry preservation methods (e.g. wrapped freezing), or incorporate the preservatives (such as a sourdough starter or vinegar) into the recipe prior to baking.
What vinegar isn't acidic (unless we interpret it containing a lot of sweetness or being very dilute as non-acidic)? Vinegar is based on naturally generated acetic acid, which is an acid any way you flavour it...
Note that I did not say there are non-acidic vinegars, but rather that there are non-acidic-tasting vinegars, such as (in my personal experience) certain balsamic vinegars (which would make for poor preserving liquids, I'm guessing). I agree that a vinegar must have acetic acid in it by definition, but it does not follow that you must necessarily be able to taste it.
Are you trying to extend the shelf life of your bread? or are you doing a scientific experiment?
Salt is the traditional ingredient added to bread to extend shelf life. Today there are modern preservatives, but bread artisans shun it.
Vinegar is acetic acid, and you could use it as an ingredient when baking. It will slow down the yeast, but if you don't add too much you should be fine. If you want to try a different acid you might go with milk. It has lactose sugar, and if you use a sourdough starter the lactobacillus bacteria will convert lactose into lactic acid giving it a tangy sour taste as well as extending shelf life a few days from mold growing on the bread.
If by chance you are using a chemical leavener instead of using yeast you'll need to adjust your recipe to account for the acid and alkaline balance. Baking powder is ph neutral when activated. If you are adding acid you may need to switch to baking soda instead of baking powder during the leavening process as you figure out your CO2 gas vs desired acidic taste balance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.897287
| 2018-03-27T15:16:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88675",
"authors": [
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Just Joel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65650",
"mech",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100806
|
Sous vide chicken without an internal temperature of 165 °F (75 °C)
I am new to sous vide food. I am cooking a chicken breast. I have read that chicken requires an internal temperature of 165 degrees Fahrenheit (75 degrees Celcius). However the recipe only requires a temperature of 150 °F (66 °C).
https://recipes.anovaculinary.com/recipe/chicken-breast
How does this not cause food poisoning?
We checked the internal temperature after an hour and it was only 130 °F (54 °C). Is this safe to eat?
My roommate's electronic induction hot plate only has temperature settings for 140F, 180F, 210F, etc. so I sous vide my chicken breast at 140F for an hour. I leave it on the counter a while so it's room temperature first. (I also rinse it off before cooking.)
@Chloe An induction hot plate doesn't provide the level of temperature control or precision you'd need for sous vide cooking. I'm happy you haven't gotten sick yet, but you should stop doing that, before you get sick.
@Sneftel That's why I cook it for an hour. Doesn't matter the temperature as long as you cook it enough. https://www.seriouseats.com/2015/07/the-food-lab-complete-guide-to-sous-vide-chicken-breast.html#safe Technically you only have to cook it for 28m. Look at that nice exponential decay curve!
@Chloe It really, really does matter. That "140 degree hot plate" may only be heating the chicken to 120 degrees.
The reduction of bacterial growth, and thus food safety, follow a logarithmic pattern that factors in temperature plus time. During sous vide cooking, lower temperature are frequently used for longer times. Employed correctly, this renders food safe. For an excellent explanation see the work of Douglas Baldwin.
Specifically in this case Table 4.1 for poultry pasteurization https://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Table_4.1
J Kenji Lopez-Alt's explanation is perhaps somewhat more approachable: https://www.seriouseats.com/2015/07/the-food-lab-complete-guide-to-sous-vide-chicken-breast.html#safe
However, this answer doesn't answer the ultimate question of whether that chicken is safe to eat. If it was only at 130F after an hour, it is not safe to eat. It should be cooked at least another hour until it reaches 150 and sits there for 3 minutes.
@AlexReinking while you are correct that after an hour, chicken at 130F is not safe (according to the linked charts), your conclusion is not necessarily required. I realize you are basing your answer on the OP, but just for informational purposes... Firstly, the thickness of the chicken breast has to be taken into account, so it is impossible to judge the time without that information. Also, according to Baldwin, it could be made safe as low as 134.5F, as long as it was held there long enough.
@moscafj - Reading your chart, at 134.5F and 5mm thickness, it takes two hours and 15 minutes to be safe and goes up with thickness from there. OP stated that they checked the temperature after one hour of cooking (less than half the time) and it was below that.
@AlexReinking 5mm is like a thin slice of chicken (think two nickles and a penny stacked)...I'm not arguing with you, just trying to help people understand the relationship between time, temperature, and food safety.
We ended up cooking it for another hour at a higher temperature to make sure.
@moscafj - I agree with you that one needs to understand time/temp/food safety. The problem is that the specific recipe in this case is a potential hazard. Baldwin's tables are great, but the OP's link says "1 hour" with no qualification about thickness, etc., which makes it potentially ambiguous and unsafe. The link doesn't even state that the chicken needs to be fresh not frozen, which obviously also impacts cooking time! I don't know why OP's chicken was only at 130F after one hour (too thick? frozen? etc?), but the answer to the actual question here is that it would NOT be safe to eat.
@Athanasius I don't disagree. His first question appeared to me to be more general..."how is this safe?"
The other answers are correct regarding why that temperature is okay for sous vide, but I just want to clarify why it's not good enough when using other cooking methods.
As moscafj suggested, you need the meat to spend a certain amount of time at any particular temperature to actually kill off enough pathogens, and this is where sous vide acts quite differently from most other cooking methods.
The key difference is that sous vide never exposes any part of the meat to higher temperatures than the target temperature, so you get a lot of time right near that temperature; whereas more traditional methods typically involve exposing the meat to far higher temperatures, so the meat will be shooting right past that minimum safe temperature in a short amount of time. For example, when cooking on the grill, it might be exposed to air that's 450°F or more, so if you measure the meat at 165°F, it might have only been at a safe temperature for a minute or two — which is just enough time to kill those pathogens. (Also note the carryover effect.) If you had pulled it off the grill at 150°F, it would only have just entered the safe region, so few of the pathogens would be killed before you start cooling it again. On the other hand, you can't leave it on the grill for much longer, because it will quickly attain the texture of cardboard. Sous vide will never pass the target temperature, though the texture will degrade if you wait a really long time.
All that being said, sous vide does take a bit longer to get the meat up to the target temperature in the first place — and the colder or thicker your piece of meat when you put it in, the longer it takes. Even if your water temperature reached 150°F a minute after you put the chicken in, the meat itself will be far below that temperature for quite a while. So no, chicken that's at 130°F is still coming to temperature, and you have to cook it for longer because it needs to actually spend time at your target temperature. It may only need around 6 minutes at 150°F, but it needs to get there first.
The link says for "soft" chicken you should let it go to 140 °F (60 °C) for 1.5 to 4 hours.
You checked at 1 hour and it was below that (130 °F (54 °C)) ... so you need to cook it some more.
This link gives the same temperature for chicken and explain why the lower temperature is acceptable when cooking for longer time
Good link for the temperature safety thing.
Where does it explain the lower tempature is ok? I see lower tempatures listed with the same cook times. But I don't understand how cooking at lower then 165 would ever result in an internal tempature higher. I don't see anything explaining why a lower tempature is ok. Just articles saying do it.
oops! I edited my post for the proper link.
@marsh 165 isn't "safe" so much as "idiot-proof," in that it almost instantly kills the desired quantity and types of bacteria. The bacteria can also be killed to the same degree at lower temperatures, but it takes significantly longer. That process is called "Pasteurization," which you may recognize from milk—it's exactly the same process that makes your milk safe to drink for so long.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.897676
| 2019-08-19T00:01:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100806",
"authors": [
"Alex Reinking",
"Athanasius",
"Chloe",
"Kevin",
"Luciano",
"Max",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"marsh",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55829
|
Does one really need to add sodium bicarbonate if one already uses baking powder?
I find that sodium bicarbonate ruins the taste of many cakes and cookies. If I'm using double acting baking powder, do I need to add the sodium bicarbonate as well? I have come accross so many recipes that require both ingredients.
Your explicit question is essentially a duplicate of this one: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/23985/1672 but I think maybe you're also implicitly asking about how to fix the taste of some recipes. It can take a stab at it but it might help if you posted an example recipe.
If the recipe calls for both (and it's a good recipe), it actually needs both. A common reason is that the baking powder provides leavening and the baking soda helps neutralize a bit of the acid.
It's a little surprising you're finding that baking soda ruins the taste and not baking powder; baking powder contains baking soda. I wonder if "ruins the taste" is an exaggeration or if you had a bad experience with baking soda and are a little more sensitive to it now. But if it's really ruining the taste, it's just a bad recipe. There are a couple possibilities:
the total amount of chemical leavening is too large in the recipe (it doesn't matter whether it's soda or powder) - make sure teaspoon hasn't been changed to tablespoon by accident!
there's not enough acid in the recipe to react with the baking soda so you actually have baking soda left over
There is definitely some variation in how sensitive people are to baking soda's flavor -- I could barely detect it when we mismeasured it in pancakes once, but my spouse and kids found it overpowering.
@Erica Yup, for sure - but you had to mismeasure it to notice that. I think you'd have to be extraordinarily sensitive for it to "ruin" things if used in the correct quantity.
It could be the difference between aluminum free baking soda, and otherwise. There IS a large difference in taste between the two for me.
Two comments here: (1) Felicia wrote "...ruins the taste of many cakes and cookies." Why not all? No links or examples of recipes were provided. Were there acidic ingredients in the ruined recipes or not - was the baking soda used for browning? Surely there are enough bad recipes out there that her fear could be fully justified - excessive soda can make baked goods taste like soap. Yes, in recipes from reputable sources, the baking soda component is usually well considered. & (2) Why was her question good enough to warrant 2 answers and 3 comments w/o anyone before me giving her a bump-up?
@StephenEure (1) Well, maybe some recipes are worse than others. But recipes can be bad in all kinds of ways. The answer is still "if the recipe's good, soda is necessary and won't mess up the taste". I'm not saying the OP's recipes are all good, I'm saying if it's ruining it the recipe is bad! (2) People are bad/forgetful about voting on questions. I personally didn't vote it up because I think it's a little hard to give a good answer without examples, but I don't really feel I should have to explain that before I'm allowed to try to help anyway by answering.
(1) That is why I asked "why not all" to the OP's question. The OP suggested that baking powder ruined the taste of many (but not all?) recipes. Inconsistencies are difficult to address in the absence of any specifics. I guess that I believe your answer is probably absolutely appropriate for her question, but it is difficult to judge based on how vague the OP's question is. (2) I guess that as a much less experienced responder on this site, I have taken the approach that any question that I think is worthy of response is at least worthy of an up-vote. Always wanting to encourage newcomers.
@StephenEure I'm a little confused what you want me to change in my answer - it sounds kind of like you're trying to ask the OP for clarification? Maybe comment on the question in that case? (And yes, I have a slightly higher bar for "useful" than you, I suppose. Yours is reasonable too.)
@Jefromi - No, I do not want you to change your answer - it is complete and absolutely accurate. Instead, I think the OP question is impossible to answer - she does not give examples or links to supplement her question and doesn't even seem to suggest that her problem is consistent throughout recipes that include multiple sources of chemical leavening. My worry was that, although recipes from reputable sources will use bakings powder and soda with great results, your correct response can't necessarily address why the OP's recipes taste offensive with both in the absence of details.
Another important reason that many cake and cookie recipes include baking soda is that the alkalinity increases both Maillard browning and caramelization. Failure to include sufficient amounts of baking soda may lead to having to choose between A) properly cooked, but pale and less flavorful baked goods or B) overcooked, but browned and "toasted" ones.
The answer is: "It depends."
Baking soda requires an acidic ingredient to leaven foods, but baking powder has the acid already added. Some recipes will use both if there is an excess or acid in the dough/batter that can be used by baking soda to rise more.
If you find that the taste of baking soda ruins your dishes it's probably that you didn't have enough acid to neutralize it or you're using too much.
Baking soda does not require an acid to produce leavening, but leavening is increased with the addition of acid. Sodium bicarbonate dissolved in a little water releases CO2 at room temperature and above.
@Didgeridrew, not distilled water.
yes in distilled water. http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/inorganic/faq/carbonate-decomposition.shtml
@Didgeridrew, you really need to learn how to read scientific documents. Baking soda breaks down in air also when heated. At low temperatures it simply (mostly) recombines into Sodium Bicarbonate (although a little is lost that's why it loses potency over time) water simply gives the by product something else to react with, so no water dose not cause sodium bicarbonate to breakdown it just makes the breakdown more permanent.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.898322
| 2015-03-18T16:59:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55829",
"authors": [
"Amer Posadas",
"BrownRedHawk",
"Cascabel",
"Charles Hansel",
"Didgeridrew",
"Erica",
"IBD Center of Manhattan",
"Lindsey Sayer",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Stephen Eure",
"Thirusha Sunker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33356"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78231
|
Does cooking octopus in salt or pastry crust produce juicy octopus?
I've been reading up on octopus preparation and the different methods used to tenderise the meat. Rustic recipes call for a good beating against a rock until soapy, others talk of a long boil or braise. Papaya has been mentioned as has a pre-cook freeze. Sous vide is obviously a popular one (times and temperatures vary).
Before I put my experimenting hat on, I wondered if anyone has tried a salt-crust bake or a pastry crust? I feel the juices would be kept in, the temperature would be consistent but I am worried about the salt content.
Welcome! Am I understanding right that you're trying to figure out if those would work as tenderization methods? (and perhaps whether any other issues are likely to come up?)
Hello cookingcostume! On our site, we are somewhat particular about the kind of questions we take. Poll questions, like "which of you has done X" are not accepted. Your question here is good, but the wording of the title could have been mistaken for a poll question, so I changed it to match your body better without looking like a closing candidate.
Here's another way to tenderize octopus! :-O http://www.popsci.com/dolphins-throw-octopus-around
@Harlan I want to know when animal–welfare groups will begin campaigning the dolphins for all the dolphins' abuses of fish and mollusks.
ok, so octopus either needs to be cooked for a very short amount of time (just until it's barely cooked through) to keep the muscle tissue tender or for a very long amount of time (2 hrs plus) to break down the connective tissue. The tenderization methods that involve beating it against a rock or whatever are usually for short-cook methods like grilling from raw.
So if you're baking it in a salt crust or pastry crust, that wouldn't be particularly conducive to short-cook methods... it's going to need to be cooked for at least two hours. The main problem I see with cooking octopus using this method is that octopus gives off a TON of liquid when slow cooking, and it would a) dissove enough salt to make it inedibly salty, b) dissolve the salt crust completely leaving you with a salty mess, or c) both. With a pastry crust, you wouldn't have to worry about the octopus being salty, but you would have to worry about the crust becoming a juice-soaked sloppy mess.
Frankly, I'd just give up on the salt crust. You might be able to fashion a crust using salt and egg whites which would stick together, but I really do think it would be inedibly salty.
If you pre-slow-cooked the octopus and made a gravy out of the cooking liquid, you could definitely get in into a pastry crust. That seems like it's more work than what you're looking for though. Good luck!
From my own experience, frozen octopus as well as squid / calamri, it is best to use the frozen. It is already cleaned and stays tender as you cook. If you have to use fresh they say it stays most tender if you boil for about five minutes then slowly roast in an oven at 200 degrees. I have never tried this method myself. I always used frozen.
But this question is explicitly about the effects of a salt or pastry crust? Teddie, welcome to the site! Let me suggest you take the [tour] and browse our [help] to find out about the rules and principles of this site. One rule, for example: Answer the question.
@Stephie : of course, you could also take it as 'the crust might help, but freezing will help you way more, and a fresh octopus in a crust might still be rubber'. Especially as it sounds like the real intention of the question is to find ways to keep it tender, and freezing is one of those ways. I admit, this is the sort of answer I would (and was about to) put in a comment ... but I get told so often that it should've been an actual answer, I don't see a problem.
Octopus is a bit similar to Calamari or squid.
Simmer gently in stock or water for three to four hours. Test after two and a half, three and three and a half hours.
Or do same in a slow oven.
In both cases, pan must be covered.
The question specifically asks about cooking in a salt crust, and your answer doesn't mention that anywhere. If you have any experience of cooking octopus or other relevant foods in a salt crust then please add this to your answer
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.899058
| 2017-02-08T21:02:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78231",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Harlan",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"can-ned_food",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"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
}
|
127999
|
How to use pectin (E440) to make confectionary/gummy for sports?
I am experimenting with a fructose/maltodextrin/MCT powder mixture as fuel for longer running sessions. I have a good mixture which works well for me, has a nice mouth feel due to the MCT, is reasonably easy to swallow and does not give me stomach problems. But carrying it around in squeeze bottles and spilling it over myself while trying to gulp it while running is less fun. The mixture has the consistency of a thick goo.
I bought some pure pectine (made from apple if that is relevant, 100% E440) and am going to experiment with gelling my mixture, basically converting it into confectionary, so I can take it with me as-is (without a squeeze bottle) and can either bite it off, or wrap it in breakfast paper if necessary. I found lots and lots of recipes for marmalade/jelly based on pectine, but it's hard to tell which parts of those recipes are relevant for the "mechanical" working of pectine, and which are just separate concerns (i.e. food safety in the case of boiling the fruit juice...).
Wikipedia mentions that it needs to be heated - what is the relevant temperature it needs to reach to start the process (food safety concerns play no role in my application in the way they do for marmalade making)? Does it matter how fast or slow it cools down? Is it possible to freeze the end result or will that change the gelling properties after thawing?
As far as I can tell, I need to lower pH somewhat; I like my running fuel to taste sour anyways, and am using a few spritzes of lemon concentrate for taste reasons. Does pectine require some very specific acidicity for best results, or is just eyeballing it probably good enough?
While I could simply start throwing ingredients together - do you have some percentage of pectine vs. sugars vs. water that would be a good starting starting point?
Certainly for thickening jam you just need some acidity, not precision. And I have some commercial pectin-based fruit jelly sweets here that use lactic acid and sodium lactate, the former at a level higher than the colours and flavourings. I use them as a reserve energy source for long-distance riding (but didn't need to open them yesterday), so I await your results with interest.
Maltodextrin will make some difference, but here's a sugar-based recipe that's very close otherwise (found by googling energy gel chew recipe vegan pectin). When I'm a bit more awake I may be capable of writing an answer, but I'm hoping someone gets there before me. That might take a few days as I've just cycled 780km in 3 days, including a 24 hour ride with no sleep.
For jam, boiling is about getting the sugar to water ratio high enough so that it sets (measured by the boiling point rising above that of water). This is the step that needs some precision. You'd need a similar boiling point, with more pectin to make it thicker, but Maltodextrin will have effects I can't predict, having not cooked with it. You might also look at thickening with corn starch (as well as pectin, or instead) - that's also a source of carbs, and a bit less hygroscopic. I've found open pectin fruit jellies to go sticky on a damp day.
For later ... https://www.sosa.cat/wp/wp-content/uploads/Pectines_ENG.pdf
@ChrisH, I've updated my recipe significantly if you're still waiting for the results. :)
As threatened in the OP, I have gone on to experiment a bit. This is the current iteration of what I'm doing for my long runs:
Ingredients
For roughly 30g carbs, scale up as required:
Maltodextrin: 25.5g
Fructose: 5.5g
Water: 24.8g
Apple pectin (E440): 3.0g
Lemon juice: 1.0g
Corn starch
That's 2 big gummies.
Preparation
Mix maltodextrin, fructose and water in a cold pot.
Measure out the pectin separately.
Put the lemon juice in two egg cups or similar containers; as it is only a very small amount you may want to figure out the number of drops you need...
Also make sure to coat the sides of the containers with the juice, just swirl it around as well as possible.
Cooking
Heat the pot at medium-high temperature until it starts to simmer, then reduce to medium temperature (where it still gets hotter, but slowly). Stir vigorously, get rid of any leftover clumps.
When it seems to boil and doesn't want to get any hotter, add the pectin. Stir very vigorously, taking care to scrape everything off the walls and also the bottom of the pot each time you go around.
The mixture will become slightly thicker soon. As soon as it does, transfer to the two containers as quickly as possible. The time for this is very short, and the mass is of course extremely sticky. Two tea spoons are helpful - shovel with the one, scrape off with the other.
Cooling
Let the containers sit for a few minutes, until there is a noticeable "skin" on top.
Carefully try to flip the gummies inside the containers over - this seems to work well for me; the residual moisture from the lemon juice seems to keep them from sticking to the cups too much. If it is too sticky, stop and don't force it. This is just supposed to coat the upper side with lemon as well.
Let cool to room temperature, then cover and transfer to the fridge.
Using
When it's time to go running or whatever sport you're doing...
Put a spoon of corn starch in a tea cup.
Get the gummies from the fridge and swirl them around in the starch.
Take them out and roll them around in your hands to get most of the starch off.
They should be non-sticky now.
Final words
That's it. They are near perfect regarding the consistency, I can take them with me in a little plastic bag, they don't stick to each other or to my fingers. Taste seems OK for me. I'm not too happy about the sugar mass sticking to my teeth, but a gulp of water and a bit of sloshing around seems to get rid of that.
Regarding temperature: I found that measuring the temperature is not critical for me. Since I'm stirring, I just need to notice the moment when it starts to set, and that is my signal to stop and transfer them to the containers.
(Oh and credit where credit is due: the inspiration comes from GCN's "Rocket Fuel", which is more of a juice or gel than a gummy. It has no pectin, but instead MCT powder for mouth feel - quite a different result, but also recommended if you prefer that).
EDIT: Removed MCT, reduced pectin and lemon juice, added corn starch, rewrote the instructions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.899405
| 2024-03-31T18:36:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127999",
"authors": [
"AnoE",
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51949"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26166
|
What is the correct internal temperature for rabbit meat?
I have never cooked rabbit before, and my charts don't include rabbit. Are there food safety considerations speaking for thorough heating, as with chicken, or is it acceptable to cook it medium rare? Also, what temperature corresponds with the different grades of doneness? I intend to roast half a small rabbit in the oven; the meat doesn't look suited for collagen-based cooking, the animal is probably too young.
I remembered that my copy of Joy of Cooking has some game recipes, including rabbit, but none of them have temperatures - one roasted ~1.5 hours, and the rest simmered a couple hours, except it does say if the rabbit is very young you can sautee it like chicken (just until tender) - maybe that helps?
In the food safety section of Modernist Cuisine (1-138) it says that all wild rabbit must be cooked through:
Wild rabbit must be cooked well done to kill any tularemia bacteria; for rare or medium cooked rabbit dishes, chefs can substitute farm-raised rabbits that have been kept segregated from their wild relatives by trustworthy breeders.
The section on meat (3-96) recommends bringing rabbit loin to an internal temperature of 59C (138F) and going by the section I've just quoted this is obviously only for farmed meat. The recommendation for the legs is to cook sous vide for 1 hour @ 66C (151F) which again obviously refers to farmed because that's definitely not long enough to tenderise wild rabbit meat.
I would really recommend cooking the leg meat and loin separately as I find that the loin dries out long before the legs are cooked through. The legs are much nicer braised too.
Rabbits are host to a bacteria called Francisella tularensis which can cause a nasty disease, Tularemia (also called Rabbit Fever). This causes lesions, fever, lethargy, and if untreated, possible death. For that reason it is advisable to cook rabbit as thoroughly as you would, say, chicken. It can also be a good idea to wear gloves when handling the meat, just in case.
In any case, wild rabbits spend their lives sprinting about the countryside and so the meat is naturally quite tough, despite being lean. Most recipes I have seen use braising as the cooking method. Treat it as you would chicken thighs and you should be fine - perhaps rabbit cacciatore?
Interesting info. In my case, it is a farm-grown rabbit, probably raised without space to sprint and butchered as soon as the meat weighed more than the bones. So definitely not braising meat. I wonder if farm-raising increases or decreases the chance of this disease.
In that case I'd still cook it like chicken, but the leanest parts (the loin, small though it is, for example) I'd treat like breast and the legs etc more like thigh.
I baked it to 72 dec C with bacon on top to keep it moist and it was way over cooked and tough but still tasted good.
Next time I will cook it to 66 deg and let it sit for 10 mins before eating.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) says 160F (71C) is sufficient as an internal temperature for rabbit (and other red game meats) to be safe. They also say that it is ok for the meat to still look "pink", so long as this temperature has been reached.
USDA Information Page on Game
Good source for the "very secure" option, although I can imagine that the meat I had when I asked the question would turn to a shoesole at 71 degrees.
I consume Rabbit from both field and farm and I treat it as I would, if cooking a Coyote. I became sick in High School with it, and here at 70 I still remember how ill I became.
While overseas in military, I insisted that Chef get out the Burnzomatic to make sure there was no pink. Chefs are dangerous when it comes to when fish or game is done, especially when it comes to an experienced Rabbit conisiusour like myself.
The minimum temperature should always be 155⁰-160⁰, unless in a stew, or you are starving up in the mountains. Take it from a guy that's hunted all his life; there is no reason in the world to eat any game whether wild or domestic, a step away from jerky.
It will still be tasty and you will never experience cramps from Rabbit Hades. Chefs do not eat their own food as they cover their goof-ups with some type of sauce.
You always treat rabbit like chicken ;) temps are same. cook well. internal temp 165 . 2pounders are best for pan frying. Stew ..braising... baking..roasting.. all great ways to make rabbit :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.899911
| 2012-09-14T16:56:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26166",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Grace Hwang",
"Kira S",
"ViKiNG",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96640",
"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
}
|
119811
|
Can I cook with the olive oil from canned sardines?
The olive oil from canned sardine is delicious to eat with the sardines themselves on toast.
However the olive oil doesn't seem to pair with any other food. In the past I tried to use the oil with lemon juice/parsley/garlic/green beans, the food turned out to have a very potent unpleasant fishy smell.
Why is it that olive oil from canned sardine does not go with any other food?
Is this oil useful for cooking?
The sardines are swimming in the oil and the high temperatures during canning release the "fishiness" into the oil. You won't get that away. It's "fishy oil".
Hey, "What dish can you make" is considered a recipe request, which is off-limits for SA. If you change the question to "is this oil useful for cooking?", which seems to be what you want to know, then it would be allowable. Otherwise your question is likely to be closed. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
@FuzzyChef yeah I am not looking for a specific recipe and I've updated the post.
@Johannes_B yeah probably, but the oil goes well with sardines not other food like I mentioned above. I am wondering what makes the difference.
@FuzzyChef: there’s actually an exception for items that would otherwise be considered food waste, which I think this would qualify as.
My cat and dog would both be quite offended to hear one of their all-time favorite treats was characterized as "food waste"
@PaperclipBob yeah they should at least be used for pet food.
FWIW, I use the oil from jars sun-dried tomatoes for cooking. Better than tossing it.
@Steve Does it work well? Sounds delicious since it's infused with tomato flavor I image.
@bakingfanatic it does...and I don't even like raw tomatoes ;o)
Does this answer your question? What to do with the olive oil from canned sardines?
@moscafj, No unfortunately because it didn't answer the question of what flavor works.
Fish spread would be an example where you can reuse the oil, since you aim for the fishy taste anyway.
My basic approach is to mash the sardines (or any other kind of canned fish in oil) with a fork, and mix them with some cream cheese. The oil not only adds flavour, but also some additional creamyness (and I would add a dash of oil for these kinds of spreads anyway).
Then maybe add one or two diced boiled eggs (the yolk is a good emulsifyier), and season as you like (I really like tandoori masala here).
Yeah I do something similar. I use sour cream instead of cream cheese. Fish spread is the only application that I can find for the left over oil by far where it works well. Maybe its the dairy that neutralizes unpleasant fishy smell.
Yes, you can use the oil for other purposes, although due to the strong fish aroma and taste it would probably best be used only in a fish dish. I frequently use the oil from anchovies to fry onions to add to a Bolognese sauce to add a depth of flavour, a few anchovies being frequently added to this dish as "Italian MSG". It also works well added to tomato sauce for pizza toppings.
I would use the oil to fry onions and garlic for say, a fish casserole or stew. I would add some additional olive oil as well though, as the smoke point may be affected by the soluble fish oil already in the product.
Fish is a very strong aroma as you say, so you have to be careful what you use it in as it will overpower and dominate. Although I have not tried it, it may also work well as a replacement for fish sauce in some Thai dishes.
I haven't tried frying with the leftover olive oil from the can yet, I suspected the oil might turn bitter and oxidize just like regular olive oil when used for drying. But yeah it sounds safer to put the leftover oil in fishy dishes
@bakingfanatic you didn't mean to write drying, did you? (Actually a technical term for oils like linseed, but olive oil certainly doesn't do that!) — Olive oil is perfectly suitable for frying as long as you don't overdo it with the temperature. Great for gently sautéing soffritto, garlic etc..
@leftaroundabout, sorry about the typo, I meant "frying". good to know that olive oil can also be used for frying, thanks!
I do often use for frying when I cook with the sardines anyway; the real problem is not heating the oil (I think it's often sunflower oil where I live), but the residue of watery stuff and pieces of the fish, which I never can perfectly decant. This causes quite some splashing in a frying pan.
I think lemon juice should react with the fish amines to yield a salt that would reduce or completely remove the fish aroma and/or can be flushed with water?
@Frank yeah I tried mixing with lemon juice. The dressing tastes fine by itself , but adds a strong fishy smell to salads. I ended up throwing away the salad.
Well said, also works well in Thai, Singaporean, Malaysian, and other highly spiced flavorful cuisines. Love it in Thai Currys.
That sardine oil is going to be primarily useful for dishes that already have a strong fish flavor -- such as from the sardines themselves. For example, multiple recipes for Pasta con le Sarde include using some of the oil to cook the pasta sauce, which also includes the fish.
It's notable, though, that many recipes do not use the oil from the can. Even in a dish that includes the sardines, that oil can be just too fishy (that's my own experience).
It would also be interesting to try using the sardine oil as a replacement for olive oil + anchovy in other recipes. However, that's not a swap I can find much support for online; Serious Eats even goes so far as to insist on anchovies in Pasta con le Sarde itself.
To sum up: feel free to experiment a little, but that oil is not particularly useful, and you're more likely to just throw it out.
There is a chance that the fishy sardine oil does not go with onion, garlic and parsley. I am also in favor of anchovy for the pasta dish.
Or feed it to your cat they go mad for the fish oil. Even just the fish flavour brine from a can of tuna mixed with dry cat food makes my kitty very happy.
I like to mix sardine oil with milk and serve it with granola. The milk neutralizes the fish flavor and it adds an interesting color to the milk. You may want to chop in fruit or add a pinch of sugar to set the flavor of the milk also.
Using milk is interesting, I want to give it a try.
@bakingfanatic Please report back if you do, I can't imagine this being anything other than vile but I'd be interested to hear otherwise.
I don't see why this cannot be used in a similar way to fish sauce. If a recipe requires a blast of concentrated fishyness go for it. The texture may be slightly different but unlikely to be of much notice. I like your frugality. I had a similar culinary upbringing.
Tried it all.
Great taste after you saute’ the sardine in garlic and onion using the olive oil in the can!Use Maggie seasoning if desired! Sprinkle with chili flakes.Fantastic!” Muy deliciouso”.
Thanks for reading.
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.900321
| 2022-02-11T16:22:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119811",
"authors": [
"Frank",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Johannes_B",
"L.Dutch",
"Neil Meyer",
"Paperclip Bob",
"Steve",
"bakingfanatic",
"dbmag9",
"elias altenberg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97883",
"leftaroundabout",
"moscafj",
"phipsgabler"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98919
|
Biscotti with chocolate drizzle in batter
I make biscotti. I want to introduce chocolate — not chips, but melted chocolate — drizzled through the dough without turning it completely into chocolate. Any suggestions on how to do this?
You'd have to do it at the time you form the loaf for the first bake.
One way would be to use a layer or two of chocolate sticks (as used in pain au chocolat but seemingly sold as "croissant sticks"). This would be very suitable chocolate as even melted it's not too runny. You could probably split them to get more, thinner sticks. You could melt chocolate and allow it to cool in strips to make your own, which could be longer, thinner and less even. You'd need to have the dough mixed and then mix in whatever chocolate you use as little as possible.
A different approach would be to make a half batch of normal dough and a half batch of chocolate dough then combine those without mixing, as if making a marble cake. But this may not be what you're looking for.
You could grate solid chocolate in a ribbon and it will melt in the oven.
@GdD I've had success with curls but not ribbons (but I've never tried systematically). I recon my graters would be too fine and make a chocolate speckle dough. You've probably got a trick I don't know of
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.900991
| 2019-05-11T03:29:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98919",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99174
|
Is it possible to ferment fresh coconut or its water?
Has anyone ever fermented fresh coconut or its water and produced an edible probiotic that tasted good and did not make you sick?
In a word, yes.
According to MakeSauerkraut.com (of all places)
To make fermented coconut water, the sweet water is mixed with a
culture (milk kefir grains, water kefir grains, whey from yogurt or a
powdered starter) and left to ferment for 18 to 48 hours in a warm
place.
There seems to be a lot of recipes out there for such a thing, a quick internet search for "ferment coconut water" should yield more recipes, methods and the like.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.901116
| 2019-05-25T14:13:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99174",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96039
|
Does Pressure cook work for hard to soften soybeans?
I do not have a pressure cook in my house. But the soybean I bought remains really hard after soaking for 24 hours and boiled for 1 hour. I saw someone saying that some old beans will never soften no matter how long I cook. Is this really true?
One of the poster mentioned 10 min cooking in a pressure cook should soften the beans. This appeals to common sense. But I am still concerned about those people saying "will never soften no matter what".
So, I am asking if any one has tried boiling which did not work but succeeded to soften the beans with pressure cook? I have no need for a pressure cook. And I don't want to buy a pressure cook if it too can not soften stubborn hard soybeans.
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/95711/69382 and https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44992/why-wont-my-beans-soften
and https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93606/cant-get-beans-to-cook-to-tender
Possible duplicate of Why won't my beans soften?
Soya beans take from 4-6 hours of gentle boiling/ simmering to cook. They're a pain in the ass! They would take maybe 40 minutes in a pressure cooker even. I hate them, but this is the normal cooking time for them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.901197
| 2019-01-30T04:54:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96039",
"authors": [
"Ess Kay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94206
|
Is only roe from sturgeon considered as caviar?
Is only roe from sturgeon considered caviar?
As sturgeon can only survive in cold waters, it cannot naturally occur near the Equator. What are substitutes for the sturgeon caviar so that one would be able to utilize fresh unpasteurized caviar in a country like Pakistan?
It's even more specific than that: traditionally, only eggs from the sturgeon of the Caspian or Black Seas are considered caviar.
Other fish eggs that are eaten in the same manner as caviar are: sturgeon eggs from elsewhere, paddlefish eggs, salmon eggs, trout eggs, carp eggs, or lumpfish or whitefish eggs. Of these, only the carp is adaptable to warm climates; all of the others are cold-water fish.
So, if you want fish eggs that you can use as "caviar" that you raise & eat fresh in the hot areas of Pakistan, you'd be limited to carp eggs. That said ... Pakistan has high mountains and cold areas as well, presumably you could raise salmon or trout in mountain streams/lakes for their eggs, which are enjoyed by more people than carp eggs.
There is no regional appellation for caviar, as such any sturgeon roe/eggs can and are sold and transported internationally as "caviar". For what it is worth, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran farm sturgeon and sell caviar internationally, there is no reason to suspect this is not possible in at least some parts of Pakistan.
I know the folks who run Tsar Nicholas "caviar" in California. On the international market, they have fought (and lost) against Caspian Sea providers for the right to use the term caviar. So while there may not be a DPO, there certainly seems to be legal limits around using the term.
Agreed that farming sturgeon in Pakistan doesn't seem impossible (although expensive).
From your own source, international, US, and European regulators have a species rule without a place of origin for labeling, however I am certain that in some markets where caspian producers have influence this has other considerations. That being said, capture of wild sturgeon from feeder rivers of the caspian sea (e.g. Volga) that are traditional sturgeon fisheries has been illegal for many years. In that sense of the word there is no more real caviar left for sale in the world.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.901309
| 2018-11-24T18:07:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94206",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"crasic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3370",
"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
}
|
117352
|
Proper size of Portuguese custard tart
On Amazon, I see that most of the egg tart molds have dimensions
~7 cm top diameter
~4 cm bottom diameter
~2 cm height
However, I then see some other molds seemingly from Portugal with dimensions
7.2 cm - 7.5 cm top diameter
~3.6 cm bottom diameter
2.7 cm - 3 cm height
which is a slightly smaller bottom and considerably taller height. My question is how (or whether) these differences in sizes affect the tart, and whether the ones from Amazon or the latter site would give a result that'd be considered closer to a "proper" pastel de nata.
For what my personal experience is worth: The pastel de nata I ate in Portugal this year (at least from 10 different bakeries) were more in line with a 2 cm height than 3 cm I'd say. I could imagine having more headroom gives you more volume for custard and "protection" against overflowing, but other than that you could probably even use a muffin form and be fine.
when improvising (i.e. I don't have access to proper forms for pastéis de nata or empadinhas), I prefer muffin forms than egg tart forms - since the custard rises when baking, a muffin form gives better custard-to-crust ratio while preventing overflowing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.901500
| 2021-09-28T01:49:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117352",
"authors": [
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123459
|
How to make clotted cream in the instant pot without the yogurt function?
I found a bunch of recipes to make clotted cream using the yogurt function (https://www.thatskinnychickcanbake.com/homemade-clotted-cream/), but I have a Duo Crisp, which does not have that function. It has sous vide, saute, pressure cook, and slow cook.
Is it possible to make using any of those?
ChatGPG is not a search engine, it produces answers that sound good, but are often completely and occasionally dangerously wrong. Do not trust anything ChatGPG says.
Lol, that's fair. I'm just including it because I couldn't find a good answer on google--all search results use the yogurt function or something else I don't have.
"instant pot yogurt without yogurt button" gives some results, no idea of the same method (basically wrapping a turned off IP that is at the correct temp in a blanket) can be used for clotted cream
I've also found that most slow cookers uncovered on the warm feature keep a big pot of water at just about 110, an instant pot on keep warm might behave similarly
You don't make clotted cream in an instant pot without a yogurt function, which is why you are not getting any search results. Making clotted cream involves heating cream to a constant warm temperature until the cream clots, which is similar to making yogurt. The yogurt mode on an instant pot heats to that relatively low temperature. If it doesn't have that mode it's going to pressure cook the cream and you won't get the result you want.
The steps above are not only wrong but possibly could damage an instant pot or pressure cooker. There are few recipes that would call for 4 hours of pressure cooking, and with the amount of water called for in these steps after 4 hours the cooker is likely to run dry, which is not a good thing. ChatGPG pulled generic instructions for an instant pot, then the time it takes for some other methods to make clotted cream and mashed them together to give you something not only wrong but possibly dangerous.
Don't trust anything ChatGPG or any other AI chat tool says, they are clever but not designed for accuracy!
I do pressure cook for 4 hours - but that’s bone broth and there’s absolutely no risk of the pot running dry. Apart from that, that use case is probably rare.
I've made clotted cream in my "instant pot" 3 times so far. I'll be doing it again in the next few weeks for x-mas. There is no yogurt button on my pot. I use the saute function which comes to a boil rather quickly. Then follow the rest of the instructions. My family fights over the leftovers and at least 3 of us has had clotted cream in the UK. Just make sure you are not using ultra pasteurized heavy cream.
Welcome Cathy! Would you be so kind and add more details about what you summarize as “the rest of the instructions”? I’m sure other users would appreciate the chance to learn more about how to make clotted cream like you do. You can always [edit] you answer with more details. Thanks!
Welcome Cathy! I agree with the comment above—could you outline step by step how you make it?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.901632
| 2023-02-21T04:40:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123459",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Khashir",
"Stephie",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96978
|
How to make creamy/starchy risotto with brown rice?
I've been making risotto with a brown rice blend (Long Grain Brown Rice, Sweet Brown Rice, Wild Rice, Whole Grain Wehani Rice, Whole Grain Black Japonica Rice), and I quite like the texture, and how easy it is for the rice to cook al dente. However, I'm missing the creaminess that comes from arborio's high starch content.
So, a few questions:
Could I add starch (say, arrowroot powder) to get a similar creaminess?
If so, how much, and would this change the amount of water I would need to add to cook the rice?
Is there a better source of starch than arrowroot powder?
Rice starch is available for consumer purchase, I would try it first.
Rice flour would also work ... as the thickening for risotto is just bits of rice that rub off the outside of the grains.
The "dissolved" starch is going to make a sauce or "gravy". Different sources of starch will have a somewhat different taste. So experiment a bit with different sources of starch and see which tastes best. You could even grind some of the brown rice in a mortar and pestle to get a brown rice flour that you could use for thickening.
My experience with a risotto is that the rice is breaking down somewhat when it gets to the point where it is cooked. So to make a gravy I'd have some extra water/stock for the rice, and then add a small amount of a starch solution which would thicken when heated. You wouldn't want to start out with a starch solution since that would be easy to burn. You can't add a dry starch to a hot liquid or it will lump.
Thanks for the answer, MaxW! I didn't follow the last part---if I can't start with the starch solution, when in the cooking process would I add it?
@Khashir - So as not to burn the starch solution, cook the rice in a bit of excess water, then add enough "concentrated" starch solution to thicken it to the desired consistency. As I said you don't want to add a dry starch to a hot liquid lest you get lumps.
After the rice is fully cooked you mean?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.901888
| 2019-03-18T04:46:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96978",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Joe",
"Khashir",
"MaxW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92154
|
Can using a poolish or biga preferment help me make a less dense wholemeal bread?
I've taken up bread baking again recently, and I'm trying to improve my skills. One thing that still eludes me is how to get a less dense wholemeal loaf. I know that wholemeal breads are nearly always denser than white breads.
A recipe I used recently was:
150g wholemeal bread flour
200g strong white bread flour
245g water - 70% hydration
4g active dry yeast (dissolved in some of the water)
5g salt
First prove was 1.5 hours - at room temperature. After shaping 2nd prove was around 40mins while my oven came up to temperature. It seemed to be proved enough when I poked it. I slashed the top, it didn't collapse or anything. Baked at 250C for 12 mins, then 200C for the rest (total 35minutes) baking, with a tray of water in the bottom of the oven for steaming the crust.
Here's the pic of my bread
Now don't get me wrong, the bread is nice enough, it has a lovely flavour. However it's denser than I'd like. I need to know if the problem here is the relatively fast leavening process, versus a longer process such as using a preferment like a poolish or biga.
Can anyone tell me, before I try the experiment, if using a preferment with such a loaf would help make it a bit lighter, with a looser crumb? Or am I headed for yet another disaster?
My reasoning behind this is that I've made higher hydration breads before - like ciabatta made with white flour, quite successfully, with lots of air and bubbles, but these usually start with a biga, which sits fermenting 12 to 24 hours in the fridge. I also know that higher hydration has a role in the size of the air pockets. I'm not looking for massive air pockets/holes in my wholemeal bread, just something that's a bit less dense.
Update: Forgot to say, the kneading was 10 minutes at a medium speed in a stand mixer. I mention this just in case it's relevant, although I tested the dough afterwards, and I thought the gluten development was OK.
I think I solved this myself in the end.
Basically I used the same recipe as before, however instead of a biga as I had planned, I decided to try my hand at sourdough. I had started making a starter a while go and thought it was time to give it a go.
This is the second time I tried sourdough, but the first time my starter smelt disgusting so I threw it out.
To activate my starter, I fed it the total amount of wholemeal that I was going to add. Let it sit for 2 hours, and it doubled in size.
I also added a touch more water at 75% hydration. I used the stretch and folding method instead of machine kneading - 4 folds every 30 minutes, 5 times in total. It had a long proof in the fridge for 16 hours, then an hour to come to room temp, shaped and stuck it in a proofing basket, and about 2 hours after shaping it rose again. Also took care when shaping not to knock back too much, keeping as much gas in it as possible.
The result seems almost perfect, even though I say so myself. It's light and airy and bubbly, and delicious, very mild, hardly any sourness at all. I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised. It took a while though, almost 24 hours really.
I think the same would have happened with a biga/preferment, I think the key must be long proofing, giving it time to ferment, and stretching and folding to develop the gluten. I will try it with a biga another time I think.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.902062
| 2018-09-08T14:32:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92154",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71093
|
How is canned corned beef made?
I'm very curious what gives canned corned beef its flavor. While there are a lot of guides out in the Internet and YouTube that show how to brine and make American corned beef, there is very little information on the canning process of canned corned beef (the ones from Brazil).
what gives canned corned beef its flavor
Consider the flavor of canned corned beef as similar to freshly cooked brined corned beef, with these exceptions:
The canning process requires product in the can be heated under pressure to 250+ F, this high temperature will change flavor notes and texture.
Food labeling standards allow 10% of canned corned beef to be a flavored solution. This will have a large impact on flavor. This will generally be a proprietary trade secret.
Canned Corned Beef will most likely be made from lower quality cuts of meat (ie. the one not good enough to be sold as fresh corned beef brisket). This lower quality cut will have a different flavor. Probably fattier.
there is very little information on the canning process of canned corned beef
I just Googled, you're right, very little info. I do not home can, so I can't provide a lengthy answer. I found a historical recipe here,
Ball Blue Book of Canning and Preserving Recipes:
Note: That recipe will not provide you with something similar to commercially canned corned beef. It will be a jarred liquid and chunks, it might be better than canned.
For information on commercial canning, Google the term: corned beef retort. A retort is what commercial canners use to sterilize canned products.
Edited. I didn't mean it to be a recipe.
Corned Beef (US) - aka Salt Beef (UK)
Canned Corned Beef(US) - aka Bully Beef, Corned Beef (UK)
In the United Kingdom, corned beef refers to the variety made from finely minced corned beef in a small amount of gelatin (bully beef; from the French bouilli "boiled"), and is sold in distinctive, oblong cans, just as in the United States and Canada, or in slices from supermarkets. It is mainly imported from Argentina, Brazil, or Uruguay.[17] Bully beef and hardtack biscuits were the main field rations of the British Army from the Boer War to World War II.[18] It is commonly served sliced in a corned beef sandwich. Hash and hotch-potch, in which potatoes and corned beef are stewed together, are also made. Tinned corned beef is also used in mainland Europe.[19]
As mentioned the meat would be most likely be low grade, tough and unpalatable "meat" (possibly Mechanically Recovered Meat, depending on the regulations on where it is sold) is likely brined before being packed into the tin and canned.
So in summary, the cuts of beef and the canning process used is the major factors in it's taste.
The production of corned beef isn't discussed much, as manufacturers believe consumers will likely be put off. The "meat" (whether it is MRM, or everything except the blood, skin and bones is debatable), either way it isn't comfortable eating knowing that.
In the same way that ham looks and tastes different from plain or just salted pork, the use of nitrites/nitrates in the preservation of corned beef not only keeps the meat pink when cooked but also affects the flavour.
This, to me, is the main reason canned corned beef tastes very different to other varieties of fresh or preserved beef
Back in the day inthe 70/80's I used to help my uncle make CORNED BEEF using a ROUND HAM PRESS very much like the ones available on Amazon etc. and the cheaper cuts though it was important that you used some LEG CHEEK and SHIN because the break down of COLLEGEN provided the GELATINE. AS far as I can remember we used to get a pre-prepared CORNING mixture [probably salt, sugar and a NITRATE]and course mince. It was really good though I cannot remember the actual recipe
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.902334
| 2016-07-01T08:22:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71093",
"authors": [
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367"
],
"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
}
|
89567
|
How to tenderize squid for ika nigiri?
I was at a Sushi restaurant in San Diego today and ordered some squid nigiri. Although it had been roughly scored with a knife, it was still quite chewy. I'm assuming it was yari-ika.
Is there a way to prepare squid for nigiri that's less rubbery?
I don't know if this would work for raw preparations, or for squid ... but there was a Serious Eats article on octopus that recommended freezing it.
I also saw a quote on reddit that said, "Edomae places age squid 2-3 days to tenderize". I may dig into this suggestion further.
Squid gets rubbery when overcooked and it happens really fast, so you should just blanch it for just a few seconds and immediately cool it in icy water. I used to score the squid on the outside (with a criss-cross pattern, not too deep) to prevent it from warping during the cooking process. It also adds a nice texture.
I'm un-accepting this answer until I have more proof that this is the correct answer. I just discussed this with the sushi chef at Otoro Sushi in San Francisco (and sampled their Ika nigiri), and he said that they serve it raw, which is why it is so tender.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.902646
| 2018-05-03T03:16:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89567",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"clone45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56551
|
How to deseed a guava?
I found guavas in the local Asian store and bought one out of curiosity. While I have had guava juice, I've never eaten the fruit before.
I bit into the fruit only to find my mouth full of hard seeds, which were somehow less convenient to spit out than, say, watermelon seeds.
Seeing that most of the fruit is taken up by the seed-interspersed portion, I don't want to throw it out and only eat the small seedless part between the center and the rind. But spitting everything out is tedious.
Assuming that I want to eat raw guava, is there any trick to getting rid of the seeds more easily?
Push the flesh through a sieve with the back of a spoon?
Personally I always ate the seeds along with the fruit. You can even eat the flesh if you know there hasn't been pesticides on it (guava grows easily a little bit everywhere).
I've eaten guavas too but they must be ripe for the seeds to be palatable.
Some people do not like guavas for obvious reasons... the seeds...
Perhaps the guava you purchased was not ripe.
The only ways I've figured to use the inter-seed pulp is to juice it or mechanically sieve it, such as in a food mill, coarse stainer, or colander.
This article from EHow suggests to blend or process the seed-pulp mixture, possibly with a bit of water, then sieve or strain. It might be possible to blend slowly enough to disrupt the seeds without pulverizing them. It sounds like guava seeds are edible, so if you damage them it's not harmful, but may make straining more tedious or less effective. I use a manual food mill and it works adequately.
If you're going the pure juicing route, see also this previous SA question on how to make guava juice.
I have the same problem with other fruits with similarly tricky seeds, like prickly pear cactus fruit. Pages like this one a rather brute-force (or perhaps "scorched earth") sounding policy of juicing the whole thing.
However, all of those are a little dissatisfying (to me) because they destroy the texture of the flesh, and oxidise even more quickly.
I've never tried putting it wholesale through a masticating juicer, as suggested on one of those links, but now I'm interested and might try it. I hope someone has more ideas.
Being from Brazil I have eaten guavas my whole childhood.
My recommendation: eat them whole, including the seeds. The seeds are tasty, not too hard and good for your digestion. Any way you may try to deseed it will just ruin the texture of the fruit. No need to peel them either.
Ripe guava is one of the best fruits around, enjoy it!
I just bought my first guavas and was initially perplexed by the seeds, which I did not want to swallow.
The way I found to get rid of them and still be able to eat most of the fruit is:
Cut the outer fruit off from the center seedy area in 4 to 6 slices.
Some of the seeds will still be in those fruit slices, but they push out easily with a thumbnail.
Then you are left with slices of guava with no seeds.
I found this way, though messy, to make them fairly easy to eat with no seeds.
This method throws away almost all the guava, and I would prefer to eat all the flesh in which the seeds are stuck, instead of ending up with 10 g of fruit meat per fruit. Upvoted though, because it is a real solution.
I cut them up and put them in the food processor with some water to make puree, then put them in a nut milk bag and squeeze out the pulp, the seeds remain in the bag. The puree tastes good if added to a fruit salad or smoothie
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.902778
| 2015-04-10T11:56:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56551",
"authors": [
"Harry Tsai",
"Karen English",
"Lorri Ezell",
"Marsha Evans",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Nancy",
"Walk In Clinic Georgetown",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7169",
"rold2007",
"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
}
|
107201
|
Does adding baking soda to steam sweet potatoes in a pressure cooker help with caramelization?
I recently discovered that adding baking soda to increase Ph in a pressure cooker promotes the Maillard reaction (see article, and this answer), and I want to try this with steamed sweet potatoes.
In both links, the food is submerged in the higher-Ph liquid. Could I achieve a similar result with steaming, by dissolving (possibly more) baking soda in the water, or does the food have to be in contact with the higher Ph environment?
As I understand it, the ingredients need to be in touch with the baking soda.
The need for contact is correct, but not really the issue here (else you could have pre-rubbed your potatoes). Both caramelization and Maillard reaction (which are different things) require rather high temperatures. The reason to use steaming as a technique is to not get up to these temperatures. In traditional steaming, you only get your food to 100°C. In a pressure cooker, you can steam the food quicker, but even in an old fashioned pressure cooker at sea level*, you never get above 120 Celsius, which is not enough for any browning - and that's a feature, not a bug.
If you want Maillard reaction, or caramelization, you should choose a cooking method that can achieve that, such as roasting or pan-frying. If you are having trouble with pan-frying (e.g. having the outside burn while the center of the sweet potato chunks is still raw), you can first brown your food in a pan and then cook through with other methods such as braising, simmering or steaming.
You can, in principle, add baking soda during a browning step, but for me, the change in taste is not worth it. Normal browning gives you plenty of tasty crust on its own.
* Both elevation above the sea level and the use of modern electric pressure cookers mean less pressure, so lower temperature
An alkaline environment does indeed speed flavor reactions (enzymatic and non-enzymatic). You can create an alkaline environment with the addition of baking soda, as you point out. However there is a balance here that you have to consider. At some point, the flavor of the baking soda will become unpleasant. So, the reason a pressure cooker is used in the links you provided is that the high heat also speeds the flavor reactions of caramelization and Maillard. In this environment, the addition of baking soda speeds up the process even more. But one only needs about 0.5% baking soda for the effect in a pressure cooker. With lower temperatures (though you still need to reach the 140C necessary for Maillard, for example), and with the food not in direct contact, a much higher concentration of baking soda would be necessary. In this case, I am fairly certain you would taste it, and it would not be pleasant.
Another option for sweet potatoes, however, is to slow roast, or sous vide, for 2 to 4 hours (depending on method). Serious eats has a good post on this. It doesn't make use of an alkaline environment, rather it uses heat and time to activate enzymes in the potato that convert starches into sugars.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.903196
| 2020-04-01T16:20:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107201",
"authors": [
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34170
|
How do I cook large quantities of Boston pork butt?
I am cooking approximately 30 lbs of Boston butt pork roast. (One roast is a little over 15 lbs and the other is a little over 16 lbs.) Should I cook the roasts together in one big roaster at about 250 degrees or separate them? I am doing pulled pork for a crowd. How long do you think this might take?
I recommend roasting them separately (although at the same time) for one main reason: More surface area means more of the delicious brown crispy bits on the surface.
It will also take less time, probably, than if they are piled together or if you get an entire shoulder, but that is less important.
I disagree respectfully with MandoMando: pork butt cooked low and slow does not require brining in any way. It has sufficient fat and gelatin to be quite delectable after cooking.
I should add in terms of cooking time:
If braising, 3-4 hours, probably
If low roasting, 3-12 hours, depending on temperature, most likely in the 4-5 hour range at 250 since that is not as fast as braising at transferring heat energy to the food object
In either case, you will know it is done when it pulls easily. This is not a case where final internal temperature (you want about 180 F) is the goal; you also need time at temperature to covert the collagen in the pork to gelatin to give it that luxurious texture.
I have never brined mine either but that does sound interesting. I have cooked smaller roasts in the crock pot but need to do a larger quantity this time. I may just do one in the roaster and one in the oven. That sounds like the best way to go....I have to have it all cooked and pulled apart ready for company by 5pm this Saturday night. Thank you all for the advice! I appreciate it all! :)
If you have a pair of sheet pans or similar, unless your oven is quite small, you should be able to get both into your oven.
You can keep them together, but I would recommend budgeting a very long time for cooking. In my opinion, your better bet would be to slow roast them in the oven, with some air space between the two roasts. I would also consider cutting each roast in half. Four 7-8 pound pork butts will cook much faster than two 15-16 pound ones.
The time is determined by thickness of the roast more than the weight. It takes longer for the heat to penetrate depth.
I would do them separately for less humidity in the roaster and lower load on the roaster (unless your roaster is so big that it doesn't care). Crowding ovens and roasters isn't optimal. Patting them dry and rubbing oil on them also helps the process.
Stick one of those in-oven digital thermometer alarms in the center of the roast and be done with the time guessing and safety concerns. That way you can pull them out right when they're perfect. But if I were to guess, I'd say about 4-5hrs @250F possibly more.
Consider brining the meats for 12-24hrs in %6 salt-water brine to minimize juice loss and let the roasts rest (relax the protein) for about 30 minutes when they come to out before you cut/pull them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.903441
| 2013-05-16T15:13:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34170",
"authors": [
"C Skiles",
"Dr Gay Killjoy",
"Harikrishnan",
"Joe",
"Joseph Sible-Reinstate Monica",
"Laddavan Spencer",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tadas Šubonis",
"Tyler S. Loeper",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79511",
"pgoetz"
],
"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
}
|
42230
|
Fresh vs canned tomatoes in Indian cooking
How do fresh and canned tomatoes compare in Indian cooking?
I usually see recipes call for puréed or finely chopped tomatoes, which are added after the initial stage of frying the spices and onion. As I cook a lot of Indian food, buying canned puréed tomato would save me loads of work, though I'm wondering if this would lead to a compromise in taste. (Or perhaps an enhancement of taste as canned tomatoes are riper? I read that Italian cooking usually is better with canned tomatoes...) Also, as canned tomatoes are usually peeled, I would get the added value of not having tomato peels swimming in my curry.
After reading more on the net, and the answers here, I think that there isn't really a definitive answer. On the one hand most people here seem to have an anti-canned food bias (which was my initial instinct too), but I'm not entirely convinced this is an objective bias which would be shared with top chefs when it comes to canned tomato. I guess that the only real possible answer would be to try out different canned tomatoes in my curries, and decide if that's the taste I'm looking for or not.
Canned tomatoes don't belong in any curry - tomato puree [paste, US] however, does… but not in everything. Find authentic recipes. Any recipe that puts canned tomatoes in a curry… move away, rapidly.
These are the factors to consider when using tomatoes in Indian cooking:-
1) Does the recipe need pureed or chunky tomatoes to contribute bulk to the gravy? >> if puree then canned is fine or even tetrapak puree. But stick to fresh tomatoes if you need to increase the gravy's volume. E.g.: Paneer Butter Masala where tomato puree is better vs. Matar Paneer where diced tomatoes bring out more tangy spicy flavor.
2) Do you need to keep the peel on or lose it completely? If you need to lose the peel, peeled & canned tomatoes can save much time over having to boil or microwaving the tomatoes.
3) What is the cutting style required in the recipe? finely chopped, coarsely chopped? This point is relevant in case the recipe needs only semi cooked tomatoes.
4) Are the tomatoes being used to add bulk or for flavor? Canned tomatoes do have a slightly different flavor specially if a preservative brine solution has been added.
5) In salads or Indian dishes like bhel puri, the way tomato pieces are added also contribute to aesthetics and make food more appetizing. so canned tomatoes are a stric no-no for such dishes.
And overall- Use Fresh Tomatoes >> tomato is one of the veggies which can be chopped fast & painlessly. To save time, turn your tomato over when chopping (fleshy side up, peel side down)
Generally speaking, I'm talking about recipes that call for pureed tomatoes - such as paneer butter masala, aloo gobi, malai kofta, dal tadka, etc... As such, and from all your points, I actually think that canned tomatoes would be my better option, though your last comment about overall using fresh tomatoes a bit contradicted that.
For aaloo Gobi and Dal tadka use fresh chopped tomatoes, not puree. Once you prepare the oil and cumin seed seasoning and fry your onions to brown, add in fresh chopped tomatoes and cook on high for 4-5 minutes until tomatoes turn pulpy. Be sure to add salt, turmeric and spices while cooking tomatoes to build flavour in the onion-tomato masala. Personally I feel Using fresh tomatoes is always better- I don't know how when where it was canned and tomatoes in a can just doesn't sound ok to me. But this is a personal opinion. Not neutral.
That was my personal feeling as well. But then I read that in Italian restaurants they use canned tomato, even in top restaurants - As those are usually more ripe, and usually consistently good quality, especially if they were canned in Italy where there are strict regulations on tomato canning. After abit more thought, I realized that perhaps my initial anti-canned bias wasn't necessarily justified. That with the realization of the possible time saving it will lead to (I have a catering business, so even a little time is a lot), led me to ask this question.
See my comment to my question to see my conclusion.
I'm willing to disagree that "canned tomatoes are always better". Tomatoes are a highly seasonal product -- the tomatoes you eat in August will be very different than the tomatoes you eat in December. Outside of peak tomato season, I prefer canned tomatoes (outside of dishes that truly require fresh). Canned tomatoes from a reputable brand (often imported from Italy) can be excellent: look for "whole peeled tomatoes packed in juice" for the most "natural" texture.
I would imagine that cooking with tomatoes in Indian cuisine is no different than in any other cuisine: use the best product you can get.
For much of the year where I live, canned tomatoes are of a consistently higher quality than those at the grocery store. Since I don't grow my own tomatoes, I always use canned in almost any dish except salads.
You need to look at the availability where you live.
If the canned product is a higher quality (which it may well be off-season, or maybe even year round), use it. If the labor savings is significant, use it.
One thing to watch for is tomatoes packed with calcium chloride to hold their shape better don't break down as much. This is fine if you would like to see chunks of tomato in the final dish; if you prefer to have the tomato break down into the dish, losing its distinct identity, look for a product packed without the calcium chloride.
The one place, in my opinion, where fresh tomatoes shine is in salads and on sandwiches, where you want that very fresh, uncooked flavor, and can enjoy the color and texture of the fresh product. Here, locally grown fresh tomatoes, or even some of the exciting heirloom tomatoes, may be a better choice.
I make curries quite a lot at home and am keen on a recipe book by Anjum Anand. She recommends using cheap, fresh tomatoes that are either finely chopped or blitzed in a blender. The reasoning behind this is that you are often looking for the tomatoes to form the basis of the gravy, and this shouldn't be over tomatoey. Personally, I look for the meat and the spices to shine through, and the onions and tomatoes play backseat role in the dish as a whole. Tinned tomatoes are often very tomatoey (I know how stupid this sounds) which is great in mediterranean cooking but less so in Indian cuisine.
I think all curries can be prepared with tomato puree except aloo gobi. Its color is always bright yellow but tomato puree will change its color to brown which will not look pleasant.
If your main concern is tomato skins floating in your curry you can fix that. Get some water up to a boil, take the tomatoes and cut out the stem flip the tomato over and make shallow cuts into the bottom, usually an X type of cut. Drop them into the boiling water for just a minute and drop them into cold water with some ice. After a minute or two they should be ready to handle and you can just peel off the skin.
I know that's a possibility, but I'm looking to be able to cut down on the time it takes me to cook curries.
Most canned tomatoes have vinegar in them. It ruins the flavor profile of Indian-style dishes. Its OK in pasta, but you have to find right one. Tomato purees don't have vinegar unless there are added herbs. Chopped and full tomato cans have vinegar in them, and are thus unsuitable for fish or curries.
Are you sure? Vinegar is not mentioned as an ingredient in https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/254299631 or https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/267747957 or https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/essential-waitrose-tinned-chopped-tomatoes-in-rich-natural-juice/019706-9575-9576. Instead there is citric acid, as an 'acidity regulator'; my guess is this no more than a teaspoon per can.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.903748
| 2014-02-21T19:09:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42230",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Kuykendall",
"CitizenRon",
"Ellie Benfield",
"Eren Temelli",
"Maire",
"Mark Wildon",
"Mughees Asif",
"Mushaheed Syed",
"Spammer",
"Tetsujin",
"dan12345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98693",
"king livehk spam",
"user111897",
"vagabond"
],
"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
}
|
20585
|
How do different types of thickener actually thicken?
What I'm asking is not chemically how they do it, but rather how does each practically thicken.
For example:
Thickening with wheat flour is thickened when at boiling point - cooking further does not destroy the sauce/liquid. The thickening effect is increased a lot when cooling.
Thickening with potato flour yields a goopy, gummy liquid when boiled. Etc.
I'm mainly wondering about:
Wheat flour
Potato flour
Potato starch
Corn flour
Corn starch
Gelatin
Tapioca
Of course, if any of these can be grouped together, that's great as well!
There is no difference between corn flour and corn starch; the former is a regional (UK) name for the same product - unless you are referring to cornmeal, which is never used as a thickener. Potato flour does technically exist but, as with corn flour, most people actually mean potato starch when they say potato flour; the most common use of real potato flour is in Passover (Jewish) cooking and it's not really worth mentioning as a thickener because it doesn't have a neutral flavour. Starches thicken; flours make dough.
There's also modified corn starch (in Canada). Thickens near the boil point but not quite. Nice advantage is that it keeps the same thickness hot or cold unlike other starches and doesn't break down when frozen. Same look and texture as regular corn starch.
@Aaronut, isn't the whole point of a roux to thicken? This is used in many sauces, gravies, etc.
@Ray: The point of a roux isn't just to thicken, it's also there for flavour - it's the base of the sauce, not an additive - flour cooks and some roux-based sauces actually involve cooking it to very dark stage. Maybe somebody with more formal training can correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that wheat flour is chosen for its thickening properties.
There are a number of different ways in which gelling agents are classified. Off the top of my head:
Viscosity (firmness/thickness) of solution and gel forms
Thermoreversible/irreversible (does it "melt"?)
Hysteresis (water loss)
Hydration, melting, and setting points
Appearance (in particular transparency)
Sensitivity to heat, cold, alcohol, and pH
Starches are all very similar in this regard. They all form viscous solutions and gelatinize to a stiff and elastic consistency. They are all opaque-to-translucent, have very slow hysteresis, hydrate in cold water and gelatinize in hot water. They tend to tolerate some alcohol and a fairly low pH.
Tapioca has the lowest gelation point, and the most heat stability, and potato starch is similar. Corn starch is particularly weak against acid, heat, and cold (especially freezing), unless it's been modified. There's also arrowroot which is somewhere in between.
Wheat flour is something completely different because it has proteins which form gluten in the presence of water and heat. I wouldn't even consider comparing it to the others, it's sometimes used in gravy but generally you would only use flour to make doughs or batters.
As far as gelatin and all of the other E-numbers are concerned, you can find a lot more about their properties in Kymos' Texture and of course, Modernist Cuisine if you want to shell out the cash. There's quite a lot to read about.
Gelatin, specifically, is thermoreversible, hydrates (blooms) in cold water, disperses in hot water, sets below 15° C, melts at 25-40° C (mouth temperature), tolerates alcohol but is weak against all of the other usual inhibitors, and forms a soft, transparent gel. It's nothing like starches but is a lot like a lot of the other E numbers (Gellan, Agar, Carrageenan, Pectin, etc.) Refer to the aforementioned link for more information.
I thicken gravy with either 2Tbl wheat flour to 1 c of broth, or 1 1/2 Tbl cornstarch to 1 c broth, or else 2 Tbl wheat flour plus 1 1/2 Tbl cornstarch to 2 c broth. In each case, I whisk the thickener into the cold liquid before heating and stirring. I learned to do that, without making a roux, years ago when I had to limit my fat intake. The combination makes the very best texture and flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.904382
| 2012-01-18T22:02:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20585",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chef Flambe",
"Ray",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"pkhlop"
],
"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
}
|
1032
|
How to get the burnt aroma off burnt food?
I sometimes burn the bottom of the pan due to carelessness, or not stirring enough. The burnt smell tends to persist even after I separate out the unburnt bits.
Is there any way to fix this?
Well, if the aroma is truly in the food then there's not much you can do. However, you can take steps to make sure that the aroma is subdued as much as possible. It's quite possible that a large portion of the burnt aroma is merely in the air.
Turn exhaust fans on to get the aroma out of your kitchen asap
Submerge the burnt surface in water as soon as possible to prevent the aroma from spreading
Be very careful "separating" the unburnt from the burnt
Inhale something very strongly scented. Why? It's quite likely that a significant portion of the burnt smell is merely stuck in your nose. If you can somehow nullify that source of the burning aroma, you can perhaps more accurately gauge if the food itself actually has it.
Possibly you could overpower it by adding something very fragrant to your dish that fits. If your dish would work with lemon or lime this could help. If it's a desert maybe cinnamon or cloves might be useful.
The best thing though is prevention. Use lower heat when possible if you find yourself being regularly careless. Using a better pot/pan may help also depending on what you are currently using. Also, don't turn down help if your guests offer. Make them stir! :D
P.S. Don't inhale something dangerous like bleach or ammonia.
Apparently you can 'reset' you sense of smell by smelling yourself. if you sniff your arm then this should make the next thing you smell less affected by the last thing you smelled. A tip from a wine taster.
Or coffee beans, which are typically used at perfume counters, candle stores, etc.
It really depends on what you're cooking. Something firm, like meat or bread, you can probably just cut off the burned part. Anything with a liquid component, the burnt flavor is probably infused throughout.
Others may have better suggestions on how to mask the flavor, but again this will depend on exactly what it is.
If the bottom of the soup or sauce starts to burn:
Move pan away from heat.
Try to quickly move the upper parts into another pan by gently ladling off the top.
Don't stir and don't scrape the bottom.
This will minimize the burnt flavor in the food (which is what matters most).
If this happens regularly, try cooking with lower heat, and setting a timer to remind yourself to stir.
Some home remedies:
Apparently, for burnt rice, you can take the (papery) peels of onions to absorb burn aroma.
Some people use peanut butter in burnt (wettish) dishes.
Coffee flavor (if appropriate to the dish) can mask flavor
If you burn rice while steaming it - a slice of soft white bread placed on top in the pan really helps.
For sauces, if you know you burned it before stirring it, carefully spoon the top layer into a new pan. At least that way you won't be mixing in burnt chunks throughout the dish.
One more thing, try using heavier bottom pans as they will tend not to burn as much. You might also try a heat spreader which is a little thing you can buy that sits between your burner and the base of the pan. These work great for anything that is supposed to cook slowly for a long time.
yep this is right, to avoid burning use a thick bottom vessel and cook over a low flame for a longer period. A good trick if you dont have a thick bottom pan is to stack up a frying pan between the vessel and the flame +1
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.904719
| 2010-07-15T16:55:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1032",
"authors": [
"Dante617",
"David Rinck",
"Jace Rhea",
"John Barrett",
"KevinDeus",
"Reno",
"Reven",
"Sam Holder",
"Stefano",
"alexpotato",
"benzado",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94007",
"senschen",
"spam"
],
"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
}
|
18189
|
Why wouldn't you strain hamburger grease after cooking?
I've got a friend who makes many dishes involving hamburger, but doesn't ever strain it. The grease is added to a dish like Shepard's pie which to me just seems very gross. I see a lot of posts about how to strain. but nothing to discuss why you should / shouldn't strain and what you should do as an alternative if the grease must be used.
I agree with both you and rfusca in that I've not found a dish yet that "needs" the burger grease. I try to do this when guests aren't looking, but when I strain it, I rinse it with hot water as well... No one ever notices that it's been rinsed... They just notice it's not greasy :)
The word "grease" seems to have been specifically created to induce a fear of eating fat, and drive people towards high-carb processed foods ... which may explain why you find it "very gross". Rendered fat from cooking hamburger is not harmful to eat, unless you are already eating a high-carb diet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLk5AAKRem8
Well, all I can say is 'it depends on the dish'. If the dish calls for fat to be added otherwise, you can keep that fat and count it where you would add some later. If the dish is just adding hamburger and no more fat - I agree, discard it.
That said - I don't find hamburger fat particularly flavorful and nearly always strain it and add another kind of fat I like better.
It also depends on the fat percentage. If I'm using lean 97/3 hamburger, there's hardly any fat to drain.
There are legitimate reasons, and one is because you lose more than just the grease if you strain it, as the meat will give off other liquid.
Instead, the way I learned to do it is to push the ground meat to one side or make a sort of well where the liquid will collect (and you can tip the pan slightly to that side, if you need to), and then collect the grease on top with a spoon or ladle, leaving the juices at the bottom.
Of course, this assumes that you want the moisture in whatever it is that you're cooking.
And my other reason is that I hate washing my strainer. (People who have dishwashers might not care). If I really need to drain it all, I put a loose fitting lid on, and hold the lid on with one hand while draining the liquid into my grease can ... but it doesn't get 100% of the liquid out.
....
And that made me think of one other aspect of draining grease ... NEVER do it down the sink. Always do it into some container so that you can keep the fat from going down the drain. Restaurants in most places in the U.S. (and maybe in other countries) have grease traps to keep fats from entering the sewer system. Not doing so will result in the fats solidifying inside your pipes, or in the main sewer system. Boiling hot water may loosen it up in your area, but will just flush it down further, until it becomes a community-wide problem.
(About 4 years ago, there was an incident the next street over, where 5? 6? homes had their plumbing back up and basements flood thanks to grease in the sewer line).
You want to put grease, especially that from animal fat (as it solidifies closer to room temp) into a container that you can either (1) let solidify and toss out with the trash, or (2) seal up and toss out with the trash.
"
Instead, the way I learned to do it is to push the ground meat to one side or make a sort of well where the liquid will collect (and you can tip the pan slightly to that side, if you need to), and then collect the grease on top with a spoon or ladle, leaving the juices at the bottom." I included this generally with straining to me. Straining meaning anything to strain the grease from the meat not just the use of 'strainer'.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.905055
| 2011-10-05T00:45:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18189",
"authors": [
"JPhi1618",
"Rikon",
"Sridhar Ratnakumar",
"bev",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7202",
"karen miller",
"rfusca",
"user39308",
"user66703"
],
"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
}
|
123286
|
Is it okay to put uncooked potatoes in a blender & then blend them up with water, & then cook them in the microwave to make potato soup?
Is it okay to put uncooked white potatoes into a blender, and then blend them up with water, and then cook them in the microwave to make potato soup?
Define “ok” please? What exactly is your question or what are you worried about?
@Stephie Potatoes should not be consumed raw and I don't know whether this preparation method leads to sufficiently cooked through potatoes, so I would assume this is what the question is about.
You are cutting the potato en little pieces and boiling them in water. Standard cooking technique.
@CandidMoe little pieces can be tested to see if they're soft and fully cooked. If blended to a puree first, that's not possible. So if you want to ensure it's fully cooked, you'll need a new way to check
Like tasting a spoonful?
@CandidMoe no, because it's the texture you check to see if potatoes are done, and there's no texture left once it's been blended. But let's wait for the OP to clarify
Now I'm in the mood for a little cooking experiment.
...also putting potatoes in a blender often results in a blender full of something with the consistency and property of glue. One needs to be careful blending potatoes. A food processor on low might be a better choice
My biggest concern would be that blending them raw with a relatively small amount of water (what fits in the blender) will make a pitcher of wallpaper paste.
Raw potatoes + small amount of water + blender = pitcher of brown wallpaper paste.
I guess, it's a sort of an X-Y Problem™; why are you doing this to potatoes? What's your goal?
I'd advise to not blend it completely, leave some tiny pieces and use more water. That way it's easier to tell when it's cooked by texture and it wont become glue in your blender.
If you have a food processor, use a shredding/grating disk, and you’ll get lots of reasonably similar sized bits that will cook quickly and in a relatively uniform sort of time (so you don’t end up with uncooked chunks in an over cooked slurry)
Yes it's OK. There may be some drawbacks to the method, such as how raw potatoes will behave in a blender and whether the results you get are what you want, but none of those make it not OK to try. Even if you believe that raw potatoes represent a serious health risk, which is debatable, a microwave is more than capable of cooking potatoes.
This recipe would definitely work, although you would want to stir the potatoes after every minute in the microwave because microwaves don't cook evenly. I would recommend adding some browned processed meat, and maybe try to put some small potato chunks in for texture. Also playing around with some fresh herbs would be interesting as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.905786
| 2023-02-05T03:48:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123286",
"authors": [
"Candid Moe",
"Chris H",
"Damila",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Marti",
"Stephie",
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84638",
"mustaccio",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5423
|
Why does my homemade pasta stick to itself whilst cooking?
I make a fair amount of homemade pasta (Mostly Tagliatelle or Linguine), and I tend to cook it fresh, rather than drying it and cooking from dry; however, it tends to clump and stick together in the pan when cooking. What can I do to minimise this, and make my homemade pasta behave a little more like store bought fresh pasta?
For reference, I'm using a fairly standard recipe of one egg per 100g of 'OO' flour; and I add salt and a little olive oil to the pan when cooking, as well as following all the normal steps that give successful results with store bought pasta - Could it be that I'm not working the dough enough, working it too much, or just down to not using the "correct" type of flour (semolina flour doesn't appear to be available in my area)?
Are you putting sufficient salt in the water before putting the pasta in?
When you say 'fresh', are you giving it any time to dry out? My mom and grandmothers would always let it rest for at least a couple of hours in a drying rack (looks like a couple of dowels through a larger dowel, with a base). It wasn't dry enough to put it up for storage, but I'd assume it'd dry out the surface starch if nothing else.
You've seen this question? http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/403/how-can-i-keep-pasta-from-sticking-to-itself
@Tobiasopdenbrouw That other question is linked from my question...
@Joe Typically I leave it to dry for only about 30 minutes
@Rowland - apologies, I thought I'd checked your question, but appears I was mistaken.
I have that problem when I am impatient and don't let the pasta dry out long enough before putting it on to boil.
It is important to let the pasta dry even just in loose little heaps once sliced into noodles. It doesn't have to get totally dry just dry enough that you can't squish the noodles back together into dough.
Also you need to cook fresh pasta for a very short amount of time in a LOT of water, about 1.5x as much water as you would use for dry, so that the noodles have less chance to run into each other. In fact I frequently don't boil them at all separately but just toss them in the soup I am serving them with for for a two to three minutes before serving.
I just realized -- you gave measurements for pasta, and even though it's a weight and not volume, I'd still be suspicious.
Try the following method of mixing:
Pour out slightly more flour than the recipe calls for into a pile.
Mix any liquids in a small bowl.
Make a hole in the middle of the pile, so the flour pile kinda looks like a volcano. The hole should be able twice the size of the volue of liquid.
Pour the liquid in the hole.
Stir the liquid, slowly mixing in the flour.
Switch to using your hands when it starts forming into a ball.
Use the remaining flour as bench flour for kneading.
This way, the pasta will take in all of the flour that it can. You'll end up working in a little bit more as you're rolling it out.
Or, you can use the updated food processor method:
Put the flour in the food processor.
Add the egg(s), and blend.
With the processor running, slowly stream in your other liquids until the dough forms a ball.
Let the ball roll around for a minute or two to knead.
Dump it out onto the counter, and finish kneading by hand w/ more flour.
You also need to make sure to knock off any extra flour before cooking -- the racks for great for this, as you can just hit the pasta to knock off any loose flour. (I just kinda slap it back and forth a little bit). As Michael points out, the flour might help to dry out the pasta, so you might want to do this step just before cooking).
Also, consider using lots of water, in the biggest pot you have -- any loose flour will then get dissolved further, causing less overall problems. And consider not cooking it 'til it's done, but pulling it a minute or two early to finish cooking in whatever sauce you're going to serve it with. (yes, both of these are mentioned in the other thread, but worth mentioning again)
Be sure and toss it with plenty of flour and let it dry for awhile. Lightly shake off the flour before boiling. The flour will dry out the surface of the dough, reducing the tendency to stick together when cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.906052
| 2010-08-18T07:59:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5423",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Karen Kearby Kalvig",
"Noldorin",
"Rowland Shaw",
"The Orange Kid",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"achim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"jingles",
"tgunn"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54475
|
Can I candy pomegranate?
It seems that making candied fruit is easy: cut it thin and boil in sugar syrup until ready.
I'd like to make candied pomegranate, keeping the seed-surrounding bubbles intact. Will it work, or will the membrane prevent the sugar from entering? Can I do something (e.g. stick a pin into a few places) without losing the shape?
You might want to try getting all of the arils, boil them in the syrup, then lay them out to harden like a brittle.
@Joe Harden? The point is not to get them hard, but soft
what would you call the crystalization as final bits moisture evaporates? I'm not saying to cook it as far as you would a for a brittle, just spread it out so it can cool.
In India, there are typical traditional ways of Candying the Fruits like Pickling, Drying, etc. In your case with Pomegranate, you can always try Combination of Pickling & Drying.
Try the following method,
Step 1: Make a 1/4 Inch Layer of Powdered Sugar in a Transparent Glass Jar
Step 2: Follow it with a Layer of Pomegranate (Note: Pomegranate must be spread horizontally & not Stacked Vertically)
Step 3: Repeat Steps 1 & 2 (Last Layer should always be of Sugar)
Step 4: Take a Cotton Cloth & tie it on Mouth of Jar, covering Until Neck.
Step 5: Expose the Jar in Sun for Few Days.
Step 6: Empty & Spread the Contents of Jar on a Baking Tray & allow it to Dry in Sun for a Day.
Though, the process is not Instant & very Tedious. But this slow cooking process will help to Lock the Freshness, Taste & Essentials in any Fruit in best Man-Made Way.
I Usually do this with Seasonal Fruits.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.906418
| 2015-02-06T18:28:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54475",
"authors": [
"Jean Capone",
"Joe",
"LuAnn Sims",
"Roz Kane",
"Tracy Szilasi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"maria johnson",
"riotbrrd",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113577
|
Why cook octopus with an onion?
I've been following all the rule books on how to cook fresh/thawed octopus, specifically to "frighten" the octopus before cooking. The "frightening" is a quick 10 second bath in the boiling water, repeated 3 times, which shrinks the arms. I know I have to put spices in the water where I cook the octopus, and perhaps some sea-salt. All that will help to tenderize the octopus.
Now the question is: Why is it recommended to add a whole onion, including the skin? Is there some reaction with the onion and the octopus while cooking?
Note: This is a wide spread recommendation on how to cook octopus in Portugal.
I would suspect for the same reason you often marinade steak or meats in onions.
According to the answer onions contain proteolytic enzymes which are natural tenderizers, by breaking down proteins into smaller polypeptides or single amino acids, common in natural processes like digestion.
From Wikipedia
A protease (also called a peptidase or proteinase) is an enzyme that
catalyzes (increases the rate of) proteolysis, the breakdown of
proteins into smaller polypeptides or single amino acids. They do this
by cleaving the peptide bonds within proteins by hydrolysis, a
reaction where water breaks bonds. Proteases are involved in many
biological functions, including digestion of ingested proteins,
protein catabolism (breakdown of old proteins), and cell
signaling.
It is easy to believe these would have on octopus flesh a similar effect that they have on other meats. Whether it is significant or not may be open to debate, some times old traditions tend to stick around even after being debunked as myths.
Keeping the skin on is probably just a practical consideration for preventing it from breaking into pieces and spreading all over, as well as easier removal.
Like other seasonings it probably also imparts some flavor, even if residual, which some people might find pleasant, adding to the advantages.
The skin may also impart some color to the octopus. Yellow onion skins can be used for dying fabric.
I read somewhere that when you can penetrate the onion with a sharp knife, the octopus should be just ready, too!
Not really... The onion is readily cooked (and ready for your knife test) way before the octopus is cooked to tenderness. I'm not referring to pressure cookers, which opened at the right time will have a soft onion and a tender octopus.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.906600
| 2021-01-04T02:02:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113577",
"authors": [
"Vickel",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90522"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71741
|
How can I make my kefir milk smooth and creamy instead of watery and grainy?
Just started making kefir last week. My kefir comes out grainy and watery.
Here is what I'm doing:
I have about 2 tablespoon of kefir
I add about 4 cups of 2% organic milk
Leave it for a day on the counter (26 degrees centigrade)
It separates by this time (clear liquid at the bottom) but not much
I run it through a plastic sieve.
The resulting kefir compared to store bought kefir (my only point of reference) is:
seems watery instead of creamy
seems grainy: tiny grains almost like yogurt particles
has a sharp taste/smell
I still drink it and enjoy it. But I was wondering how I can improve it...
Update
I haven't gotten the timing right yet...however switching to whole milk is producing much better kefir.
You wrote "I have about 2 tablespoon of kefir". Are you using kefir grains or liquid kefir as a starter?
@Sobachatina I was given kefir grains...
Ok. Just making sure. It wasn't clear from the question. Unlike yogurt, kefir can't be made from kefir only from grains.
Most of the kefir recipes I saw online use whole milk, not low-fat milk as a starter. One source mentioned that commercial low-fat kefir recipes use large amounts of additives and stabilizers to make them thick. This might be related to your homemade kefir tasting watery, or being grainy, I don't know - but at least if you try and it doesn't solve the problem, you've eliminated one possible variable.
Another possibility is if your kefir is left too long, it will finish fermenting and start to separate. This stage, of beginning to separate into curds and whey, might match your description of grains and clear liquid at the bottom of your container, though it perhaps hasn't curdled entirely yet. It may also explain the sharper taste, if the kefir has had enough time to ferment all the way through your milk. If your kefir was over-fermenting for whatever reason - perhaps it is sitting a little longer than it needs to, or if it's a little warmer then it might ferment faster, or something about ratios or batch size - then stopping the ferment a little early (couple hours at a time?), straining out the grains and putting the kefir in the fridge, might get you the results you want.
It sounds very much to me like it was overfermented (overfermented being a personal preference thing).
In my experience, different grains have different properties, including how long they can take to ferment milk. What might take my grains 12 hours to do, yours might take 24.
In general, if you want thick, smooth kefir, you need to stop fermenting it before it separates. Given what you've described, I would stop fermenting it a few hours earlier than you have been and see how that goes. If it's still too grainy, then stop fermenting it a few hours earlier than that.
I've been making kefir for about 2 years now and I've noticed a few things one of which is what you mentioned - kefir not thick and creamy.
I've found when you use too many grains that's what happens.
I make a pint (2 cups) so not as much as you but I only use two little pea sized grains.
If they start to grow larger than that, the kefir starts to come out thin.
Mine comes out nearly as thick as yogurt, but a little stir and it's drinkable.
The other person who responded is right as well, over fermentation: the result is little tiny curds.
The more you make it, the more you'll find out how to get it just like you like it.
For example I like mine really thick and also really carbonated and I've figured out if I put a tight lid on it (even though most sites say to only put a breathable top on it like a napkin or cheesecloth) when it's fermenting it comes out like a milk soda. :)
So maybe try only using 1 tablespoon for your quart (4 cups) and see if that helps?
oh yeah, and I use whole milk - using skim or low fat milk might make it thin.
To the person that wrote "I prepare Kefir with RAW milk, Boil it then cool it down, when temp reaches 22-24 C Put kefir grains in it (2 litre milk 5 tablespeen grains)"
Why would you want to boil your raw milk before making kefir or for any reason? Heating the milk kills the enzymes and good bacteria and can alter the nutrient level also.
I use 2-3 small grains, slightly larger than a cherry pit, and it will make almost a quart of kefir with raw whole milk in 24 hours or less at 70F.
Please limit your answer to actually answering the question. Once you have enough reputation, you can comment on other answers.
I prepare Kefir with RAW milk, Boil it then cool it down, when temp reaches 22-24 C Put kefir grains in it (2 litre milk 5 tablespeen grains)
Leave it on room temprature 23C. After 6-10 hours you kefir will be ready. Remember when you shake it well, creamy texture will be there.
That sounds like a waste of raw milk, as you are basically giving it UHT treatment. I read that raw milk is supposed to be good for kefir.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.906824
| 2016-07-29T03:46:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71741",
"authors": [
"LMAshton",
"Robert",
"Sobachatina",
"hba",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67571",
"wobbily_col"
],
"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
}
|
90159
|
Should I sterilize new canning jars?
They are new. Never opened. Sealed. Do I have to bother sterilizing both lid and bottle by immersing them separately in canner and pan? Or are they safe and sterile considering they are straight from factory?
It's easy to do, why would you want to 'not' do this?
Generally speaking, if you are relying on pre-sterilization of jars and pre-sterilization of the contents prior to sealing, you're going to need to keep your kitchen as sterile as an OR in order to avoid significant spoilage. You'll be better off switching to a process that completely sterilizes the contents of the jars as part of the sealing process. It's less work and more reliable.
You should sterilize your jars and lids before every use.
The dust that gets on them between uses and even in the box is enough to warrant sterilizing.
It doesn't take long. Running them through a cycle in the dishwasher with a steam or sterilization step is enough. I boil the lids in a small sauce pan.
Edit
Debbie M's comment below made me think that some clarification is warranted.
Lids used to need to be heated to soften the seal so it would seal properly. That is no longer the case.
Additionally, bottles and lids don't need to be sterilized if they are going to be processed for longer than 10 minutes or pressure canned.
http://nchfp.uga.edu/how/general/recomm_jars_lids.html
Foods that are processed less should have sterilized jars and lids. I am in the habit of washing them in the dishwasher which also sterilizes them.
In the US the major manufacturer says not to boil canning lids / https://www.freshpreserving.com/canning-lids-101.html
@DebbieM. They differentiate between simmering and boiling. Sure, I'm actually simmering them. I didn't differentiate.
"washing them in the dishwasher which also sterilizes them." - No it's not. It may sanitize them if temperature is high enough and proper washing agent is used. But that's it. What's the difference? Read here on sister site!
@Molot- "Sterilize" is used inaccurately in the context of home canning. You are right- a dishwasher is not an autoclave.
@Sobachatina: Of course, if you do happen to have an autoclave lying around...
The current recommendation of the company that owns both the Ball & Kerr brands are that it is only necessary to clean the lids, bands, and jars well with soap and water before canning with them (a normal dishwasher cycle is fine). The canning process itself will sterilize them. It is also no longer necessary to heat the lids to soften the plastisol gasket.
Used jars should be sterilized and carefully checked for chips or cracks. Used lids should be discarded, or used for purposes other than canning (keeping jars in the refrigerator, or vacuum sealing dry goods, for example). Used bands should be cleaned.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.907204
| 2018-06-04T19:11:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90159",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Debbie M.",
"Mołot",
"Perkins",
"Sobachatina",
"Vikki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66715"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
72907
|
Protein networks in vegan cakes
I have read that one important role of eggs in cakes is to add proteins that denature with heat and then link together giving the cake structure. Given that proteins are so varied and abundant in nature, I was wondering whether there are vegan sources of protein that can perform the same function. Has anyone experimented systematically with this?
EDIT: This is distinct from the question of whether there are vegan egg substitutes that can be used in cakes. Since eggs do multiple things to cakes and since these roles are emphasized more or less depending on the cake, there is not going to be a single answer to "what is a good egg substitute for cakes?". I asked this question to try to learn specifically about whether there are ways to mimic the protein network that eggs create in cakes using vegan proteins.
Possible duplicate of Are there any vegetarian-friendly egg substitutes that can be used in cakes?
You don't need eggs at all for cake. You can build structure in other ways, ranging from creamed butter to soda water
@Journeyman Geek. I'm curious to know more about this answer. Could you give a more detailed explanation or provide a link?
Flax seeds contain protein and are an excellent substitute for eggs (in consistency too) for baking. 1 TBS ground flax mixed with 3T water = 1 egg. Let it soak for a bit and it will form a gel.
The pastry chef at Veggie Galaxy in Cambridge, MA, actually chemically analyzed eggs in order to develop vegan bakery recipes such as meringue. This was probably about 5 years ago before they opened. Unfortunately I don't believe the results of her work are openly available. Given the success of the bakery, I would say that the answer is most likely yes.
Legume flours (eg soy, chickpea, lentil flour) match that role well - they are used in traditional (eg indian) eggless recipes as texture-enhancing binders, or even on their own - pakora and cheela batters are made with a lot of chickpea flour for that purpose.
Most of the protein structure in cake is due to gluten, from the wheat flour.
A cake is ideally more tender than bread (which is well-kneaded to develop strong gluten networks), but even low-protein cake flour will form some structure from its gluten.
One time-tested eggless version is "wacky cake", which uses vinegar for leavening and is therefore relying entirely on flour for its structure. (It works surprisingly well -- in some cases better than recipes I've tried that do use eggs.)
I am speculating, although I have not tested it or found a reference, that using an all-purpose flour or even bread flour would make a more successful eggless cake than cake flour would.
The Science of Cake (on The Guardian blog) has some more detail about the role different ingredients play in a "traditional" recipe (i.e., one that includes eggs).
You could substitute the egg with apple sauce. I have tried that before and it worked well. They say you should substitute each egg in a cake recipe with 1/3 cup of applesauce. For me this is always trail and error but you could use it as a rule of thumb.
But make sure that you strain most of the excess liquid of the apple sauce before you ad it, otherwise you will have too much liquid in your dough.
Applesauce helps to keep moisture available in baked goods, since it is effectively an emulsion (not entirely like yoghurt or milk used in baking) - but it does not form much of a protein network, unless you are talking about pectin effects (which are quite different from what meat or legume proteins do)...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.907460
| 2016-08-06T00:05:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/72907",
"authors": [
"Ari Herman",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Michael Hampton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49555",
"lemontwist",
"rackandboneman",
"walbuc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73066
|
What kind of wok do I have?
Just bought a cheap wok that has 2 little handles and the inside looks like a bad paint job (black in Color)that looks like swirls.
on the bottom it has Chinese lettering which I don't understand. It is very lightweight. Any clues?
Can you upload a picture? (Worth a thousand words, as the saying goes!)
I could but don't know how to.
Where did you buy it?
T and T Supermarket, in south Edmonton.
Types of woks:
Stainless Steel
Heavy, expensive and well, shiny like stainless steel. Unlikely that this is it.
Cast Iron
They're usually pretty heavy. It'll be black, but due to your weight, I'd guess that this isn't it either. Lightweight cast iron woks exist but they can be pretty brittle.
Carbon Steel
Lightweight and cheap. Will be black if it's seasoned/pre-seasoned. These are manufactured a number of ways (hammered, stamped or spun on a lathe). Depending on what you mean by "swirls", it could be a result of the manufacturing method, the "bad paint job", could be the some pre-seasoning (ie: bad seasoning job?)?
This would be my guess as you said it's lightweight and cheap. The Chinese lettering would also make it more likely as this is one of the more popular traditional types.
Teflon, Aluminum, other...
You can also find them in various other materials, but these should be pretty obvious, and you're unlikely to buy one randomly I would guess.
TLDR: I would guess it's machined/turned carbon steel.
See here for more info: Serious Eats
Thank you !! My wok looks like the picture under the title Manufacture.
If you bought it at T&T, I would definitely guess machined carbon steel
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.907756
| 2016-08-11T18:58:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73066",
"authors": [
"Cecilia",
"Erica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49687",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109831
|
Cooked food (+seafood) left out overnight - common practice in some parts of the world?
My partner and I made some shrimp pasta last night and forgot to put the leftovers in the fridge. The next morning I promptly proceeded to throw it away, but my partner stopped me and said it was still good to eat. I was very surprised and told him no way should we eat this, and he in turn was very surprised that I would think it was unsafe. He claimed maybe it's a culture thing - he's from Japan and said people do it all the time there, but noticed his friends in the UK (where we live now) are much more careful. He claims it's also common practice in other places he's lived. I told him it's definitely not considered best practice in my home country, but to be fair, food freshness in the US is sometimes questionable (e.g. it's not necessary to store eggs in the fridge in most parts of the world).
Am I missing something? Is he just taking a massive risk, or have I been raised with overly sanitised food safety practices?
Hi Ryan, this is a larger problem for which our site has no good solution. I'll try to stick it into a nutshell: There is no such thing as absolute "safety". There are only different systems of deciding what is safe, and you can compare them to each other (e.g. the FDA food safety rules are more restrictive than whatever my grandmother learned from her mother) but not to some kind of golden standard. So the question whether your system is "too restrictive" and the other is right, or yours is "right" and the other one is too loose is purely opinion based. Our site...
... does not allow opinion based quesitons, not on this topic or on any other, so I had to close it. The way we deal with food safety questions is to define that only formally available food safety rules systems are allowed to be used in answers, for practical reasons basically always the FDA ones, and to suppose that everybody knows we are talking about rules systems and not about something unknowable like the true risk of eating X. Not a great solution, but we don't have a better one.
@rumtscho FWIW...my interpretation: "Is he taking a...risk?" That is not a matter of opinion. The answer is yes. There is a risk, as I point out below. "Should I take the risk?" (which was not asked) would be a matter of opinion, and thus not answerable here.
@moscafj every one of us is taking a risk, every time we eat. Food safety rules don't mean thre is no risk, they mean the predicted risk is below the threshold the rule setter is willing to tolerate. The question here asks us to qualify that risk ("massive risk" vs. "overly sanitised") and this qualification is a matter of opinion.
He...and anyone else who violates food safety protocols is clearly taking a risk. There are simply too many variables at play to make any other claim. We can share personal anecdotes all day, but the fact is, food kept between 40F (4.5C) to 140F (60C) for more than a couple of hours provides a hospitable environment for bacterial growth. That bacterial growth is accelerated at the warmer end of the scale, and it is a logarithmic progression.
By the way, refrigeration of eggs in the US is not about their freshness, but their farming and treatment between the chicken and the supermarket.
I know I'm going to get panned for this… ;)
Eating something left out overnight can only kill you once; every other time it doesn't.
If bacteria were growing in it they've had sufficient time to build to harmful levels. This is not a 'good thing'.
However, people have been eating last night's leftovers for today's lunch since time immemorial & most of them lived to tell the tale.
Food safety authorities write guidelines for restaurants & commercial kitchens, reducing the potential risk as far as is possible. Restaurants must follow these guidelines because not doing so can kill people.
If it goes awry in a restaurant it can kill many people.
Killing people is not good for business.
These authorities say that keeping food at higher than 4°C & under 60°C for more than two hours [cumulative] is no longer guaranteed to be safe.
This is true.
If it's your own leftovers, it's your call.
Most people do it, most people survive. Some don't.
It's a numbers game. The only one at risk is you.
Right - time to microwave last night's curry leftovers…
No pan from me, I agree with you. When food is scarce you take more chances, when it isn't you don't need to. I've had food poisoning from shellfish and the idea of eating last nights shrimp makes my stomach churn!
I've had food poisoning from a few things over the years - none of which I cooked myself [& actually most of which were abroad on holiday]. I was looking at UK stats, ⅔ of food poisoning comes from restaurants or takeaways. So, out of your 1000 meals a year [3 a day] what's the percentage chance of home-cooked food killing you? ;-)))
I've never had food poisoning from something I've made myself @Tetsujin, partly because I don't take chances.
& partly because you simply don't have the contamination potential of a large walk-in fridge, even one with good practices [& I've seen a few that don't have good practices]
I would not pan you for the truth of what you are saying, but I would note that it is an answer to a subtly different question ("why don't I get sick every time I eat unsafe food") and we already have this question asked and answered on the site.
"most of them lived" ... [citation needed]
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.908044
| 2020-07-24T08:42:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109831",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52014",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"tripleee"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81977
|
How to keep a cheesecake layer separate from filling during baking?
I want to make an (Dutch) apple pie with a layer of cheesecake.
As far as I know I have a few options:
Bake a cheesecake, then simply add a layer of apples.
More or less like:
However, this is not what I want.
Use a known recipe with a result like this:
Option 2 is exactly what I'm looking for and exactly the type of pie. I want to have crust on the bottom, sides, and top.
In the picture you can see what is to be expected. The layers will combine. But I want to have a layer like option 1. Is this at all possible without the layers combining during baking?
Apples on top seems to moisten the cheesecake layer too much, if they don't already sink to the bottom eventually.
Cheesecake on top might have the same issue, but less I guess.
I'm also not sure how the stripes of dough would hold up above this cheesecake layer.
Any tips on how to proceed or is this mission impossible?
Edit:
An example of a layer with some sort of merengue (with added starch), added before baking. To give a better picture of what I'm trying to achieve.
I wouldn't think there would be anyway to prevent the layers from mixing without first setting (baking) the cheesecake layer. It's simply too liquid and will absorb anything placed on top of it during baking. Hence why option 1 is made the way it is. The only thing I can think of is to somehow create the apple layer into a less dense suspension (probably smaller chunks of apple would be needed).. think layering some alcoholic drinks and how the layers nicely split...
If you really want to get technical about it (baking is a science after all, right?) then you can start with experimenting and creating a viscous suspension (to hold the apple pieces), and then testing the density of each layer at room temp and at baking temp. You should be able to solve it with maths but it may not come out exactly how you're envisioning it.
Hello Ruud, I don't understand the question. What is the difference between the two pies? All I can see on the pictures is that in the first, the apples are separated, in the second, the apples are mixed in. And you seem to be asking for option 1 but with the apples separated. Are there more differences I cannot see, and you want to keep those but have the apples separate? What are these differences? I only see that the bottom pie has crust on the side and the top one doesn't, but this would be trivial to achieve in option 1 too, so it is presumably not why you see a problem.
@kettultim Well this indeed ends up in the science department. I was thinking maybe some layer of pre-baked cake can take another hour of baking since it wil get moist and might be able to keep the layers seperated. I will look into what type of cake/dough can handle that without ruining taste.
@rumtscho A typical grandma's apple pie has crust on bottom,sides and pieces on top. Since the first example is baked first and then the apples come on top, you easily achieve layers. I wanted to try something similar but in one run. I wasn't allowed to add more url's as examples, but the recipe can be found at http://www.laurasbakery.nl/appeltaart-cheesecake/ to give you a better idea.
@Ruud now I realize what you mean. I somehow mistook the lattice on top of the pie in the second picture for just more cheese mass, baked golden on top and with some random holes.
@Rudd : I was thinking about making a sugar disk to put over the cheese layer to keep things separate. It might soften as it cooks, but would hopefully keep the moisture away from the cheese layer long enough for it to set.
@Joe Interesting! I came up with the same idea and even wrote it into my answer, but then removed it as too far-fetched, and too high a risk that it won't dissolve well afterwards. But if you thought the same, then my confidence in the idea rises again. Maybe you can write it up as a separate answer, especially if you have seen something similar done.
@Joe like rumtscho said, please go into more detail. Tried googling it, but didn't find something usefull. A sugar(+cinnamon) layer might be quite interesting if that works.
In the photos supplied there are three different types of cakes, they are made differently. Only the first one is a cheesecake (Graham crackers bottom, cheesecream, and later added a fruit layer on top) . Second one is more of the traditional apple pie with bottom and top crust and a fruit filling inside. The third one has four different layers: a crust, a fruit filling, a meringue/marshmallow layer and a crumble on top. Each one has it's own recipe and their own set of ingredients. But you didn't supply any recipe or ingredients list....
Do you have permission to use these photos?
I admit, I haven't done this ... but here's my thought:
set up a ring form that's just a bit smaller than the pan your baking in (should fit inside the crust ... better to be a little bit small than too large).
Cook some sugar to hard crack, and pour it into the form at about 1/16" (1.5mm) deep.
Let it cool.
Place the crust in the pan, then the cheese filling, the disk of sugar, then the apple filling, then the top crust, and bake.
I have no idea how much the sugar will soften. Hopefully, it'll dissolve as the apples give off their moisture, but will keep the moisture from mixing with the cheese layer for a longer period of time (so the cheese has started to set up some)
If you try it, I've love to know if it worked or not. I'd try it myself, but I can't eat dairy anymore, so I haven't made cheesecake in years.
I am guessing the sugar will dissolve completely, and considering the weight and liquid coming off those apples, it will start dissolving before you can even put it in the oven. It's a neat idea though, although I wouldn't want to risk a super-sweet, syrupy layer in there, depending on how thick a sugar disc you make.... but if you really caramelized the sugar, that would be lovely...
@kitukwfyer : I was thinking that you'd want to reduce some of the sugar in the apple filling to compensate for the sugar in the disk.
Hmm.... I'm not sure if this really deserves to be an answer, because I haven't done this specifically, but one thing that comes to mind is an Apple crumb cake I made from this recipe right here. Yes it says strawberry, but apples are if anything better.
The point is I think there is at least one thing you could try that might help without changing your exact recipe.
You could change the way you cut your apples, or at least part of them. If you slice the apples very thinly, you can layer them together to form a kind of platform, which can help to prevent uneven sinking/mixture. You could either stick to that method, which can lead to a very pretty, layered pinwheel presentation if there's no other topping, OR once you've got a decent layer of sliced apple to provide this platform, you could put the rest of the apples, in chunks, on top if you want that look to it. If you use the sliced apples, you will get a different texture though.
Beyond that, you'll have to modify your recipe. As a commenter stated, you need to consider things like density and surface tension. My suggestion above is a way of playing with surface tension--Less weight distributed across a broader surface means less sinking, but if your cheesecake batter is as liquid as my usual recipe is, it might not work regardless. If you switch to a simpler, denser recipe (possibly just by leaving out some or all of the cream), you should have no trouble regardless of how you cut/place your apples.
In the recipe I link, the cake batter and cream cheese layer are both very, very thick. This is what prevents a great deal of sinking/mixture and produces those pretty layers in the final product.
To sum up: Yes, I think this should be totally possible, but I can only offer suggestions, not actual experience with this precise cake here.
EDIT: Looking at the recipe, it already seems to be a fairly dense cheesecake-- no cream. The only liquid is one egg to hold things together, so you wouldn't need to change anything there, I don't think. The only reason there seems to be sinking and mixture is because of the way the apple is cut and the amount of it compared to the cheesecake. The apple layer is 1500+ grams, while the cheesecake layer is less than 1000. You'll still have to experiment, but I would think you could pretty easily cheat by using a thin layer of sliced apple.
Thanks, lot's of options to tinker with. Somewhere it seems worth a try and switch layers (apples on bottom), and see if the cream cheese can hold the top dough parts if it isn't too liquid. It's okay if parts of the cream cheese fill the air holes between the apple parts when pouring, as long as I can keep most of it as layer.
I'll plan on making this on Tuesday (my mom's going out of town, so she needs a surprise right?), and let you know how the layering works for me. That said, I don't think you have to worry about the cheesecake batter being too liquid with this recipe. Good luck with your version!
I imagine you could do some trickery with gelatine, if you are fine with the final texture. Warning, I haven't tried this, it is a wild idea which can be a fun experiment, but no results guaranteed.
Cover the pie dish with the bottom crust and freeze. Mix gelatine with the cheesy layer and pour into the crust. I would suggest using less than the amount for a stands-on-its-own jelly dessert, you'll need trial and error to find what is the smallest amount usable. When gelled, carefully spread the apples on top and place the upper crust. Bake. If everything goes well, by the time the gelatine melts from the baking temperature, the eggs will set enough to hold up the apples.
I have heard to "never heat set gelatine" and dutifully followed it. So I cannot tell if, when cooling down, the gelatine will set again (making your mouthfeel different from standard pie) or if it will be irreversibly damaged, so you don't get a gelled texture. It would be another thing to watch out for.
If it turns out that the gelatine melting and egg setting are badly timed and the apples still fall to the bottom, you can try methylcellulose. It will set only when heated (so you will have to heat the cheese layer before putting the apples on top) and melt back when cooled. I haven't played with it, so not sure about the proper amounts and temperature ranges.
If everything else fails, you can consider baking your pie in steps. Lower crust with cheese-egg layer goes into the oven first, then layer precooked apples on top (they will do well on stovetop) and assemble a thin raw lattice on top. Bake quickly on upper heat only, or maybe with a broiler, until the crust is done.
Would you think that simply adding starch could do the same trick? I only use it with budget cream cheese which tends to be more liquid. I know the texture will change quite a lot, which might not be the case with gelatin powder.
Starch thickens after it reaches a certain temperature, which varies a bit between different starches but is always above 90 C. Your lower layer will still be runny when you plop the apples on it. One way it might work is to cook the layer with the starch on stovetop, pour it into the crust while still hot (then it will be thick but pourable), wait for it to set firmer as it cools, then add apples and lattice, then bake.
I totally forgot about how starch works :) That's why I never used it again and bought proper cream cheese.
Try cooking the cheesecake filling first(in a double boiler perhaps) and then spread it on the crust bottom. After cooking, the filling becomes firmer and the apple pie mixture's moisture should prevent it from hardening further.
I wasn't sure that such a thing would work out, but I can try it, since the apples give quite some moist (which in most recipes is usually caught by breadcrumbs on the bottom).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.908477
| 2017-05-25T08:09:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81977",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Robert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kettultim",
"kitukwfyer",
"roetnig",
"rumtscho",
"supersoaker2000"
],
"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
}
|
33122
|
How to store salted cod?
Salted cod is a famous dish in Portugal and I would like to prepare it. It is common here to see the whole of a fish (well, without head, guts etc obviously) in supermarkets - like this:
Wikipedia
I expect that it can be stored at home for quite a long time without refrigeration. However I'm not sure. What is the best way to store salted cod? For how long can it be stored? And, as a bonus question: what to do against the whole house smelling like codfish? ;)
According to Still Tasty, 10-12 months, refrigerated.
To prevent odors, it should be left sealed in its original packaging, or put into an airtight container such as freezer bag (the freezer ones are better sealed and less permeable than the regular zip lock type bag).
And don't be afraid to double bag if you're not sure how well-sealed everything is. You really don't want fish smells slowly creeping into everything in your fridge.
I'm a cod retailer. How long you can store it depends on where the fish comes from:
Norwegian cod is salted and extra dried. When you soak it in water, it will expand into nice, thick steaks and it does last longer, 8 to 10 months when refrigerated.
Nova Scotia, Canada cod is semi-dry and, therefore, best when consumed within 3 to 4 months. When you soak it, its thickness will not change.
If you have space in your freezer, it's not uncommon in Portugal to see frozen "bacalhau demolhado" in portions. You can execute the soaking process, cut and store the fish in the freezer with skins and bones, well wrapped and it will keep good for a while. This will also give you the big advantage of having the fish ready to cook anytime you need it!
Note for readers: demolhado means it has been soaked and thus it is not (as much) salted.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.909374
| 2013-03-30T00:25:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33122",
"authors": [
"Big Carl ",
"CAgrippa",
"Cascabel",
"Conifers",
"Omar Qureshi",
"YVONNE",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76878",
"iled"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78051
|
Problem Rolling Out Rough Puff Pastry
I'm familiar with the proper steps in making rough puff pastry but I have difficulty rolling out the dough. I'm hoping someone can make suggestions or explain how to do it better.
I find it easy rolling out softer doughs - pastry dough or yeast doughs. Rolling out chilled rough puff pastry dough is very difficult though as the butter is hard, making the dough hard too. It takes a lot to push on the rolling pin to roll to size each time. Raising the my height to apply more pressure helps some but not enough.
I'm pretty new to making rough puff pastry so maybe I'm doing something wrong? It's not something I plan to make that often but it would be nice as a dough for Guinness Irish stew.
Maybe you're chilling the dough for too long, how long are you leaving it in the fridge?
@Luciano Perhaps I am chilling it too long. To be honest, I hadn't kept close tabs on the time as I was busy making bread and cooking stew at the same time. I put my hand on the dough each time and it felt cold enough to me. I hadn't thought it would get significantly colder in 2 hours than 1 hour as the dough is thin and cools quickly in the fridge. Anything else you might need to know? I'm new to Stack Exchange and have tried to ask properly. I read through all the Help topics but still need to feel my way around..
I've never made it myself, but every TV show or online video that I've ever seen where they were making a laminated dough, they beat the butter w/ a rolling pin before they started folding it : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdO_ef0dyuM . And you might want to see the question about 'cheat puff pastry' : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/45360/67
@Joe I never saw that video but I'd heard of grating butter before and tried to. Wasn't successful as it clumped in a pile under my grater so gave up on that. I think I'll try something a bit different by spreading some softened butter between 2 sheets of parchment paper and briefly put it into the freezer to harden. Then I'll peel it off to layer between the dough. I'm out of parchment paper so when I get some, I'll post my results here. Still hoping someone else might say they found the dough hard to roll out and tell me their (possible) solution.
@Jude : You need well frozen dough, so it remains separate. I'd also advise freezing or chilling the plate or bowl that you're going to use to collect the frozen butter in. As another alternative, you could roll the dough out, then grate the butter directly on it (moving around so you don't develop too large of piles).
Cold dough, yes. But frozen? Very cold puff pastry dough is hard enough to roll out. Frozen would make it impossible, at least for me!
i would recommend watching the video on martha sterwarts site on ruff puff http://www.marthastewart.com/354144/rough-puff-pastry
Do the first couple of book turns straight away when dough first made. The chill for 20 and repeat 3 times to make 5 turns. I freeze and blitz the butter first to make it like tiny gravel. That's the secret.
To 'roll out' laminated dough, you generally need to flatten out the dough first.
One technique can be to repeatedly press a rolling pin across sections of the dough to spread/soften the dough. Until the dough is pliable or near the required thickness. This method is usually started along the center line (as if dividing the dough in half), continuing to each quarter (halving again). Rotate the dough, or the rolling pin if you need to keep a specific shape.
Another technique is to roll the dough out to almost or the required thickness before chilling. This is probably more suited when using grated frozen fats.
PS: Depending on the climate, dough can be rested in as little as 20 minutes in a refrigerator/freezer. As it's only to stop the fat melting into the flour.
The longer you leave it out, the softer it will be. If it's too hard for you when taken fresh out of the fridge, let it sit a bit before you attack it. But for most people, they will want to work on it right away because the dough softens up very quickly once you are rolling it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.909565
| 2017-02-02T22:50:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78051",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Joe",
"Jude",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"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
}
|
79733
|
Can I season a stainless steel frying pan?
After the advice I gave about seasoning a cast iron pan, one would think I knew. I don't though. I have 2 large cast iron pans I use regularly but I'd love my good quality small stainless steel pan to have the same hard lasting seasoned non-stick coating my iron pans have. I've injured my wrists many years back so I'd like a pan that's easy to move without the strain. I don't want to use anything like spray Pam either.
Considering how seasoning works, it sounds do-able except for one problem. The top layer of a cast iron pan isn't completely smooth but slightly porous. That's why an oil film is able to initially stick to the pan. I'm not sure a stainless steel pan's surface is porous.
The way most people think of a new stainless pan being seasoned in preparation for use isn't what I mean. That's not a long lasting finish. I want the tough finish you get seasoning a cast iron pan by multiple oiling, heating and cooling. So has anyone tried and if so, what were your results? I don't want to experiment on my one good small pan.
Possible duplicate of Do I need to season a stainless steel saute pan?
This is a tentative dupe vote... It seems like a similar question and I think the answers address what you're asking.
Not quite, Catia so I took your suggestion and edited my question.
It is not something that I would do - I just use stainless with sufficient oil. But if you really want to try it, then yes, you can make it stick. It is more difficult than with cast iron, but it is not impossible. First, steel does have "pores" (actually crags) on a microscopic level. It is not that much smoother than forged iron, which is also seasoned. Second, we have had enough questions around here of people complaining about "ruining" their stainless when they accidentally polymerized oil onto it. Third, my pans also hold a bit of polymerization on the walls, where splatter meets the hot metal.
I cannot give you the exact conditions under which it will work, but I don't think there is much difference between the best process for seasoning stainless steel and the best process for seasoning iron. The difference is in that you have a much smaller margin for error. But with good technique and patience, you should be able to do it on purpose.
I'm going to try and will post results when done. Before I went to bed last night, I spent a while searching for SEM micrographs of the surface of the same type of stainless steel that's used in cookware. Different look to the pores on a cast iron pan but I'm happy enough with its appearance to decide to give it a try.
It doesn't have to be the same surface - I also seasoned my ceramic after its stopped being nonstick, and I'm happy with it. The seasoning is not great there, slightly patchy, but works OK.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.909902
| 2017-04-07T23:14:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79733",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Jude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78279
|
Sous vide effectiveness without using a vacuum sealer?
I frequently use the water displacement method to seal ziploc freezer bags when I sous vide. I can get maybe 99% of the air out, but technically the bag is not under vacuum. If I clip the top of the bag to the side of my container, any air pockets that emerge collects at the top, and the meat is entirely in contact with the bag and immersion bath. Alternatively, if I seal the bag with a marinade, there are no pockets of air between the meat and the immersion bath.
I can't imagine that the temperature transfer can be any more effective when vacuum sealed. So why does a site like SeriousEats still suggest that a vacuum sealer is needed for best results with longer cooking times?
update from http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/08/how-to-seal-food-airtight-without-vacuum-sealer-water-displacement-method.html#comments-299859
In the context of food storage in plastic bags, SeriousEats claims, "excess air causes oxidation that can develop into off flavors or promote spoilage." But I never sous vide for the freezer, it gets served when done.
There was a comment that asked if food contamination might occur for cooking times longer than 48 hours, but it was never answered.
What is the science behind this statement? How much residual air is "too much"?
If the bag remains submerged, does not leak, and the food in full contact with the water bath, is that enough to duplicate the benefits of a true vacuum seal?
update 2
Also, what is the scientific impact of trapping small amounts of residual air in a pocket above the water bath? This assumes that there is still a very strong thermal coupling between the water bath and sous vide item.
In the photo below, you can see at least a 2inch gap between the air pockets above water level and the actual short ribs. From a heat transfer perspective, I can't imagine that a vacuum sealed bag can perform significantly better—certainly not relative to a 48hr cook time. Is there a possibility of bacterial contamination?
+1 - Excellent question and welcome to this site, Michael
Very good question. Personally I would change the title to reflect the question more accurately i.e. that you are asking about the efficacy of sous vide without a vacuum sealer, not how to actually do it.
I agree with it beeing duplicate and the top rated answer there suits perfectly to this question and would also be my answer ;)
The dedicated vacuum sealer makes better seams than the ZipLoc Freezer bag edges. For long duration cooking, this is a big advantage. I have to double-bag when I am doing an extended cook at a higher temp. And working out air pockets is twice as painful with two bags and hot water!
I've never had a problem with leakage from a ziploc freezer bag—even when cooking times reach 48-72 hours.
If hot water is a problem seal your bags in tepid water then immerse them in the circulator bath.
I found that preheating the water to 100F (I.e. Hot tub temp) makes it much easier to evacuate air bubbles from the bag. It is much more pliable at temp, but still not too hot for your hands.
@user23186 In my personal experience, air pockets tend to reveal themselves after the cooking has begun. This is especially true when the food is double-bagged.
@michael That is a good idea!
The main problem I've found is that air pockets can cause the bag to float, causing uneven heating. If your bag sinks, or if you have something to make it sink, it should be fine.
(Note: I find the water displacement method to be kind of a pain and not really effective. I use a cheapo manual vacuum pump, which I got for about ten bucks. It's very slightly more effective, and cheap.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.910138
| 2017-02-10T06:14:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78279",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Keith Payne",
"Silent-Bob",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"michael",
"user23186"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37564
|
What general rules should I follow to ensure that my measurements are accurate?
Can technique really make big enough difference to effect the final result?
There are already excellent questions and answers here regarding specific measuring issues Cup measurements: shake or scrape? but I'm looking more for more general "how to measure" advice.
You want accurate measurements? Use a scale.
When it comes to having recipes come out predictably, it's probably most important to just use the same method as the recipe author, whatever that is (and if you have any way of knowing).
If permissible I'd love to hear about people's favorite scales.
When does it matter?
Only worry about highly accurate measurement when it matters. This is generally when two ingredients or aspects of a recipe must be held in a close ratio to be successful.
This occurs more normally in baking than in savory cooking (except for modernist or molecular methods, where accuracy is extremely important).
The classic example is balancing the amount of baking soda and lemon juice in a recipe, so there is enough acid for the baking soda to react with and provide good leavening.
In savory cooking, many ingredients just provide bulk, flavor, or texture, but are not reacting chemically with other ingredients in a significant way. In this case, you generally do not need highly accurate measurements.
Volume versus weight
The goal when measuring ingredients is that you want to have a reproducible amount of the substance. The only true way to ensure this in the general case is to use an accurate scale, which measures by weight.
The reason is that some foods are compressible, and can be squeezed or fluffed to different densities. The classic example is flour: depending on how you measure (sifting into a measuring cup and then leveling, to dip and sweep, for example), a single cup could weight as little as about 4 ounces at the low end to over 5 ounces at the high end. That is a variance of over 20%!
For ingredients which are highly compressible, or whose density can change, measuring by weight is simply going to be more accurate, and more repeatable. 4.5 ounces of flour by weight is always, well, 4.5 ounces.
Economical kitchen scales are available that measure digitally down to 1 gram (about 28th of an ounce).
Switching from Volume to Weight: Common Conversions
Switching from measuring primarily by volume to primarily by weight is somewhat scary. How much flour should there be in a cup? What does a cup of sugar weight?
A quality cookbook for baked goods will give you ingredients by weight, or if not, in the front matter, will tell you what weight they are using for a standard up. Similarly, the quality websites for baked goods will tell you what weight they use for a standard "cup" of flour, or they will simply provide weight information as part of the recipe.
If you don't have recipes specified by weight, and cannot find a specific conversion or standard cup size for your recipe source, here are some good values to get started for the most important ingredients.
Flour - 4.5 oz / cup
Sugar - 8 oz / cup
Brown Sugar - 7 oz / cup
Cocoa - 4.25 oz / cup
Water - 8 oz / cup
Vegetable oil - 8 oz / cup (surprisingly, it is not that much less dense than water; you would need to measure 10 cups worth to be off by one full ounce by weight)
Sour cream - 8.1 oz / cup (in most cases, rounding to 8 would be fine)
Web searches, such as Online Conversions can be very helpful in finding conversion factors.
As a side benefit, once you are measuring by weight, you may actually find it is more convenient, and has less cleanup, as you can measure each item into a common bowl (pressing the tare or zero key each time). No more little pile of bowls and measuring spoons to wash!
When is measuring by volume okay?
Things that don't compress, and are not mixed with air are fine when measured by volume. The scientific reason is that their density is constant, so a given volume will always have the same weight.
Examples of items that can be measured accurately by volume include:
Liquids of almost all sorts - water, oils, juices, extracts, milk, and so on
Fine, solid powders, like granulated sugar
Spices are another exception. While measuring by weight is in fact preferred and more accurate (if you have a scale accurate to below the gram level), they don't usually participate in the chemistry of a recipe, and are adjusted to taste in any case. Therefore, the inherent inaccuracy of measuring them by volume is less troublesome.
Salt: the Gotcha
Salt is an unusual ingredient. Depending on how it is crystalized, it can have surprisingly different weights per volume.
For this reason, if you can, measuring salt by weight is always more accurate.
Still, it is often used in small quantities, and it is fairly in-compressible, so measuring by volume should be okay, as long as you always measure the same type of salt.
Be aware that different salt brands and types have differently shaped granules, crystals, or flakes, some of which have air inclusions, so the weight to volume conversion depends on the particular type of salt.
While all granulated table salts are fairly similar, kosher and specialty salts can weight as little as half as much per unit of volume in comparison, and can vary by brand.
Common US salt volume to weight conversions:
Granulated (table) salt - 10.3 oz / cup
Kosher Salt, Diamond - 5.01 oz / cup
Kosher Salt, Morton's - 7.68 oz / cup
Dry volume
If you do measure by volume, use the right type of measuring tool. A measuring spoon or dry measuring cup is appropriate for, well, dry ingredients like sugar. To use it properly, overfill the bowl of the spoon or the well of the cup, and then sweep off with something straight (like a chopstick or the back of a knife) to make it level.
Liquid Volume
Except for very small volumes like measuring vanilla extract, where measuring spoons are used (and some accuracy is sacrificed), for liquid measurements, use a liquid measuring cup, which typically is transparent and has graduations marked up the side.
When you fill the measuring cup, you will notice that the liquid curls up or down at the edge of the cup. This curve, called the miniscus, is a result of how the surface tension of the liquid interacts with the material of the cup. For the most accurate measurement, you would read at the center of the miniscus, where it is level, not at the edge.
The measuring tool you use should be about the same size as the amount you want to measure. It would be very hard to measure a teaspoon of vanilla correctly in a 10 gallon drum marked off in quarts. Similarly, measuring a gallon one half cup at a time is no fun, and an invitation to inaccuracy.
Measuring cups are available in many sizes, from shot glass sized (suitable for measuring teaspoons and tablespoons) to very large ones that can measure gallons. A home cook should probably have at least 1 cup, 2 cup, and 4 cup versions.
A cone-shaped measuring cup like this:
is a nice tool, as it is very accurate a range of scales.
For this reason, if you do measure liquids by volume, it is best
Reading the recipe
Recipes are a code, telling you how to recreate the dish in their author's minds. Sometimes, the code is fairly crypic.
Do you measure, for example, the nuts before or after chopping them?
Well, if you are measuring be weight, it doesn't matter—just one more example weight is easier.
If you are measuring by volume, then the way the recipe phrases the ingredient and its preparation is key:
One cup, hazelnuts, chopped — measure a cup of hazelnuts, then chop them
One cup chopped hazelnuts — chop hazelnuts, then measure one cup of the resulting product
Temperatures
One of the most important things we measure in the kitchen is temperature. It tells us when a steak is done, when butter is at the best plasticity to make croissants, and when milk is at an unsafe temperature, among many other things.
Temperature is very tricky to measure because it is local. One part of a chicken thigh in a sautee pan can be much hotter than another.
The right thermometer
The most important factor in getting an appropriate temperature reading is choosing the right thermometer for the job.
The most common themometers used in the kitchen are:
Instant read thermometers (the kind every chef and professional cook should have in their pocket): the generalist of the kitchen thermometer world. Useful for measuring almost any food temperature, except for sugar work.
Every cook should have one of these.
To use them properly, stick the probe into the center of the food item (if it is solid) or stir a liquid and then insert the probe. Weight for the temperature to stop changing rapdily, which could be 2-20 seconds depending on your model.
This is your reading.
Probe thermometer. These are convenience for roasts and items placed in the oven for a long period of time.
Insert the probe into the thickest part of the meat, and set a temperature. The probe goes inside the oven, and the main unit sits outside. Most have an alarm that will go off when you reach a set temperature, making it very easy to target a particular temperature for doneness.
Probe thermometers can only check one spot on a roast or dish. You should then verify other spots with your instant read to confirm the dish is fully cooked everywhere (this is most important with poultry which is oddly shaped, and where you have a safety issue in terms of bringing it to temperature).
Sugar or deep fry thermometer. These are often marketed separately, but they are the same type of thermometer, and are generally inter-changable for either use (although sugar thermometers may be more accurate).
They clip to the side of your sugar pot or deep fry pot. They are accurate for temperatures in at least the 200 F to 400 F range, where deep frying and sugar work is done.
Some instant read thermometers are accurate at these temperatures as well, but they should not be left immersed. Read your individual manual.
Don't worry, be happy
This answer stresses the most accurate ways to measure. In some baking, and in molecular gastronomy applications, this matters.
In practice, even in most baking, recipes are remarkably forgiving. 10% more or less vanilla, or 15% variance in the amount of eggs is not going to make or break a recipe at the scale used by home cooks.
So use good practices, which will give you better consistency in your recipes, but don't stress out too much.
Some things, like spices or vanilla extract, are just easier to measure by the spoon, even if a gram scale would be more accurate. That is okay.
You cannot defeat me!
Holy primer, Batman!
Excellent answer. Do you happen to have a source regarding your salt measurements? The Morton Kosher measurement in particular seems low compared with other sources I've seen.
I'm trying to find a definitive answer to the salt question and am collecting resources. Thanks.
Accurate measurement in most cooking is generally about proportions and reproduction...whether you weigh or measure with cups and spoons, the answer is consistency. Use the same tools and processes over time and you will have success. That is the formula most cookbooks have used. Clearly, a scale is a more accurate way to measure ingredients that are impacted by variations in humidity, for example, but it isn't necessarily better than cups and spoons as long as you are consistent over time.
Having said that, when I am using modernist ingredients (working with hydro colloids for example) I am typically working in percentages, which are much easier to calculate by weight. So a scale is required for accuracy.
How to measure? Bottom line for me....if you want consistent results, use the same measurement process each time you follow a recipe.
Great answer! That's a fabulous way to consider the whole process.
I weigh the ingredients on a scale. Then you know you have the exact same measurements every time. I always do this when I bake, even with most liquid ingredients, except for things like eggs. If I was doing it on a large enough scale, I would weigh my eggs as well to make sure I could duplicate it every time.
What about small quantities? For half a teaspoon of baking powder (~2 grams), is a scale actually more accurate than a measuring spoon?
@Jefromi the correct scale (small-amount, high-precision scale, available rather cheap online) is very accurate. But most recipes aren't accurate in that range anyway, they have large rounding errors. This kind of accuracy is useful for molecular gastronomy (where a difference between 0.5% and 0.7% thickener gives you a large difference in texture) and in measuring dry yeast, where errors make a large difference in rising times.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.910569
| 2013-10-13T20:08:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37564",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mark Allen",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Terrence",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96023",
"moscafj",
"rpm768",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121762
|
Sifted rye flour bread why is syrup needed
There is a tasty recipe for bread "rågsiktskakor" with sifted rye flour, butter, milk, syrup, yeast and spices.
I am wondering why syrup is needed, is the sugar in the milk not enough for the yeast? What would change besides maybe the taste without the syrup?
What is sirup? Is it some sort of sugar syrup?
I mean "ljus sirap" whatever that is in english. Just a spelling error.
The yeast feeds on the flour (after it has been broken down to sugar), not on the lactose in the milk. Too much added sugar even inhibits the yeast - although there are very few bread recipes which go into that range, maybe some richer brioches and pannetones.
Sugar is added to bread for taste and texture - and I will speak generically of "sugar" here, because the differences between adding syrup, crystal sugar, honey, etc. are minimal. The taste gets obviously more sweet. The texture becomes more cakelike - the bread is moister, less elastic, with thinner crust, and easier to brown. It is also more breakable, but in a "plump" way, not in the "short" way that is characteristic of adding fats. The crumb will have smaller, more even bubbles. In total, the whole bread tastes differently with sugar than without.
Very interesting, I will try to skip the sirup next time and see if the recipe still works. I was told rye is a bit hard to break down.
Oh, it will certainly work. There are many bread recipes which don't need any enrichment, including rye breads. You may not even notice a large difference, if the sugar amount in the recipe is small in relation to the flour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.911497
| 2022-09-23T09:17:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121762",
"authors": [
"Emil",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54578",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99904
|
Why can´t I make a goodlooking napolitan style pizza dough?
I know you have to use a oven that can get to at least 800°F, and I am using a home integrated kitchen oven, but I can´t get any closer to a good-looking pizza than this
It taste delicious but I want something like this
(or at least something similar).
The ingredients I use are:
450g All purpose flour
230ml water
4g fresh yeast
5g salt
2g sugar
I also use a round metal pizza plate with holes to prepare the pizza because I don´t have palets to move the pizza (like this one ).
I hope someone can tell me how to improve my technice, I am working on a homemade oven that can´t get to 900°F, to take the oven´s lacks of temperature off the equation, so I guess it won´t be an stopper anytime soon.
And how hot can your curent oven go?
How long did you ferment the dough, and at what temperature (room temp or cold-ferment)?
@Stephie I use a metal baking plate, like the one you can see it on the second picture (edited question). For the record I can´t measure how hot my oven can go, but I would say that it can to to 600°F at most.
@NSGod it was fermented at room temp for 4 to 5 hours. But several tries before has been fermented up to 8 to 10 hours (even a day being fermented) and the result is almost the same.
~600F is ~300C - that shouldn’t be a showstopper. Hotter is better, but within reason. (If you can live without the spotting.) Without going into details, I feel looking into the dough preparation/fermentation, handling and thermal mass of your oven could be the most important parameters. And maybe cooking time, as stated below by Max.
One more question, just to be sure: “fresh yeast” as in the soft greyish-brown mass that is stored in the fridge and stays good for just a few weeks, not a fresh package of dried yeast granules? Double-checking because of the ratios.
@Stephie Fresh yeast like the brown soft mass.
I'm by no means a pizza making expert (although maybe an eating one), but my first approaches to get a fluffier, Napolitan dough would be: longer fermentation (up to 24 hours), less topping mass and broader crust. If you can, you might also get a pizza stone for your oven to hold the heat better.
How do you shape your pizza? Do you roll the dough? I ask because your edge looks very thin. My oven goes to around 465F/240C but is fan assisted but my pizza looks closer to the 2nd pic than the first. Hand stretching the pizza and leaving a thicker edge may help you.
@JohnW I will try with 20 hour fermentation
@Spagirl I don´t use a roll, I use my hands, maybe the shaping technique is not well performed, I am gonna try to get a thicker edge to see if it works.
important question: did you pre-heat the oven? for how long? Do you have an oven thermometer, to make sure you're getting the correct temperature before putting the pizza in?
@Luciano Last time I tried, I preheated the oven 30 mins before putting the pizza, I got a better result but still not what I want. I dont have a thermometer.
It does not look baked enough.
Are you using a pizza stone, that might help a little bit.
You could fire up the broiler mode on your oven to crisp up the top of your pizza.
Keep an eye on it so it does not burn.
I use a pizza plate to handle the prepared pizza before cooking, should I use another plate, warm it on the oven and then put the pizza on the warmed plate? (while I buy the pizza stone)?
Assuming I have the right kind of flour and I let it leaven the right time depending on the above flour, after I portion the dough for individual pizzas I make them again in a round shape by rolling in two opposite directions and letting them rest with the seed facing downwards.
To spread, the principle to follow is to start from the center and let the air go towards the edge, which needs not to be flattened. This can be obtained only by hand and not with a rolling pin.
Considering the baking, if you don't have a stone I suggest to use a perforated tray. I personally bake the dough alone for some minutes, also in order to detach the dough in some points where it was thinner.
At this point, you need to know your own oven and find out when to add the sauce and the cheese by trial and error ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.911671
| 2019-07-01T17:19:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99904",
"authors": [
"John Doe",
"Luciano",
"NSGod",
"Spagirl",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76312",
"lennin92"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117262
|
How do you significantly reduce the calories in bread like Franz Keto bread?
Franz Bakery makes a bread that contains 35 calories a slice (the fact that it is keto is irrelevant to me, but may still be a part of the answer):
https://franzbakery.com/HTML/productView#category=breads.premium&id=breads.premium.keto
They also have hamburger and hotdog buns in the same line that have only 50 calories each.
Looking at their ingredients, forgetting mold inhibitors and unnecessary preservatives since the goal is to make this at home, it doesn't seem much different from classic bread ingredients:
BREAD BASE (MODIFIED WHEAT STARCH, WHEAT GLUTEN, INULIN OR CHICORY
VEGETABLE FIBER, OAT FIBER, WHEAT PROTEIN ISOLATE), WATER, SOYBEAN
OIL, CONTAINS 2% OR LESS OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: YEAST, SALT, SORBIC
ACID (MOLD INHIBITOR), FULLY HYDROGENATED SOYBEAN OIL, DISTILLED
VINEGAR, ASCORBIC ACID, CALCIUM PROPIONATE (MOLD INHIBITOR), ENZYMES.
I can tell there is a ton of fiber, since they're attempting to make keto friendly bread with 1g net carbs (12g carbs - 11g Dietary Fiber), but I'm wondering what they're doing that is making the bread so calorie friendly.
In most recipes for basic bread, a slice is usually between 100 to 200 calories per slice. I cannot (after plenty of Google search refinements) find a recipe that manages to come close.
How are they reducing the calories by at least half, and how can I do this at home instead of paying $6.50 a loaf/pack?
The calories in a slice of bread are highly dependent on the amount of air bubbles in the dough. Breads made from dense dough like bagels are highly caloric. A slice of french bread on the other hand, which is full of wholes has barely any calories.
A comparable keto bread recipe is Diedre's Ultimate Keto Bread 2.0. It uses a combination of golden flaxseed meal, oat fiber, and vital wheat gluten as the flour ingredients. I've made that recipe probably over 100 times while making different tweaks to improve on it. I've arrived at a couple different variations, and there are some tweaks that I'd recommend if you'd like to lower the calorie count.
86 g golden flaxseed meal 26.38% 86.0 g (flour)
86 g oat fiber 26.38% 86.0 g (flour)
154 g vital wheat gluten 47.24% 154.0 g (flour)
100.00% 326.0 g (total)
------------------------------------------------------------
7 g Kosher salt 2.15% 7.0 g
16 g instant dry yeast 4.91% 16.0 g
8 g honey 2.45% 8.0 g
280 g water 85.89% 280.0 g
Sorry, the recipe is in grams and I don't have volumetric equivalents. The ratio of flour ingredients to each other is important, and the only reliable way to measure them is to weigh them. These are bakers percents. The top 3 ingredients are considered the flour ingredients that have a total weight of 326 grams. The percentages listed for the flour ingredients represent the proportion that the particular flour ingredient makes up in the total flour; their percentages will add up to 100%. The percents listed for the last four ingredients are based on how the weight of the particular ingredient compares to the total weight of the flour. For example, 7 g of salt divided by 326 g of flour equals .0215 or 2.15% of the weight of the flour. Bakers percentages are extremely helpful in trying to understand how non-standard recipes work. For instance, you'll always need the vital wheat gluten percent to be around 45% to 55% for it to be able to properly make bread.
Basically, I'd definitely recommend removing the xanthan gum from her recipe, as it inhibits gluten development and results in a tighter crumb. The butter in her recipe adds taste, but can be left out if calories are a concern. The 2 eggs she uses aren't strictly necessary but they may help strengthen and open up the crumb somewhat, while also helping as a drying agent (flaxseed meal and vital wheat gluten are very hygroscopic). In lieu of eggs I'll sometimes add 5% or so of resistant wheat starch or resistant corn starch though it may not be necessary. The honey serves as a source of food for the yeast, since none of the other ingredients are fermentable. Most of the honey will be consumed by the yeast so it doesn't add much to the overall carb count.
While she uses a stand mixer in her video I do want to add that it is possible to knead this by hand, though there is a bit of skill needed. Thanks to the vital wheat gluten, the dough comes together quite quickly, though it starts off somewhat slimy and sticky (from the mucilage in the flaxseed meal). Use a dough scraper to repeatedly fold it over on itself and knead into the counter. Eventually it may start to dry up and you can start kneading it by hand. It may take 10 - 15 minutes worth of kneading to develop and distribute the gluten evenly into a network that will trap the gasses of fermentation. You should be able to smear and stretch the doughball with the dough knife/scraper against the countertop and it shouldn't tear while doing so.
Unlike traditional bread, which uses a bulk fermentation and then another rise in the pan, you're better off doing a single fermentation in the bread pan (since there's not a whole lot of food). If the loaf ends up dense, it likely wasn't kneaded sufficiently.
How this recipe works: vital wheat gluten mixed with water makes a virtually solid rubbery mass. Oat fiber is a pure insoluble fiber that interferes with the gluten networks such that it prevents cross-linking and allows for air holes to develop during fermentation and baking. Flaxseed meal contains soluble fiber in the form of a mucilage network that can be woven in between the gluten network to help open up the crumb somewhat.
As far as calorie count: the recipe given is about the lowest I've been able to make it without taste suffering. Oat fiber is pure insoluble fiber meaning it has no calories, but it also tastes like cardboard (with the slightest hint of Cheerios). You can try raising it to a higher level to stretch the ingredients but taste tends to suffer. Flaxseed meal is very calorie dense: 28 g has 150 calories (from the fat). However, it's the only ingredient I've found that helps inhibit gluten development in a beneficial way (to open up the crumb).
Why do your percentages not add up to 100%?
@Daron Since we are talking about bread, these are probably baker's percentages.
@rumtscho That would be my guess too. Only this is a flourless bread!
@Daron the first three ingredients seem to be a functional replacement for standard flour in standard bread, and their percentages seem to add up to around 100.
Sorry, edited to add more info about the percentages.
@NSGod never apologize for putting measurements in grams. "By weight" is easily the best way to provide ingredients for baking! Going volumetric has led more than one baker to sub-quality baked goods on more than a few occasions. Thank you for the information! This answer is VERY informative and I appreciate what I can tell is a lot of effort developing this process. I will give this a try.
As for what they are doing, you already put your finger on it - it is the fiber. Instead of making the bread out of flour, they are basically making it out of water, and adding sufficient fiber that they get a workable texture instead of a slurry.
For doing it at home, the most workable way is to search for similar recipes. Mixing some fiber with water is not difficult, but baking it and getting the result to look, feel and taste like real bread is a complex feat of food technology. There is certainly not one trick that you can apply and get the desired result, but as in any complex process, everything you do will have to fit everything else. Even if you intend to develop a new recipe on your own, it is highly recommended that you first try out baking several recipes of this type (and getting really good at them) before you attempt to evolve them further. So look around the Internet, or get a suitable cookbook, choose your recipes, and start baking.
Awesome, thank you for your contribution to the question! One issue I'm still having, that I briefly mentioned in the question and you may be able to update your answer with, is that I cannot after plenty of google search refinements find a recipe that manages to come close.. Could you provide one example of a recipe that fits the result you're describing? Perhaps then I can use the keywords as a base for searching for the right recipes. Thank you!
I don't have such recipes, sorry. There are tons of hits when searching for "keto bread recipe" or "low calorie bread recipe". If all you get is recipes for 50 calories per slice, and you want to develop one for 35 calories, you will still save yourselves tons of work by learning to bake several of the 50 calorie recipes before you push the envelope even more.
Understood. I don't need to have the perfection that they achieve, I'm just having difficulty finding anything that comes close. 76 calories is the best I've been able to find for a slice of bread https://madcreationshub.com/recipe/low-carb-bread-recipe/ meanwhile they've got hamburger and hotdog buns down to 50 calories. Maybe it's worth eating the extra 102 calories to save 5 bucks, but it also makes counting my calories that much harder lol. Thanks for the help, it's a push in the right direction!
@DeeJayh this is what I got in the top search results: https://thebigmansworld.com/low-calorie-bread/. I admit it says 50 cal per "serving" and I didn't see how many grams they intend per serving. The slices look kinda "normal size", but of course we cannot know if the photographs are of the real thing. On a second look, they don't have inulin or any other filler beside the wheat germ, but the site suggests further keto recipes, maybe you'll find something there.
Diet food manufacturers almost always cheat on the serving size. You really need to work on the figures per unit weight. The slices quoted at that link are 30g. A fairly thinly sliced normal loaf I can easily buy is 40g and many loaves 50g per slice. You might eat the same number of slices even if they're smaller, but that's not a good way to compare foods. On the other hand if you're baking your own, you'll probably cut it thicker slicing by hand, but what you need to do is cut it thinner
@ChrisH indeed, the more I look at that recipe, the less suited it looks for the use case. I guess one really has to research more until finding good "starting point" recipes. Also, on a semi-related note, I hate the whole concept of "serving", because it tries to hide irreducible complexity, and misleads people into wrong conclusions - but that's a rant for another time and place :)
@rumtscho yes, I've started writing question on the subject of how serving sizes are worked out in the past, but never managed to complete a non-ranty one. I suspect that while what you say above is right, the answer the OP needs will be written by someone who's into this sort of food
@ChrisH the sizes do have some basis in reality, they are derived from studying how much people truly eat, and are tightly regulated. But even in that way, they have a ton of drawbacks. See for example https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/food-serving-sizes-get-reality-check, explaining how the FDA realized people drink the whole can of soda, so mandated it should be labeled as "one serving" instead of something like 1.5 servings. But I am pretty sure that this also has the opposite effect, people thinking "of course I will drink the whole can, the label says it's one serving".
@rumtscho and of course slicing bread thinner is an easy trick, that may even mean people end up eating more calories because one sandwich doesn't satisfy, so they have another slice, putting something on it.
@rumtscho comments regarding the complexity of serving sizes is fair, but I don't need an exact quantifiable level of a "serving". I just need to know roughly how many kcals I can expect to receive from the food input. While variables like slice thickness variations will undoubtedly cause one slice to be worth more than the other, my calorie counting per diem is really just to meet my goal per week without
vastly overconsuming each day. If I can lower calories by a ballpark of half, I can ballpark double intake. I don't mind eating airbread when I can eat a full hotdog for 100 kcal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.912288
| 2021-09-20T17:04:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117262",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Daron",
"DeeJayh",
"NSGod",
"aris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95632",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115916
|
Is there an organic preservative that I can add to homemade pesto to extend its refrigerated shelf-life?
I have a very large basil crop this year for which I am extremely excited.
In addition to drying and putting that up for myself over the winter, I want to put up pesto for me. I especially want to ship some to my sister and a friend, both of whom are a bit far flung, in the refrigerated coolers I get some of my medication in.
I follow the standard recipe: Genovese basil, nuts, olive oil, Parmesan, garlic and a pinch of salt. In my experience, filling a small jar with pesto and floating some oil atop it keeps it from turning brown for a few days, but pesto rarely lasts around here for more than a two days.
Google searches, in every iteration of "preserve pesto basil, pesto long term, shipping, &c." are giving me conflicting answers. A few of the food folks I follow on social media say it can be done with a vacuum packer and then frozen. That makes sense, as there would be no oxygen in the container. Some suggest the ice cube tray method. Still, others say my quest is hopeless. I have no vacuum packer.
I am semi-familiar with using citric acid in canning, but wouldn't the addition of acid to the mix instantly brown the basil, rendering that ugly color? I may be putting it in canning jars, but I would never process it like I do vegetables. I have tried the ice cube tray method, but the result is ugly-looking sauce that I feel would be difficult to ship cross-country. Freezing it ruins the texture anyway, in my opinion, likely because the Parmesan is not very freezer-friendly. (Maybe?) When I look at the ingredients on jars of pesto at the market, I see several preservatives, none of which I understand or want in my finished product, even if I did understand them or could get them...
I have seen this, but I am not sure it applies. How do you prevent pesto (basil) from becoming bitter?
Is there any readily available organic preservative that I could add to the sauce that would preserve the color, flavor and texture? Not only during shipping, but also in what I would like to put up for myself?
Update: It appears the consensus is to leave out the cheese, which is certainly doable. I am still holding out hope that some master of canning or food preservation has some advice on a preservative I might add. Especially if that preservative or process would allow it to remain shelf stable at room temperature.
Re. the Parmesan doesn’t freeze well: Have you tried freezing a jar of pesto, or is it just an assumption?
@Stephie I have not tried freezing a jar of pesto itself, but when I have done the ice cube tray method in the past I have been displeased with the results. Admittedly, that may be for other reasons, but two of my neighbors told me that Parmesan does not freeze well. Additionally, one of my social media contacts is a cheese monger and she said to never freeze Parmesan. A quick Google search contravenes this, but based on my experience and the advice, I would call it more of an educated deduction than assumption. :)
I'm not totally certain whether you're trying to end up with room-temperature shelf-stable pesto. If so, you may have to look elsewhere. However, my family has grown bumper crops of basil before, and been left with the task of trying to preserve it for year-round pesto.
You noted that making pesto and freezing it doesn't work well due to the Parmesan cheese component. We would get around this by making a mix of the chopped/blended basil and olive oil, and freezing that combination. With that, you may also be able to add your salt & garlic as well, though I've not personally tried that, nor with including the pine nuts in the frozen package.
This does require the recipient to make additions on their end, but it does preserve the basil well. We would keep ziplocs of the basil-oil slurry in the freezer, and then done the end steps of adding the pine nuts/Parmesan/garlic and such.
I think that's fairly similar to what the answer in the question you linked does, but I can confirm that it preserves well and the mixture stays a dark green, not brown. If you're pretty sure that the packages are going to stay at freezer temperatures, I'd be confident in it working well. I'm not sure at what temperature you'd start having issues, as that's not something that we experimented with.
Room- temp shelf stable-would be wonderful, but I always figured that was out of reach without some kind of processing. I assume the reason jars of pesto at the supermarket are shelf stable is because of the preservatives. I think shipping in a two part form will be just fine. They're getting a free jar of pesto, they can do a tiny bit of work and it will certainly work for my purposes here at home. Great idea!
Room-temp is out of reach if you want something that tastes even remotely like fresh pesto. Compare stuff you can buy in the store in a room temp jar with your homemade. It's like a completely different sauce.
I typically do one of two things when I'm dealing with my end of year basil crop (trying to use it before that first frost) :
Freeze it: make pesto as normal, except for the cheese. Portion it out into some sort of small container, and freeze.
I have an ice cube tray that I use specifically for this (as it would now make garlic-y ice cubes) and use 3 or 4 for a pound of dry pasta, but I've also used muffin tins. After freezing, move to a zip-top bag.
The surfaces will discolor some, but it doesn't dramatically affect the flavor. If you're worried about presentation, you can place plastic wrap down in each muffin cup, drop in your pesto, then fold the plastic on top, doing what you can to minimize trapped air. I've also used large condiment cups if I'm making enough to give away (many Latin grocery stores will have an aisle with stuff for stocking food trucks; they're sold in sleeves of about 25, 50, or 100 depending on the store). You either fill them full to overflowing, or place a bit of plastic wrap or waxed paper down on the surface so it won't darken.
When using the frozen pesto, you can thaw pucks in the microwave, but the ice-cube sized will typically thaw quickly by just putting them in a pot with the hot pasta. And then add your grated cheese.
I've also made basil infused oil, and kept it in the fridge (for those years when I didn't have enough garlic or nuts on hand, and I heard a forecast of a frost on my drive home after a long day). But the way that I've done it might be a botulism risk, so you might want to read up on the right way to do it.
I've been freezing pesto for almost two decades now. Although the basil oil is more versatile, I like the convenience of just throwing a frozen puck in the pasta with some cheese. (or thawing and slathering it on bread, etc)
I've never tried shipping frozen pesto, as I suspect that the shipping cost wouldn't be cost effective. If I were to do it, I would use 4oz condiment cups (or the equivalent metric size near 118mL; see above about Latin grocery stores), pressing some plastic wrap into the top before freezing. Once frozen, I would seal them in a zip top bag, and then ship it overnight in a styrofoam cooler marked 'live seafood'. (because a co-worker / former FedEx handler said they're extra careful with seafood ... because it stinks if it leaks or gets left behind).
It appears the consensus is to leave out the cheese. Good tip on the "seafood" marking. It isn't as though anyone will suffer for a tiny white lie like that. Shipping is going to be ridiculous, but I am shipping one to a friend who is shipping me a bunch of delicious cheese, so we're ready for that. It will be a surprise for my sister. One of my medications is shipped to me is refrigerated, so I have the coolers and ice packs for days. They come UPS 3-day, I believe? One of them sat out in the sun for most of the day and the temp warning indicator in the cooler hadn't tripped. Thanks!
Do what I've been doing for 10 years: freeze it in 4oz jelly jars, with 1/4" of headroom and a slick of oil on top. I have pesto that's been in the freezer for four years, and it's still quite good.
Sealing it in the jars, with the oil, minimizes oxidation-related discoloration. If you're really concerned about it darkening, then you can blanch the basil for 30s before pureeing it; this helps prevent later oxidation and keeps it a brighter green.
You do not need to leave out parmigiano; I'm not sure where you got that. Yes, freezing cheese does not do great things for its texture, but parmigiano should be a minority ingredient in pesto, and you are pureeing it with watery ingredients.
One possible reason you had a bad experience with frozen: you need to thaw it passively, not by heating it. Melting it over high heat will cause it to darken and the cheese may gum up.
Pinch of vitamin C
Disperse into salt 1st. Jar should have bubbles tapped/jostled out then covered in olive oil.
I get an extra week in fridge of not darkening.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.913342
| 2021-06-02T04:53:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115916",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Michael",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"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
}
|
114450
|
What are the main flavours/aroma compounds of the Scottish soft drink "Irn-Bru" (Iron Brew)?
Those familiar with the Scottish soft drink Irn-Bru may be familiar with the marketing slogan: "made from girders." This is due to the drink's taste which some describe as having a metallic edge.
The actual recipe remains a secret, however there is a large range of imitation drinks and unbranded "iron brew" flavoured products (e.g. syrups, confectionery, etc.) with the same taste, so the general flavour recipe must be fairly widespread knowledge within the flavouring industry.
I've searched but unlike cola-flavoured beverages, whose flavours have been scientifically studied and for which recipes exist, there is no information about the makeup of iron brew.
So does anyone know... what are the flavours or aroma compounds which go into making an iron brew taste?
AG Barr answered that a while back in releasing the fact the Ammonium Ferric Citrate was a key ingredient in flavouring the drink. That, however, is not the full story.
If my memory serves me correctly, UK food labelling regulations allow the catch-all term "Flavourings" to allow a manufacturer to maintain intellectual property rights for their recipe.
Other than that, the ingredients most-to-least (apart from the actual percentages which are protected under the same legislation) are as follows:
Carbonated Water
Sugar Acid (Citric Acid)
Flavourings (Including
Caffeine, Ammonium Ferric Citrate & Quinine)
Sweeteners (Aspartame, Acesulfame K)
Preservative (E211) Colours (Sunset Yellow FCF, Ponceau 4R)
(Contains a source of Phenylalanine. Sunset Yellow & Ponceau 4R)
https://www.agbarr.co.uk/our-brands/irn-bru/#:~:text=Each%20Serving%20Contains-,Ingredients,Contains%20a%20source%20of%20Phenylalanine.
Thanks for the response, but I'm actually trying to find out which flavour compounds make up an iron brew taste rather than just a list of non-specific ingredients. For example, a typical "cola" taste is made from extracts of orange, lime, cassia, lemon, nutmeg, coriander, neroli, lavender (see OpenCola). I'm looking for an equivalent list for an iron brew taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.914059
| 2021-02-23T05:49:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114450",
"authors": [
"WackGet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54940"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96269
|
Preserving sweetness during baking without sugar
noob here (both to this site and to cooking in general!). For health reasons I can't really do sugar, and the low-carb thing has saved my life (literally). I am trying to do more low-carb baking at home. The topic of non-sugar sweeteners have been discussed at length (pros/cons, how to substitute, etc). I have used stevia at low temperatures to great success (making home-made drinks, chocolates, gummies, etc).
However, when I try baking with stevia, monk fruit, and/or erithyrol, the batter/dough tastes very sweet, but after baking I cannot taste the sweetness at all.
It's important to note that, unlike other questions, I already (a) can taste the sweetness in these alternative sweeteners (no genetic issue, and I'm okay with aftertastes), (b) have used and enjoyed these sweeteners at low-temperatures, and (c) the sweetness seems to disappear during baking regardless of the sweetener used.
I have already tried:
changing the sweetener and mixed sweeteners together (swapping stevia for monk-fruit, mixing them together, etc). Stevia, for example, claims to be heat-stable, and others have claimed success when baking with stevia.
changed recipies (cookies, cakes, breads, brownies, etc) and quantities (more sweetener, less; more baking soda/powder, less, etc)
changing temperature and cook time
Given (a) that sweeteners like stevia claim to be heat-stable, (b)others seem to have success when baking with them, and (c) I've used these sweeteners with success at low-temps, what could be causing the loss of sweetness during the baking process? Are there any known interactions with, say, vinegar or baking powder that would change the sweeteners during cook-time?
I'm fundamentally confused. How do you do baking and still be low carbohydrate? Flour and corn meal are basically just carbohydrates. Sugar is 100% carb by weight and white flour 75%.
@MaxW don't use flour, corn meal, or sugar. Protein powders and almond flour are substitutes (in varying degrees) to flour, and non-nutritive sweeteners instead of sugar. A search for Keto Baking will help you.
Also, yes, it's a challenge, and yes, swapping out flour and sugar changes taste and makes baking difficult, but after going eight months with literally zero baked goods, I'll take a sugar-free, flourless brownie over nothing :)
@MaxW brownies in particular are very adaptable. They're a good gluten free option if catering for coeliacs. There are also meringues (some don't have much sugar and we had a question recently) and various things based on coconut (coconut pyramids and macaroons which can also be based on other nuts)
I have no experience with this, but you might try making a 'syrup' (sweetened liquid) in this case, and adding it to the item after it's been baked. Like a glaze on a cookie or stabbing holes in and drizzling it over a cake.
@MaxW: we use many alternative grains, as I answered here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/99301/54812
When you say baking w/ stevia do you mean the pure stevia powder (super concentrated sweetness), or stevia bulked with maltodextrin (Stevia in the Raw), or liquid stevia? I do a lot of low-carb baking myself (using mostly Splenda, though have started with Stevia in the Raw) and will say that batters frequently seem much sweeter to me than the end result, which always puzzled me...
@NSGod pure stevia powder (mostly) or liquid (occasionally). maltodextrin is a high-GI carbohydrate. It spikes blood glucose more than regular sugar, and has the same calories. Another common bulk ingredient is dextrose - literally table sugar. In low-carb / keto baking, I'm trying to avoid carbs and am choosing low-GI foods. Maltodextrin is probably the worst choice, but seeing how it's a high-GI carb, that would make sense it bakes well and preserves sweetness
@cegfault: Sigh. I'm sorry you've taken that stance. First, dextrose is only used in the packets. Second, one problem w/ GI is that it doesn't take into account quantities (hence rise of Glycemic Load as an alternative). (Dose makes the poison). The amount of maltodextrin actually consumed in a typical serving of stevia/maltodextrin blend is tiny: 1.5 g for 1 Tbsp of blend which has negligible effect on blood sugar. Maltodextrin has little taste at all, it's merely a bulking agent.
@NSGod "1.5g for 1 TBsp of blend which has negligible effect on blood sugar" - for people like me with serious health issues, that's more than enough to cause catastrophic effects on my intestines (literally send me to the hospital). I don't get nit-picky about 1.5g because it's fun, I do it because it's necessary. Every milligram counts.
I'm confused why it would affect your intestines, but I'll have to live with that mystery. I'm genuinely curious, but this is getting off-topic for this site and we should refrain from discussing this particular aspect any further. Returning to the question at hand, have you tried pure sucralose powder at all? Also you might look into allulose and see if that works for you. Can you edit your question to clarify what exact sweeteners you've used (for example, "pure stevia powder", "pure monkfruit powder", etc.)?
sugar-based alternatives okay-ish in very tiny doses, but no-go for baking. That is, 1/8 tsp allulose is okay, but 1/8 cup is not. Allulose is (almost literally) sugar but doesn't absorb or metabolize the same. The best really are the non-sugars (stevia and monkfruit), and next-best sugar alcohols (xylitol, etc). I purposely left the question vague as (a) it seems to be a property of all non-sugar sweeteners (in my experience), and (b) I've tried just about everything - as powders, liquids, mixes of them. I want to avoid anything sugar (even sucralose/allulose/dextrose/etc.
I hate answering my own question, but after a month I did (finally) find a pseudo-answer that works for Stevia. I've not yet tried it for any other sweeteners.
Melt into fat and freeze it
For example, the recipe I use for cookies needs four (4) tablespoons of melted butter. I started by melting two tablespoons in butter (well, 1TB butter and 1TB cocoa butter but semantics aside...), and mixed half a tablespoon of stevia into the melted butter.
Then I poured the Stevia-butter mix into molds and froze until it was solid.
I proceeded with the rest of the recipe as normal, but after everything was mixed, I took the frozen Stevia-butter, chopped it into very tiny shavings/pieces, and mixed it into the batter.
Poured the cookies on the tray, and baked in the oven. Result: nice, sweet, almost zero carb (~0.05g) cookies!!!
My working theory
I'm not confident in my theory, but I think the fats - especially saturated fats - will protect the Stevia early during the baking process. Couple that with Newton's law of cooling (ie, although the batter is at room temperature the sweetener is at sub-freezing temps, and will therefore take longer to heat up than the rest of the batter). While the batter cooks as normal, the fats will melt into the batter, revealing and mixing the sweetener with it. This minimizes the time the sweetener is exposed to the full-force heat of the oven, which prevents it from degrading under heat.
This may not be the best process for fluffy or flaky goods like breads, but for dense, sweet goods like cookies, muffins, brownies, etc, it works well.
Yet again, that's just a working theory....
Unfortanately with low carb cooking - different sweetners work better with some recipes than others. Allulose is my favorite sugar alternative. It does not affect blood sugar - AT ALL (as a previous type 2 diabetic -this is extremely important to me. Allulose also completely melts - so it's perfect for making things like homemade maple syrup and other syrups. It melts - but does not crystallize when it cools. A touch of allulose in baked goods (like breads) gives the crust a beautiful brown when baking. However, use too much and your baked goods will get too dark. Hence, it really depends on the recipe. You can however, cover the bread (or baked good) with aluminum foil for most of the baking time to prevent this and only remove it during the last 10 -15 mins. Allulose is not good for making cookies - because it causes the cookie to have too much moisture. Erythritol is better for cookies. I use Stevia too - but only in liquids, like morning coffee. There are some stevia blends out there which i've heard are pretty good. I think Truvia is one of them and some people really like that for baking. Currently for bread making, I use 1/4 cp sweetner in my bread. I use 3 Tablespoons of powdered Swerve (erythritol) and 1 Tbsp Allulose. I keep my bread pan covered until the last 10-15 mins and it gives me a beautiful but not overcooked bread loaf. Hope, some of that helps a bit.
+1 for allulose, but a word of caution for others on erythritol and other sugar alcohols. Many healthy people cannot tolerate them, and people using keto for mental or physical health should probably avoid sugar alcohols as well.
Ditto for me. I love baking with allulose but know it is only 70% as sweet. Since my sweet tooth has gotten smaller eating less sugar I prefer things 70% as sweet (but I use more for friends). Even though it is expensive, I use Wholesome Yum brand because I can't taste any weird aftertaste like most sugar substitutes. They also have fantastic recipes! https://www.wholesomeyum.com/category/low-carb-desserts/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.914250
| 2019-02-10T21:48:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96269",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"MaxW",
"NSGod",
"cegfault",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79713
|
Can olive oil be substituted for vegetable oil in a box cake mix?
Can olive oil be substituted for vegetable oil in making a box cake mix?
Comments are not for answering the question or extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
Yes. As far as the mix is concerned, oil is oil. You're not reaching high enough temperatures to worry about smoke points or anything, and you're not trying to use a weird substitution (applesauce or some such).
That said, I've done this before, so I can tell you that it may affect the flavor of the finished cake-- vegetable oil is called for because of its neutrality, but olive oil (especially the good stuff*) often has a distinct, fruity flavor. Depending on the (quality, quantity) oil that you use, that olive-oil taste may come through in your cake. Whether that's a bad thing or not is up to you.
(*I and many others would consider it a total waste to use good extra virgin olive oil in a cake. I can't speak to any health reasons you may want to substitute, but if it were me and I just didn't have any vegetable oil on hand, I'd either go to the store now or wait to bake the cake.)
A co-worker once brought in brownies, and after we ate them he told us he had made them with olive oil. Nobody (including me) could tell. Not so sure about extra-virgin olive oil in a plain white cake mix, but I wager most folks would be fine even with that combo.
Also anecdotally, as a young teenager I made brownies with olive oil (thinking it was an equal replacement for vegetable oil) and they were completely inedible.
Wouldn't it also slightly affect the texture, olive oil being slightly thicker than vegetable oil?
I will add, I have used olive oil in cake and brownie mixes with no real problem, but will back senschen, in unusual advice, use less expensive olive oil, not the good stuff. One reason to but good olive oil is flavor, but especially in subtle flavored cakes, if you are using strong olive flavor, that might come through. So don't waste the money, have some cheaper stuff to use for things that need bulk oil. My GF hates corn oil and both of us react to canola so we seldom have vegetable in the house, but keep a good olive oil and a cheap one for bulk oil items like cakes.
@AntonH I suppose it's possible, but anecdotally no? I suspect that in a box mix, there's just not enough of it being used when compared to all the other ingredients for a slightly thicker oil to make a difference.
Lest a reader come away the impression that using olive oil in baked goods is somehow odd, it should be pointed out that there are cake recipes which specifically call for olive oil, particularly wanting its flavor. (Not surprisingly, these are usually called "olive oil cakes".) -- But I agree that for your standard boxed cake mix, using olive oil is probably best avoided for flavor/expense reasons.
I almost always use the "extra light (tasting)" olive oil for baking. It doesn't affect the taste or texture at all, even in things like white cake.
Seconding @1006a 's suggestion, use "light" olive oil. Light doesn't refer to fat content or anything, merely the taste -- a light olive oil has a more subtle flavor to it, and is probably better for baking uses like this than an expensive olive oil.
I tried it once (extra-virgin, probably the lightest available) and the fruity flavor made it taste awful. The next time, I tried Crisco, and had one of the lightest-textured, most moist cakes from a box that I've ever had. Also, I once tried grapeseed oil when making belgian waffles from Krusteaz mix, and now I'll never make belgian waffles with anything else. (The texture and moisture are exactly how I like it.) Grapeseed oil has become my go-to oil whenever I can fit it in. I haven't made a cake in years at this point, so I haven't tried using grapeseed oil...but I may, someday.
Yes, but. It will affect the perceived richness and possibly also the flavor.
I have successfully substituted half the oil called for in a brownie mix with olive oil (because I ran out of canola oil). In that case, it gave the finished product a real richness. When I used all olive oil with the same mix, there was a noticeable olive oil overlay to the finished product which was unpleasantly "healthy" in the context. :-)
So, I wouldn't do this with a yellow or white cake, but would definitely consider it with a chocolate, carrot or spice cake. And even then, I would carefully consider the volume of olive oil to the rest of the ingredients: All olive oil when it only calls for 2 tablespoons? Sure. All olive oil when it calls for half a cup? Uhm... maybe not.
I used extra virgin olive oil in the cake mix when your are done mixing it mixes like a thick paste and then when you bake it in the oven it burns the cake and it's not evenly spread out. Not impressed at all
Punctuation and capitalization would help your answer be more clear.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.914952
| 2017-04-07T15:44:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79713",
"authors": [
"1006a",
"AntonH",
"Cascabel",
"Doktor J",
"Kevin Nowaczyk",
"Lorel C.",
"R.M.",
"beattyac",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55857",
"senschen",
"steve_0804"
],
"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
}
|
55337
|
Why do patterns appear on tempered chocolate?
Sometimes, during a single session, spots and lines may appear on tempered chocolate. This seems to happen with the first third of production.
Chocolates produced later in the batch do not exhibit any pattern:
Why is that? How can this be prevented? Is it caused by poor tempering?
Chocolate is Valrhona 66% Caraïbe (but it happened with other chocolate of the same brand), and tempering was done by controlling temperature with water baths following a 52-55C / 28-29C / 31-32C schema. Chocolate was maintained at working temperature by periodic water bathing each time its temperature dropped below 31-30.5C.
What you're seeing is called chocolate bloom. It doesn't happen because of tempering, it happens in spite of it (or sometimes due to improper tempering).
Sugar bloom is pretty straightforward - it happens due to moisture exposure (e.g. condensation) causing dissolution and re-crystalizing of the sugar on top. You can easily check if you have sugar bloom by wetting your finger (just a bit!) and wiping the grainy/streaky surface. If it becomes smooth after doing so, then you got sugar bloom.
The other type, fat bloom, is more complicated, but ultimately it boils down to having different types of crystals (and specifically crystals that are not the beta crystals you want from tempering). It can happen for a lot of different reasons, but some of the most common ones are:
Not heating enough before tempering. You might have melted most of the original chocolate but not quite all of it.
Too much heat in the 3rd stage - if you melt some of the beta crystals, they can form larger crystals and push cocoa butter to the top when they re-crystallize. This happens to me every so often when I decide to make a way larger batch of chocolate-coated whatevers than I really have time for, start rushing near the end, and heat too much/too quickly in order to keep it melted.
Fat migration, due to incompatible fats on the surface of whatever you're coating (maybe nuts, or something with oil or butter) mixing with the melted chocolate. This is more likely to happen later in the process, after you've dipped and coated a whole bunch of them, so it's probably not what happened to you here. Also, it's more likely to happen when the coated items are at a very different temperature from the chocolate.
Cooling too fast during or after molding. I don't know the scientific explanation for this one, but it's pretty easy to demonstrate by throwing enrobed chocolate into the fridge right away - it almost always blooms. This can also happen in more subtle ways, e.g. if a nearby air conditioner happened to be running while you were working.
Unfortunately it's almost impossible to tell which specific problem occurred simply from looking at the end result. If it's any consolation, though, I don't think yours really turned out so badly compared to what can happen with bad tempering.
In addition to Aaronuts comprehensive answer. Sometimes simply warming the outside you can rid yourself of all the bloom (I've used a hair dryer in the past)
Sugar bloom seems probable here as I did notice condensation, although I definitely experienced fat bloom in the past when I used to fridge molded chocolates (the patterns were different, though). How can sugar bloom be avoided? Is the hair dryer trick the best approach?
@PaulGuyot: Don't get it wet, is the simple answer. Too much moisture can actually cause it to seize and completely ruin it. Water baths might cause problems if you use them in an enclosed area, e.g. underneath a range hood. Personally, I don't use a water bath or let good chocolate anywhere near water. Also, not applicable here specifically, but as a general rule you need to work very quickly when coating things like fruit, especially when frozen. In those cases, sometimes it also helps to divide the tempered chocolate into smaller portions so moisture doesn't accumulate endlessly.
Scientists recently published a paper with a theory on the mechanism of fat bloom based on X-ray observations. Press release: http://www.desy.de/news/news_search/index_eng.html?openDirectAnchor=777&two_columns=1 -- DOI link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b02092
(Ideally this would have been a comment because it doesn't seek to replace the earlier comprehensive explanation about blooms) however I just wanted to make some specific observations about the fact that it's spots, lines and nothing in that sequence in your pictures.
It's interesting to note that the lines in image 2 are collectively oriented in the direction of likely dipping into source choc: I'd suggest that implies the blooming effect was triggered by some property at the surface of the chocolate being dipped into (which is then drawn across the surface as the biscuit is lifted). Perhaps it's seed sites of bloom crystallisation which are floating on the choc surface which are then drawn across the biscuit coating leaving seeding sites behind. Perhaps in image 1 the seed sites hadn't yet developed to be big enough on the choc dipping source surface but there were enough small ones in the mix to be distributed across the surface of the biscuit after removal. The fact that it is then absent later on suggests to me that the seeds for the bloom were no longer present, begging the question why..
Now it's impossible to be clear about the cause without more information (a video of the process might let us be scientific about it ;-) but would leave us very hungry) - if we think it's water from moist environment then we need to consider why the line pattern wasn't across from the get-go and what in the circumstances changed to make it disappear by image 3.
Perhaps it's related to the subsequent water-bath warm ups to keep the choc workable.. could it relate to a change of temperature in the choc source or a change in the humidity in vicinity of the temperature controlled water baths used to melt the chocolate? There might also have been some other unconscious change in physical handling of the chocolate - perhaps a stir of the choc part way through dipping which turned over the seed points from the surface, churning them into the body of the remaining choc where they changed state and melted?
My guess is that the repetitions of warming up were better for the overall tempering and early on it the choc wasn't quite ready for dipping for some reason.
Anyway, I hope that's some food for thought when next handling the dipping choc. Let us know if you discover ways of intervening with the choc-lines.. it looks to me like something going on at the surface of the dipping liquid which disappears with water bath reheating..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.915474
| 2015-03-03T06:07:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55337",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Doug",
"Doug Fleischer",
"Maliak37",
"Medicationca98",
"Natalia Grace",
"Paul Guyot",
"belinda battersby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"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
}
|
44513
|
Should I season a Teflon-coated stainless steel frying pan
I am not sure if I am allowed to say the brand & model, but here is the spec
Can also be used in the oven since it is made entirely of metal.
Thick base with one layer of aluminium between two layers of stainless steel. Gives an even and energy-efficient heat, which reduces the risk of food burning and sticking.
Made of stainless steel, which makes the pan durable and easy to clean.
Treated with Teflon® Platinum plus, a very hardwearing non-stick coating that makes the pan suitable for everyday use.
The exterior is made of brushed steel which means that stains do not show as much as on a high-gloss surface.
Should I season it?
Related question: What's the best way to season a cast iron skillet?
possible duplicate of Do I need to season a stainless steel saute pan?
You can say the brand and model. Though I don't think it really matters here.
It's not a duplicate. The other question is about stainless, this question asks about Teflon-coated.
No. Neither plain stainless steel nor non-stick pans (which yours is as it's coated with Teflon) need to be seasoned. Not only is seasoning unnecessary, but it will only cause your pan to look dirty. It would do no good at all.
Seasoning is all about preventing rust and sealing "pores", making the surface more resistant to sticking. Neither of those things are an issue with stainless steel or Teflon, and it's unlikely that the seasoning would even stick to your pan. On your pan you can even use soap!
Some people (a distinct minority) do season stainless steel (Do I need to season a stainless steel saute pan?), but absolutely don't try to season Teflon.
EDIT: It is often recommended use a paper towel to wipe a small amount of oil on Teflon before use. Apparently some people do call that "seasoning", but it bears no resemblance to the seasoning of cast-iron. NY Times
Absolutely not
A non-stick pans surface will be ruined when any oil becomes polymerised onto it. The whole idea of a non-stick pan is that it's surface is non-stick to food. Permanently layering it with anything else will make it less non-stick
Only use non-stick pans for low to medium heat cooking, and use no, or very little oil in them. Be very gentle with the surface so as not to scratch it, as the scratches eventually make it sticky again
Most manufacturers of non-stick pans recommend gentle hand washing with soap from new, and then removal of excess oil from the pan with a plain paper towel while still warm. Never hard washing or scrubbing
If oil does become polymerised onto the surface, sometimes you can recover them by using 3M style green polyester scourers with liquid soap to gently remove the hardened oil, if done carefully it will not overly scratch the non-stick coating
Seasoning is for plain metal pans, not for coated, glass, or ceramic
If the teflon/PTFE surface is in good condition, it doesn’t need seasoning. However, when it becomes degraded by scratches, overheating and abuse, there are 3 options:
Throw the pan away - I didn’t want to do that to my high quality pan.
Try to season it like a cast iron skillet. I tried that but eventually, the hard carbonised surface tended to flake off here and there due to the teflon.
Get the pan sand blasted. It creates a microscopically rough surface that is perfect for seasoning. It’s worked for me, but using a stove top to do it was tricky (it doesn’t fit in my oven). Stop heating immediately you see any smoke, as polymerisation occurs below smoke point. I used rape seed oil, similar to Canola oil. Over time, my stir fry pan bottom has become black, and the sides are still a bronze colour. So far, so good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.915999
| 2014-05-29T15:02:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44513",
"authors": [
"Carolinagirl",
"Emre Türkiş",
"Fatia",
"James Amos",
"Jolenealaska",
"Manda L",
"Sam Martin",
"Spammer",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107443
|
Shelf-Stable Cocktails
I'm a home brewer looking to can up shelf-stable cocktails to share with friends who don't drink beer. I know I'll be using Citric/Malic acid to mimic citrus flavors, but will that be enough to make fruit syrups shelf-stable? Or is there another step to making the syrups stay as well? Hoping to keep these good for 6mo-1yr. Thanks!
The expert on this, in the US, is Dave Arnold. He will respond via twitter @CookingIssues.
You seem to thinking that, if you can make the fruit syrup itself shelf stable, the cocktail with it will also be shelf stable. This is not the case, you can't derive shelf stability from the ingredients' shelf stability, you have to ensure that the exact recipe is shelf stable.
@rumtscho depends on the ABV of the cocktail, but I don't know the specs.
What particular cocktails are you looking to make? A bottled Martini is likely to be better than one freshly made and Manhattans aged in oak casks are quite popular. Neither would need anything to make them shelf-stable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.916327
| 2020-04-10T15:48:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107443",
"authors": [
"Rob K",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50899",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119453
|
Deidre's bread getting HUGE in the oven
I have made Deidre's Ultimate Keto Bread 2.0 for years with generally consistent results (though a bit uneven on the top). I made a couple minor tweaks recently, and the last 2 batches have risen properly, but got ENORMOUS in the oven (see photo)! Then they collapsed while cooling, making a weird and dense inside. There was no giant air bubble - just huge. I know if it works, don't fix it, so why I am tweaking it, but I was hoping to get the top to rise a bit more evenly. Here were the tweaks:
I make it in the Kitchen Aid and need the paddle to get it to come together, so maybe 5 minutes with the paddle, then reduced the time with dough hook to 5 min (I used to do 10+). (In making some non-keto bread for hubby, they warn against over-kneading, so figured I'd try it).
I used to flatten the dough, put it in the bottom of the loaf pan, let it rise ~2 hours in a microwave warmed with boiled water. It always rose fine, sometimes rose a bit more while baking, but mostly came out looking like it did after the rise, and never collapsed. Based on another non-keto bread technique, this time I made a 9" rectangle, rolled it up from the short side, and placed it in the loaf pan. The first time I did my usual 2 hour rise and it was a nice even, normal-looking rise, but when it got so huge in the oven, I figured it was over proofed. So I then tried only a 45 min rise (which was enough to look like a normal rise), and it got even bigger in the oven!
Any thoughts on which of these tweaks may have caused it to expand so much during baking, and collapse? Could the rolling up of the dough make such a difference? Did I need to knead longer? (NSGod - Once I figure this out, I plan to try your updated version with the increased dry ingredients. Thanks for your experimentation toward perfection.)
Recipe:
84 g golden flaxseed meal 28.19% 84.0 g (flour)
60 g oat fiber 20.13% 60.0 g (flour)
154 g vital wheat gluten 51.68% 154.0 g (flour)
100.00% 298.0 g (total)
------------------------------------------------------------
¼ tsp xanthan gum 0.25% 0.8 g
1 tsp salt 2.01% 6.0 g
2 ¼ tsp instant dry yeast 2.60% 7.8 g
1 tsp honey 2.35% 7.0 g
1 cup water 79.53% 237.0 g
2 large eggs 33.56% 100.0 g
2 Tbsp oil (canola) 9.14% 27.3 g
Instructions 1. Proof yeast in honey and warm water; mix all with paddle attachment 3-5 min, then dough hook for 5-10 min.
You should really include the key points of the recipe in the question, but as an absolute minimum, link to the recipe you're using
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/117262/54812
Recipe:
• 1 cup of water (90-105 degrees)
• 2 ¼ t. yeast (I use Saf)
• 1 tsp of real honey - 7 g
• 2 eggs, room temperature, slightly beaten
• Oat Fiber - 60 g
• Ground Golden Flax Meal - 84 g
• Vital Wheat Gluten - 154 g
• 1/4 tsp. of Xanthum Gum
• 1 tsp of salt - 6 g
• 2 Tbsp. oil
Instructions
Proof yeast in honey and warm water; mix all with paddle attachment 3-5 min, then dough hook for 5-10 min. Place in sprayed loaf pan; rise in warm microwave 1-2 hours; bake 375 for 20 min
That's an awful lot of yeast for the amount of dough, compared to a flour-based recipe. I wonder why.
Does everyone really think 2 1/4 teaspoons of yeast is a lot? It's what's in a single packet of yeast, and less than the 1 tablespoon in many versions of this recipe.
@jakmaw 2 1/4 tsp yeast is not a lot for a recipe that's meant to rise quickly, i.e. over the course of 1 hr. That's mostly your recipe; except what's a warm microwave?
@jakmaw Elevation is another thing to consider. A lot of us live very close to sea level, and if you're in Denver or Kenya, you need to adapt the rise time, and the bake time, accordingly.
@jakmaw: I don't think it's the amount of yeast. I routinely use twice that amount without issues. I have occasionally had the same behavior as you have and I have some ideas that might help. I hope to finish creating the answer in the next day or 2.
NSGod - looking forward to your response, since you've been there, done that. Adam - re: warm microwave - I boil a cup of water in there, then put in the loaf pan with dough, and let is rise in the nice, warm environment. Works perfectly. And I'm in Michigan, so no elevation issues.
Any chance of posting the "after" photo?
Hi, Gnicko - not sure what you mean by the "after" photo. The photo posted is after baking.
Can someone approve my edit? I've provided a link to the original recipe as well as jakmaw's provided recipe along with a baker's percentage analysis. @ChrisH?
Done @NSGod. Good timing - I was about to shut down but thought I'd check for updates on a question of mine at academia.se first. Now I'll have to read this Q properly
Thanks for putting the recipe in the proper format, NSGod. One minor correction - s/b 2 T. oil (not 1).
@jakmaw: I actually had the gram amount right, but the 1 Tbsp slipped in from my ½ recipe test. Corrected that and added my initial answer. PS, also in Michigan (Grand Rapids).
Well, I have good news and bad news. I attempted a ½ size test loaf using my 1st recommended recipe below. The bad news is I had the exact same problem as the OP did. The good news is that now that I can reproduce the problem, I can better reason what might be happening. I will leave the answer and update it as I continue to make tests.
I've had this happen before myself, from time to time. After doing some testing, I’ve come up with some recommended changes to the recipe.
TL/DR: The primary cause for the great expansion during baking and collapse afterwards is a combination of excess amounts of water, honey, and yeast. The biggest contributor was the amount of water, with the other 2 less so. I arrived at this answer by first inadvertently reproducing the problem the OP had, and then tested several variations until I came up with the desired result.
Before I get to that answer, however, a bit about how this recipe works: vital wheat gluten mixed with water makes a virtually solid rubbery mass. It is highly elastic. If you managed to trap air in that water + vital wheat gluten mix, and applied heat to it, the air and moisture would expand and it would blow up like a balloon. Once you remove the heat, however, it will deflate just like a balloon will. Pure VWG won’t expand and then hold its shape. That sounds a bit like what might be happening in your case.
So, what happens in a “normal” wheat flour bread recipe during baking: can it expand and collapse like this? To be honest, I’m not sure, and hopefully some more experienced traditional bakers can help fill in the gaps. That said, here’s how I imagine that it works. In a regular wheat flour bread recipe there's not nearly as much gluten, and it's also not nearly as fully developed and elastic as VWG is. In addition, there are starches that "set" and help the bread hold its expanded shape.
In order to accomplish the same effect, Deidre’s recipe works by adding 2 important ingredients to function as flour along with the VWG: oat fiber and flaxseed meal. Oat fiber is a pure insoluble fiber that interferes with the gluten networks by getting between the VWG particles, thereby preventing cross-linking. This allows for air holes to develop during fermentation and baking. Unlike vital wheat gluten, oat fiber has no structure building characteristics at all: it’s simply a filler. In contrast to vital wheat gluten, which tends to want to hold onto moisture during baking, oat fiber has a neutral effect on the water-retaining characteristics of the dough: it neither retains moisture, nor acts as a drying agent. Flaxseed meal contains soluble fiber in the form of a mucilage network that can be woven in between the gluten network to help open up the crumb somewhat. Flaxseed meal does have gelling structure-building characteristics, but it also has a tendency to want to hold onto moisture. So, while the oat fiber and flaxseed meal help tame the elasticity of the vital wheat gluten somewhat, they don’t add any “setting” ability. The recipe does include 2 eggs which, while providing moisture, also act as structure builders and drying agents (particularly the egg white proteins). They do aid a bit in helping the bread to “set” during baking.
Given those thoughts, I do have some suggested modifications to the recipe to try. First, I'd lose the xanthan gum, as it inhibits gluten development and results in a tighter crumb. While the oat fiber and flaxseed also do this, by eliminating the xanthan as a variable, it can make reasoning about what’s happening a bit easier. I also noticed that your vital wheat gluten % is a tad high. That, and not enough oat fiber could potentially cause the loaf to be too elastic, especially when mixed in a stand mixer. I try to keep the weight of the oat fiber about equal to the weight of the flaxseed meal. If you’re having issues with it blowing up and collapsing, I’d probably lower the vital wheat gluten proportion down to around 46% rather than 51%. (Increasing the amount of oat fiber can cause taste to suffer, so you may want to add a Tbsp or so of a keto sweetener to offset that).
My original recommended recipe following the advice in the previous paragraph (which actually ended up producing results similar to OP):
85 g golden flaxseed meal 26.98% 85.0 g (flour)
85 g oat fiber 26.98% 85.0 g (flour)
145 g vital wheat gluten 46.03% 145.0 g (flour)
100.00% 315.0 g (total)
------------------------------------------------------------
1+ tsp (6.3 g) salt 2.00% 6.3 g
2 ¼ tsp instant dry yeast 2.46% 7.8 g
1 tsp honey 2.22% 7.0 g
1 cup water 75.24% 237.0 g
2 large eggs 31.75% 100.0 g
2 Tbsp oil 8.65% 27.2 g
-------------
hydration(water:237, eggs:76.2g) 99.43% 313.2 g
This dough was extremely wet, and as such, expanded greatly during baking. While this recipe has a hydration rate (ratio of the weight of moisture to the weight of the flour) of around 99%, I’ve found that the bare minimum amount needed for the dough to come together is in the low 80% range. This overly wet dough was providing extra lift in the form of moisture turning to steam to push things outward. Forgive the bad focus, but you can see from the image below what happened after baking:
After baking and while cooling, the sides of the loaf were almost sucked back in towards the center. During baking all that extra moisture turned to steam and expanded the bread outward, but as soon as that source of heat was removed, the excess water cooled and created a vacuum and started to collapse the loaf. Because the crumb was so overly open as well, it doesn’t have much structure to resist the forces.
While I immediately dismissed the amount of honey (sole source of food) and yeast as a contributing factor, I definitely think this is also part of the problem. So, did Deidre’s recipe just call for a ridiculously high amount of yeast? Not necessarily. The performance of this bread depends greatly on how well the dough is mixed and kneaded. I think with an undermixed loaf and higher amount of yeast, you could probably create the equivalent of a fully mixed loaf and a lower amount of yeast. In the former’s case, much of the extra gas produced would simply escape out of the loaf during proofing and baking. Based on how well I mixed the dough and how well you mixed the dough (and the roll-up method you used), the amount of yeast likely needs an adjustment.
So, here is final revised recipe:
85 g golden flaxseed meal 26.98% 85.0 g (flour)
85 g oat fiber 26.98% 85.0 g (flour)
145 g vital wheat gluten 46.03% 145.0 g (flour)
100.00% 315.0 g (total)
------------------------------------------------------------
1+ tsp (6.3 g) salt 2.00% 6.3 g
7/8 tsp instant dry yeast 0.95% 3.0 g
½+ tsp (4 g) honey 1.27% 4.0 g
200 g (~6.75 fl.oz.) water 63.49% 200.0 g
2 large eggs 31.75% 100.0 g
2 Tbsp oil 8.65% 27.2 g
-------------
hydration(water:200g, eggs:76.2g) 87.68% 276.2 g
You’ll notice that I ended up reducing the water from around 99% to 88%, the amount of yeast from 2.46% to 0.95%, and the amount of honey from 2.22% to 1.27%. I mixed this just like the others, first with the paddle attachment, then with the dough hook, then by hand for a couple minutes until I could tell it was ready. I placed it in the loaf pan and allowed it to rise (I take a large bowl, lay a heating pad in it, then set the loaf pan on top of that, then cover it all with saran wrap and a towel). I place it on low heat or medium if I'm in a hurry. I let it rise for about an hour or so, until it was at the top of the pan. With this final loaf, I decided to slash the top of the loaf before baking. While normally this is a way to help allow for maximum expansion during baking, it's possible it had the opposite effect for our loaf. In any case it only rose about another inch or so during baking.
This resulted in a loaf that didn’t cave in after removing from the oven:
-Your command of the science and chemistry is amazing! Are you saying you still got a somewhat blown-up version with this revised recipe? How did you shape it in the loaf pan? I'm beginning to think that, in part, it's the rolling up or shaping like a loaf that is causing this - like too much air is trapped in the dough. For years, I just flattened it in the loaf pan - never shaped it - and got a relatively normal looking looking rise after 2 hours, and never much more rise while in the oven.
@jakmaw: The rolling up or shaping it like a loaf did in a sense allow it to poof up, but that's not a bad thing: it's actually a sign that the dough was well mixed. I revised the recipe by lowering the amount of water, yeast, and honey to give desired results even after proper mixing. By mixing it better like you did this time, to better trap the air, you're able to get away with using less yeast. (Previously, much of the air produced would simply escape out of the top of the "undermixed" dough).
that is absolutely gorgeous. I will try this week and report back. Can't believe you achieved this with just 7/8 t. yeast. Sounds like the reductions + rolling/shaping like a loaf + slashing were the perfect combo.
it worked! Best loaf I ever. It had the slightest deflation (a crease along the side), but I may have overproofed (2hrs - it was about 1-1.5" above the pan before baking). It looked great and cut easily on the slicer. Thank you for the great education on rebalancing dry and wet, and oat fiber as the ingredient to increase when more dry is needed. [Note - I tried to add photos here using CTL-G, but it doesn't seem to work and the shorthand link instructions are over my head. If you could contact me at [email protected] with guidance, that would be most appreciated.]
I'm gonna guess since its bread there is yeast? Cutting on that might cut the rise since it usually is the major factor of the rise.
Yeast often reacts differently depending on its health simply the humidity and heat of your kitchen.
So if you dont mind doing a little bit of trials, I'd say redo the recipe, but only with 3/4 of the yeast it asks for. It should rise less.
Thanks, Fredy. I only use 2.25 t yeast, so not much room cut back. This has never happened before so trying to see which tweak (kneading it in the mixer a bit less, or the rolling up the dough before putting in pan) would cause this.
That’s a large amount of yeast. If your yeast was old and mostly dead and then you got new yeast, it could easily make the difference.
Thanks, Sneftel. Since you both suggest it, I will try 1.75t and see how that works.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.916466
| 2022-01-10T15:08:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119453",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"Chris H",
"NSGod",
"Sneftel",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97251",
"jakmaw"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81923
|
Does the order in which I turn off the gas stove matter?
I have a gas stove. This is connected to a big gas canister (I don't know the volume, but I'd guesstimate 20-30 liters). Whenever I want to cook, I turn on the valve on the gas canister, as well as the knob for the corresponding stove plate.
When I'm finished, I ususally turn off the stove knob first, followed by the valve on the canister. Would it be safer, waste less gas, or have any other effect to turn off the gas canister first, followed by the stove?
Edit: the stove has no safety features - you're free to turn on both the gas valve and the stove knob and let the gas flow.
I had this type of stovetop for many years. The way I usually did was:
Turn off the stovetop
turn off the canister
The next time you turn the canister on, gas won't leak through the burner you left on (because you didn't!). And the amount of gas left in the connecting hose is negligible and should be safe to leave it there until the next use.
It is best to turn of the stove first. This leaves gas in the line so it lights easy. Turn on the gas before the stove to light. This saves that 30 seconds it takes for gas to refill the line. We use 20lb bottles here. Our stoves ovens here are more like you would have had in the 50s in America. No safety on them. 3rd world & all. May not apply to your Country.
Here, were I am at (Germany) gas stoves have a safety that allows gas to flow only while you hold the knob or while flame is burning. This is monitored by a temperature sensor on the side of the burner. On a stove like that it would not matter what you turn off first.
But as a common TV trope is for some murderer to turn of the gas stove and leave I guess that's not the case in the US. But even then turning the stove off should stop the gas flow. I don't have experience with this kind of stove but I'd guess that there, too the order would not matter.
Thanks! Unfortunately, there are no safety features like that on this stove. I've updated my question to include this information.
Are you sure the gas is flowing out of the canister when the stove is off? We have a gas range hookup here with a butane (or propane) tank hooked up by hose, musch the same as you describe. No gas flows until the hob is lit. If your stove has an electric ignition (e.g. you're not using a match), then I'd suspect this is the case as well.
Hi Umbranus, I am not sure how this relates to the question. If you mean to imply that a certain order is necessary (which one) or not necessary when you have a stove with this security feature, I cannot follow it straight from your post, please add it.
@rumtscho I edited my answer and hope it's now clearer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.917663
| 2017-05-23T08:49:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81923",
"authors": [
"HenricF",
"Umbranus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58097",
"kettultim",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91026
|
Why is my meringue soft, moist and discoloured?
There is a similar question to this, but without a recipe and no satisfactory answer...
I used 3 egg whites with pristine metal utensils. Absolutely no moisture, fats, etc.
Whisked slow, medium, fast, evenly spaced timing over 5 minutes.
Towards the end, around 4 minutes, started adding tablespoons of icing sugar and letting them whisk in.
Continued whisking for a further 2 minutes once all mixed.
Beautiful texture and gloss. Stiff and awesome.
Preheated oven to 100c, spread meringue out for a pavlova.
In the centre of the fan assisted oven on 100c for 2 hrs 10 mins. Turned off and sat until cold (over night and it was actually 5 hrs.)
The first 2 times I did this I got perfect results. Couldn’t wish for better. (First time I used granulated caster sugar, second was with icing sugar which gave a better texture.)
The next time I made 2 pavlova bases and put them in at the same time. Shelves were close together but still centred.
Exact same ingredients, conditions, etc.
This time they came out fluffy, like bread on the inside. Moist to the touch. Stuck to the baking paper. Most worryingly they were a discoloured orange on the outside.
I have now made another at the end of the day, but only one this time. It has turned out the same:
What makes a meringue stay moist? What makes it discolour? Is there anything I should look at considering that I did exactly the same thing each time?
I finally had success (after one baking with 2 failed meringues and one failed baking with 1 meringue) and the major difference was the time of day and that I flipped the baking paper over to use the rough side.
One thing that can affect meringues is humidity. I find that I have to bake them at nearly twice as long in the summer to get them to dry out completely.
I suspect this might be an issue, but having looked through the glass to see the discolouration around the 1hr mark I don’t think it would help these. I’m wondering, now, if there might be a difference in baking papers.
I suspect this is the answer I'm looking for, though see my comment on my OP.
I have finally found the answer to my question:
I was not whisking the egg whites long enough.
I am now whisking while mixing in small amounts (about 1tbsp at a time) of granulated sugar for at least 10 minutes, usually longer.
Good to see someone come back with a self-answer. Try caster sugar for a finer, hence more easily soluble sugar. You should beat until the mix no longer feels granular (i.e. undissolved sugar crystals) between additions
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.917931
| 2018-07-14T21:38:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91026",
"authors": [
"Matt W",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29113
|
Office (Loose Leaf) Tea Solution
I am looking for a good system to make loose leaf tea at my workplace. The main requirements are that the tea tastes good and it is easy to clean in the toilet sink without much equipment. Bonus points if it's microwaveable, since I find that slightly more practical than an electric kettle.
I have considered:
cup with a ceramic or glass strainer. Doubts: is the mesh fine enough, or would it let the smaller leaves through?
steel strainers. Doubts: do they affect the water taste? Can they be closed tightly, or would they let the smaller leaves through? Is the steel mesh microwavreable?
cotton strainers. Doubts: do they dry in a reasonable time? Do they get dark and dirty after a few uses?
fillable disposable tea bags. Doubts: are they viable for a single person? They look quite expensive
French press, ingenuitea, or other similar contraptions. Doubts: they don't look easy to clean at all. Are they microwaveable?
What is your experience? Do you recommend (or suggest to avoid) one of these methods, or a new one?
Related questions: What's the best option for water for tea in the office?, Best Office Coffee Solution
You ask whether smaller leaves would be a problem, but you don't specify the type of tea. As the larger leaves of e.g. typical English breakfast tea are smaller than the smaller leaves of e.g. oolong, it would be useful to be more specific.
Ingenuiteas are fairly easy to clean if you don't mind scooping the leaves with your hand (the filters pop out which makes the small bits wasy to clean) and are entirely microwaveable
@PeterTaylor After I get the infuser/strainer/whatever, I'd like to buy leaves of several kinds of tea, black and green mainly. Probably only "common" types though, I wasn't considering Oolong.
I've been drinking loose-leaf tea at work for many years now, and have gone through most of these.
cup with a ceramic or glass strainer.
I've tried both the ceramic type with holes and the glass type with slots. The mesh is never fine enough for me. In addition the holes or slots invariably get packed with leaves and are a pain to clean.
steel strainers.
If you mean the tea-ball type, I can't comment. But a steel mesh strainer is my absolute favorite. I've been using the same one (pictured below) for years now and have never noticed any off flavors. Easy to clean: just dump out the leaves and give a good rinse, picking or sponging out the occasional stuck leaf.
Not microwaveable, but you don't want to microwave the leaves, anyway. Microwave the cup with water in it (put a stirrer in to avoid superheating the water. Yes, it can happen, and has happened to me), then put the strainer in when it's the right temperature.
cotton strainers.
I have never used one, so I can't comment authoritatively, but it seems like at the least they'd be harder to clean.
fillable disposable tea bags.
I hate disposable anything. I tried the type of bag pictured below and they were a pain. They tend to wick tea out of the cup and onto your table.
As for the other gizmos, I think for tea, simpler is better. The above are the only methods I've used, and I find the mesh basket is far and away the most convenient and best solution.
I have a cotton filter. It colored brown after the first few uses, just the way porcelain cups stain, but unwashable. I don't consider this state to be "dirty" for a tea filter, just like I don't consider the burnt places on my kitchen towels "dirty", it is stained but perfectly usable.
@rumtscho I'm curious about your stained cotten filter, if you steep it (without any tea inside) in a cup of boiling water for ~5m or so, does it impart any taste to the water?
I've been making lose tea at my office for a while, and this is how I do it:
I started using the microwave. But the microwave has problems. First, carrying a cup full of boiling liquid from the kitchen back to my office. Be careful, splashes hurt! Second, its hard to get a consistent temperature (other than boiling), because at least here the cold water temperature varies year-round a fair bit.
So, instead, I switched to a Pino Digital Kettle Pro electric kettle. Now I only have to carry a kettle full of cold water, and I get to select the temperature I want my water—great, because I'm not just making black tea.
I pour the kettle into a cup, and insert a Finum brewing basket with the tea. Then I start a tea timer on my computer. The mesh is very fine, no leaves escape, and the stainless steel doesn't impart an off flavor. The strainer can be rinsed out, and I have a couple so I can take them home and run them trough the dishwasher. I do the same with the cups—I take them home and run them through the dishwasher.
You really oughtn't wash dishes in the bathroom sink. At least not without scrubbing it down and sanitizing it first.
Interesting thought about carrying the hot mug back from the microwave. I found that there are also travel mugs with infusers, like http://www.amazon.com/Aladdin-Tea-12-Ounce-Infuser-Blue/dp/B001Q3L9PA and http://retailshop.libretea.com/ - they would solve this problem at least, wouldn't they?
@FedericoPoloni provided they're microwavable, it should (at least the Aladdin Tea one says it is). And also provided the outside (or at least the handle) stays cool. All bets are off if you trip, though.
I know this answer doesn't literally answer the question with regards to making tea with loose tea leaves but seriously, you'd save yourself an awful lot of time, trouble and effort by making tea with tea bags. It's so simple and makes consistently good quality tea with the minimum of effort and fuss.
I do understand that if you're partial to a particular type of tea not easily available in tea bag form, which in fairness do tend to be a blend of various tea leaves, then tea bags probably isn't the answer you're looking for.
Then I'd suggest a tea ball/infuser as being the ideal solution -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infuser
And please, please, please don't make tea with microwaved hot water! Tea must have freshly drawn and freshly boiled water to be able to extract the best flavour from the tea leaves. Don't use pre-boiled water either, throw it away and draw fresh water and boil it. This is essential to good tea making.
I'm not a fan of the tea balls/infusers, as they generally have too small a volume to allow loose tea to open up and get exposed to the hot water.
I'm also confused about the microwaved water part. If you draw fresh water and heat it in the microwave to boiling, it's no different from drawing fresh water and heating it in a kettle to boiling. It's the same water, at the same temperature.
@JoeFish If you're 100% certain that the microwaved water has reached boiling point then I guess it's okay. Do we really know what affect the microwaves are having on the water quality? Perhaps I'm just old fashioned, I believe (and have been taught since a young age) that freshly drawn water boiled in a kettle is the best way to make tea. Perhaps that's anecdotal, but Britain is a long time nation of tea drinkers, we should know how to make a good cup of tea by now!
@JoeFish Regarding the tea ball/infuser - you're right it's not ideal, but then neither are any of the other suggested solutions. By far the best way of making loose leaf tea is in a (warmed first) tea pot! But the OP has to compromise, he probably doesn't have the facility to store a tea pot and strainer, so he's looking for the next best option isn't he? The question isn't 'what is the optimum way to make the best tasting tea'? It's what's the most convenient for my situation?
I find the contrast between "tea bags are fine" and "don't use the microwave", uh, um... interesting.
@Marti What do you find interesting about it? Have you ever tried Pure Chinese White Silvertip tea in tea bags? Given that, that is probably the most delicate and fine tasting tea produced (in any form) you might be surprised, but somehow I doubt it. http://www.teadog.com/Jacksons-Pure-Chinese-White-Silvertip-Tea-p/jpcws.htm
Search for 'infuser' at marketspice.com. Not affiliated, just a happy customer.
Why would you recommend preciselly this one over other method for an office?
Because it's cute.
I use something like this. It allows for plenty of room with water warmed via any method. The plus side is that you could use two--one to heat the water without the filter, and another with the leaves and filter, and no spilling.
I'd go for a ceramic cup with a steel strainer. The ceramic is microwavable and a good steel strainer/tea bell does a good job at tea.
The glass/plastic part of a french press is microwavable, the top won't be because of the metal. You can get single cup versions that would be easy to clean. Ether solution would work fine in your circumstances.
In terms of cost, I'd go for a tea ball (personally, I like them). Otherwise, you can purchase tea pots (I got someone a really pretty Japanese one from theteatable.com, which also has a great assortment of herbal and caffeinated loose tea) with built-in infusers, which are nicer than tea balls. You can also find microwaveable water heaters to use with traditional teapots at many major retailers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.918435
| 2012-12-12T16:13:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29113",
"authors": [
"Ana",
"Chez",
"Daniel Shaff",
"Emily Anne",
"Federico Poloni",
"Irwin",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jo-Ann Pisacane",
"JoeFish",
"Karim Zakia",
"Les",
"Marti",
"Peter Taylor",
"Shantanu Bopardikar",
"Steven",
"TheSteelSeal",
"Tonya Tipton",
"derobert",
"georgie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"rumtscho",
"spiceyokooko",
"treehugger"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62751
|
Why is my garlic brown and slightly translucent?
I have a whole garlic where almost all cloves are slightly brown, a bit translucent and soft. This is a photo of one of the cloves:
The cloves are also a bit sticky when peeled. It reminds me a bit of how pickled garlic looks like:
These are not brown spots, so it doesn't seem bruised. Tastewise the garlic seems less strong than regular, light yellow garlic.
Does anybody know how these cloves ended up like this?
This is a defect known as "waxy breakdown" or "waxy decomposition", and is caused by growing or storing the garlic under too hot conditions.
See http://livegpath.cals.cornell.edu/gallery/garlic/waxy-breakdown-on-garlic/, which also mentions that anaerobic storage conditions are also considered a possible cause or contributing factor by scientists.
I now buy only organic garlic. It is always typical garlic white, just as the non-organic stuff I used to buy.
However, my most recent purchase (of 3 days ago), is a different story. First use the day of purchase yielded one clove, rotted to the point that its sac collapsed, a common occurrence under long term storage, so no big deal. Other cloves I used at that time were fine.
This morning I found another much as described by OP above. This particular clove is not sticky, not particularly soft/squishy, but brown, translucent, and putting off a heavy garlic odor, as opposed to the typical clove which does not smell strong until cut or crushed, in other words, damaged in some way. So in my case at least, I believe bruising is the answer. Examination of the outer clove surface seems to support this; it shows a line of demarcation of damage, where deterioration is not quite complete on the left (also incomplete on the inside), so damage seems to have occurred on the right side of the clove and deterioration process is moving left and inward.
I'm tossing the clove out of precaution, though I believe it is probably fine.
If, in my case, the whole head had been affected, I would think waxy breakdown, but I offer this observation as another option for those coming to this site for answers.
I appreciate my new-found knowledge about waxy breakdown. Thank you rackandboneman!
It looks like it has been frozen then thawed, although that should not leave it sticky. The stickiness makes me suspect rotting as well, but I would expect you to be able to smell that. High heat could also cause the softening but I'd expect more color change in that case. (Heat could cause a milder flavor, though. Freezing usually doesn't.)
You should take it back to the store and complain, and ask them to look into how it has been handled. Be prepared to tell them how you have handled it, too, but a decent market will want to look into this because it could be a health hazard. If you bought it very recently they may also have other bulbs from the same batch to compare.
When buying garlic, the bulb should feel firm and the papery skin should not feel very loose. Over time, in normal storage (cool, dry, decent air circulation), garlic will tend to wither and shrivel and will become a bit rubbery, and it may start to sprout. It will not become translucent or sticky in normal storage conditions.
Well, too late to bring it back. The photo actually shows the last clove, I ate the rest over the past weeks as it did not smell bad. Will buy an organic and a "regular" garlic next time at the supermarket to compare, and perhaps complain.
when I get home, I will see if I have any frozen garlic to thaw and show in pictures. (I sometimes buy garlic in bulk and freeze part of it.)
Garlic juice is always sticky (it makes a very good, if smelly, glue), so if a clove is sticky, it could be because it or its neighbor got bruised enough to release some juice.
That's a good point. It still shouldn't be like that, though, if it is fresh and well-stored.
Some of my garlic looks somewhat like that after it's been stored for a year (some looks worse and gets composted, some looks better.) I've got a few heads from 2014 to use up before I start on the 2015 crop.
But that also resembles (even more) garlic that has been roasted. Allowing for the fact that nearly all recipes for "roasting" garlic are essentially steaming it in foil, with some small opportunity for caramelization, but mostly steam.
Some of my home-smoked garlic looked like that. I think it had got too warm
Garlic is not supposed to look like that. Its sticky, brown and soft -- I would throw that out. How did you store the bulb? Garlic does well in a dry, circulated area at room temperature.
It is stored as all my other garlic in a dry, circulated area at room temperature. It was like this when I bought it from the supermarket. The only difference with regular garlic is that it was marketed as "biological".
That's strange. Is the other garlic non-biological? :) The bulb may have gotten smashed during transit -- garlic's shelf life goes down once you start peeling off the cloves.
Being bio does not explain this condition. BTW bio products are mostly called organic in English :-)
Ah, that makes more sense. I was only making a joke about what "non biological" garlic would look like. Metal garlic? Rock garlic? Cloves of plastic?
Ah, yes, language. I meant organic, thank you for clarifying this :)
@Ohnana - IMO "organic" doesn't make any more sense than "biological", linguistically... I mean, who ever heard of an inorganic plant? If it is inorganic and grows on its own, wouldn't it probably be a crystal? but ahem yes. :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.919209
| 2015-10-23T17:56:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62751",
"authors": [
"Billie Barner",
"Chris H",
"Gale Hague",
"Gaylynn Baker",
"Marti",
"Mithun Balamurugan",
"Moira Strong-Sarafinas",
"NadjaCS",
"Ohnana",
"Regina Williams",
"Saaru Lindestøkke",
"Teri Hinman",
"aris jimenez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"jackie kamienski"
],
"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
}
|
111046
|
What's the difference between thin crust pizza and a cracker
My friend says that thin pizza crust is nothing but a cracker, but I think there are significant differences between the two products. For example, if you buy a store-bought cracker and add pizza sauce, toppings, and cheese to it, you won't get anything remotely like a pizza.
tl;dr: where do the ideas of pizza crust and cracker diverge?
Two factors:
Leavening: pizza crust is generally made with a leavened, yeasted dough, that has risen for a hour or more before rolling out. Crackers are generally made with a "short" dough, which contains no leavening at all or only a tiny amount of chemical leavening. Even crackers that are made with a yeasted dough (e.g. sourdough crackers) are not given a long time to rise.
Texture: crackers are generally supposed to, well, crack. They should be crisp, crunchy, and/or flaky. Whereas pizza dough is supposed to be chewy and/or bready, and certainly not crunchy.
Now, there's obviously some room for overlap here. For example, if I roll out a sourdough pizza crust really thin and top it only with salt, and bake it until crunchy, it's not going to be particularly different from a sourdough cracker. However, most pizza crusts are very different from most crackers.
Hope that helps!
If you're going to attempt to define classical categories for the two items (where there are specific requirements for inclusion to a category), I would say that 'cracker' is a starchy dough that's been cooked until dry for preservation purposes. So "pane carasau" (cooked like a large pita, then split and cooked again 'til dry) would be a cracker, even though it's yeasted and given time to rise.
But there are many dry, preserved breads that are not crackers, so I don't think that works. For example, "ship's biscuit" is definitely dried for preservation, but is not considered by any English-speakers to be a cracker.
You could argue that it needs to be eaten as-is, and not rehydrated before eating, or even that it needs to be thin (but then we have to define 'thin'), but this is an example of why classification, and particularly classical categories are a problem. (platypus being a mammal, even though it lays eggs, birds that don't fly, etc.)
Also, "Cracker" is the real problem here because it's a very vaguely defined category. I mean, a saltine is definitely a cracker, but plenty of people would argue that pane carasau is a flatbread and not a cracker at all. And a responder below calls bagel chips crackers, which I wouldn't.
To me, this seems to be an issue of what we call 'prototypal classification' (sometimes called 'fuzzy classification' when it's computers doing the sorting). Basically, you have two groupings (pizza crust and cracker), and you have to decide how to sort a specific item (the crust on a thin crust pizza).
It's important to consider that crackers and pizza crusts are both rather wide categories, and what items we're most familiar with in that category will affect how we judge other items for inclusion.
Some examples of 'pizza' and pizza-like items:
New York thin-crust pizza
Chicago deep-dish pizza
Pizza bianco
Barbeque chicken pizza
Dessert pizza with mascarpone & fruit
French bread pizza
Pizza bagels
Lahmahjoon
Pannenkook met spek en kass
And some types of cracker and cracker like items:
Saltines
Oyster crackers
Triscuits
Graham crackers
Matzo
Hårdbröd
Zwieback
Bagel chips
Hardtack
People may only be familiar with some of those, and some may not consider all of those items to be part of the category. (Zwieback is a rusk, and therefore, a type of biscotti ... does that make it a cookie? Although technically, biscotti is a twice cooked, so it's a 'biscuit', but the term 'biscuit' has diverged in American English).
This is part of why we get disagreements on what a 'pizza' is. If you grew up with New York thin-crust pizza, and only that style of pizza, it's difficult to consider Chicago deep-dish pizza to be a part of your mental image of 'pizza'. It's closer to a casserole or a fruit buckle than a New York style pizza with its crisp crust and slightly charred top.
Likewise, to someone who's grown up with deep dish pizzas, a New York style pizza is missing the breadiness and chew of the pizza you're familiar with, and it's closer to a cracker with some sauce and cheese on top.
As for where the two diverge -- that's even more difficult to say, because it's entirely possible that we could find some cases where there's agreement that an item is in both categories.
If we can agree that tomato isn't integral to pizza, then a crust topped with olive oil, garlic and cheese is still a pizza. If the type of cheese doesn't matter, then we can use a hard grating cheese like parmesean or pecorino romano.
And if we can agree that crackers don't have to be bite sized, and to matzo is a cracker, and that crackers can be flavored (quite common now from Wheat Thins and Triscuits in the stores) then should you use those ingredients on a New York style crust, you would have something that would be exceedingly difficult to classify as either a pizza or a cracker and not both.
This gets even messier when you have different or even just divergent languages, as categories are a function of culture, and how that culture thinks about those items. So a word might literally translate into another language and items with that name don't fall into the translated category (the biscotti / biscuit example, or my infamous (at least at my work) pancake question)
Matzoh pizza is definitely a thing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.919668
| 2020-10-06T02:46:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/111046",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110669
|
Malt barley powder: pancake killer?
I got some barley malt powder at H Mart
https://hmart.co.uk/shop/en/pan-frying-powder/4496-tureban-dry-malt-barley-powder-400g-8804129001021.html
and tried using it in pancakes. The pancakes stay gooey and do not rise at all, not one bit, even with extra baking soda and a tiny bit of malt powder. I realized that the malt powder in the pancake recipes is malted milk so I have the wrong stuff. But I am curious why malt powder kills the leavening action of baking soda.
My pancakes:
2 cups flour
2 - 3 Tbsp sunflower oil
1/2 - 1 Tbsp baking powder
1 egg
1 Tbsp sugar
~2/3 cup plain yogurt
add milk until right consistency to pour
Someone else will have to confirm and provide details (unless I get time later) but there are probably active enzymes in there digesting the starch in your flour. The same thing will happen if you add rice syrup to bread dough.
If you want an answer to this, it would be helpful to include your pancake recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.920158
| 2020-09-13T13:19:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110669",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103222
|
Almond pound cakes erupting
In the last two weeks I have made 5 almond pound cakes with varying levels of failure. The biggest problem I'm having is that 3 out of 5 of the cakes have over flowed. The 3 that over flowed used no baking powder or baking soda. Each time I made them I put less and less batter in the pan. I'm so frustrated, I'm ready to give up. What am I doing wrong?
The only variation I made to the recipe was a little extra almond extract.
If you have access to fresh eggs--they make it amazing. The key is mixing it very well!
3 Cups Sugar
2 Sticks of Butter
1/2 Cup Crisco
6 Eggs
1 Cup Milk
3 Cups Plain Flour
1 tsp Vanilla
2 Tsp Almond Flavoring
Mix: 3 cups sugar, 2 sticks of butter (at room temp), 1/2 cup White Crisco (not the butter-flavored type) Mix until very creamy.
Add eggs in one at a time, mixing well after each one.
Add half the milk and half the flour. Mix well. Add the rest of the flour and milk. Mix well.
Add the flavorings and mix well.
Cook in a Bundt Pan- I spray it well with Baker's Joy so it won't stick.
Bake at 325ºF for 1 hour 15 minutes to 1 hr 30 minutes or until a toothpick comes out clean.
Let rest out of the oven for 15 minutes and then remove from pan.
The recipe looks fine. I suspect that you are incorporating too much air into the batter when you are mixing. Try:
Mixing less - shorter time/slower speed and/or use a regular beater rather than a whisk
pouring the batter then giving the tin a good hard tap down on the bench - this will make large bubbles rise to the top and come out of the batter.
if it's large air bubbles that are the problem, there will often be 'tunneling' (strange worm-like holes going through the cake), and it's a sign that it's over mixed (gluten development makes the cake too strong, and holds the air bubbles from escaping)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.920254
| 2019-11-01T16:55:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103222",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105424
|
Using fridge for slow rise dough with eggs
I have a recipe for low carb bread using yeast, vital wheat gluten, oat fiber, flax meal and 2 eggs. It tasted ok but would it be safe to do a slow 24-48 hour rise in the fridge to develop more flavour?
Can you provide a link to the particular recipe you used? I'm quite familiar with general recipe you're speaking of (I've probably tried over 80 different tweaks to the base recipe to get more flavor). But it would help to know the base ratios you're using. (It would also help others know the entire recipe we're speaking of).
Do you fear leaving uncooked eggs from the grocery store in your fridge for 24-48 hours?
From a food safety perspective, 48h in the fridge will be perfectly safe. (You may want to check out our generic post on storage times.)
Whether it’ll work with regards to intensifying or improving the flavor, I can’t say. Remember that the “more flavor” in regular slow-raise bread is based on enzymatic activity in the flour - which you don’t use. It may or may not be happening in the oat fiber and flax seeds. An experiment should answer that.
Yes, it would be safe, but I'm not sure whether you'd see a difference in flavor.
For the record, I'll list a general "base" recipe that I'll then make recommendations about.
This is based on Diedra's Ultimate Keto Bread v2.0:
finely ground golden flaxseed meal (ƒ) 26.52% 83.0 g
oat fiber (ƒ) 26.52% 83.0 g
vital wheat gluten (ƒ) 46.96% 147.0 g
½ tsp xanthan gum 0.48% 1.5 g
1 tsp table salt 1.92% 6.0 g
1 Tbsp instant yeast 3.31% 10.4 g
1 tsp honey 2.24% 7.0 g
1 cup water 75.72% 237.0 g
2 large eggs 31.95% 100.0 g
2 Tbsp unsalted butter 9.06% 28.4 g
Yield 224.66% 703.2 g
Total Flour 100.00% 313.0 g
ƒ: this is considered part of the "flour"
In all my testing, the only thing fermentable in this recipe is the honey (meaning none of the flour ingredients are fermentable). The point of the honey in this recipe is to provide the sole source of food for the yeast. In most keto/low-carb baking like this, we usually only get one attempt at a rise, especially since there's a very limited supply of food. So, the question then, is whether a longer-cold ferment in the refrigerator might provide for better taste than the hour room-temperature ferment that the recipe calls for.
With the recipe as-is, I don't think you'll see much of a difference (though I haven't tested this extensively by using long cold fermentation times). The rather limited supply of food will likely be used up within the first couple hours of the cold ferment, and not much would happen after that.
It could theoretically be possible to sub in a small amount (10 - 20 g or less) of whole wheat flour or other fermentable flour in place of the honey to serve as a long-term source of food for the yeast during a cold ferment. It would be tricky though to determine how that might affect the overall net carb count (determine what percentage of the carbs were "consumed" by the yeast).
In lieu of that, there are a couple things you can do to improve the flavor and texture. First, leave out the xanthan gum, especially if you have a stand mixer or can successfully knead this by hand (it takes a dough scraper to start and a bit of practice, but it can be done). The xanthan gum overly-inhibits the gluten development and results in a tighter more dense crumb. The mucilage from the flaxseed, the butter, and the eggs are all you need to successfully weaken the gluten without over-doing it. Second, to offset the taste of the oat fiber (basically like cardboard with a slight hint of Cheerios), add 2 Tbsp or so of sweetener. I prefer Splenda or 1 tsp or so of liquid sucralose. Third, use ½ cup of water, and ½ a cup of buttermilk (a low-carb form of regular milk). The buttermilk* adds a depth of flavor that leaves water-only variations seem bland in comparison. Despite its acidity, it does seem to help a bit in browning of the bread as well. Fourth, up the salt to around 2.35% (1 tsp + scant ¼ tsp, or 7.3 g). I also upped the yeast slightly.
So, the revised recipe:
finely ground golden flaxseed meal (ƒ) 26.52% 83.0 g
oat fiber (ƒ) 26.52% 83.0 g
vital wheat gluten (ƒ) 46.96% 147.0 g
1 tsp + scant ¼ tsp table salt 2.35% 7.3 g
3 ½ tsp instant yeast 3.31% 12.1 g
1 tsp honey 2.24% 7.0 g
½ cup water 37.70% 118.0 g
½ cup buttermilk 39.14% 122.5 g
2 large eggs 31.95% 100.0 g
2 Tbsp unsalted butter 9.06% 28.4 g
Yield 227.37% 711.7 g
Total Flour 100.00% 313.0 g
* Regarding the carbs in buttermilk (and yogurt): While the nutrition info for 1 cup (245 g) of buttermilk and 1 cup (245 g) of whole plain (unsweetened) yogurt will say around 12 g of carbs from sugars, in reality, that number is actually much lower. The reason for this is that most of the milk sugar (lactose) in buttermilk and yogurt has been converted by the bacteria culture to lactic acid. As doctors Jack Goldberg and Karen O'Mara explain in their book "The GO-Diet", you can count a cup of either of these as 4 g of net carbs rather than 12 g. (See this website for more info: http://www.lowcarbluxury.com/yogurt.html). So, the ½ cup of buttermilk would only add around 2 g of net carbs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.920433
| 2020-02-20T21:00:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105424",
"authors": [
"NSGod",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122227
|
Meaning: muffins are "blind"
The following expression was used in an old baking book, "The Modern Baker, Confectioner and Caterer" (1907) by John Kirkland:
The bad results so frequently obtained are generally due to the method
of cooking. If the batter is in the least degree too stiff" the
muffins are certain to be " blind ".
What state of muffins is expressed to be "blind"?
The book is accessible online here and the above expression is found at page 153 (an original book page).
Thanks in advance.
The same book has another use of the word blind with more explanation:
Care has also to be taken that rolls are not allowed to prove too much, or they fail to retain the neat shape given at moulding, do not open out as they should, and are in fact what bakers call blind.
The recipe you are asking seems to be for what is called a crumpet, which is partially yeast and partially bicarbonate risen. Crumpets are griddle cooked rather than baked, and you get a holey, spongy texture from the 'spring' you get from the chemical leavening agent's reaction. If the mix is too thick you won't get this spring, leaving the dough constrained. So the definition I'd give from these two uses is 'lack of spring'.
Note this term isn't used anymore, as far as I know.
Thank you for your quick response. Your explanation enhanced my understanding. The book has a recipe for Crumpets elsewhere, and seems to have been written for baking school use. I think, therefore, the muffin recipe written in the book would be at least one ordinary variety of those at that time. (Sorry for my non-native English)
For crumpets specifically, it may mean they don't form the correct holes in the top. If holes == eyes then no holes == 'blind'. For anyone not immediately familiar with crumpets - https://www.jamieoliver.com/recipes/bread-recipes/classic-crumpets/ [Note: difficulty is laughingly called "showing off"]
In similar uses, the OED has an entries for "blind" in the sense of "of hedges and the like: too thick or leafy to be seen through" and "of an alphabetic letter: written or printed with the loop closed or filled in".
unlisted-san: thanks. As GdD-san wrote, it seems the point that the batter needs to be so soft that CO2 via bicarbonate or yeast floats up out of it. Seifert-san: thanks. unlisted-san's comment leads me to associating the OED definition cited to the CO2 bubbling.
Do itashi mashite :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.920806
| 2022-11-04T09:57:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122227",
"authors": [
"Kona Azare",
"Michael Seifert",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"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
}
|
91331
|
Super-saturated sugar solution gone wrong
An interesting recipe here provides this as a recipe for making a geode-looking sugar crystal. The finished product looks really great and is basically this:
3 cups sugar
1 cup water
food coloring
Heat water and sugar until sugar is dissolved.
Cool slightly.
Pour into foil covered bowl.
Cover with towels.
Leave for 48 hrs.
What I always end up with is either no crystallisation or the whole thing turns completely solid.
Is there a secret technique I'm missing?
@MattW Did you remove some the liquid after a while (48h) maybe your overall ambient humidity level change the way the sugar solution cristalize ?
By 48hrs my first attempt was still a liquid. I tipped some out by nothing appeared happen at 5 days. 2nd attempt was the opposite. 48hrs later it was solid as a rock (though quite tasty.)
I should point out that I followed the instructions as closely as possible both times.
Did you happen to notice the comments and correspondence below that recipe? It looked to me like almost all the comments were from people who couldn't get the recipe to work for them, and there were quite a few.
Yes. I took those into account.
Creating the Geode candy you have in the link should be relatively straight forward, but does require a little knowledge about how crystals form.
First, let's look at what is probably going wrong by examining your two outcomes:
or the whole thing turns completely solid
You made glass candy. You cooled the solution so quickly that no crystals were allowed to form. Crystallization takes time and complete stillness.
no crystallisation
Lack of crystallization means that either you didn't have enough sugar OR the crystals did not have a surface upon which to grow.
Necessary science:
A crystal that forms from a sugar solution is a precipitate, which falls out of solution because there is more solute than solution. A super saturated solution is a solution where there is more solute than solution at nominal temperatures.
We are able to "cheat" the "normal" solution / solute proportions by heating the solution, which allows for more solute to be added to the solution than normally possible. As heat is removed from the solution (yay entropy!), solute is "forced" out of solution because there is just no more room.
When this happens, it needs a place to go.
Normally, a precipitate would just solidify and fall to the bottom of the beaker, bowl, or whatever container you're using.
Sugar (as a crystal) could go this route and just fall to the bottom as a coating or mounds of goo at the bottom. OR, if there are structures for it to latch on to, it can start forming crystals.
The interesting thing about crystalline structures is that they whip themselves into molecular order when they run into another crystal. It's like they are walking by the other crystals, and say: "Woah! Nice lattice! Can I join in?" and they just snap into place.
So the hardest crystal to get is the first one.
There are a couple things I would do to improve upon this recipe to get the results you're looking for.
I would create a sugar solution using mass not volume. 600g of pure sucrose (normal table sugar) in 235g of water would be the minimum concentrate I would use. Honestly, if I could get 1,200g in 235g of water I would do that. But make sure you hit this minimum.
I would heat up the container as high as I could without causing a malformation. Since the recipe in question is using fondant (and the other, chocolate), that's probably not very feasible. In fact, chocolate is tempered at 105F, and sugar solution is WAY hotter. So, we have an issue there. So, I propose we cheat that a little by creating a layer of glass candy on the bottom (you're good at that already), which will provide a higher level of insulation for the formation of the mixture at the bottom. This also gives us the opportunity to give the crystals something to latch on to in order to grow...
Your crystals need something they can use to start growing. Fondant is typically pretty smooth, and doesn't really give a great surface for crystals. When you do this experiment using the classic "string hanging in a jar" method, the frayed bits of string provide ample surface area to snag a crystal that is coming out of solution and start the chain reaction that builds large crystals. It's been a while since I did this in physics class, but I believe that the entropy of sugar molecules bouncing off one another is one of the keys to the formation of crystals. It takes a LOT of time to form crystals because we essentially have to wait until two molecules bounce off each other at exactly the right angle to stick to the lattice structure. When you have NO crystals yet, we have to wait for one to get stuck to a structure and provide that lattice base. As your crystal size increases, the growth of the crystals increase because the probability of a sugar molecule colliding with one of the members of the pre-established lattice has increased dramatically, so it happens faster later, but slow to start with. To increase the surface area of your geode, you would need to score the candy glass layer at the bottom of your fondant shell to create groves, bumps, or marks. Anything other than a smooth fondant surface or a smooth candy glass surface will be good. (I realize we are running the risk of just dissolving that off into the solution, which is why you need an truly super saturated solution. If there is no "room" for the sugar to dissolve into the solution, it will not be able to dissolve our little scouring marks either).
COOL IT SLOWLY. Don't let it cool at room temperature, under a breeze, or on the window sill like it's a pie. Put it in a small cooler so the insulation of the cooler allows heat to escape as slowly as possible. This also means that you should check it as infrequently as possible. A minimum of 5 hours. You could also "make" a cooler by using 4 glass bowls. 2 large and 2 small. Put small bowl #1 on at least 2-3 cloth towels. Put the geode in the bottom of small bowl #1, cover with small bowl #2, and secure them together with tape. Put this "bowl ball" into the bottom of large bowl #1, and cover with large bowl #2, and (again) close with tape. These nested bowls will provide a similarly good insulated environment, which will retard heat transfer. The heat from the sugar solution will fill up the initial area in the two small bowls, which will heat the glass. This will contain water vapor (and probably sugar), which is very effective at transferring heat. Glass, however, sucks at transferring heat. Air is even worse. So, the two small bowls will heat up from the initial insertion of the hot sugar solution, and will heat that environment, but once that reaches a somewhat equillibrium, the heat will not continue to transfer upwards out of the first glass "shell" into the air of the second glass "shell" with any sort of efficiency. So, it should cool very slowly. The second glass shell is (ultimately) cooled by your air conditioner. So, you would want to cover that with a towel as well to prevent convective cooling.
The advantage of using these glass "shells" would be that you can check crystal formation without disturbing the temperature environment OR causing any sort of physical vibrations, which would retard (or destroy) the crystal formation.
PS.
Also, based on her accent, I am guessing the cook in the video is in Australia. Since most of the people in Australia live on the coasts, she is probably cooking at or near sea level, with (probably) higher levels of humidity than land locked areas. This probably doesn't affect the amount of sugar she can saturate, but WILL other processes that have to do with water and moisture (just ask bread bakers). You can control for this using an insulated environment created from 4 bowls (two smaller ones nested in two larger ones).
References for more information:
Rock Candy
Canding making (American Chemical Society)
Science of home crystals (Scientific American)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.921027
| 2018-07-30T10:21:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91331",
"authors": [
"Lorel C.",
"Matt W",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58098"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90974
|
Why is my custard eggy?
I have followed the instructions in this video from Delia Smith precisely, twice:
https://www.deliaonline.com/cookery-school/second-term-perfect-eggs/lesson-6-separate-ways-eggs-part-2
What I get from the final product is a custard which is very egg-like is taste. Not overpoweringly so, but enough that it puts people off eating it.
Is this because there are 6 egg yolks or is there an obvious mistake that a newbie like me is likely to make?
Is it simply that 6 egg yolks is too much? Would the custard be a lot thinner and runnier if I reduce it to, say, 3?
The recipe in full:
6 egg yolks
600ml heavy cream
125g caster sugar
1 level table spoon of cornflour
2 teaspoons of vanilla essence
Heat the cream on the lowest setting.
Sieve the cornflour and sugar together.
Mix the egg yolks into the cornflour and sugar until smooth.
Mix the vanilla essence into the egg yolk mixture.
When a single bubble appears on the surface of the cream, indicating the cream is just about simmering, pour the pan of cream slowly into the yolk mixture, whisking constantly.
Once the cream is all mixed in, return to the pan and place back on the same low heat and continue whisking until the desired thickness is achieved.
Put in a dish and serve or cover with cling film and place in the fridge.
Hello Matt, requiring people to watch a 10 minute video before they can start thinking what went wrong with your custard is not very friendly to potential answerers, and also there is a good possibility that years from now, people will want to understand the question (and the solutions which will hopefully appear in the meantime) but that the link will no longer be alive. So I would ask you to post a summary of the recipe (ingredients, amounts and basic steps) you followed.
True. The recipe is only the first couple of minutes but when I can I will summarise. In short, it has six eggs, but otherwise a regular custard, I believe.
I’d like to point out, after I’ve just added the recipe from the video, that I have trouble avoiding the yolks turning a little lumpy when mixing with the sugar and cornflour. Is that the egg scrambling or is it fine to whisk that in as long as it turns out smooth in the end?
To reiterate a bit what @dlb said, the egg yolk is what provides the thickness and structure to your custard, so if you cut the yolks by half, you will definitely get something thinner. However, while the eggs are obviously the source of the eggy flavor, there are ways to try and remedy that beyond reducing the egg.
The first thing I would try is just adding an extra teaspoon or two of vanilla. Also, since your recipe does not include salt, add a pinch or two of salt (you won't taste it, but it will make the sweet and vanilla flavors stand out a bit more.) Flavor is a balancing act, and it makes sense to start with the smallest changes you can.
Another thing you can try is replacing some of the cream with evaporated milk or sweetened condensed milk. Those both have a very strong milky flavor that could balance out the egginess, but of course that might not seem any better to you or your friends. If you think your custards plenty thick as it is, you could even just add a tablespoon or two directly, instead of fussing with substitutions.
if you are determined to use fewer eggs, however, you could just go in a more pudding direction-- Basically add some more starch/flour to make up for the missing egg yolks. You will get a different texture, so experiment with your ratios. You can also look around at different pudding and custard recipes online just to get an idea of different egg/starch/etc. ratios out there.
Custard and pudding are honestly pretty forgiving mixtures. Even if you completely screw up and lumpify your mixture, put it through a strainer and you've got something. If it's way too liquid? You can use that as an ice cream or French buttercream base. Are all your strainers dirty? Get some flour, yeast, that box of expired raisins from the back of the cabinet, some spices, and bam. You've got a fruit cake you can freeze and give someone for Christmas! (I actually made fruit cake with some custard I had curdled all to heck on an unfamiliar stovetop. But it was February so I just kept it lol.)
,,,,One time before I knew what I was doing, I'd let my custard get thick lumps of starch in it that weren't breaking up nicely. So I got out the immersion blender. And it blended up suuuuper smooth and I was so happy! Until I realized I'd demolished all the egg protein structures and it would never set up right. Oh, I tried filling my cream puff anyway, and it kind of worked, until my dad bit into it and became cream-beard the pirate. So I froze the rest and put it in a blender with some frozen strawberries. Best milkshake I EVER had. You can always find a use for "ruined" custard. XD
With the full recipe, it does not seem to me that the egg ratio is particularly high. Most recipes I have seen and use tend to be around 2 eggs per cup (US), and yours is 6 for about 2 1/2, so slightly higher than what I have seen as about average, but well within range.
To me, egg custards always have some amount of egg taste, which is pleasant or offensive according to taste. When skimming the video given (had no audio available, so I am just going by visuals) I felt they were adding cream mixture too quickly to temper the eggs without cooking, but that is opinion only. If the hot is add to quickly though, it will scramble the eggs and give a much stronger egg taste. One technique is to sieve the custard after tempering to remove any solidified egg, and some are happy with this result. To me, it removes the solids, but not the flavor.
I will give a personal critique of the video, I frankly have never heard of breaking a custard and expecting it to come back together in a reasonable tasting form, but the video maker obviously disagreed. I can only say that I assume they are happy with a stronger egg taste than many of would be.
If you wanted to experiment, I would think dropping 1, maybe 2 eggs might still give you adequate setting power, but going all the way to 3 would seem too big a cut. Try experimenting, reducing 1 yolk at a time and see if you like the results. Also try slowing you introduction of the hot cream mix to the egg and see if this helps.
Thank you. I agree with your remarks about the video. Is there a reason you know of why the cream is added with any temperature at all? Why not just mix everything together and then heat?
@MattW You are tempering the eggs. You want them to heat, but not cook per se. You need to add them slowly to bring the eggs up to temperature without cooking them. If you add them to cold liquid, then heat it, they cook. If you add fast, they cook. The technique as I was taught, was add One mixing spoon or ladle, then mix well, then add two, mix well, then four, etc. until all is added. There are many methods, key though is to add slowly.
Your recipe seems reasonable, I wouldn't cut down on the egg yolks.
However, I saw in one of your comments you had trouble avoiding the yolks turning a little lumpy when mixing with the sugar; this is because if you leave sugar on egg yolks without mixing immediately you will get a chemical reaction causing the eggs to coagulate.
So make sure you mix as soon as the sugar makes contact with the egg.
Also as mentioned in one of the other answers, make sure you don't add the hot cream too quickly as that could cook the yolks.
I have never heard of eggs coagulating because of contact with sugar. A rule of thumb in food technology is that when you make custard, the more sugar you use, the slower your coagulation rates (which in turn allows you to have more acid or higher temperatures in your recipe).
It's true! If you just pour sugar onto egg yolks, get distracted, and walk away before mixing it in, the yolks will form a skin that will NOT break apart easily. I don't know if it's just an effect of dehydration or if there's any chemical interaction going on like if you marinate meat in grated onions, but I've definitely had it happen.
You can think about the eggs you're using: Very fresh eggs on a good diet will be best. Brown eggs may contribute more negative flavors because of type of chicken. A little bit of acidity, not enough to coagulate proteins, may slow hydrogen sulfide production during cooking. Longer cooking times will produce more negative aroma than shorter ones. By substituting the milk with cream, you can get away with using fewer yolks, including starch may do the same. It may be better to drop some yolks and include a white. For custards, you can mix the eggs and milk cold--tempering is for professionals in a hurry, as milk own its own can be heated more rapidly. Using real vanilla and more of it may help out.
I do get that eggy taste with eggs from certain brands . Try eggs from a different store.If doesn't work, try a third store until you find the brand that works for custard. I'd try one yolk at first to avoid wasting too many.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.921602
| 2018-07-12T09:42:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90974",
"authors": [
"Matt W",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58098",
"kitukwfyer",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99338
|
Fast meringue technique
I use the slow method of baking a meringue, as described here.
I'm aware that there is a fast method, but can't find it online. (Besides, I'd really prefer the human input garnered here!)
Currently, my knowledge would be to mix the meringue as with the slow method, spoon onto baking paper and put in a hot over (possibly 180c?) for 10 minutes.
I have tried that and ended up with the result shown here (though not in that particular instance.)
So, does anyone know what the fast meringue method is?
Are you saying you saw a way to bake a French meringue in 10 minutes? Or are you thinking of other types of meringue, like Italian?
Honestly, I wasn't thinking of any type of meringue. I'm not familiar enough to tell the difference. I just whip egg white and sugar until stiff, spoon onto baking paper and bake at 140c(!?) for 2 hrs, then leave until the next day.
That's French meringue @MattW. You can't really rush that, it will be burnt on the outside and raw on the inside. Italian may be the way to go, it's what's used on Baked Alaska. What do you want the meringue for?
Thanks :) ... General meringue dishes. Pavlova is what I've done so far. I'd like to try lemon meringue pie next.
@MattW A lemon meringue pie is completely different from a Pavlova. The meringue is not baked at all, just toasted on top. And it can be done with any type of meringue (French, Italian or Swiss). Can you clarify your question? What kind of meringue are you after?
I'm not after a particular type of meringue. I'm after a fast method of baking.
But what end result are you after? Cooked hard meringue, chewy meringue, toasted marshmallowy meringue?
The latter. Hard would be too much for a pie I think.
After some confusion in the comments, I think I have an answer for you. There are three main methods for making a meringue and two main methods of cooking them.
First we have a French meringue, which is what you've made before.
Second, we have Swiss meringue. Here the egg whites and sugar are gently heated over a water bath stirring constantly until the mixture reaches a temperature of 79 degrees Celsius. At this point you transfer the mixture to a mixing bowl and whisk until cooled.
Finally, an Italian meringue is made by whisking a hot simple syrup into the eggs whites.
The different methods of preparation have slightly different outcomes. A French meringue tends to be more fragile before cooking and the end result is lighter. A Swiss or Italian meringue has more volume and tends to be more stable before cooking and have a more marshmallowy/chewy end result.
All these meringue types can be cooked either slowly in the oven as you describe, or toasted. The slow oven cook will produce a meringue that's hard on the outside and either fluffy or chewy on the inside. This is used to make for example Pavlovas or meringue cookies.
For a pie topping, you instead simply pile the meringue on top of the pie and torch it with a blowtorch or (place it in the oven on 'grill') until the top is your desired level of toasted. This takes at most a few minutes. Toasting can be done with any merigue, although Swiss and Italian are preferred, since the egg white has been heated to safe temperatures already. If you toast a French meringue, you are serving mostly raw egg white and need to take appropriate precautions to avoid salmonella.
Thank you! That's awesome info! I guess my Mum has been toasting Swiss meringue. Certainly, toasting is what I was thinking is actually the "fast" method.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.922418
| 2019-06-03T10:24:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99338",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Matt W",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58098",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120384
|
Gluten free alternatives
I've been baking with gluten free flour by Doves Farm for years but recently got accidentally introduced to baking with ground almonds as an alternative. This has been something of a revelation as the cake I can bake is just as good as baked with flour, but naturally GF.
Can anyone suggest other foodstuffs which can supplant flour as a naturally gluten free ingredient, please?
In writing this, my initial aim was to find a cheaper alternative to ground almonds, but I'm really asking about any alternative for baking cakes. Almonds provide, of course, an almond flavour - so I'm expecting that other nuts could be used the same way. Are there other foodstuffs which can replace flour in the baking process just as almonds can?
I'm not totally clear on whether you're asking for alternative sources of ground almonds or alternative ingredients to ground almonds (to which the answer is surely 'go back to gluten-free flour mixes'), but either way this is more of a 'suggest me a product/ingredient' question, which makes it too broad for here I think.
Thanks @dbmag97 - I've edited the question content to be (I hope) more specific as I'm really asking about other alternatives to flour. I really like the overall effect ground almonds have produced in my baking and am looking for other products which can be used the same way (admittedly with a lower price tag!)
I'm voting to close this as it's essentially asking for a list, and the list of what is available will vary depending on location. There are many alternatives, this needs to be narrowed down.
I'm not asking for what is available. I'm asking for alternatives to a particular foodstuff which can be used in baking.
Almond flour won't substitute for regular flour in all (or even most) cakes; I think you got lucky with a case in which you liked the outcome. If you post the specific recipe people might be able to give you insight into why it worked and therefore what other flour substitutes would be successful in the same recipe.
Sorry, we don't take list questions here. There are many different alternatives, even if you are planning to use a single flour - and if you use either a pre-fabricated replacement or a multi-flour recipe, it gets even larger. The better way to go about this would just to search for gluten-free cake recipes.
"naturally GF" implies you think these gf flour blends are wheat flour from which the gluten has been removed. They are not. They are a mix of various naturally gluten free things like rice flour, potato starch, corn flour etc. They are also naturally gf just as the ground almonds are.
I don’t stay gluten free, so there are likely better experts out there, but I occasionally cook for people who are.
From what I’ve seen, most ‘alternative flours’ fall into one of three categories:
bean flours
nut flours
alternative grains (oat, rice, etc)
There are others, like cassava or yam flour (aka fufu, available in African and some Asian stores), but they don’t seem to be as common when looking for gluten free baking recipes.
Some recipes will blend multiple flours and possible one or more gums to act as a binder for breads.
The ‘one to one’ pre-packaged replacement blends tend to be the most expensive. Nut flours also aren’t cheap, as you’ve found. Bean flours tend to have a bit of a weird flavor but they’re okay in chocolate things like brownies.
I would recommend looking into what’s available and inexpensive in your area, and then look for recipes that specifically use those ingredients. Sometimes you need to add gums for lift or enrich the dough for proper browning.
You may also want to try to find a copy of the book ‘How It Can Be Gluten Free’ from America’s Test Kitchen, which talks about some of the issues with adapting existing recipes to be gluten free.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.922703
| 2022-04-19T13:21:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120384",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Kate Gregory",
"Matt W",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58098",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82337
|
Increasing the earthy flavor of beets?
I enjoy the "earthy" flavor of beets -- I would like to know:
What way(s) of preparing beets result in the most earthy flavor?
And are certain types of beets known for tasting earthier?
Variety-wise there are many beet types, I have grown a few and I've found that red beet varieties have earthier flavors rather than golden ones. Larger beets of the same variety tend to be less sweet and more earthy than smaller ones. I'm not going to weigh in anymore on varieties as I simply don't know, the gardening stackexchange site might be a better place for that question.
Cooking-wise if you want an earthy flavor then I'd suggest baking the beets as opposed to steaming them (don't boil them, ever) as the dry oven will help concentrate their flavor. Leave the skin on, then peel them once the cooking process is done. It isn't going to make a massive difference, but it should be noticeable depending on the variety.
Baking has been highest flavor I have had.. Skin on as you suggest, just a sprinkle of olive oil in aluminum foil until soft. They then peel easily and mess is in the foil for easy discard. If you include at least part of the stem and maybe some greens in it may increase the earthiness as well.
Any effect of baking time on flavor?
Baking concentrates beets' flavor but you can overdo it, if you overcook them a lot you'll impact their texture. Bake them until you can stick a skewer in them easily, more than that I wouldn't recommend.
I take each beet, trim it, wrap it in foil and then toss them in the oven (probably best on a baking sheet - in case you didn't wrap so well - juices could run out). I generally go at 400-450 or so from 30 minutes to an hour or more depending on the size of the beets. This gives you the roast flavor, but keeps in all the concentrated juices. Big bonus - if you are cooking various colors of beets at the same time the colors won't bleed into each other. I've served beets cooked this way to "non-beet eaters" and they have thoroughly enjoyed them, so there is certainly a difference in taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.923012
| 2017-06-12T05:04:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82337",
"authors": [
"Colin",
"GdD",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58516"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82569
|
Substitute for eggs in Macarons (No Legumes)
My absolute favorite things to bake are French macarons. I make them for family gatherings, potlucks, or just to give to my public library. A huge issue, however, is that often times I just make them at home for my family, but my mom is allergic to eggs, so she can never eat them. For a while I've wanted to find an alternative to egg whites for the meringue. I found out about chickpea water (Aquafaba) and other legumes, and started to plan getting those and making meringue using Aquafaba. But then I ran into another issue. My mom told me how she's allergic to not only chickpeas, but ALL legumes. Now I am completely lost on how to make macarons for her.
I thought about whipping up heavy whipping cream into hard peaks (assuming it could function the same as meringue). You're whipping air into something and I thought that's the most important part of macarons. Does anyone know if this works or does anyone think I should try using heavy whipping cream?
Finally, is there anything other than legumes that I could use in place of egg whites in meringue? A reply would be greatly appreciated.
Maybe change the title to "lacto-vegetarian"...
I thought I found a recipe, but the foaming agent is soy-derived, so no-go. Still, here's a list of edible cooking foams that might provide some leads? http://www.molecularrecipes.com/culinary-foams-class/ingredients-foams/
There's this, which certainly helps introduce air. Its made from whey protein apparently.. http://msk-ingredients.com/hyfoamer-200g
I think that whipped cream will simply deflate upon heating.
I do see some references to successful use of the "ground flaxseed and water" or "mucilage boiled off whole flaxseeds and strained" vegan egg replacement in a whipped role, but those indicate that it won't hold up when heated.
I was going to suggest a youtube recipe that looked promising, but it uses Versawhip, which includes soy. Maybe you can use that as a starting point in combination with zetaprime's answer.
I believe you can use sun-flower lecithin (make sure you don't get soy-lecithin) as the foaming agent, optionally together with xanthan gum some or some other thickener to get the desired thickness you want.
You'll need to beat the lecithin+water+sugar until it gets foamy. And then fold in the almond flour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.923215
| 2017-06-22T23:40:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82569",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"Ecnerwal",
"Erica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82934
|
Can I cook meat on low for half the preset time?
I have a Crockpot that has preset settings to cook on high for 4 or 6 hours or cook on low for 8 or 10 hours. The Crockpot model is "Crock-Pot® SCCPVL605-B Cook and Carry Smart Pot Slow Cooker" and the control panel looks like this:
However, I've noticed many recipes call for cooking for shorter durations on low such as this recipe that calls for cooking for 2-3 hours on high or 4-5 hours on low.
First of all, this seems odd as the official crockpot website conversion table says the equivalent of 3 hours on high is 7 hours on low (not 4-5). I'm partial to the low setting as I feel it will probably taste better. So should I just set it to 8 hours on low since it's close enough to the conversion chart's recommended 7?
Or should I follow the recipe as close as possible and use the 8 hour low preset and remove the food after 4 hours? A potential problem with this approach is that I've read that with the presets a certain amount of time is needed to reach the "simmer point" and if you remove it too early your food may not reach the desired internal temperature and therefore be unsafe to eat.
Ultimately, my question boils down to which preset should I use and for how long when the presets don't match the recipe?
Also, please note that my question is different than this question on overcooking as I'm wondering if I may be undercooking.
I would put it in on the right temperature and take it out after the time stated in the recipe. If you're worried about whether the food is done or safe to eat, use an instant-read thermometer to take the temperature. You can check the FDA's website for safe cooking temperatures:
https://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/charts/mintemp.html
As to your concern that the simmer point is different with different settings. If it were different enough to affect the situation you're describing above, your crockpot would not be safe to use. There's a minimum time that your food has to get to a safe cooking temperature no matter how long you are cooking your food (I don't know the exact time, but I would guess around 30 mins). Many slow cookers initially cook food at a higher temperature to get it to a safe cooking temp (above 140 degrees Fahrenheit) and then lower the temp to the designated cooking temp.
Thanks, that's exactly what I ended up doing and it turned out great! To be safe, I went with the high range (5 hours) of the low heat setting.
@Patrick glad it worked out!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.923430
| 2017-07-10T21:40:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82934",
"authors": [
"Patrick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60467",
"lspare"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83399
|
How can I reduce the sugar in this oatmeal bar recipe?
I made this recipe for oatmeal bars, following the instructions with just a couple changes. Although they turned out well, I would like to reduce the sugar content while still preserving the texture of the bars. They are currently somewhat dense and a bit crumbly but still hold together, and I'd like them to either stay that way or be lighter and less crumbly. What changes could I make to achieve this?
Here is specifically what I did:
2 cups rolled oats
2 cups flour
1 cup creamy peanut butter (Jif)
2 beaten eggs
3/4 cups white sugar
3 tsp vanilla
1 tsp each of baking soda, salt, cinnamon
1 cup raisins cooked in 5 tbsp water, including water
4 tbsp whole milk plus enough more to make the dough hold together
Mixed everything together and baked in a greased 9x13 glass pan in a 375 degree oven for 15 minutes.
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is both a 'recipe request' and a request for nutritional guidance.
@CosCallis we certainly do help people "fix" recipes that they have. That's not the same thing as a recipe request. I think that this question can be improved by removing the statement "I would like to make them healthier" and simply focus on "how can I increase the protein and reduce the sugar".
@Catija that is a very thin veil but it may be enough...will reconsider
@CosCallis Not necessarily. The problem with "healthy" questions is that we don't know what they want - what they consider "healthy" to mean. We're happy to address questions that have specific goals. We can easily make recommendations to increase protein content and reduce sugar. :) Some guidance is available here.
@Catija your edits certainly improve the question. Generic words like "Healthier" (OP's original title) with suggestive examples (less sugar...etc) I think placed the question OB, in it's original form. But still this is a question that is likely to generate a list of opinion based answers. Even with your edits the question becomes (in part) "how to reduce sugar in a recipe with 3/4 cup of sugar in the recipe" it seems a little obvious...don't use so much sugar...
@CosCallis Removing sugar from a cookie... because that's really what this is... can really affect the texture and spread. It's a delicate operation. Regardless, the question may be asking too much at once. More protein, less sugar, better texture... if there's so much they dislike, perhaps they would be better served finding a new recipe - which would be off topic. We shall have to see what the other voters think.
Thank you for the feedback! I edited the question to be a bit more specific about what I want to achieve and to be less of a recipe request and less opinion based.
Kendra, you inadverently chose a topic which is quite contentious on this site - we hate it when our answer threads degrade into a war of subjective opinions, and "healthy" is one of these words which nobody can really define, much less use it to make objective judgements. So we react a bit harsh to it, while still trying to save the question by editing, instead of closing it outright. Most new users are understanably miffed when this happens, since they don't know the background. Thank you for being so gracious now that it happened to you! Yours is quite a nice first post.
You could try putting some medjool dates in a food processor then grinding them down into a powder! Lots of vegan and paleo recipes use dates instead of sugar as a healthier and less sweet option.
Ok, so just attacking the sugar content and texture I would suggest replacing the 3/4 cup white sugar with
1/4 cup white sugar,
1/4 brown sugar, the molasses will help your texture (think 'chocolate chip cookie')
and 1 tablespoon honey (along with this you should probably reduce the milk by 1 tablespoon)
A sugar free peanut butter will also help (but may be at the sacrifice of texture, YMMV)
Another good substitution would be craisins for the raisins.
(since I know you also want to boost the protein, you might add in some dark chocolate chips or cocoa powder)
What would you think about replacing some of the flour with peanut butter powder? That would boost the protein but I'm not sure what it would do for the texture.
Thats why I went to just the sugar free peanut butter ... the peanut butter is likely a major contributor to the texture as is....but this recipe is likely to come out a little 'sticky', so dusting with a combination of peanut butter powder and cocoa might make them more manageable.
You can cut the sugar to 1/2 cup, given that raisins included in the recipe.
To make the bars lighter, try adding 3/4 cup butter or coconut oil and 1 teaspoon of baking powder.
You know you can edit your existing answer, right? There's no reason to make a new one to add more information. (You can also delete your old answers, and you should do that in this situation.)
I don't follow the reasoning. The sugar plays an important role in the texture. How do the raisins help the oats to stick together?
I routinely & successfully cut sugar in recipes for cookies and cakes without affecting the texture. In this recipe, the peanut butter holds the bars together, not the sugar. The writer wants to cut the sugar; in my opinion, the flavor of the bars won't suffer with less sugar because the raisins add sweetness.
Try adding 3/4 cup of butter or coconut oil.
Thanks for the answer, @Christine K. However, it's best to provide more information. Why add butter or coconut oil? How does this help reduce the sugar? When adding butter or coconut oil, should something be removed? This detail will help the site greatly. Without it, your response might be removed because it does not have enough detail.
Okay, thanks for the guidance! I have added a more complete response.
I routinely reduce sugar in cake and cookie recipes without any discernible difference in the final product.
I have a similar recipe that I make with 1/2 cup of sugar. My family loves them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.923670
| 2017-07-31T18:30:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83399",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Christine K",
"Cos Callis",
"Kendra",
"Peter Taylor",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"moscafj",
"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
}
|
55608
|
Trimming ends off snow peas
I'm curious if it is customary to trim the ends off snow peas or should I just leave them on and eat them. I always clean them but it is time consuming. The picture shows an untrimmed one on top and a trimmed one in the bottom.
If you do trim them off, you can bag & freeze them with many other types of vegetable trimmings to add more complexity when making stock.
I do trim them, but not as rigorously as you do. I really just take off the tips.
There is an exception to this though. The ones you show in the picture have been harvested quite young, but this is not always the case. You can have situations where the end that holds the little peas has a tough fibrery texture. In those cases I still take off just a little on both ends, but also try to pull the fibers from the side.
Agreed -- it depends on the age of the peas. My suggestion is to try one of the larger & smaller ones that you have, and make a judgement call from there as to if you need to de-string them. (the same holds true for sugar snap peas, where some varieties have virtually no string while in others it's quite significant)
I would take off about this much: https://i.sstatic.net/ef95l.png and that's it. Anything more than that and you're taking off far too much.
It'll be time consuming to take them off one by one, so what I do is line a bunch of them up, using the back of my chefs knife to line them up straight, then cutting the ends off and repeating on the other side.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.924137
| 2015-03-11T14:58:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55608",
"authors": [
"Aaron Gonzalez",
"Brian James",
"Joe",
"LJ Ford",
"Olaitan Akeem",
"TheOfficial Zain",
"evelyn frias",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132221",
"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
}
|
45194
|
What material wok did I get while thrifting today?
I asked all 4 employees but nobody could tell me.
It is heavy, and it doesn't look like the same material as my cast iron pan. A magnet sticks to it.
There are no markings on it at all. I think the red handles are silicone.
It is smooth and dark grey on the outside, and the inside is almost black and you can tell it's been well used.
Thank you!
Continuing the welcome to SA, please feel free to accept an answer if it works for you! Accepting is entirely optional, but has mutual benefits and keeps the QA flowing! Also check out the tour and we hope that you continue participating... it's a great site!
A magnet will make you a genus; I will bet a very large amount that it is steel= magnetic.
My guess is carbon steel. It's used in a variety of cooking implements, including stuff like woks and as bread pans. A quick search suggests that carbon steel is often magnetic as you report.
If it is indeed carbon steel, it benefits from seasoning and ongoing love and care similar to cast iron (lest it rust or deteriorate). Many articles on this, such as this one from thekitchn.
It's a fun material, and looks like a nice find! I hope you like it!
Welcome to Seasoned Advice.
Agree, looks like carbon steel from the pic.
Looks like it could do with re-seasoning on the inside, see here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85/wok-preparation-and-caring
Mine was purchased a few days ago at HKD128 (discounted) at IKEA.
It's definitely not aluminum as magnets are attracted to it very strongly. It feels like steel but not sure if it's carbon steel.
It rusts very very quickly so dry it immediately after use. (mine, at 2nd use meaning, not too well seasoned yet, rusted right after an hour - I used it for steaming food... I took the food without clearing the water or drying it... came back after eating the food and it rusted.
I cleaned it, and seasoned it a few times with rice barn oil: rub with oil, heat until smoking... rub again... heat again... cool down, rub again, heat again...
Hopefully it becomes better and better as my Lodge cast iron skillets.
IKEA cast iron skillet that sells for about $179. Going to look different because it’s not as heavy as a cast-iron frying pan. But it is indeed a cast-iron pot and you have to treat it the same way as far as how you clean and season etc.https
://www.ikea.com.hk/en/products/kitchen/cooking-tools/pans/identisk-art-50159733
I meant to say above IKEA cast iron skillet that sells for 179 or so. Look very carefully inside the cover and you might still be able to see the faint IKEA
Looks like it's aluminum!
http://www.ikea.com/ca/en/catalog/products/60149197/
I went thrifting again and found the same wok, but this one was a set with IKEA lid. Looks like I didn't get a steal afterall.
Wait, I thought you said a magnet sticks to it? Magnets don't stick to aluminum. Also, in the Ikea picture, it doesn't look like the handles are offset like yours are.
The color in the scratched parts is wrong for aluminium
A magnet does stick to mine. Hmm maybe IKEA ripped off mine then...
The link you gave does not work, or does not work outside canada). It LOOKS like an IKEA Identisk from the handles, but the bottom design does not match - this might be an old model of that wok, or a copy. Anyway, I would throw a non-stick wok (and I assume it is) away when it has about 10% of the damage that one has!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.924324
| 2014-06-29T08:27:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45194",
"authors": [
"Daddy",
"David",
"DrRandy",
"John Eifion Jones",
"Marti",
"Sharon Campbell",
"blacksmith37",
"colin maddock",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77413",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman",
"remembershirley",
"rumtscho",
"sueb"
],
"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
}
|
103093
|
Bitter chocolate pudding
I made chocolate pudding from scratch and substituted 1 cup of Stevia for the cup of sugar and the pudding is bitter tasting. Any way I can salvage the pudding and make it sweeter?
The recipe was as follows:
1 cup white sugar, or to taste
1/2 cup unsweetened cocoa powder
1/3 cup cornstarch
1/4 teaspoon salt (optional)
3 cups unsweetened almond milk
1 teaspoon butter (optional)
1 teaspoon vanilla extract (optional)
I just used Walmart brand Stevia.
Can you include the rest of the recipe for the pudding? Is the stevia sweetener mixed with other ingredients (like Stevia in the Raw, mixed w/ maltodextrin, or others mixed w/ erythritol), or is it pure stevia extract powder?
Is this the first time you are eating stevia? It has bitter components which some people can taste and others can't, which is a normal genetic variation. So do you know that you don't taste a bitterness in other stevia preparations, or is this your first experience with it?
I've used it before but never noticed the bitterness. This was first time I had made pudding from scratch so wasn't sure if it was the Stevia. Thought about adding some honey to see if it would make it taste better.
this is the recipe I used. 1 cup white sugar, or to taste, 1/2 cup unsweetened cocoa powder, 1/3 cup cornstarch, 1/4 teaspoon salt (optional), 3 cups unsweetened almond milk, 1 teaspoon butter (optional), 1 teaspoon vanilla extract (optional) Just used the Stevia (Walmart brand)
Just a little bit of expectation management: stevia has a naturally bitter aftertaste, and depending on the amount and type of extract, it can be very bitter. You might also be over using stevia if you're just substituting it without balancing your recipe.
When using sweeteners to replace sugar:
Make sure to buy a sweetener that is already balanced to replace sugar on a 1:1 ratio so you don't overuse it and also don't lose the bulk of solid that sugar provides
If the recipe allows you to add sugar to taste (since this is the case) because it doesn't rely on the sugar for bulk, texture or for balancing liquids, add it to taste and if possible, make it a tad undersweet. Less is more when we're talking about sugar and salt
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.924984
| 2019-10-26T19:43:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103093",
"authors": [
"NSGod",
"Peggy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79183",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.