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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
75650
|
Wheat-free bread with added gluten?
I would like to make wheat-free bread but add gluten (can't eat the high fructans content of the wheat, but can eat gluten). I can't find any recipes that do this. Anyone got any pointers? I was thinking of using standard gluten-free (and therefore wheat-free) flour, then adding wheat gluten. Would this work?
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Recipe requests are off topic for this site; you should probably read the Help information to find out more.
I would consider that a recipe design question, not a recipe request.
I can point you to keto bread recipes, in case those keywords are new and helpful. I personally buy pre-made vital what gluten bread (from "great low carb bread co") but this is quite common in the keto community so you'll probably be able to find recipes to do it yourself.
Why do you want to add the gluten back to the bread? Is it about the texture/consistency of the final product? Just thinking it may be easier to go straight wheat-and-gluten free.
You can simply try Gluten-free breads. You can find many recipes for the same. It might be a better option than removing gluten and then adding it back. :)
I've never found wheat gluten flour that was higher than 80% gluten which is what I use, adding some when I make bread with rye flour. But if you can't eat wheat due to high fructans content, would you still be able to digest the fructan in the other 20%? You wouldnt be adding much gluten flour so the small amount of fructans might be okay.
Rather than buying and using standard gluten-free flour which is quite expensive, why not mix up your own? It's easy to. I've made gluten-free bread a few times for a friend who's since moved. The wheat-free flour mix that I made was rice flour, tapioca flour, potato flour and coconut flour in the ratio 3:3:3:1. You can then add gluten flour to this mix if you still want to try using gluten instead of xanthan gum. Xanthan gum is added to all gluten-free bread flours to help the dough keep its shape while rising. It's not needed if you plan on adding gluten though.
Bread flour is normally 10-13% gluten. Trouble is I don't know if that's by volume or weight. Maybe someone reading this knows and can tell you. If it is by volume, then replacing 2 tablespoons of the flour mix with 2 tablespoons of gluten flour should give you roughly the right gluten content. Hard to be exact as it's possible gluten flours vary in their actual gluten content.
It's 10-13% protein by weight. "Volume" doesn't really apply because proteins are microscopic and evenly dispersed throughout the flour
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.925169
| 2016-11-19T16:00:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75650",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"JennieK_NS",
"Nicholas Pipitone",
"Novice",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72948",
"lahwran",
"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
}
|
98743
|
Gluten-free and egg-free yeast bread
I am working on a recipe that uses gluten-free flour and cauliflower flour. I am having trouble getting the bread to be like a bread and not an edible brick. Any suggestions on proofing and baking temperature? I can not use any baking soda/powder or xanthan gum. The combined flour weight is 3 lbs, and water is 2 lbs.
Can you use psyllium husk? Egg free made me think of aquafaba, and that led me to find : https://www.asaucykitchen.com/gluten-free-vegan-french-bread/
If you could provide your ingredient list, it would be easier to give suggestions based on your formulation.
If you are making a straight dough gluten free bread, I would recommend temperature 80-100F and humidity 60-80%. The proofing time totally depends on proofing temperature and your formulation (ex. sugar/yeast).
Baking temperature also depends on what type of flour you are using. Starches/flour gel at different temp, so it is hard to say what is the optimum temp as per your recipe. Where you located also matters, if you live in high altitudes place, baking needs slightly higher temperature.
I would suggest you to start with 350F baking, if the bread seems under-baked after an hour, you can increase the temperature sequentially by 25F.
I also agree with Joe, using psyllium husk is much better choice than xanthan for bread recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.925387
| 2019-04-29T22:00:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98743",
"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
}
|
98889
|
using vital wheat gluten instead of flour?
I want to make Naan, but I am on the Keto diet and traditional wheat flour has too many carbohydrates. Can I make it with vital wheat gluten instead of flour? Do I have to add anything else?
If you don't want carbs don't eat carbs, and naan is just a form of carbs. You can't expect something with that sort of mass to have no substance to it.
@GdD I've been on a low-carb keto diet for 6 years, and have lost 80 lbs (and kept it off), lowered my blood pressure and cholesterol, reversed my fatty liver disease, and staved off type 2 diabetes which runs in my family. I eat low-carb versions of muffins, breads, and pizzas (the latter two of which contain VWG). A keto way of eating is as valid for us as a gluten-free diet is for those w/ celiac. If the OP had celiac and their request involved a desire for gluten-free naan, would you be equally dismissive? Please try to keep an open mind.
I suggest aiming for a completely flat flatbread instead. I've successfully made chapatis with chickpea flour. That's still over 50% carbohydrate (hence why I don't propose it as an answer), but it demonstrates that these are rather forgiving
"High" gluten flour has, at most 15% gluten. "Indian" white flour, or maida has 7.5%.
If you manage to pull it off, you basically end up with what's essentially a pan fried slab of mock meat, rather than a bread - basically seitan.
You typically add gluten to flour to modify its characteristics - the only way you're going to be able to make naan that approximates a real naan in any way is, well, adding flour.
No, I don't believe vital wheat gluten will work in this way for your recipe. When hydrated, vital wheat gluten is very sticky, and you can't roll or flatten it out very easily like you would need for naan -- and I'm not even sure it would cook and rise the same way as regular flour. There are gluten-free all-purpose flour that are made for baking. I would recommend using that instead of the flour called for in your recipe.
Gluten-free flours tend to have a starch content equivalent to regular wheat flours, making them too high in net carbohydrates to be acceptable on a ketogenic/low-carb diet. Vital Wheat Gluten can often be combined with other "flour" type ingredients (possibly including a small portion of whole wheat flour) to produce a low-carb alternative to a traditional bread. See my answer for for more info.
You couldn't use only vital wheat gluten, as that would produce a rubbery mass, that would be too elastic to stretch out to a flat shape (and stay there). Though it can still be tasty, it wouldn't really resemble naan or any other flatbread.
While I don't have an exact naan recipe, I do have a pizza recipe — which uses a large portion of Vital Wheat Gluten as part of its "flour" — that would serve as a very good starting point. It does require some special ingredients that may be harder to get where you're located, though I'm not sure. Even if you can't make it yourself, I hope this will prove that it is certainly possible.
While this pizza recipe is yeast-risen, it could likely be converted to just use baking powder as a leavener to simplify things.
Flour:
golden flaxseed meal (aka linseed) 24% 42.0 g
oat fiber 24% 42.0 g
vital wheat gluten 46% 80.0 g
raw wheat germ 6% 9.0 g
1/8 tsp xanthan gum 0.2% 0.4 g
¾ tsp Diamond Crystal Kosher salt 1.2% 2.1 g
1 ½ tsp instant dry yeast 2.7% 4.7 g
¾ tsp honey* 3.0% 5.2 g
water 80% 138 g
1 ½ tsp olive oil 3.9% 7 g
Total Yield: 331 g
Total Flour: 173 g
* while the honey does contains carbs from sugar, it is serving as the sole source of food for the yeast (since none of the other ingredients are fermentable), and most of it will be consumed during fermentation. As such, it isn't counted when calculating the net carbs.
Dry ingredients added to food processor and mixed well. Heat water to around 125º F. Dissolve the honey in the water and with food processor on low speed, add the water slowly until a dough forms. Knead (mix) in the food processor for 1 - 2 minutes until dough is smooth and resists tearing when stretched. Allow to ferment at room temperature till doubled in size. Then comes the hard part of stretching it out. Do so gradually, in stages, allowing it to rest for 15 minutes in between stretching outwards.
To adapt this for a flat bread like naan would be difficult, but should certainly be possible (I'm currently adapting this to a low-carb tortilla recipe which might be a step in that direction).
Nutrition Info
Calories: 620
Total Fat: 27 g
Total Carbs: 71 g
Fiber: 56 g
Protein: 70 g
Net carbs = 71 - 56 == 15 net carbs.
Try this recipe—I’ve played around and this works the best. Makes about 5 naans:
1/4 cup coconut flour
1 cup vital wheat gluten
2 Tbsp psyllium (or 1 tsp xanthan gum)
1 tsp baking powder
pinch salt
1 Tbsp oil/ghee
1 cup warm water
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.925519
| 2019-05-08T23:37:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98889",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"NSGod",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"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
}
|
110872
|
Keto King Bread Rise Problem
I have scoured the net looking for answers but I can’t find any.
I’ve been making the Keto King bread and in my bread machine it just doesn’t rise much. It ALWAYS tastes great but doesn’t rise much.
So I’ve tried various different suggestions; changing yeast, water temp, ingredient amounts, proofing times..
None have worked. Someone I know has the same machine as me and their bread came out huge, I did it step by step (I found out I also hadn’t put as much honey in either so I matched that - 7g instead of the 4 I had been putting in) and it still came out small.
So I’m totally confused as to why this bread just wine rise.
The bread I’m making is here
The recipe:
1.25 cups of vital wheat gluten (190g/6.7oz)
1/2 cup of oat fiber (41g/1.45oz)
2/3 cup of golden flaxseed meal (70g/2.46oz)
1/2 tsp xanthan gum (2.5g/0.088oz)
1 tsp salt (6g / 0.21oz)
0 - 4 Tbsp powdered Sweetener (0g-60g/0oz-4oz : 30g/2oz is a good amount)
1 Tbsp active dry yeast (8g/0.28oz)
1 cup slightly warm water (23C - 25C / 73.4F - 77F) (240ml/8.1oz)
2 eggs (lightly beaten)
1 tsp honey (7g/0.25oz)
2 Tbsp butter (30g/1.05oz)
Any help or suggestions would be amazing, thank you.
Please include the essential steps & ingredients of your recipe here, in text - it saves people having to go off-site to watch a 15-minute video of a method they could have read in 20 seconds. Also, if the video is ever taken down, there is no question left.
I've added the recipe; that said, I doubt traditional bakers will be much help here, as this is a highly specialized recipe in order to be low-carb.
Hi Tetsujin, yes sorry - my bad!
Your yeast is probably starving. You can keto but yeast needs sugar to live (and generate gas).
First off, "Keto King's" bread recipe is basically an (unchanged) ripoff of Diedra's Ultimate Keto Bread version 1.0. Since version 1.0, she developed a much improved Ultimate Keto Bread v2.0. I've made that recipe probably a hundred times and have also tried tweaking many of the ingredients in order to better understand their overall effect. I can offer the recipe I now use, including how the ingredients work together, and also troubleshooting tips if you're still having issues.
Ultimate Keto Bread 2.x
86 g finely ground golden flaxseed meal
94 g oat fiber
164 g vital wheat gluten
6.4 g Kosher salt (or any salt)
16 g instant dry yeast
1 Tbsp non-nutritive sweetener (more or less as desired)
8 g honey
1 cup (237 g) warm water (100º - 120º F)
2 eggs (room temp, lightly beaten)
2 Tbsp butter (room temp)
Directions:
Preheat oven to 375 F.
Mix all the dry ingredients (including the yeast) together thoroughly. You want these ingredients to be room temperature. Since flaxseed meal should be refrigerated (and I also refrigerate vital wheat gluten), you may need to warm them slightly. This helps them hydrate more quickly and evenly.
Warm the eggs to room temperature, break and beat them slightly.
Heat the water to 100º - 120º F and then add to the honey and stir to dissolve it completely.
Add the water/honey mixture to the eggs slowly, tempering to make sure the eggs don't scramble.
Add the wet ingredients to the dry and mix.
Begin kneading the dough and then add the butter. Continue kneading the dough in a stand mixer, by hand, or in a bread machine for 7 - 13 minutes.
Some notes on changes I made to this recipe compared to Keto King's recipe: I've omitted the xanthan gum, as it's basically a cheat in order to try to trap the gasses produced by fermentation. These gasses are normally trapped by the gluten network, provided it is strong enough and sufficiently developed. The problem with xanthan gum is that the network it creates competes with the vital wheat gluten for water, and can actually prevent the gluten network from developing sufficiently.
Another change I've made is to specify instant dry yeast instead of active dry yeast, and to include the yeast in the dry ingredients. Proofing the yeast separately is a hassle and isn't really necessary.
Okay, onto troubleshooting.
Failure to rise could be caused by a couple things. First, make sure your yeast is good if you're unsure. (Add some instant dry yeast to warm water and add sugar or honey; it should foam if the yeast is good).
If the yeast is good, then the main culprit is insufficient gluten development. Despite having a massive amount of vital wheat gluten (probably 50% of the total flour weight), sufficient gluten development is not easily guaranteed. To understand why, you need to understand how the flaxseed meal interacts with the VWG. When you add warm water to flaxseed meal, the soluble fiber creates a mucilage network that competes with the gluten network. Unlike with the xanthan gum, this milder competition is a good thing: it prevents the loaf from becoming one big rubbery mass from all the VWG. It takes me a good 10 - 13 minutes of kneading by hand to sufficiently intertwine these 2 different networks to create a matrix that's capable of trapping fermentation gasses.
If you were to use too much flaxseed meal and not enough VWG, it's possible that the gluten network wouldn't be strong enough to contain the gasses, and they'd simply escape out of the loaf and into the air.
Another issue with the flaxseed meal is that if it's too coarse a grind, the large seed shell fragments can slice through the gluten strands thereby weakening it and preventing sufficient development. Bob's Red Mill is a notoriously coarse grind. If you have a blender, or food processor, you can try grinding it a bit finer (freeze the flaxseed meal first before grinding, to counteract the heat generated during grinding -- too high of heat can accelerate the fats in flaxseed meal turning rancid). I also filter mine through a fine window screen to help weed out large fragments which I then regrind. If you must use a coarse grind, you might experiment with using a slightly lower amount (say, 10 g - 15 g less).
The other possible issue is the amount of variance possible if you're using volumetric measurements. That's why I've specified grams for most ingredients. While the amount of insoluble oat fiber can probably be varied quite a bit (say, 50 g - 110 g) without having much effect on the end result, the amounts and ratios of flaxseed meal to vital wheat gluten are quite important.
I've never used a bread machine, so I'm not sure how you might do something comparable to this: After placing the loaf in a prepared loaf pan, I'd spray the top with non-stick spray and cover with plastic wrap. When gluten development is insufficient and the overall rise is poor, when I peel back the plastic wrap, I can usually hear air bubbles escaping the top of the loaf.
With sufficient gluten development, you can get a good rise and good oven spring.
NSGod, Thank you for that I will give it a go. I know Diedra's Ultimate Keto Bread was the first, I just thought I'd mention KK as his was the most ''known''. I followed her video first and still came out half the size of hers.
Fantastic and informative reply though, I really appreciate the time! I'll follow your amendments and fingers crossed!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.925889
| 2020-09-27T18:25:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110872",
"authors": [
"NSGod",
"Rob Bishop Drums",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87821",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36966
|
When smoking, is temperature consistency more important than exact temperature?
I am smoking ribs in a charcoal smoker. The smoked rib recipe that I am following instructs smoking the ribs at 225°F. My smoker is maintaining a temperature of 215°F. I can add more lump charcoal to raise the temperature, but fear I will soar right past my target temperature.
I realize the ribs will cook slower at a lower temperature, but is maintaining 225°F paramount to cooking the ribs correctly? Am I risking food safety by maintaining a slightly lower temperature?
When you approach the low end of the low-and-slow cooking methods, a concern that is normally not an issue in faster cooking methods starts becoming important: how long will it take the food to get to safe temperature?
You want the food to be above 140 F (60 C) for the entirety of the cooking process, for safety, although having that happen instantly is not possible. Therefore, you want the temperature to get to that threshold as quickly as reasonably possible, especially for the surface of whole cuts of meats where the greatest risk of pathogens are.
Therefore, I would urge you to err on the side of caution and safety, and use the extra coal at the beginning of cooking until the food reaches at least 140 F.
Once it gets out of the danger zone, and into the safe zone, you have much more freedom. However, barbecue is far from exact. I would not worry about a 10 or even 15 F disparity. Your final outcome will likely be indistinguishable.
Still, once the food is safe, if you wish to allow the temperature to be somewhat lower, that is the time to do so.
When smoking ribs, you're fine as long as you stay in a broad temperature range. Basically, as long as you're not getting hot enough to caramelize sugars and brown the meat, you're fine. I'm happy anywhere in the 210 F - 250 F range. I've done ribs as high as 260 F with occasional spikes to 275 F, and they turn out fine. I've also done ribs as low as 200 F, but that adds significantly to the cook time and dries the ribs out a little.
I'd suggest adjusting airflow first. If you open your vents a little, you should be able to get an extra 10 F. If your vents are already fully open and you really want to raise the temp, you'll need to add more coal and should adjust the vents to 1/2 open (so you have some fine control after the new coals catch). That said, I'd rather smoke at a stable 215 F than spend the day playing with coals and vents.
As long as you cook it long enough so that internal temperatures reach safe levels than you are fine. Sous vide for instance commonly occurs at temperatures of 150 degrees for instance for beef.
Pork needs to be at least 145 degrees Fahrenheit to be considered safe.
On a side note 225 is perfect for ribs. A meat thermometer is tough to use on ribs because of the thin meat and the bones but figure that Baby Backs will cook in about 3-4 hours and St. Louis can take about 6. Pick them up with your tongs and they should bend easily under the weight and start cracking at the surface.
This is simply is not true: not only the final temperature matters, it also matters how fast the temperature gets above 140 F / 60 C. Sous-vide has a much faster transfer of heat due to the specific heat of water being so high compared to air.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.926387
| 2013-09-20T16:50:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36966",
"authors": [
"SAJ14SAJ",
"christian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86952"
],
"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
}
|
89051
|
Canning fresh meat in an oil bath?
I was recently given some home canned fresh pork, that was preserved by boiling at 100C for three hours. It is only a few weeks old and tastes delicious, but after reading up on canning processes, I believe the above process is not safe.
The canned pork, along with the new confrontation the US seems to be provoking with Russia and imminent apocalypse, inspired me to look into canning my own meat.
As far as I can tell, the aim is to get the cold spot internal temperature up to around 120C for a while to kill clostridium spores, and it is not effective to use dry heat, because heat exchange is too slow and the cans don't like it.
The typical method I found online involves a water bath in a large pressurized container, to get the boiling point up.
I don't have a large pressure canner and I would like to do a large quantity of cans. Can i simply use a bath of vegetable oil maintained at around 130C?
UPDATE
As the answer and comments below describe, a pressurized can in a hot oil bath could explode and cause an eruption of hot oil. However, that leads to another avenue of thinking. PET bottles are designed to withstand high internal pressure, and would probably not melt at 120c (I need to check) but PET has high oxygen permeability. There are plastic canning jars such as these https://www.mycosupply.com/cgi-bin/shopper.cgi?preadd=action&key=PLID02 . But there is no data on internal pressure abilities. Is there a common container designed to handle high internal pressure that can be heated to 120C with low gas permeability? (beer bottles come to mind)
It seems beverage cans, especially those designed for in can pasteurization, would work https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/SeemaMeraj.shtml but those cans require expensive equipment.
UPDATE 2
So after more research, there is a process called Flame Sterilization, done at atmospheric pressure, and requires a smaller, robust can. However, the process is problematic and little used in industry. The trick would be to source cans intended for flame sterilization and then the oil bath would work. Any clues where from?
Creative idea, and I'm curious to hear what people say, but I wonder, without the pressure, wouldn't the water contained in the meat start steaming out at 100 C, and retard the further heating of the meat up to the target temp of 120 C?
@Lorel C. Actually after I posted the question I realized that the can itself would become the pressurized container and the steam would rise to 120c under pressure, assuming the can remains sealed. The question then becomes whether or not the can can physically stay sealed, otherwise an explosion of steam in a bath of hot oil could be a safety issue.
@Lorel C. If the steam leaked, I imagine the meat would cook anyway to 120c but would be dry.
It will be very very dangerous if you rely on the can to maintain pressure due to the lack of over-pressure protection.
@user3528438 after a lot of digging it seems this is doable with the right type of can. I don't know how to identify a supplier though. I would need to find the specs for cans that used to be used in flame sterilization.
You are correct that simply boiling meat for three hours is not sufficient to make it shelf stable. Commercially produced, low-acid, canned foods must be processed to 240F just like home canned food. The process involves processing the cans in a steam pressure cooker similar to what is done at home at a smaller scale. 1
I have boiled sealed cans with but it is discouraged and I would not trust heating cans to 240F without matching the pressure outside the cans. Any can failure would be spectacular as the water instantly vaporizes and blows an easily-ignitable geyser of steam and oil into the air!
Pressure canners can be a bit expensive but can often be found used. You may need to replace rubber gaskets or safety valves but these are not expensive.
You may have more success canning using bottles as the bottles, lids, rings, and other equipment is easy to find for home buyers.
Another consideration is that canning recipes are written for specific pressures and cooking times to preserve food quality and give a very strong confidence of food safety. Even if you are confident your cans will hold, you would have to carefully control the temperature of your oil. Home sous vide controllers aren't designed for such high temperatures which means you would have to purchase a more expensive temperature controller or build your own.
Thanks for the useful information, but I will not mark as accepted yet, I updated my question as this raises some new ideas and questions. For the temperature controller, a thermometer and patience.
That would work but It is more patience than I have to watch a thermometer intently for 90 minutes.
I think it would actually be pretty easy to connect a thermostat to a relay and submerge the thermostat in the oil, and probably quite cheap. The thing is finding those cans, the ones for Flame Sterilization, otherwise (as you rightly point out) the cans can cause a hot oil geyser if they leak or burst.
I agree that making your own temp controller isn't difficult. You've demonstrated above average aptitude for it just by knowing the word "relay". I am interested as well when you find out about the flame sterilization cans.
Maybe a raspberry pie would do it ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.926674
| 2018-04-11T21:04:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89051",
"authors": [
"Lorel C.",
"Sentinel",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61041",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15686
|
Almond Flour pancakes
I have this really tasty recipe for pancakes that use almond flour and whey protein (along with Ricotta cheese and lemon). However, the problem is, these pancakes don't "flip". Does anyone have any advice on what could be done to improve this tasty breakfast treat? Oh, and I have also tried to make it in a waffle maker, and that doesn't work right either. We lovingly call this recipe "Scrambled Pancakes". :)
Here is the list of ingredients:
3 large eggs
1 1/2 cups ricotta cheese
1/2 cups sour cream
4 packets Splenda, stevia, or erythritol
Juice and zest of 1 large lemon
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 cup almond flour
1/4 cup natural or vanilla whey protein powder
Pinch of salt
Just how fragile are the pancakes after you have fried them on one side? Do they fall apart if you just touch them, or do they have some integrity? I was thinking that if they can withstand some amount of touching you could perhaps just fold them to a half moon with a large spatula rather than flipping them over. That way the uncooked top side would still cook a little, with the heat being transferred from the cooked side. Finally you could just slide them out onto a plate. Not quite the same as normal pancakes, but maybe it is better than scrambled pancakes.
@Henrik, They don't just fall totally apart, you can actually kind of flip them, but I end up losing a lot of the filling and it makes a mess so we just end up scrambling them so that every part gets cooked. I like your idea.
You say you end up losing the filling. What sort of filling is this, and are you frying the pancakes with the filling? Please explain further.
Sorry, when I said "filling" it was more like the batter. I just misspoke.
Vaguely related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7898/can-i-use-nut-meal-or-nut-butter-as-a-curry-base
Xanthan gum did the trick the next time I tried it.
It is no wonder you can't keep them whole. There isn't anything in the recipe to give them integrity.
A normal pancake has lots of egg and lots of flour. When you are frying them, the proteins of the egg uncurl and connect to their neighbours to set in a loose, weak mesh. You know how the egg white sets when you fry an egg without whisking it? That happens in a pancake batter too, but much weaker, because there is a load of other stuff swimming around, so the protein molecules have less neighbours to build their connections to.
Then there is the flour. As usual, when you heat a batter, the gluten proteins in flour do the same thing as the egg white proteins, building their own mesh which permeates the whole pancake. While there is less gluten building than in a well-kneaded dough, it is enough to make the pancake hold together.
In your recipe, this just doesn't happen. You have no gluten content at all. So the stronger holding-together-part falls away. Unlike wheat flour, almond flour has no gluten. So it isn't contributing to holding the pancake together.
So what about the whole other protein you have in there? Well, the point is, it is already set. Ricotta, whey protein are both cooked proteins. They can't uncurl and connect a second time. So instead of helping the binding, they are inhibiting it. Every egg protein molecule which could have connected to a neighbouring egg protein molecule in a more fluid batter now keeps bumping into almond, ricotta and whey particles, to which it can't bind at all. So what you have here is a mixture of wetted powders without a binding agent. No wonder it can't hold together.
The best way I can see here is adding wheat flour back. You don't have to sacrifice all of your almond flour. Make a partial substitution, and also substitute part of the whey protein. This will keep the proper viscosity of the batter, while preserving the almond flour taste.
The way the recipe is constructed, however, it looks like somebody decided to exterminate all the carbs in it just because. If you are determined to keep your pancakes zero carbs, you can try throwing out all the whey powder and adding egg white instead. I can't guarantee this will be enough to do the binding, but if you insist on "real pancakes", this is worth a try.
I don't think there are any other traditional techniques you can use to improve your "batter" bonding. Of course, nowadays you can experiment with additives. Transglutaminase looks like your best bet. You'll probably need lots of tries until you get the recipe right, but it should bind the cooked ricotta proteins well enough. You don't want a superstrong binding for this application.
Thanks for the comment, but I am on a Paleo & Gluten free diet, so we can't have the extra flour or gluten. I am needing to keep the recipe as close to it as possible without having to add flour into the recipe since there is a chance that I could become gluten intolerant. I have thickening agents such as Xanthan gum, but wouldn't exactly know how much to use. The recipe came from a good Paleo cookbook that has given us tons of other amazing meals, I just can't get this one.
If you can't have gluten, use my second or third proposal. I don't see how a thickener can help you. Your problem isn't viscosity - if anything, your mixture is already way too thick. You could try gelling the daylights out of it with a gum, but 1) gums are thermosensitive - you'll have to bake one side, put it away to cool down & set (still in the pan, a removal attempt at this point will scramble it), then flip and bake the other side. 2) if you use enough gum to achieve that, it will taste of rubber. For flipping you need stickiness, not viscosity, and you have none here except eggwhite.
The mixture is actually not as thick as you are thinking it is. It isn't as thin as scrambled eggs, but not thick like regular pancake mixture, which is why I thought of the xanthan gum. In my mind the recipe has to work somehow without totally altering it or else it wouldn't have made it into the book, or they would have called them scrambled pancakes not Lemon Ricotta Pancakes.
If you try gum, please write how it turned out, I am very curious. I would try it myself, but I don't use whey powder. And don't trust the recipe just because it got published in a book. Maybe it doesn't work despite the publication (and there are strong signs that it doesn't).
First off, I bake extensively with whey protein powders (and almond flour, see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101122/baking-with-whey-protein/101137#101137), and AFAIK, whey protein powders are not already "cooked". Provided the overall pH isn't too acidic, when hydrated, they can and do form fairly strong gels just like egg proteins do.
Second, I've also developed a pancake recipe using almond flour & whey protein (see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77656/can-i-substitute-gluten-for-eggs-in-coconut-flour-pancake-recipes?noredirect=1&lq=1) (While the one shown there uses coconut flour, almond flour is similar; see my post on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ketorecipes/comments/bujew4/buttermilk_pancakes_12/epd1fkq/). The problem w/ the OP's recipe is that almond flour can't deal with the high amount of liquid called for. The key, as the OP found, is to use a thickener like psyllium husk powder or xanthan gum.
I think the issue is that there isn't enough almond flour in your recipe, the ricotta and sour cream are making your batter thick, but when cooked it isn't going to bind properly. Doing a quick search of other recipes with results posted, most of them use more flour and more liquidy ingredients.
Try tapioca flour/oat flour to maintain your paleo and GF diet.
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
@canardgras it actually provides an answer to the question since it solves the problem of the recipe which is lack of gluteinization caused by not having actual gluten from wheat flour by replacing it with a gluten-free alternative that might be allowed in Paleo (depending on diet specifics that OP doesn't elaborate). I agree that it could be far more complete and helpful, providing the rationale behind the solution, and that should be the improvement comment.
One thing that might help is using a lid while cooking the pancakes. This will trap the steam and let the upper half of the pancake cook, and set, a bit more before stress-testing its integrity - so it may have enough strength to survive a flip. Especially since from the comments it sounds like part of the problem is the batter being thin and running off the top when trying to flip the pancake - having it even partially set would likely help with that.
I've done this with omelets and with dhosas (rice crepes), to get the top to cook when it otherwise doesn't have the strength to be flipped - it may not solve the problem perfectly, but it may help.
Or else you could try making smaller pancakes. It might work to make very thin ones (like dhosas) that only need to be browned on one side and can be folded over (and flipped from there) to let the middle cook. It won't be exactly the same, more crepe-like and less fluffy, but it may be very good nevertheless.
Another option might be small sized ones, like silver dollar pancakes. A smaller volume of batter should cook (and set) a bit more evenly, so there's less of the top still being raw by the time the bottom's done. It also helps because the flipper will support a larger portion of the pancake's area from the bottom, meaning it has to hold up less weight with its own strength. The closer to the flipper the pancake breaks when trying to flip normally, the smaller a pancake will need to be to flip successfully. If the pancakes have enough integrity to scramble, they should hold up to flipping at very small pancake sizes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.927198
| 2011-06-21T23:48:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15686",
"authors": [
"AtlasRN",
"Beta Decay",
"FUnderwood",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"NSGod",
"Paul",
"Vedra",
"arcerent",
"canardgras",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6499",
"mhansen",
"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
}
|
11648
|
How can I store muscovado for longer once opened?
Possible Duplicate:
How to store brown sugar without it becoming hard?
Muscovado always comes in packs much larger than needed for most recipes, and even though I keep it in as airtight container as possible, I find it goes very, very hard. How can I prolong its shelf life?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.927957
| 2011-01-30T12:09:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11648",
"authors": [
"Gufty",
"Leanne",
"PorkChopPenfold",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23926",
"hypumji",
"user12gk21hkj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76375
|
Do Dumplings Mind Being in the Fridge?
I made dumplings from white flour and Atora vegetable suet. The suet is in hard pellets so I'm not worried about having overworked the mixture. I made them at the same time as the stew to save on wash-up. Then I stored them in the fridge for 4 hours before putting them in the pot for 20ish minutes. The pot was in the oven at 140C. They quickly puffed up and filled the top layer of the pot. But when cut open they had a different texture inside and (presumably) the taste of raw suet and flour. Is it likely the fridge or sitting time can explain the failure?
Edit: I still have some spares in the fridge and the pellets of suet are still visible in them. So I definitely did not overwork the dough.
It could simply be that they were too cold when they went in the pot. Perhaps try leaving them out for an hour or two to take the chill off before cooking the next batch?
It's not putting them in the fridge that is the problem, it is the fact they were cold when you put them in the stew. The effects of this would be:
Longer cooking time: the 20 minute time assumes that the dumplings are at room temperature, if they are cold they will take longer to cook as their internal temperature is lower. 20 minutes is a guideline anyway, you should test their doneness after 20 minutes even when starting from room temperature
Closer texture: cold dough into hot liquid is going to result in a closer texture because the outside is going to cook long before the inside gets warm enough to expand
The way to fix this is to take the dumplings out of the fridge and let them come up to room temperature before cooking, probably 30 minutes or so should do.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.928023
| 2016-12-12T09:50:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76375",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82131
|
Why is there no pork on the Indian take-away menu?
The standard Indian takeout menu does not represent the kind of food eaten in India. India is a large country and "Real Indian food" is little more meaningful than "Real European food". Dishes commonly eaten in the North might be foreign to people living in the South and vice-versa. Takeout favourites (tikka masala, madras, rogan josh) don't exist in India in that form. Those dishes are European inventions inspired by Indian dishes.
When I open an Indian take-away menu I see chicken, beef, lamb, seafood and vegetarian dishes. But there is no pork. India is a predominately vegetarian country. When the modern take-out menu was invented, common European meats were added to the menu. Except for pork. How come?
The Chinese takeaway is a similar story. You will find chicken, beef, pork, seafood and vegetarian dishes that don't resemble anything eaten in China. Now we have pork but no lamb. I suspect that is because lamb is expensive in Europe. But it goes to show pork dishes sell. So why not pork Indian dishes?
Edit: Comments mention that Goan cuisine features pork from Portuegese influence. This is interesting because some dishes, for example Vindaloo, are an Indian take on a European dish, rather than for example Tikka Masala which is a European take on an Indian dish. However the question is only about the extent to which pork is eaten in India, insofar as it influences why pork never made its way onto Indian takeout menus in Europe.
... I would hazard that most Indian restaurants don't serve beef... The ones I generally go to do not.
I wouldn't be surprised if an Indian restaurant with chairs doesn't serve beef. But where I live beef is an option for places that exclusively do take-out.
Maybe "where I live" might be helpful information? I don't think I've seen a takeout-only restaurant other than pizza in the US, though I understand that takeout-only restaurants are more common in some areas - the UK and (I'm guessing) very populated places like New York City.
I am from Ireland. I'm sure our takeout system is identical to the UK
My conjecture says Rogan Josh is real (albeit more persian inspired and often not tomato/onion based), and that putting pieces of Chicken Tikka (AFAIK an authentic dish) in a masala (the sauce) would be perfectly valid indian food, even if it was first done in Britain. Anything to support yours (I'll readily accept you being Indian)?
And BTW, what about goan food?
If you have something to say about Goan food, by all means, present it as an answer :-)
Goa is an interesting exception. They were a Portuguese colony and adopted pork into their cuisine.
Mostly, though, they just don't have a pork-eating culture, just as Americans don't have an opossum-eating culture. It's not religious; they just never got into it and end up conceiving it as "dirty" and "weird". But I can't explain why they added beef to American Indian foods, but not pork. There is some beef eaten in India; they're not all Hindu. Conceivably the presence of Muslims has something to do with it (they have strong prohibitions on pork).
That is an oversimplification -- pigs are much easier to farm than opossums.
This answer on quora seems quite reasonable to me, but I don't know for sure.
Almost all indian food is portuguese influenced - who do you think brought the use of chile peppers and capsicums along? :)
To add years later… Sri Lankan & Keralan areas & consequently restaurants/take-aways in the UK have beef on the menu.
In the UK you see lamb and chicken on "Indian" restaurant menus, but not beef or pork. I suspect that in the colonial era when the English wanted meat there were goats (near enough the same as sheep) and chickens because both are kept for food but not meat. So are cattle but they're special. There simply wouldn't have been a supply of pigs or the habit of rearing them - and English breeds brought by the colonists wouldn't do too well in the climate of much of India. Maintaining a supply of pork would have been hard. The English in India also used to exploit and increase religious divisions - at times and in places they relied on Muslims. Rumours of pig (and cow) fat being used as grease on rifle cartridges (which had to be bitten) were a factor in the rebellion of 1857, indicating the depth of feeling about forbidden food.
While many Indians are vegetarian, there are plenty who aren't, and that means there are plenty of dishes using the meats that are available.
Many if not most "Indian" restaurants in the UK are run by people of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage, who tend to be Muslims. This further explains the absence of pork as it's forbidden for Muslims (including just handling it I believe).
Goa is an exception in several ways. It was a Portuguese colony not a British one. Iberian pig breeds should tolerate the Indian climate better than British breeds. More importantly, Goa doesn't have a large Muslim population (8%, compare with the UK at 4%). Goa was ruled by the Portuguese before and during the Mughal empire, which had a huge influence on Islam in the rest of India.
I was only planning to comment until I started checking facts (and those only via Wikipedia). Many of the issues mentioned are worthy of further reading, but I'll leave that up to the reader.
In real terms, your second last paragraph is the answer to this question.
@Niall quite possibly, but the OP is in Ireland and I don't know the situation there. Also, I was never offered pork when I visited India.
Why is there no pork? Pork is sold in India. Who said there was no pork dishes in India? That’s not the reason behind that. The reason is because the majority of Indian restaurant owners are Muslims or South Indian.
You might like to expand on the "South Indian" part -- why do South Indian people reject pork? I think it's well-understood that Halal rules prohibit it for Muslims.
No one suggested there is no pork in India. The question is why is pork absent from European Indian takeout menus.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.928228
| 2017-06-01T18:15:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82131",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Daron",
"Joshua Engel",
"Niall",
"Tetsujin",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52367",
"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
}
|
76398
|
Making caramel on glass top stoves
Why can't I make caramel or toffee on my glass topped stove? I have tried different pans, different thermometers, stirring, not stirring, different recipes, different temperatures. It turns out scorched, rock hard, or, in the case of toffee, it separates. I used to make good caramel on my old electric stove.
What's the actual heating process? You can get glass topped induction, halogen, resistive etc. I suspect it's resistive and responds more slowly than your previous cooker. Was that the coiled glowing sort?
I have one halogen burner, the rest are resistive. I've tried it on both.
How are you trying to make the caramel? Using only sugar, put it in the pan over a high heat and stir continuously. It will start to crystallize, and even form crystals up the side of the pan, but be patient, it will caramelize. There really shouldn't be an issue, I use a glass topped stove, normally with a heavy based stainless pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.928740
| 2016-12-12T18:16:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76398",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Deb Hobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52768"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75098
|
How to make Ghost Pepper Queso
I have an event coming up and the person who usually brings the popular 'Ghost Pepper Cheese Dip' can't make it.
I've order some 'Smoked and Dried Bhut Jolokia Ghost Chili Pepper Pods' but I have not idea how to deal with them.
I figure I need to soak them, then mince them and integrate them into a queso.
But that seems to too simple...insanely hot peppers, meat and cheese.
I'm thinking Velvetta, 80/20 hamburger, rotel, cumin...and maybe sour cream (to kill some of the fire)...
I'm make shots in the dark.
Any advice would be welcomed.
Can you describe their version in any detail so folks could try to help you replicate it? Without that, people are stuck kind of guessing, and you'd probably be better off just googling for recipes (or asking them for their recipe).
I'm not really interested in duplicating his offering, but just trying to make a good dish. Stupid hot dish but yummy
Honestly it looked like a normal dip... You took a bite, said yum, and then the heat hit you.
Hello lunknown, I am afraid that, if you don't specify what problem you are trying to solve, your question will be closed as a recipe request, or as too broad. I can't find any question in your description, you are simply listing what you are planning to do. What information are you after?
Or perhaps your friend bought a jar of Mrs. Renfro's Ghost Pepper Scary Hot Nacho Cheese Sauce which contains a Velveeta-like cheese product, tomato, onion, and lots of peppers (green chile, sweet red, sweet green, jalapeno, ghost).
I changed the question title to be more of a question.
You still haven't explained how it is different from a recipe request. Have you read our scope? http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic. Recipe requests are off topic. "Does ingredient X pair well with ingredient Y" is also off topic. So what exactly do you want to know, and how is it different from these two?
@Iunknown : the problem is that it's like asking for a meatloaf recipe -- in any community cookbook, there are generally 3-5 of them ... so the number of possible variations in too large to give a useful answer. In your case, the easiest thing to do is ask the person who usually brings it. If you try making it, and it doesn't come like what you wanted, then tell us what you did (ingredients & procedures), and how it differed from what you wanted to make.
I like queso, but have never made one. Now I have a chance. I figured I'd start with a something like this http://www.browneyedbaker.com/crock-pot-queso-dip-recipe/....but I'm sure that replacing jalapeños with ghost peppers would be dumb.
Have you tried asking them what their recipe is?
The basic question is how to work with your dried bhut jolokia chili peppers.
First and foremost, don gloves (and, afterwards, remove them so that they're inside out).
To rehydrate the pods, put them in a bowl and pour boiling water over them, enough to cover them. Cover the bowl with plastic wrap and let it sit until the chilies are softened, at least 10-15 minutes. As though you needed them to be more intense (really), you could toast the dry pods (both sides) in a hot, dry skillet, before rehydrating.
As for the dip, follow any recipe for queso, such as your Velveeta approach, with sauteed meat, onions, and tomatoes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.928853
| 2016-10-29T04:39:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75098",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Cascabel",
"Giorgio",
"Iunknown",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75310
|
How to avoid vegetables sticking on heat-resistant glass dish?
Sometimes I cook vegetables + fruits in a heat-resistant glass dish (yena/jena/pyrex, -40-300 Celsius degrees). I cut them into small pieces (carrots, potatoes, parsnip, mushrooms, onion, quince, apples, tomatoes, pepper, cauliflower, broccoli), I add some spices (salt, pepper, paprika) and some butter, and I put the dish (with the lid) into the gas oven for about 2 hours.
Everything is good, excepting the fact that some of the vegetables/fruits stick to the dish walls (not on the bottom side) and get burnt. Greasing the dish walls with butter didn't solve the problem.
Does anyone have a solution?
Butter itself could burn, have you tried a more heat resistant grease (eg peanut or refined coconut oil)?
What temperature is the oven set to during cooking?
I didn't try another grease, but I'll try next time.
I don't know the temperature. It's a cheap gas oven and I don't have a thermometer.
Butter has a fairly low smoke point, and may be burning in the oven. You could try using one of the "yellow oils" like canola (rapeseed), peanut, soybean or corn oil.
Aside from that, it's not completely unexpected for cooking vegetables to stick to the edge of a dish. It may just be normal behaviour. My apple pies will always stick slightly to the edges of the pie dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.929139
| 2016-11-06T22:41:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75310",
"authors": [
"ROMANIA_engineer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51759",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75498
|
How to prevent the crockpot burning my soups
I love making soups in my crockpot. SO, I make it, starting with the crock on High. After about an hour, I drop it to low (middle setting), and let it cook. (I always cook my meats outside the crock, usually in a wok or skillet, to make sure it is cooked thoroughly.)
Once I am confident that it is fully cooked, I turn the soup down to Keep Warm (the lowest setting), and we enjoy a hearty bowl of soup, and have soup ready for tomorrow. I believe it keeps the temp above 100(edit: actually 165F), and probably more like 120F. Well, after two days, it becomes a burnt broth. The top layer of solids forms a crust on top of the broth, and everything under this crust is still good. Is there anything I can do to preserve it, because we don't eat enough to use it up in two days?
Edit: 2016/11/21 Found out the "Keep Warm" setting holds the temp to 165F. Also, the other two settings, "Low" and "High" actually bring the temp of the crockpot to the same temp, but the "Low" just slows the time it takes to reach the "High" setting temp.
BTW, I made a chili I call "9 Furz" in the crockpot yesterday. It won third place in a contest, because the judges thought my pork loin was white meat chicken. (The judges are firm believers that chicken in chili is blasphemous.) But, the non-judges loved it, because it was the first crock to empty out. (Next year, I will write on the card that it is "PORK NOT CHICKEN!"
Why are you keeping it hot the entire time? Are you adding water? Have you actually checked the temperature it's keeping it at? 120 F is not safe for long term storage. See info on keeping food hot for long periods of times here.
I keep it going so we eat healthy. We're lazy, so if we need to reheat, we'll just grab a donut, or other less healthy but easier tto prepare stuff.
I don't add water, much because it waters down the soup. I don't know if it is 120, but it is more than 100. We've eaten soup that was in the pot for a week...No one got sick, but we got sick of eating burnt soup.
Well, when the soup is kept hot, it steams... which means it loses water... so if you don't replenish that water, it's going to dry out and then burn... Am I not understanding how it's burning? Could you explain further?
Sensii, 100F puts your soup right in the most dangerous range of the "danger zone". In other words, this is an incubator for pathogens - or a recipe for disaster. In that temperature range, only one hour is deemed safe. Yes, this does not mean you will get sick, but if nobody has so far, it's sheer luck, not because your approach is a safe practice. While I see your point re. comfort and such, I urge you to change your practice and refrigerate the soup & reheat individual servings. If you can use a microwave, reheating takes only a minute or two, a small price vs. food borne illnesses.
I suspect if it's actually burning (where it touches the bottom or sides) it's hotter than you think. I've found that things are much more prone to overcooking now our slow cooker has a non stick steel inner than in the previous one which was crockery as they always used to be. If you're going to take this approach, use a thermometer but don't forget you let a lot of heat or by opening it. Adding boiling water just after one meal will give it time to incorporate before the next.
Well, I do add water if it looks like the broth has steamed away. What happens is the broth, whether thick or thin turned dark and gets a burnt taste. The ingredients still look and taste normal.
If you want to eat healthy, but grabbing a donut is easier than microwaving a container of soup for 2 minutes, then I suggest you don't keep donuts in the house...
A crockpot's keep warm setting is not designed to keep food safe and fresh for days, it's really only good for an hour or two at most. What's happening in your case is that the water is evaporating from your food and then drying out inside the pot. Adding water periodically is not an answer as the temperature of the food is not high enough to prevent foodborne illnesses, you don't want to keep it on warm for long periods of time even if you can keep it from burning.
If you want to save your soup for later put it in containers and store it in the refrigerator or freezer, re-heating when you want to eat it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.929268
| 2016-11-15T00:31:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75498",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"John Feltz",
"Sensii Miller",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51936"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119844
|
Georgian dessert based on walnuts
When I was a kid, some 40 years ago, I visited the country of Georgia and had a dessert I still (vaguely) remember but could never find a note on.
It was based on a whole unripe walnut (I think it was a walnut - it could have been a large nut) that was in some kind of syrup (or at last fluid). I do not remember the taste but the texture was crunchy.
Does that ring a bell?
I searched for Georgian desserts and the only ones notable I could find related to walnuts are Churchkhela and Gozinaki but both are made of ripe walnuts (the semi round, brain-like inside) and not unripe whole ones.
It was most likely a simple preserve.
Unripe walnuts are commonly eaten in Eastern Europe, and preserve is one of the widespread preparations. (Maybe even the only widespread one besides liqueur - they are mostly eaten raw). I don't know about Georgia, but this certainly exists in other countries. It is a somewhat exotic preserve, compared to more common ones like strawberries, but something ordinary people know of (at least people of a jam-making generation).
For the preserve, the walnuts are cooked in sugar syrup and then sterilized, similar to other fruit like figs. Since the whole walnuts are used, the texture is indeed crunchy - the protoshell is left within the nut during the preparation, and while it isn't toothbreaking-hard yet, it does give a crunchy bite.
The way you describe it, it seems that it was served pure, to be eaten with a spoon. This is also typical for Eastern Europe and other cuisines with Ottoman influences. It is not the only way to eat jam and preserves, but it may be surprising for people from cultures where less sweet desserts are preferred.
For some background, you can read the Wikipedia page for this type of whole-fruit preserve (it is not specialized about the walnut preserve). Apparently, when cooked in the Caucasian region, the local word is "murabba".
Thank you very much for the reply. By using the information you provided, I ended up with https://georgianrecipes.net/2013/09/10/kaklis-muraba-pickled-walnuts/ which I think is exactly what I was looking for!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.929736
| 2022-02-14T11:29:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119844",
"authors": [
"WoJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70527
|
New cast iron has gotten strange color
I just got my first iron cast. I went to remove the wax and I am now in the middle of seasoning it.
So far it has gotten oil and 200°C at 1 hour, two times, and now it has a color I find strange. It looks sticky, but it ain't.
Is this normal?
And - how come are there some spots which is so clean? (see red rings)
Let me guess -- it's the same spacing as the grate that you had it sitting on when you first seasoned it? If that's the case, it just didn't get hot enough to fully polymerize the oil in that area, so you'll need to give it a few more rounds of seasoning.
@Joe you should move your comment to an answer. That's definitely what happened.
There is a very good chance that the spacing of the markings is the same as the grate on your oven. (at least the ones on the right side).
The left one I'm not too sure about -- it might've been something like an oven thermometer, or just where you touched it as you were loading it into the oven.
When this happens your best option I've found is to repeat the seasoning, but with the pan right-side up this time. You'll want to make sure that you've wiped up as much oil as you can from the working area of the pan ... otherwise you'll get a thicker coating that's more likely to scrape off with use.
Also, if you re-season it upside down you can just make sure the discolored spots are not touching the grate. That would avoid the problem of too much oil causing a thicker coating.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.929921
| 2016-06-07T19:44:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70527",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"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
}
|
28619
|
How long can I store cooked rice in the refrigerator?
Possible Duplicate:
How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
I've heard people claim that you could keep cooked rice as long as 10 days or as short as 48hours.
I'm interested in knowing both when the rice starts loosing it's good taste, and when it starts being dangerous to eat it.
Also, does it change according to the rice type?
well, the only thing said there about rice is that you can keep it 6 month on the shelf, but nothing about cooked rice unfortunately :(
There are also links to other sites, like http://stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/18723
Related questions / comments on other answers : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/20937/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/10970/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/1411/67 ;
rice loses the tasty as soon as it cools down enough to no longer have gelatinized starch around the granules, and all temp controlled foods should be discarded after ten days (according to servsafe). I personally throw it out after it starts to grow mold, but I do not hold that model up for other people.
@Brann the question Mien linked says 3-4 days for all cooked dishes. I would agree that it holds for rice too. Food holds longer only if it lacks a factor bacteria need to live. Practically all cooking recipes result in food people find tasty to eat as-is (as opposed to conserving recipes which might end in something too salty or sour for most tastes), and virtually anything humans find tasty as-is is good enough for bacteria.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.930079
| 2012-11-23T20:53:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28619",
"authors": [
"Brann",
"Gerard Walker",
"Hamza Saleem Ahmed",
"Joe",
"Lev",
"Mien",
"Yuning",
"beverly buho",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37352
|
Is this "true" cinnamon?
I just made pho. It turned out great but for one thing, I found the cinnamon flavor to be just a tad overwhelming. No worries, I just added more of everything else to bring balance to the broth. It made me wonder though. I picked up all of the spices at a halal grocery, including cinnamon sticks. The ingredient list on the package just says "cinnamon", the product was imported from India. The sticks are bigger and fatter than I am used to, and the flavor did seem extra strong. Is this a picture of "cinnamomum verum" (ceylon), as opposed to the more familiar (to me) "cassia"?
It is really hard to say anything definite just from the photo, but I would say it's not C. verum. First, cassia (C. cassia) usually has a stronger and more robust flavor than Ceylon cinnamon, rather than the other way around. From the thickness of the bark I would also say that this is cassia or some other species of cinnamon (there are a couple that are used as spices) ... all Cinnamomum verum I have seen sold had a very brittle and flaky texture (including only the thin inner bark of the tree) ... like this one (photo from this seriouseats.com article):
... or like the left one in this image from wikipedia:
Ceylon cinnamon (Cinnamomum verum) on the left, and Indonesian cinnamon (Cinnamomum burmannii) quills
However, there are also different varieties of Cinnamomum verum that vary significantly in flavor and sometimes also the outer layers of the bark are collected, so it is really hard to say ... but the one that is (at least in Europe) sold as Ceylon cinnamon will only include the thin crumbly inner layers of the bark and have a different (like red hot candies) and slightly more delicate flavor than cassia - and it would be more expensive as well.
But also, with cassia as with any kind of cinnamon - the strength and flavor of the spice might vary greatly depending on the region of origin, variety of the cultivated tree, freshness of the spice and other factors.
Some more info about cassia that might be useful:
Cassia is widely cultivated in South and East Asia (including India, where the "cinnamon" you bought came from). And about the accessibility in the United States (according to wikipedia):
In the United States of America, Chinese cassia is often sold under the culinary name of cinnamon.
...
"Indonesian cinnamon" (C. burmannii) is also commonly sold in the United States, where it is labeled only as cinnamon.
I also found this article (at vanillareview.com) with some descriptions and explanations of the most commonly found "cinnamon" species/varieties:
L to R: Ceylon, Indonesian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Madagascar cinnamon.
Well, both the pictures you supply and the description of the difference in flavor between the two most well known varieties of cinnamon lead me to believe that my recently acquired cinnamon is not ceylon. Since it doesn't quite look like cassia either and if anything is stronger than cassia, now I wonder if it isn't one of the other varieties. Thanks!
I added a paragraph to my answer - adding that you can get a considerable variety of flavor and strength just in cassia alone, depending on an array of factors - which may also be behind the unusual taste of your spice. And just a thought - for Pho you might also consider trying Vietnamese cinnamon (not that you need more cinnamon at the moment, considering the size of the bag in your photos) =D
Would you believe that that big bag was only $5? Strangely, of those in the picture, it most closely resembles Vietnamese.
Often the strength in flavor can be attributed to it just being really fresh as well.
The taste of cassia and true cinnamon are quite distinctive. True cinnamon tastes like everything good in the child-hood candy redhots.... In fact, to American's it doesn't taste like what we think of cinnamon very much at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.930250
| 2013-10-05T21:53:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37352",
"authors": [
"ADHD",
"Charlotte Polinski",
"Jolenealaska",
"Martin Turjak",
"Nat",
"RegnadKcin",
"Rob Bishop Drums",
"Robert Weldon",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sandra Schaffer",
"Spammer",
"Thijs",
"WTDC",
"gwillie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87951",
"lyza fashion",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75610
|
If cookies are made with enough sugar, will they just be chewy caramel?
If one increases the ratio of sugar to flour in the dough of, say, chocolate chip cookies, at what point (if any) will it no longer make chocolate chip cookies and instead be chocolate chips embedded in chewy caramel?
In other words: At what point (if any) is dough no longer cookie precursor, but caramel precursor?
Did you just describe fudge?
Are you more interested in trying to achieve that result (whatever the method) or in the particular method you've suggested? Caramel is made by heating sugar to a fairly precise temperature then adding things depending on the type of caramel, which is pretty different from cookies; we can talk about what your process would do, or how to achieve the result you want, but probably not both at once.
@Jefromi I'm more interested in the former.
Cleaning comments. Thanks for clarifying the question.
It'd also help if you clarified whether by "caramel" you mean caramel hard candy (basically just solid caramelized sugar) or chewy caramel. People from different places tend to think of different things.
@JohnFeltz No. Fudge doesn't contain flour or eggs.
@JohnFeltz No; fudge involves heating sugar to the Soft Ball phase, whereas caramel requires a much more intense heating, up to the Brown Liquid phase.
There are no similarities between the process of making caramel and making cookies.
Pure caramel has one ingredient, sugar. This sugar is cooked on the stove and brought to a high temperature until it changes color.
The process of caramelization consists of heating sugar slowly to around 340 °F (170 °C). As the sugar heats, the molecules break down and re-form into compounds with a characteristic color and flavor.
There are two products you may be talking about instead that are called caramel - caramel sauce and caramels, or milk caramels, a wrapped candy product.
Both of these are made in a similar fashion - heat sugar and other ingredients on the stove to a specific temperature point. These added ingredients include corn syrup, cream/half & half/milk, and butter.
While these ingredients share similarities to some degree with cookies, cookies rarely ever include liquids like milk as you need to keep the dough thick so that it doesn't spread, and will always include some sort of flour and (usually) eggs, which are not a standard ingredients in caramel recipes (and probably never ingredients).
The process for cooking is similar to pure caramel, they are cooked in a saucepan on the stove until they reach a specific temperature, something around 250F. At this temperature, the chocolate chips would be completely melted.
You can certainly make chocolate caramels, if that is what you wish, but you could not convert a recipe for chocolate chip cookies to a caramel recipe.
Adding more sugar to the cookies would make them spread quite a bit more (remember that sugar is considered a liquid in baking cookies) and eventually you'd get something like a lace cookie, which is probably the closest you'd ever get to caramel in a cookie recipe. Lace cookies contain flour but significantly less flour than sugar.
As an example, this recipe for Oatmeal Lace Cookies has only 3 tbsp of flour (and 2-1/4 c oats) but has a whopping 2-1/4 cup of sugar along with two sticks of butter. The method is also similar to caramel, in that it's a boiled batter that is heated in a pot on the stove and then baked.
This is probably the closest crossover you're going to get between the two. And, as a bonus, if you want chocolate, lace cookies are often dipped in or drizzled with chocolate.
Honey-Almond Lace Cookies from Food Network:
Ah, beat me to it. Nice answer!
Yes and no.
There isn't a point at which they will ever be pure caramel - the flour would alter the texture enough to prevent it from being "pure", not to mention the chocolate would burn before that point.
It is possible to have enough sugar in the cookies that it can become caramelized, but this would happen with very flat cookies, in a thin batter, being cooked at high temperatures - you can see this with brandy snaps, or Florentines, or whatever else this style of cookie may be called.
Cookies made this way have a pitted, crunchy texture, and are extremely brittle. They are thin because the sugar has to melt and run before it gets to the heat where it caramelizes and sets - a cookie intended to be thicker might only caramelize on the bottom, or run all over the place when the sugar melts, or somehow otherwise not cook properly. The temperature won't get high enough to caramelize the sugar without drying all the water out of the cookie. The pitted texture is from the bubbling that takes place, because the caramel will set hard and preserve this texture.
And, again, any chocolate chips will melt, and burn, long before the sugar caramelizes. Your cookies might withstand a local caramelization, browning on the top or bottom - but often the chocolate chips on the surface of well browned cookies are hard and dry, so I don't think this kind of cookie will do better. You might sprinkle a few choc chips on a Florentine as it comes out of the oven, and let them melt with the residual heat. Or you might make some other filling (usually Florentine are paired a creamy filling, look at brandy snaps, so perhaps a cookie-dough-dip filling would work well)
This is an excellent answer, especially the physical/visual explanation of what would happen (2nd-to-last paragraph). I would accept this as an answer but alas, Catija posted an also-excellent answer right before.
@Asker - Her answer is indeed lovely, and deserves the check-mark. I'm glad you found my answer useful anyway :)
As others have pointed out you won't get "caramel". What you do get can be pretty good though.
I once messed up a cookie recipe by copying it down wrong. I inverted the sugar and Flour. I added 3/4 cup of flour and 1 1/4 cup of sugar. Followed the rest of the recipe exactly.
Now what come out of the oven, was neither cookie or "caramel". It was like a super chewy, gooie wad of sugar goodness. They had to be stored individually (or they would stick together) and they pulled apart a bit like warm silly putty, but we chilled them in the fridge for a few hours and they made really good "candies".
The chocolate chips had melted into the "candies" pretty well but they were still distinct.
The flavor was not "caramel" though. It was more like eating raw cookie dough, except that it had that finished cookie taste. Obviously they were very sweet, but it still tasted like a cookie.
Go ahead and try it. Worse case you loose the ingredients.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.930596
| 2016-11-17T23:05:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75610",
"authors": [
"Asker",
"Cascabel",
"David Richerby",
"John Feltz",
"Mason Wheeler",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52036"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112177
|
Can I thaw salmon directly in water?
Some websites suggest putting salmon in a bag before thawing in cold water.
Is it safe to omit the bagging, and instead thaw directly in water? (If not, why?)
Perhaps relevant: for most use cases, it's not really necessary to thaw a salmon filet - they're thin enough that the cooking process will not mind them being frozen. Unless you need it thawed for some reason (to cut it up perhaps), it's fine cooking frozen. For example, see https://www.marthastewart.com/7691229/how-cook-frozen-salmon .
The salmon will get water logged and mushy (and consequently release a lot of water during the cooking process) if you omit the bag. It's not unsafe, but it will decrease the quality of the salmon.
The flesh will most likely disintegrate before reaching cooking temperature. Once it is cooked, it'll just crumble, the extra water will turn it into mush, and be quite unpleasant to eat. The act of freezing will already destroy most of the meat's structural membrane at a microscopic level. Soaking it in water will turn it into mush once thawed. It's not "unsafe" though, if that's your primary concern, but I'll rather eat a frozen dinner at that point.
Just a slight adjustment can prevent the fish from becoming waterlogged or mushy. As suggested below, brining actually has the opposite effect, and is a standard technique even for fresh fish.
Osmotic Pressure
If you boil vegetables in water, some of the compounds from within the cells will leach out of the vegetables into the water. The reason is because vegetables are bags of water with goodies inside and a semi-permeable membrane holding them together (the skin). The compounds inside (vitamins and other micro-nutrients) look around and say: "Hey, it's pretty crowded in here", then look across the cell walls to the pristine water outside and say: "But that's a wide open space with nobody in it!" and make their way outside until the concentration is balanced on both sides (not really, but kinda).
This is also why salt will dry out foods. If you have a fresh chunk of meat, a significant portion of that meat will be water. If you then rub salt on the outside, the salt will dissolve into whatever moisture is on the surface, and the water molecules inside the meat will say: "Hey, there's very salty water over there, and almost no salty water in here!" And, in an attempt to form a saline equilibrium, the water will migrate out of the meat to dilute the salt concentration.
The Salmon
Of course, molecules don't talk the way I have indicated. That's just a high-level illustration to indicate the tendency of solutes to reach an equilibrium across a membrane. But as Johanna indicates in her answer, if you place a salmon in a pot of water, you will have the situation where the the water inside the salmon has a bunch of chemicals dissolved into it, and the water outside the salmon is mostly "pure". Therefore, the salmon must either release bits out into the water, or it must absorb water to reduce the imbalance. Fish flesh is already somewhat delicate, so creating this osmotic imbalance isn't doing you any favors, unless you are trying to boil the fish (and please, why would you waste a perfectly good salmon by boiling it???).
You may be wondering: "How do salmon stop from getting waterlogged while they are alive?" And the answer is: a combination of oily, waterproof scales, as well as active metabolic processes to balance the water inside vs. outside their bodies (i.e., they are expending energy to actively pump excess water outside, just like your body does: using kidneys). Of course, a salmon filet has already compromised their scaly first layer of protection, and I assume there are no kidneys left.
Yes, if you use brine!
(And keep an eye on it to make sure you don't leave it in too long after thawing.)
It's interesting that Lawnmower Man brings up osmotic pressure. Though he makes some very good points, he missed the fact that you aren't bound to using plain water; you can balance the osmotic pressure by adding salt (or sugar, which is common when poaching) to the water you're putting the salmon into. The result will not be waterlogged. Just pat it dry, and cook as usual.
Brining fish is frequently a good thing to do anyway, especially salmon. Cook's Illustrated suggests a ratio of 5 tablespoons of salt dissolved in 2 quarts of water, soaking for 15 minutes. It seasons the flesh a bit, helps to keep it moist, and reduces the amount of albumin that's exuded when cooking — which salmon usually has plenty of.
Since your salmon starts frozen, the brine won't actually penetrate until the outer layer thaws, penetrating deeper as the thaw line moves deeper. So it's not ideal, but salmon is still thin enough and thaws quickly enough that this shouldn't make a huge difference. I would say: pull the salmon out about 10 minutes after it's thawed about halfway through. (I find the timing for brining is not too delicate anyway.) There may be a tiny bit still frozen in the middle with thicker pieces, but it should be close enough to cook up nicely. You should only do this very shortly before cooking anyway, so you don't need to use your very coldest water, which can speed the thaw up a bit.
This isn't my preferred method of thawing, but it has worked great for me when the kids are screaming for food.
Also note that you can even cook salmon straight from frozen: cook covered for an extra 5 minutes or so, then uncover to finish. Poaching from frozen is also relatively forgiving.
5 tablespoons of salt is about 90 g. 2 quarts is about 2 litres.
My opinion is to go ahead and do it, without the bag. The points of the other answers, about a bit of stuff leaching into the water, are generally true, but I think the effect will be quite small. People tend to overestimate how much stuff is exchanged with meat submerged in liquid, either going in (marinades) or going out (soaking). Frozen meat (or fish) will indeed have a bit more exchange, due to the cell walls being damaged, but I suspect that the stuff that will leak out when thawing in water is the same stuff that will leak out when cooking it later.
Bottom line, try it out. If it gets too watery for your taste, you can stop doing it, but I'm quite sure you won't notice the difference.
Cooking fish in water is called poaching and if done properly will give a fine flavored dish. If you have a large fillet of salmon and you need to defrost quickly, just place in a polythene bag and leave in a bowl of water. It will not harm the flesh and the salmon will still taste great when cooked.
Sorry, I don't see how this answers the question. The OP doesn't want to poach the fish, or to defrost it in a polyethilene bag. Defrosting without a bag is the whole point of the question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.931413
| 2020-10-18T15:40:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112177",
"authors": [
"D Duck",
"Joe M",
"Mike",
"Nelson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89202",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82996
|
Recommendation for a roasting pan that is safe to use on an electric stove?
I have an open coil electric stove and I want to get a roasting pan that is safe to use on it. Namely, I want to be able to sear meats before putting them in the oven, and I want to be able to make gravies directly on the roasting pan. I know that electric coils can get very hot, so I'm worried about melting/burning/damaging the pan.
Does anybody have specific (and affordable) recommendations for such a roasting pan? What are features/properties that I look for in shopping for this roasting pan?
EDIT: I don't have anything specific application in mind right now, but here are two examples of things I would like to be able to do:
Cook a turkey in the oven and then make a gravy in the pan directly (http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/best-gravy-ever-recipe-2009748)
Sear some pork ribs before putting them in the oven, and finish them off on the stove (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgOBAWbkq5Q).
You might find this Serious Eats article interesting.
@Catija Thanks! This article was what I was l looking for. Perhaps you can expand your comment into an answer? I would gladly accept it unless someone has a better answer. The only thing it's missing is a note regarding electric stoves.
Electric coil is safe on just about every cooking pot/pan you can buy. It's just another heat source.
If a pan has a special requirement, it will say so on the packaging before you buy it.
Regarding a pan to sear meats, you can do no better than a good cast iron pan.
Cast iron will retain it's heat even when you drop a slab of cold meat into it. This makes for better, more even searing. To make things even better, you can then take the entire cast iron pan and stick it right into the oven! No other pan needed.
Personally, I cook steaks in a cast iron pan like so:
1) Take steaks out of fridge and set somewhere to slightly warm up while you prepare everything.
2) Put cast iron pan in the oven and turn it on to 500 degrees F. This will heat up the pan while your oven pre-heats.
3) On a plate, add a small amount of oil (canola or vegtable, not olive oil - you're going to be using very high heat, so you want a high smoke point). In a dish, add Kosher Salt, and pepper and mix around.
4) Put steak on oil plate and turn over a few time to get a light coating. Sprinkle salt/pepper mix to your liking (I personally go overboard on this).
5) Take the pan out of the oven and put it on your stove. Turn on your largest stove burner and set it as high as it will go. Put your pan on this burner to continue heating up.
6) After it's very hot (test by dripping a very small amount of water, it should sizzle and evaporate almost instantly, your coils should be red in color), drop the steak right into the dry, hot pan and don't touch.
7) Let the steak sear on that side for 30 seconds. Flip it once and let is sear on the other side for 30 seconds.
8) Put the entire thing into your oven. Wait for 2 minutes, take it out, flip the steak and put it back in the oven for 2 more minutes.
9) Take the steak out and put it onto a plate with a smaller plate or bowl turned upside down. This makes a slope for any liquids to slide down, away from the tasty seared "crust" you've developed. Cover loosely with foil. Let rest 10 minutes before cutting (very important to keep the juices from spilling out).
10) Enjoy your medium-rare steak!
You can adjust the timings a bit depending if you have a particularly thick cut of steak, or prefer a different doneness.
Be very careful with the cast iron pan, as it will retain it's heat for a long time! Also make sure you use proper care for it, since taking care of your cast iron is a bit different from a normal pan. If you take good care of it, it should last you a lifetime without issues. Some people even hand down their cast iron to their children! Here's some good information: http://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/how-to-wash-season-and-maintain-cast-iron-cookware-article
Searing steaks on cast-iron is great -- I've done it quite a few times! The problem, however, is that my cast iron pan isn't very large. It's good for a single steak, but if I'm cooking a large amount of meat, it wouldn't work. (And, even if I could find a cast iron pan the size of a typical roasting pan, it would be extremely heavy!) My parents have never let me try using their roasting pans on the stove for fear that it would damage/warp the pan or leave an unpleasant burn mark from the high direct heat. But, from your post, you're suggesting that this is pretty much never a concern?
If the metal is really thin, it might be an issue (or uneven heating if it's larger than a single burner). This isn't a pan issue per-say, it's a metal issue. Heat will discolor the metal after a while... this is true of most pans however. A roasting pan is intended to go into the oven at moderate temperatures for a longer period of time. They do make larger cast iron pans (greater than 12 inches in diameter), or get 2 if you have a lot of meat to cook. I usually fit 2 NY Strips in at a time and get good results.
From my previous Google searching, websites like this one --
http://www.cooksinfo.com/roasting-pans -- caution against using roasting pans with less-sturdy bottoms and non-stick coating on a stove top. This seems to imply that there are significant number of roasting pans out there which I should avoid putting on the stovetop. Cast iron is great, but I really would like a single-piece oven-safe and electric-stove-safe item that is large enough to hold a lot of meat and not as heavy as cast iron (which, as far as I can tell, is pretty much a roasting pan).
You won't get a good sear with a light-weight pan. It doesn't retain heat enough to sear when you put the meat in. Also, what you need to look for is "stove safe", not "electric stove safe". The electric coils don't matter here. If you had an induction stove, that would be a different story.
Looking at your link, the extra large roasting pans are ~14 to 19 inches. You can get a cast iron that large.https://www.webstaurantstore.com/lodge-l17sk3-17-pre-seasoned-cast-iron-skillet/530L17SK3.html?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=GoogleShopping&gclid=CjwKCAjw16HLBRBFEiwAElREqHI5NM9fRdLWir0YLgD9NR0gnHI_qA2oC_GduYGBhbkV3xqwxpJTAxoCRR4QAvD_BwE or something like a cast iron griddle: http://shop.lodgemfg.com/griddles-and-grill-pans/pro-grid-iron-reversible-grill-griddle.asp
A "good sear" isn't a bit concern for me here, I just want a little bit of color. For situations in which I am especially concerned about the sear, I would just use cast-iron as you said. (Also, there's the gravy-making aspect to consider as well.) And, yes, I know that cast irons can be bigger, but, as I've said a few times, I don't want a cast iron pan that large because it would be very heavy. Also, I am asking about electric stoves in particular because electric coils typically have a higher maximum temperature than gas flames.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.931967
| 2017-07-14T20:50:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82996",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"SnakeDoc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52238",
"nukeguy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83651
|
How to make perfect pearl rice in a rice cooker
This question is specifically about short grain pearl rice.
I recently got a nice Zojirushi rice cooker that has all the bells and whistles, and I've been wanting to use it to prepare perfect rice. I know that is a little subjective, but let's assume I just want distinct, not mushy, kernels that are clean and moderately sticky.
Items that I would like to have addressed:
Washing. I already do this, but including good methods would be appreciated.
Water proportions. I've found a 2:1 ratio makes them a little mushy, but any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
Soaking. I have heard people do this, but I haven't ever tried it. Does this affect how much water you use? What are some good methods for doing this?
Post cooking instructions. E.g. should it be allowed to cool, taken of warm setting, should the top be opened to let steam out, etc.
I know a lot of these items can be somewhat opinion based, so if that is the case, just comment on how any changes will affect the end product.
Have you checked to see whether there are instructions for this in your cooker? Does it have any advice about "pearl rice"?
yeah, my question is less about the rice cooker and more about the preparations. The rice cooker has a "white rice" setting and instructions, which I use already.
I just specified rice cooker because I've found that cooking on the stove is a little different and requires different amount of time and water, not to mention watchfulness.
But if you're using or not using the rice maker will affect the answers. Mentioning the rice cooker distracts from things. If you're not planning to use the rice maker for this, the information seems superfluous to me. Could you clarify whether you're actually using the cooker or not?
@catija I am using a rice cooker. I said that because I don't need instructions telling me to turn it on low heat for 20 minutes and not allow it boil over, etc.
... then maybe you should be more exact about which rice cooker you have. Mine tells you exactly how much rice to use and all I do is close it and pick the type of rice and hit "cook"... I don't set the temperature or have to worry about it boiling over.
I did specify what rice cooker I have (though it was autocorrected to the wrong name) to show that it is not important to receive cooking instructions. Typically rice cookers do that all for you. You just hit the white rice button. Move past the rice cooker thing. It is only important to the question to show that I don't need cooking instructions and my rice is in a very controlled environment.
All I see is a brand name, "Zojirushi". The link in my previous comment is for my Zojirushi rice cooker... The type of cooker will determine your water/rice ratio at the very least...
@Catija it is literally not important. Mine is very similar to yours, though a newer design, AKA "all the bells and whistles". It cooks great. I don't need info about how to cook it. Just how to prepare the rice.
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
One way to have distinctive grains is to let the rice cool and stir it to make it fluffy, then reheat before serving. Also you need to use the less sticky breed of rice. Also give it slightly less water. Usually the way rice cooker recipe uses slightly excessive water so that the cooker works more reliably, because cooking down excessive water doesn't hurt the product much while not enough water is a disaster. If you tighten the water a little you will have a less "well done" rich, which should be firmer.
I absolutely LOVE my Zojirushi Rice Cooker. I found it important to use the plastic cups that it comes with to measure the rice. As one conventional cup puts too much rice in there in relation to the water line for white or jasmine rice. 3/4 of a conventional cup of rice is what my son uses in his as he missplaced the plastic ones it came with. I don't wash my rice at all. It is about convenience and they have it all figured out for you. I do add just a smidgen less water (just below water line) if I want an extra firm rice. Also use the spatula it comes with so you don't break up and mush the rice.
Welcome to Cooking SE, Wendy! If you have a moment please take our [tour] and visit the [help] to learn more about the site. [meta] is also useful, but it takes 5 rep to post on.
@FoxElemental : you're about 10 months late on that welcome. And Wendy, there's a longer discussion of the size of rice cooker cups at https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/33015/67
@Joe Oops, sorry, hadn't realized.
To get the "distinct, not mushy, kernels that are clean and moderately sticky" you should wash the rice. Washing and rinsing the rice ~3 times in cold water before cooking should get rid of the excess starch that accumulates in bagged rice from the rice kernels rubbing together over time.
Without washing the rice, the excess starch would go into the water giving the water a cloudy appearance. That starch would make the water thicker with cooking and as the water evaporates and gets absorbed from the rice, it leaves behind a residual starchy "slime" that coats the rice which give it the "mushy" texture.
For the water to rice ratio: a 2:1 ratio sounds slightly off. For shorter grain rice you normally have 1 3/4 cup water to 1 cup rice. Most short grain rices call for only 1 3/4 cup water to rice. You can find that in most short grain rice recipes.
Start with these changes in preparation and cooking before critiquing the rice cooker and how the rice cooker cooks the rice. Start with changes to 1 and 2 before going on to changing your cooking style for 3 and 4. You might find that just changing the first 2 you get the desired results you need without having to change the entire way you cook and prepare rice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.932592
| 2017-08-11T19:54:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83651",
"authors": [
"BlackThorn",
"Catija",
"FoxElemental",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user3528438"
],
"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
}
|
75923
|
What effect will this have on my french fries?
While making french fries earlier I began to wonder what would happen if I changed my process in a few ways.
My current method:
Peel potatoes and cut into thin slices
Pan fry until golden
Simple enough. But I was wondering what would happen if I did the following after my initial pan fry:
a. Cook fries in a pan with little or no oil
Or
b. Bake fries
It is hard to follow your question. As it reads why you pan fry until golden and cook in pan with little or not oil and bake?
Adjustment A: You're not going to see much difference from this method, because there's not going to be much heat transfer. One of the key parts of frying is oil contact, because the oil transfers heat at a very quick rate, and gets into all the tiny surface nooks and crannies, so more of it gets cooked at the same rate. If you're just pan cooking without (or very little) oil, aside from a relatively tiny bit of radiant and convection heat the only cooking will happen where the surface directly contacts the pan.
Summary: You'll need to turn every french fry, to every side, and even then the cooking won't be as uniform as you'd like, even if you do it perfectly.
Adjustment B: Baking means your getting good convection, but that also means you may be drying out the fries a bit, especially after they've already been in oil and lost some moisture. Baking might be a better addition, but I'd avoid it as a last step. You'll also be letting your oil that's on the fries, soak in a bit more, so they may be dry... yet still greasy.
Summary: They'll end up like reheated fries because... that's pretty much what you're doing.
My suggestion: Boil or steam the fries (not too much!) to start the inside starches cooking and getting "fluffy". Let them dry and cool a bit. Then hit them with a shallow (or ideally deep) fry to crisp up the outsides, but not have to sit in the oil long enough to burn or soak up the oil. This also would work with prebaking for what it's worth, but you may still get the drying. Just depends on what you're going for.
I would reverse those two steps -- bake first and then pan fry. By baking first the potato will cook through in the oven without necessarily crisping or burning, then the frying step will add the crunchiness and texture that you want on the outside when you're ready to serve.
Frying first would be the same as searing, which you would only do when you don't want the inside of the food to be cooked as high as the outside. Either one of two things would happen: a) the middle of the fry won't cook all the way through and you'll be left with raw potato on the inside and perfectly cooked on the outside, or b) you'll have to change your timing to leave the fries in the oven long enough to cook in the middle, but that will increase surface exposure to heat and you'll burn the fries.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.933086
| 2016-11-28T02:46:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75923",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77334
|
I forgot to turn my slowcooker on overnight w/ chicken in it, can I eat it still?
I put chicken breasts and a bunch of salsa into a slow cooker to be cooked while I slept. I forgot to turn it on. When I woke up I noticed and put it back in the fridge.
I plan to cook it tonight (and hopefully not forget to turn it on).
Is this a bad idea?
I will note that the salsa appeared to insulate the chicken because it was still cool to the touch (not COLD though) when I discovered it in the morning.
Total time out of fridge would be about 9 hours.
EDIT: This is not a duplicate of the suggested question because I had a thought that it might be ok due to the chicken being slightly insulated and still cool. I have realized it is still not safe from the answers.
how long was the chicken in the crock pot before you returned it to the refrigerator?
@moscafj About 9 hours. Please note though that after 9 hours the chicken was still cool to the touch, not room temperature.
Way too long in the danger zone. Chuck it!
This is a bad idea. Here's why
Yes, it is a duplicate: the answer you got here and accepted is just reiterating the advice there, that many hours above 40F is too long. I get that you didn't necessarily realize that general advice applied, but we really don't want a ton of different copies of this question floating around all with tiny variations on the setup (and believe me, we've gotten plenty).
@Jefromi No, I disagree. The answer being the same doesn't mean the question is a duplicate.
Well, feel free to take it to [meta], but I promise, we've closed a ton of things like this as duplicates before, with tons of users participating in the voting (not just the four you got this time). The idea is that whatever variation of the setup you have (6 hours or 12 hours, slow cooker or kitchen counter, 60F in your car or 80F in your kitchen), the general advice there is what you need. If we let all those stand, we'd have hundreds of questions like this by now.
@Jefromi I do not disagree that it may be appropriate to close this question. I was simply disagreeing that this is a duplicate of another question. I saw those questions, but they did not apply for me in my case. To me a duplicate means the same question verbatim.
Duplicate does not mean verbatim, it means the answers to one clearly answer the other, with maybe a small hint about how to apply them. All you have to do to apply the general one here is understand that 9 hours at room temperature in a slow cooker ending up cool to the touch (well over 40F) means too long above 40F. So the general question does apply, and it's well within what we consider duplicates here.
Without knowing for sure that the temp didn't stray into the danger zone, I wouldn't eat it. Within 9 hours I think it is very likely that the chicken went from refrigerator temperature to danger temperature.
40 degrees F is the start of the danger zone. See:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/danger-zone-40-f-140-f/ct_index
I doubt the human finger is calibrated finely enough to reliably measure this temp with high enough confidence to avoid the risk of food poisoninng.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.933360
| 2017-01-10T22:50:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77334",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"James Wierzba",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53586",
"mfg",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103255
|
Can I reheat meal in pyrex-like glassware on vitro ceramic stove?
I have this delicious dish with gravy I did yesterday, and the rest is still in the pyrex-like oven proof glassware used to cook it.
Can I "cheat" and quickly reheat directly on my vitro ceramic stove top ? That would seem much quicker than reheating it the oven, and would save dish washing compared to transfering the contents into a frying pan.
My core question is specifically about the integrity of the glassware (though I'm aware it should reheat less uniformly than in the oven).
There is a related question that I found, but it is about a bowl that was not especially made for the oven at all, so I guess this question is different.
I would absolutely not recommend heating Pyrex with any type of direct heat, ever.
That stuff goes off like a hand-grenade, highly dangerous - not to mention messy.
I've seen it happen too many times for it to be even vaguely worth the risk; even when accidentally placed on recently switched-off hobs.
Pyrex is a low-expansion glass. However, low-expansion does not mean zero-expansion, so if the bottom is being heated whilst the top stays cool, the expansion difference is enough to cause it to simply explode all over the kitchen.
Yes to microwave, but a solid no for a hob.
[& I'm talking UK Pyrex, I didn't know US was even worse until I read the Pyrex wikipedia page ChrisH posted]
If you have no microwave, then either oven or transfer it to a pan.
The extra washing up is safer & far less hassle than trying to clean the hob, then find all the really really sharp glass shards that will find every corner of a 20m square room.
Agreed! Bad bad bad idea!
Very interesting. My mom used to make pop corn in a Flame Resistant Pyrex pan when I was a kid (in europe), and I always thought all Pyrex products were the same... glad I learned this today
There's "Visions" also by Corning, which is a stove-top 'glass' pan range. The two should never be confused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visions_(cookware)
I tried using Visions stuff a few years back, I was not impressed. The see through is a novelty that isn't that handy, and the pots aren't really a joy to cook with.
Strangely, it makes a difference where you are. American "pyrex" would be very likely to break, while European "PYREX" would have a good chance if heated gently. However I wouldn't recommend it even then. If you've got a microwave that would do a better job of reheating than the stove top and either sort of Pyrex can generally take microwaving
Indeed a microwave would be an obvious better alternative for reheating, but I don't have one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.933655
| 2019-11-03T18:07:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103255",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"MicroMachine",
"Pac0",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53971"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99124
|
Cold smoked bacon biltong safety
Just looking for a safety/sanity check here regarding making biltong from cold smoked bacon.
I would like to make bacon biltong using a recipe similar to this one:
1 kilogram Back bacon
4 tablespoons salt
1 tablespoon ground black pepper
1 tablespoon chilli spice
125 millilitres white vinegar
How to make it
1. Place a layer of bacon in a glass dish.
2. Sprinkle with dry spice mix.
3. place next layer of bacon.
4. Spice and repeat till all bacon spiced.
5. sprinkle over vinegar.
6. cover with plastic wrap and rest for 4 hours.
7. Hang to dry, approx 2 days.
I make my own bacon (dry cure, EQC method with the cure + salt measured out to the nearest 0.01g using the calculator at http://www.diggingdogfarm.com/page2.html).
Recently I have moved from hot smoking to cold smoking and am concerned about the safety of making biltong from cold smoked bacon.
I understand the cure and salt kill off most/all micro-organisms, and a dry cure should in theory leave it fairly safe. Is this a reasonable assumption or am I being foolish? Would it be significantly safer to use hot smoked bacon or is there really no practical difference after 10 days of curing + smoking?
(Typically I would do 2 x 8 smoking sessions - the temperature is fairly well maintained/monitored through-out)
Caveat: I have never made biltong...in fact, I had to look it up. I do make cured meats like pancetta, dried sausages, and bacon. By way of example, pancetta is essentially bacon that is not smoked at all. I use a salt and spice cure, then air dry to reduce the original weight by 30%. It is then refrigerated. It can be eaten raw, but in most applications is cooked.
My thinking is that if you are using nitrites/nitrates and salt in your bacon cure, you are greatly reducing risk. Then, as I understand it, biltong is a dried product. So, reducing water activity further reduces risk. In addition, the vinegar creates an acidic environment...also inhospitable to spores and bacteria. This generally sounds safe to me, but my only question would be about the "hang to dry, approximately 2 days." As I am unfamiliar with the product, I don't know what final texture you are trying to achieve. In general, dry curing shoots for a 30% reduction in weight (the safety reason for this is a reduction of water activity). If you are going for a jerky-like texture, 2 days doesn't sound like much to me. I see recipes online calling for at least a week of hanging. Overall, though, I can't see how this would be an environment that micro-organisms would thrive in. I am not a microbiologist or food safety specialist. Just someone who reads and applies what I've learned, so I would be happy to be corrected if any of this sounds off-base.
so, I've had these hanging now for almost 1.5 days - with no obvious sign of drying much. I suspect it is going to be more like a week as you suggest. Glad you mentioned the weight technique - I will be checking this
2 days isn't long if the rashers are even slightly separated. If it's being hung as a single stack, then yes that sounds short. You could weigh it - if it loses 20+% then you're good
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.933892
| 2019-05-23T09:12:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99124",
"authors": [
"Dave Smylie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53040"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119359
|
Pastrami dry cure calculator
I have a left over chunk of brisket flat that I'd like to use to make pastrami.
I make bacon regularly, and always dry cure as it's tidier and I think it's easier to be more precise which I prefer due to the nitrite.
Unfortunately I can't seem to find a good pastrami/corned beef dry cure recipe online - only ones talking about using eg a 5-8lb brisket with X amount of cure. I guess I could probably work out a ratio from that based on the size of my brisket (probably about 4lb),
but hoping I can be a bit more exact that that.
Question - is there anything different about curing beef than curing pork? Can I just use the same calculator for brisket that I use for pork?
This is the one I use for bacon: http://www.diggingdogfarm.com/page2.html which suggests for 4lbs (1816grams) I'd need 4.5grams of nitrite. Is this about right?
Thanks
No difference in pork vs. beef...you are looking for 0.25% pink salt #1 per pound to clear the safety hurdle for preservation of cured meat. So, I would say your calculation is correct from a preservation perspective. Here is another site for verification.
However, for pastrami, you will cure under refrigeration, hot smoke (around 220F), then continue to cook to an internal temperature of around 180F, and after cooking, refrigerate. You might also steam the pastrami before serving...so you don't need the full preservation impact of pink salt in this case. The main outcome of the curing salt is color and texture. You might prefer to go a little lighter on the curing salt. See Greg Blonder's site and recipe for his explanation and process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.934153
| 2021-12-29T21:31:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119359",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77287
|
To tell if meat has gone bad, is touch enough evidence?
I have meat in my fridge that range from a couple of days to the sell-by-date to several months. All of it is slimy on touch, but it doesn't smell bad.
Should it being slimy be enough of a reason to throw it away? I read that sliminess and smell were ways of detecting if meat has gone bad.
Fridge or freezer? Please, please don't eat meat out of the fridge months after the sell by date.
Possible duplicate of How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
@Catija not the same question. I'm just wondering if a touch test is enough. It was in the freezer.
If it was in the freezer, the expiration dates don't matter. If it's in the fridge, they do. Please at least read the answer there, it answers your question about whether it's still good or not. As far as I'm concerned, meat always feels slimy, so I'm not sure what you're asking. Whatever you read, smell is never a good method.
@Catija No, I googled it. It says that if it's slimy then it means it's gone bad. Are you sure it's always slimy? http://spoonuniversity.com/how-to/meat-goes-bad-how-to-tell
You're not likely to get any answers on this site that are better than or different from the one @Catija pointed to. If you believe the Spoon U site, throw out the meat; otherwise, read that answer.
Note that even your link says "In addition to an unpleasant scent, spoiled meats can be sticky or slimy to the touch.". Rumtscho's answer is spot on.
@verbose I skimmed the answer. There was no mention of meat being stick or slimy. I do not believe the Spoon U site as a reliable source. I want someone to confirm, however, but you telling me to throw it out if I believe the article is a waste of breath.
@Stephie That is not a contract so don't try to nitpick what the article said. It is useless to nitpick because you may be right or the author could have been not rigorous in language.
TL:DR version: you are thinking about it wrong. Food safety is not about finding evidence that it has gone bad (that's usually impossible), it is about having evidence that it is still good. If you don't have it, that automatically throws it in the "unsafe" category.
Food safety has basically two rules:
if it has exceeded the allowed time in properly-cooled storage, it is considered unsafe.
if you recognize bacterial or mold colonization of the meat ("spoiled"), it is unsafe even if you kept proper storage.
None of this is equivalent to "it will make you sick" or "it has too many pathogens", it just means that you cannot know if it will make you sick or not.
You are asking about the second one, and for that, nobody can be the judge but you. You have the meat in front of you, we don't. Non-spoiled raw meat has a surface which can be described as "slimey". Spoiled raw meat can also have a "slimey" surface, but it is a different kind of slimey. If you have seen OK meat and spoiled meat several times, you know what I am talking about. If you haven't, then you don't have the skill needed to distinguish it, and fall under the "if in doubt, throw it out" rule. Somebody else might be able to confirm that it is OK on seeing it, so that somebody else wouldn't fall under that rule.
Now you may be surprised here and protest that, if the meat was not going to make you sick, you shouldn't be throwing it out. In fact, that's normal. Only a tiny proportion of the food that is unsafe would have made you sick anyway. We can never predict which food will make you sick, so food safety is about preventing risk, not about preventing certain events.
You can, of course, show your meat to somebody who has more expertise, and ask if they have any doubt. That is reasonable, and you seem to be trying to do this now with that question. Unfortunately, "spoiled" is something for which one needs all five senses. A few words of description are not enough, unless it happened to be some egregious change. So, I'm afraid we cannot help you over the Internet. You can show it to somebody in person, toss it, or decide that you don't care about food safety and eat it as it is. But you cannot expect written information on "slimey" to make you certain that it has "gone bad" or not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.934302
| 2017-01-09T04:16:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77287",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"JobHunter69",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53174",
"verbose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77027
|
Tasting food in kitchen
When cooking (for example, in a restaurant), is it common for cooks in the same team to taste each other's dishes (still in progress), without asking for a permission?
In a restaurant, yes, cooks do a lot of tasting of others work. This is mainly for quality control and to maintain consistency of product. Example: the morning cook's souffle needs to taste like the evening cook's souffle.
Restaurant cooks are team oriented and focused on getting product onto customer tables. Restaurant cooks also learn from each other---most cooks learn On-the-Job, as opposed to culinary school.
In a competition, on the other hand, cooks rarely taste each other's work (with permission or not) before judging.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.934731
| 2017-01-02T12:00:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77027",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100910
|
Ribs in oven - foil method
I've seen numerous online recipes for ribs stating to either 1) cover the ribs in foil 2) cover the baking sheet the ribs are on in foil
Which will yield the most tender ribs?
This sounds like the kind of question where the only answer will be someone's opinion. Which is the best for what? Are you going for a specific texture, technique, ?
I doubt you would find a significant difference as long as option 2 means placing the ribs on the pan and putting foil over the ribs...and, it was sealed tightly, but Meathead Goldwyn suggests wrapping the meat itself. The idea is that you are creating more of a braising environment. The wrap also significantly reduces evaporative cooling from the surface of the meat. This helps in being able to more consistently predict time until they are done.
Very similar in effect to Alton Brown's, "Who loves baby back ribs." I've been fully wrapping dry rubbed ribs in ful and roast at 225 for 4-5 hours, reducing the liquid for a baste and then broiling until they're dark enough for me. I haven't had this recipe fail and I've been doing baby backs in the oven since that episode aired many years ago.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.934824
| 2019-08-22T18:02:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100910",
"authors": [
"Jorgomli",
"NothingToSeeHere",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73083"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77094
|
How can I make failed fudge (hard and crumbly)?
Growing up my mother would make my brother and I fudge that was hard and crumbly and we loved it. It wasn't until I was much older that I realized that was failed fudge. I was always disappointed when I got fudge elsewhere that was soft. I'd like to make fudge the way my mother did, but can't figure out how to ensure the fudge comes out hard and crumbly.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
LOL! It's wonderful, how a "failure" evokes childhood memories! As a first step, I suggest checking fudge recipes for "don't do X" or "avoid Y" warnings.
I confess to having never actually successfully made fudge (lazy, and until recently the local Wegmans sold it), but it sounds like you want your sugar to recrystallize. Normally that's strenuously avoided, but:
Required: Start with a traditional recipe, not one of the "easy fudge" recipes. The traditional ones start with heating a mainly-sugar mixture to soft ball stage (≈238°F). I found one site with a bunch (that I can't personally vouch for, but am tempted to try): Old Tyme Fudge Recipes.
Try taking the sugar past the soft ball stage. Maybe to firm ball, around 245°F. (This is a mistake I can easily see your mom having done, maybe because she didn't have a good candy thermometer).
Corn syrup is used in fudge (and caramel) recipes to help prevent crystallization. Use plain sugar instead. Same with acids like lemon juice in caramel (and presumably fudge); those should be omitted or substituted with water.
All those admonishments about not stirring once the sugar has dissolved? Probably best ignored. Any tricks about applying the lid to help dissolve any sugar on the side of the pan? Wouldn't bother.
Butter isn't known as a health food. More importantly, fat in the recipe helps prevent crystallization, so why not remove some? I can't bring myself to recommend margarine (or, worse, "spread"), but if you were to substitute, I expect spectacular failure. And of course you are using skim milk, right?
You could try lazyness, I mean all that stirring is tiring! (See "never successfully made fudge", above).
Worst case, brute force it: as the mixture cools, during that time when you're not supposed to stir, grab a teaspoon of sugar and stir it in.
I'm sure with a little experimenting, a touch of laziness, and some optimally bad recipes, you too can fail at fudge making. The hard part is going to be finding the exact texture you're going for—failure can range from a slight failure of "somewhat gritty" to a spectacular failure of "I think that's a jawbreaker."
Thank you so much for the suggestions. Sounds like I need to start experimenting!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.934942
| 2017-01-04T08:59:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77094",
"authors": [
"NicholasJohn16",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53372"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64413
|
How do I recover from overheating my cast-iron skillet?
This morning, as with many, I let my skillet dry by leaving it on the burner. Unfortunately, my attention was drawn away and I forgot to take it off the burner! Of course, the moment I noticed, I moved it to another burner to cool, but this light-brown ring appeared.
After it cooled, touched the ring and discovered it was a powder, not merely a discoloration:
I'm not sure what this signifies. How do I recover the skillet?
Just to re-iterate cast-iron's durability, when my father wants to re-season his cast-iron skillet, he puts it in his fireplace fire overnight. The next morning, the old seasoning is gone and with a bit of rinsing is ready for a new seasoning. They been making wood stoves out of cast-iron for years. The stuff is tuff.
It is hard to tell from the picture, but this doesn't look like burned off seasoning, it is more like a burned on residue. If that's the case, you can try cleaning it some way. The problem is that physical cleaning methods probably won't be sufficient, chemical cleaning with alkali will damage the seasoning and chemical cleaning with acid, if the seasoning is compromised, can rust the pan a bit. So there is a high chance you will end up reseasoning.
If this really looks and feels like a buildup and not like exposed oxidised metal, my preference would be to soak in warm, not hot, acid. Vinegar or a citric acid solution should work well. Afterwards, try to scrub off with a stiff plastic brush.
If it doesn't go away, or the seasoning goes away too, or if this was missing seasoning from the beginning, you have to strip and reseason. We have several questions on the topic, and the Internet is also full of suggestions. I personally prefer doing it with lye (best results, strips both old seasoning and rust), owners of self-cleaning ovens like incinerating it, and there are a list of other methods to work with.
Sorry, I forgot to mention, just minutes before this accident, the skillet was all-black. After I made this post, just before leaving for work, I tapped my finger on the then-cooled pan and found this: https://imgur.com/5jKi0Xm
It is still quite hard to recognize, even on the new picture. It could be a buildup on top of the seasoning, or burnt off seasoning, or rust. Try removing it either physically or chemically. If you succeed to remove it and afterwards the pan looks seasoned, you've succeeded. If it doesn't, any effective method for stripping a pan should take care of this stuff along with the old seasoning.
Give it a good salt scrub and re-season. Cast iron is virtually indestructible. As long as it's not cracked, it can always be cleaned up and used again.
Don't worry, it takes far more than that to damage a cast iron pan. The worst that could happen is that you overheat the seasoning on it, in which case it may flake off. If it does start flaking then you need to remove what is loose and then re-season.
I did this same exact thing and I believe the reddish-brown powder is rust. It stuck on my fingers like rust would. When I wiped off the powder, the bottom was no longer slick so I think I burned the seasoning off.
There were no flakes per se, but around the rust area there was a light yellowish ring which I beleived to be the seasoning starting to peel away from the metal.
I used sandpaper on it, rinsed it, and reseasoned it.
That's the great thing about cast iron. Rub it with salt, steel wool, sandpaper, heck even sandblast it. Give it a good rinse, re-season it and carry on. Like @Jason Whipple says, unless you've cracked it, you can usually recover it.
This looks like rust. I believe what happened is you burned the seasoning clear off and quickly so that ash didn't get a chance to develop but went up with the smoke. While cooling the bare iron developed a surface layer of rust.
This happens also when you strip your cast iron in the clean cycle of your oven. As it cools it turns orange, which then needs to be scrubbed off again, and the cast iron put back in the oven to warm just enough to drive off the moisture before wiping on the first layer of oil.
The resolution here is to use hot water and a green scrubby to get rid of the rust. The hot water simply preheats the pan so it dries faster. Put the pan back on the burner, and wipe out the water with a paper towel. Check thenair about an inch over the surface of the pan starts. When is starts to feel like the pan is near cooking heat, pour in a teaspoon or two of your prefered seasoning oil. Spread it out and wipe it back up with a paper towel. Leave the pan on medium low heat, and don't go anywhere. As the oil starts to lump up (it will climb into drops on the bottom of the pan) use a fresh paper towel to wipe them up. Let the bottom of the pan get dry from the heat, then pour in another teaspoon of oil, and repeat 3 or 4 times to restore a few layers of seasoning.
If you wish you can continue this for even up to 9 times SO LONG AS YOU DRY THE OIL EVERY CYCLE, but you eventually lose return on investment. It just won't get any better. The only way to continue to improve the seasoning is to use the pan and care for it properly and the seasoning will build up nice smooth and slick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.935170
| 2015-12-15T13:16:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64413",
"authors": [
"Amanda Needham",
"Anne Molnar",
"BM H",
"Cynthia Dennis",
"Ian Dennis",
"Ian McLeod",
"JS.",
"Jeff Willis",
"Ky -",
"Lillian Nemec",
"Lisa Eschenburg",
"Patricia McGrath",
"Scott Ferry",
"Tony Crancher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user1867356"
],
"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
}
|
30093
|
Does soap kill germs?
This accepted answer about knife cleaning seems to presume that soap sanitizes:
...in household use soap is required to sanitize your knife blade.
However, a cursory search seems to undermine the presumption that soap kills germs:
This ask alice post states the following:
Regular household soap or cleanser does not kill germs — rather, it suspends (or lifts) them off the skin surface, allowing the microscopic critters to be rinsed down the drain.
The wikipedia definition for soap does not seem to suggest that soap, in general, has any germicidal properties.
This white paper on disinfecting in child care does not even consider soap for killing germs other than to clean a surface prior to.
From personal experience, I have encountered numerous liquid soap storage containers that were clearly culturing a colony of one life form or another.
So, does soap really kill germs?
Not only does this seem only tangentially about cooking- it seems like you have already exhaustively answered it yourself.
I wrote an answer because it seems to get at the notion of "what is good sanititation" which is, I think, on topic. I think asking for more definitive and credible answers than provided by whatever "Ask Alice" is, or by Wikipedia is also not unreasonable. This is far from the craziest question I have seen here :-)
Good point. I retract my criticism.
It's worth emphasizing that all of this suggests that soap does help get rid of germs; it's just that it doesn't do so by killing them. I could unfortunately see people skimming this and the answer and saying "oh, I shouldn't bother with soap!"
@Jefromi - I see your point. Hopefully that clickable pictorial at the bottom helps skimmers with that point.
@alx9r I am afraid I rolled that back as it was a substantial change to the tenor of the question being asked. I suggest adding that information in a comment or an additional answer.
@SAJ14SAJ Understood. I actually don't think trying to protect against misinterpretation by those skimming questions is productive. I think doing so creates a distraction from the true topic under discussion.
No, soap does not kill germs in general. It facilitates washing foreign matter, dirt, and so on (which may host pathogens) from the hands. There are some soaps with antibacterial agents added, but I won't go into whether they are effective, or even a good idea, as this is not the forum for that.
Typical food service sanitation standards (that is, the health codes) require either sanitzing agents or certain heat and time requirements (or both) in dishwashing to ensure proper sanitation. See this typical regulatory summary from one jurisdiction.
This FDA document may fall into the category of Too Much Information, but the point of hand washing in food service (as important as dishwashing) is to control fecal bacteria.
Even these requirements do not kill all germs, but are intended to get to a reasonable level of cleanliness and safety for the average population for the types of threats typically related to food preparation.
Hospitals and other labs that require all pathogens or microfauna to be killed must use much more stringent measures to sterilize, rather than sanitize.
Edit: Note that the referenced question about cleaning knives also has temperature standards (the time required is not mentioned in the post, but is important)--that is the real factor that provides sanitation, not the soap. With the reduced temperature, not that the post talks about the need for "chemical additives" which would be sanitizing agents of one sort or another.
I believe the part of the referenced answer that concludes in the author's opinion that should use soap to sanitize is... well... its not quite correct. There is more to cleanliness than sanitization (reduction of pathogens). Its just that soap doesn't help with the sanitization part other than removing foreign matter which may provide a place for the pathogens to grow.
Most home folks will never truly sanitize without the use of a dishwasher as the water from the hot water heater is simply not hot enough, and most homes don't have three compartment sinks where the middle sink is used for a sanitizer dunk.
And on the flip side, bleach does not clean anything. As I was taught in my first sanitation class, you can be clean but not sanitary and you can be sanitary but not clean.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.935634
| 2013-01-14T23:26:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30093",
"authors": [
"Alon.b",
"Cascabel",
"Jake",
"Logan R. Kearsley",
"Marykay Choma Trainum",
"Rob",
"Robert Wing",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"alx9r",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70327",
"klutt",
"tadej"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30056
|
Is there a compressed gas device designed specifically for creating infusions?
This answer about creating infusions suggests using a compressed gas siphon to quickly infuse liquids with flavours from 'fragile' herbs.
The manufacturer of the popular iSi compressed gas siphons seems to sell whipped cream and soda siphons, but neither is advertised for the aforementioned infusion purpose. I'm not at all averse to using one of these devices for this different purpose from that which it was designed, but I'd like to find the most usable device for creating infusions using compressed gas.
This leaves me with the following questions:
Is there a compressed gas device designed specifically for creating infusions using this method?
In general, would a soda siphon or a whipped cream siphon be more suited to creating infusions?
Are there particular attributes to look for in a compressed gas siphon that lend themselves to creating infusions?
1) I do not think so, the technique was described in e.g. modernist cuisine, they suggest using a ISI siphone and if I can remember correctly does not describe any other tool. Any pressure chamber would work, if you have access to one :-)
2) I have something like this which can be charged with both soda and cream charges, that is what I woudl suggest. (mine is not ISI). Think both you show will work since both charges are the same. Charge with N2O (cream charge).
3) For the infusion part, you want pressure, look for size of the device that suits your needs. The bigger, the more you can do at the same time, but will require more charges for same pressure.
Actually the product you mention, or at least a very similar product, is advertised for that purpose. They even sell some extra parts to make that easier - it's not quite clear to me what the extra parts are supposed to do, it's possible they just allow you to let the gas out at the end without making a mess.
iSi Rapid Infusion set:
It's probably better to link to the company's website, rather than one of the resellers, especially as it's a non-English reseller, and the answers are all in English : https://isi-store.com/products/rapid-infusion-starter-kit (although buy it from one of the resellers ... $32 vs. $200 MSRP)
@Joe The company structure is very unclear to me, the company I linked to certainly claims to have invented the device, and the siphon I bought from them has their name and only their name on it. But the accessory kit does say Isi and the point about the language is true. The price difference is because your link includes the siphon and my original link does not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.936006
| 2013-01-14T03:22:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30056",
"authors": [
"Anthi Nicopoulos",
"De Novo",
"Joe",
"Marco Mp",
"Nobody",
"Spratty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70117"
],
"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
}
|
30055
|
How much CO2 does it take to carbonate water using a household Soda Siphon?
A soda siphon seems to be the de facto device for carbonating water at home.
A search of reviews and comments on the consumption and cost of CO2 yields the following results:
70 cents or one charger per liter (Amazon Review)
20 cents per liter (see lotusmoss' blog comment)
50 cents per liter (see mbknight's blog comment)
The instructions for this popular iSi soda siphon seem consistent with an entire charger being required per liter of water, which works out to $0.90 per liter assuming you buy the recommended brand-name chargers.
So, the cost claimed seems to range from $0.20 to $0.90 per liter. Since store-bought carbonated water typically costs somewhere in between, it's not obvious whether this device makes economical sense. (I'm sure there are other advantages, but that's a different topic.)
My questions are as follows:
Does a charger like this really only yield 1 liter of carbonated water?
Is there a way use a single charger to yield more than 1 liter?
Is there an alternative to the iSi-style soda siphon that uses some other source of compressed CO2 that might be more economical?
Has anyone reproduced the $0.20 per liter figure claimed by lotusmoss? If so, how was it acheived?
I'm not certain that it works, but the obvious way to use a single charger to yield more than 1 litre would be to mix the carbonated litre with uncarbonated water.
For 3) if you aren't considering the cost of equipment, a Cornelius keg, tank and regulator is probably the cheapest way to carbonate beverages. You can probably get 10 pounds of CO2 for under $25, which is enough to carbonate say 100 gallons (these numbers are pretty rough, but any welding shop will probably be even cheaper than that). That comes out to less than 7 cents per liter...but it requires probably $150-200 in equipment.
@user5561 Be careful about using CO2 intended for industrial use as there may be purity concerns: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43655/is-there-such-a-thing-as-food-grade-co2
Yes, this is probably something you should consider. But lots of brewers use CO2 from welding shops without problems.
I own a 1-litre soda siphon like the iSi Siphon you pointed out. Some friends have a higher-capacity soda maker, I think from Sodastream. To answer your questions:
Yes, the charger is single-use, and it carbonates only as much water as is in the bottle. My soda siphon holds about 1 litre of water. If I put in less water, then once the bottle runs dry I vent spare carbon dioxide uselessly into the air. If I put in more water, the carbon dioxide runs out and the remaining water won't leave the bottle.
Using the standard siphon product, there's no easy way to have a single charger yield more than one 1 litre. The charger is designed to deliver all its gas at one time; it doesn't reseal.
Consider the Sodastream product line if you want a step up from the 1-litre soda siphon with disposable chargers. Sodastream uses larger bottles of gas, which they describe as "60L". I think they mean that each bottle of gas carbonates 60 litres of water.
Sodastream's FAQ, What will it cost me to make a bottle of soda or seltzer? claims,
After your initial purchase of a home soda maker package, you'll enjoy seltzer and sparkling water in reusable 1-liter PET bottle for just [Canadian]$.30 per litre and flavoured sodas for about $.88 per litre, before any applicable shipping charges....
From their wording, it's pretty clear to me that the $0.20-$0.30/litre claim is purely the marginal cost of carbonating water. It doesn't include amortising the purchase cost of the equipment, and likely is based on the cheapest way to refill the carbon dioxide bottles (exchanging filled bottles for empty by mail), and likely doesn't include shipping costs or taxes for the refills. It may be that one can drive the cost per litre down by adjusting the amount of water in the soda bottle, as well.
I own a 1-L siphon as well, and by purchasing CO2 chargers in bulk (the Leland brand seems to be a good one, I've gone through about 300 so far with no complaints) my cost per bottle is about $0.50, considering shipping, taxes, equipment cost, etc. I doubt that there would be a significant price difference between any of these options, and other factors are probably the best ones to base your decision on.
One soda siphon charge per litre is about right. In many countries the small bulb chargers are only available in NO (nitrous oxide)
The larger cylinders used in Sodastream products work out a bit more economical, but in general plain soda from the shop is cheaper. You just don't have any choice or quality control of the liquid used
To reproduce the 20 cent per litre price you will have to buy CO2 cartridges in bulk!
And of course you don't need name brand bulbs, as there are close to no differences at all regarding quality. The CO2 is exactly alike, the only difference is the bulb itself, that can be extra safe.
This is a cooking Q&A site, not a free advertising platform. We ask that you not link to your products, unless maybe it's directly relevant to the question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.936245
| 2013-01-14T03:00:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30055",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cody",
"Jason",
"Lela plouse",
"Md Zakir",
"Peter Taylor",
"Spammer",
"firion",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70124",
"logophobe",
"user5561",
"user70098"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29081
|
How to prepare french fries?
Possible Duplicate:
How can I make McDonald’s type French Fries
I have prepared french fries couple of times in my home. But I couldn't get the same kind of spongy fries as I had in Mc donalds. I want to prepare a delicious spongy french fries.
In some blogs I read that we have to put cut potatoes in cold water before frying. But that too doesn't work. Help me
I would google a bit to know who manufactures the fries for McDonalds in your area. Where I live they are manufactured by McCain, and here they tell how are made.
French fries are often double-fried:
They are par-fried at a low temperature, to cook all the way through, after which they are often frozen
They are finish-fried at a higher temperature to crisp up and be hot for presentation
The type of potato matters--high starch like Idahos are ideal.
Here is a link to a Serious Eats article by Kenji Alt describing his preferred technique in exquisite detail.
His technique actually involves par-boiling, then par-frying, then (for optimal results, he says) freezing, then finally finish frying. The interesting thing is that freezing actually has an affect on the outcome--it isn't just for storage and transport.
See also http://web.archive.org/web/20110630182837/http://www.cookingissues.com/2010/04/27/the-quest-for-french-fry-supremacy-part-1/ and http://web.archive.org/web/20100916081938/http://www.cookingissues.com/2010/05/12/the-quest-for-french-fry-supremacy-2-blanching-armageddon/
McDonalds (and other companies) fries are shot through a screen using a water cannon and go straight into hot oil where they are fried, before being frozen. They are then shipped frozen to the stores where they are then fried in oil again before being served, so they are twice-fried.
More than the method of frying though is the variety or potato you use. If you use "wet" potatoes then you won't get good fries no matter how you prepare them, you want one with a medium to high starch content. In the US that means russet potatoes, in the UK that means Maris Pipers or King Edwards.
According to Kenji's article, McDonalds actually blanches their fries in water before the par-fry. Who knew?
Not surprising as the potatoes they use have to high a starch content. A par-boil would help break down the carbs into sugars, which would make them taste sweeter and help make a more crunchy outside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.936648
| 2012-12-11T13:01:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29081",
"authors": [
"Donna Parrish Huffman",
"Dunes Mama",
"GdD",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jack Robinson",
"Kamal",
"Michele FitzGerald Trainum",
"Roseanna Williamson",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67446",
"user67445"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29112
|
leaving steak out over night
Possible Duplicate:
Why is it dangerous to eat meat which has been left out and then cooked?
Around 3pm I took out steak to thaw, the steak was wrap in foil and plastic wrap and i stuck it in the oven! i found i forgot it this morning! we all know that when you buy pre pkg steak, it doen't carry the best looking shade of red we like but hey what can you do, i found it this morning, the steak has no smell but it has some grey color to it and it looks like it started to cook you know if you take a steak and rinse it under hot water it will start to cook, so would it still be good to use
There is a litany of similar food safety questions on this site. Here is just one: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12992/why-is-it-dangerous-to-eat-meat-which-has-been-left-out-and-then-cooked?rq=1 TL;DR; version: no, it is not good to use.
Over 12 hours? I sure wouldn't eat it.
Officially no, it is not "safe" to eat since the undetectable bacterial toxins could possibly have risen to dangerous levels. If the meat somehow got through the supply system with a load of dangerous bacteria, and you left it out long enough for them to multiply to dangerous levels, then you could cook it well, it could smell and taste great, and yet still get food poisoning. However, on the scale of daily activities like driving to work, this is unlikely to happen, and extremely unlikely to kill you. I wouldn't eat this steak rare, but after a well-done cooking, or better yet chopped and well-boiled in chili or stew, I would and have eaten meat like this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.936981
| 2012-12-12T14:15:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29112",
"authors": [
"Anthony Giorgio",
"Carey Gregory",
"Pat Holland",
"Sean Hart",
"TechnicalTim",
"Vipin Verma",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"user67493",
"user67507"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20975
|
Egg and gluten free custard ideas?
How can I make custard for a friend (as part of a desert) who is egg and gluten intolerant? Should I just not bother?
How do you define "custard"? In the strict sense, custard is defined by being an egg dish, the same way that an omelette is defined by being an egg dish (that's the sense used in On Food And Cooking or Th Professional Chef). In everyday use, I have seen people call starch thickened blanchmange "custard", and if you are OK with this, then it should be no problem to cook a simple mixture of starch, sugar and milk.
Panna cotta is the closest thing I know to custard that is egg-less. Sugar, cream, milk, gelatin - should be acceptable.
Banoffee Pie style butterscotch pudding (Vegan Pie in the Sky is my reference for this) would make an excellent base as it mimics the caramel taste and mouth feel, it thickens with agar; perhaps add in the slightest pinch of black salt for a hint of sulphur (not enough to taste, more for the scent mimicing the egg). I think that you would also do well with pectin or gelatin, but a little corn starch might be called for to get some creaminess out of the thickening.
Where does custard = caramel taste?
@RFU my mind immediately associates custard with creme brulee anyway, but essentially (as your comment above clarifies) if the key problem is substituting for the egg in his variant of custard, then I would swing toward the burnt ends of the creme spectrum. Hence, butterscotch and caramelized sugar
Pudding. Possibly agar-agar based.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.937155
| 2012-02-01T07:30:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20975",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"mfg",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77320
|
How far in advance can I prepare vegetables without it detracting from their flavour/ texture etc?
I've seen there is a related thread about restaurant practices and how long to retain food, but I don't think food safety comes into this as I'm only talking about cut vegetables kept for maybe 3 to 4 hours? It's more the issue of the effect on flavour I'm concerned with.
I'm a keen beginner, so my knife skills aren't yet good enough to prep veg quickly. As such, if I'm cooking for others, I try and prepare as much as possible in advance to serve food up in a reasonable time. I'd be very grateful if anyone can tell me:
How far in advance can I slice/ dice things like onions, celery, carrots etc without it having a detrimental effect on the flavours and textures?
Once they are sliced/ diced is it better to refrigerate them or might that make them wet/slimy?
If preparing the veg in advance does have a detrimental effect on the flavours and textures, are we talking a small difference that hardly anyone will notice or does it have a dramatic effect?
Thanks in advance.
Yes, this is just initial things like peeling, trimming, slicing, dicing. There's no parboiling or purees or anything like that.
The easy answer is that almost all things will start to deteriorate at soon as cut, but noticeable is the key. John points out, this will vary by item. Most fruits and softer items will be far less forgiving. Potatoes, a relatively hard item tends to oxidize badly, but water dunking tends to fix that with them as well. Items as you mention though, carrots, celery, lettuce, cabbage, any item that is pickled, these type of items tend to be more forgiving. An hour, maybe two, you likely will not notice any loss of quality. Plastic wrap to prevent drying will help and maybe extend this time. Wrapping and then ice or refrigerate, even better for dry items, but for wet items like cucumbers the weeping can be detrimental. With things like onions, garlic and herbs, well I would classify these as aromatics and part of their flavor is being lost anytime you can smell them so I would tend to save them for prep closer to use if possible. If you do need to prep them ahead, I have minced garlic a hour ahead for instance, then tossed it with olive oil that I was going to use in the dish. Please do this short term only though, as raw garlic stored is olive oil is classified by USDA as a salmonella risk. Hour should be fine, days not so much.
Thank you for that, very helpful, especially with regard to onions and garlic. I'd supposed (wrongly) that these would stand up best of all because of their strong flavours so that's an excellent heads up, thank you.
Some fruits and vegetables will oxidize and discolor when cut - potatoes and apples, most notably. If prepped in advance, these should be stored in cool water with some acid (lemon juice or vinegar) added.
Vegetables in the gourd family (cucumber, squash) will exude liquid from the cut surfaces that will bead up and eventually harden.
As for your other texture questions, I'm afraid it depends on what you're going to be doing with them - serve raw, saute, boil, roast, deep-fry?
Thank you for that. Regarding the usage, I was thinking of (say) the base for a risotto, or use in stir fries. I'm assuming stir fries especially need to be as fresh as possible, so I'm trying to find an acceptable balance between end result and my lack of speed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.937304
| 2017-01-10T14:44:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77320",
"authors": [
"QuizzicalPigeonUK",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53574"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78745
|
Problem: grainy kefir
I usually put a heaped Tbsp of kefir grains in full fat milk. Whether I start from room temp or cold milk I end up with grainy bits after culturing the kefir.
How to get a smooth kefir?
Ps:
I can always blitz the kefir to make it smooth (and place it in the fridge to Thicken it a bit) but I have tried kefir that is thick and Creamy with no grains a few times before... Is there anything wrong in how I make mine?
Thanks
Additional information :
I just started making kefir a few weeks back
This is a problem form day 1 for me
Milk: Australian full fat cow's milk "Marigold Fresh"
Temp : I haven't checked but I live in Singapore so quite warm. I leave the milk overnight in the kitchen (8-9pm to morning 9am)
There is usually no separation of whey / curd when leaving overnight.
Link to the milk's description
More details would be helpful. What kind of milk are you using: cow's, goat's, soy; raw, pasteurized, UHT? What is the temperature (daytime and nighttime) where you leave out the kefir? How long are you letting it ferment? Is this a new problem, or have you had this issue from whenever you started to make kefir?
Hi verbose, I have added information to the question. Thanks for trying to help out!
As most of our users don't live in Australia, saying the brand doesn't necessarily help. What sort of creature produces the milk?
Do you filtre out the kefir grains (for reuse) when finished culturing?
The texture of kefir depends on many factors, so it's difficult to give a canonical answer. Based on the information you've provided, here are some possible reasons.
I'm assuming you purchased the grains rather than got them from a neighbor, as in the latter case you could simply ask the neighbor for advice. So your grains are quite new. New grains need some recovery time from transportation and some adjustment to a different climate, different milk, etc. Put about 1Tbsp of grains into 1 cup of room temperature milk and leave it for about 24 hours. The next day, filter out the grains and put them in a fresh cup of milk. You may need to do this two or three times before the grains recover fully. You will know they are recovered when they are more than double in size, float to the top, and cause the kefir to start separating into curds and whey. Once this happens, you can increase the amount of milk to two cups per tablespoon.
Even assuming healthy grains, 12 hours is almost certainly too short a ferment. Kefir is at its thickest and creamiest just before it begins to separate into whey and curds. This makes sense: the liquid has thickened to the point where the solids are not yet heavy enough to precipitate, so it is creamy, but once the solids get heavier, they sink and you get separation. So leave your kefir out for longer. Generally 24 hours is the norm, but you will need to experiment. Check at 18 hours. If you see small pockets of whey in the liquid, you are done. If the liquid is more separated, then 18 hours is too long; if you don't see any pockets of whey, leave it for longer. Basically, leave it out for just as long as you need for the texture to be right.
Grain storage. If you are straining out the grains at 8 or 9 am and adding them to milk at 8 or 9 pm, what are you doing with the grains in the meantime? To remain healthy, kefir grains need to be in milk all the time. They cannot survive well by themselves out on the counter or in the refrigerator.
Too much starter. If you have too much starter for the milk, new grains don't get enough sugar to grow and stay small. They then make the kefir gritty. You say 1Tbsp, but not how much milk. Once you are past the recovery stage with your grains, 1Tbsp is right for about 2 cups or a half liter.
Weather and temperature. Dom's super-useful kefir site says:
Kefir can often turn out having a gritty mouth-feel. This may usually occur during mid-season, as the organisms are adapting to change in temperature [the microflora is trying to find its feet]. However, kefir with a gritty mouth-feel is not impaired in regards to health-benefit and nutritional value. Texture and consistency has more to do with the drinking pleasure of the beverage, and the majority of folks seem to prefer kefir with a smooth, creamy consistency.
It's possible that Singapore is too hot for your kefir grains to be comfortable. Using colder milk and a longer ferment might help. Make sure that wherever you leave the kefir to ferment, it is out of direct sunlight. Or of course, perhaps you're leaving the kefir in too cold a spot, but given that it's Singapore, that's pretty unlikely.
Of these possibilities, I think a combo of the second and third is the most likely in your scenario.
Making kefir really is trial and error, though. I too have had gritty batches sometimes. This was a particular problem before I managed to find a process and time-table that works well for me. I now get good results pretty consistently, but it took playing around to get to this point. Here's what I do:
Use the right amount of starter. I use about 3Tbsp for about 800ml of milk.
Use cold milk. If I use room temperature milk, my kefir is done quicker than I can drink it.
Add the milk to the starter and stir well.
Leave to ferment, covered, in a dark place for roughly 24 hours.
Stir well again.
Strain out the grains and immediately start the cycle again.
The grains keep growing, so every ten days or so, remove excess grains from the strained-out grains and refrigerate in milk.
Hope this helps!
Thank you all. Plenty of good advice here! Among the things that made a difference, I let the grains work longer in the milk. I also changed the sieve to a finer one (no more grains). I separate the whey from the kefir and let the kefir rest in the fridge for a few days : the taste and texture are both enhanced. Thanks all!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.937830
| 2017-02-27T04:21:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78745",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Choubix ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"verbose",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70890
|
Salad packaged with raw meat: is it safe?
Sometimes I see in supermarkets (in Italy) packages in which rocket salad is sold together with raw beef, like in this picture:
This is clearly meant to be prepared in the form of tagliata con rucola, an Italian dish made with beefsteak cut in stripes and rocket:
As you can see, the salad is normally served raw with tagliata. The supermarkets seem OK with that, but this practice triggers my food safety alert: is it safe to consume salad that has been in contact with raw meat? Should I worry about eating it?
EDIT: further information:
these packages are found in the refrigerator aisle.
the bottom label says (among other things) "store at 0--4 degrees Celsius [32-39 Fahrenheit] -- cook before eating". It is not clear from the wording if this warning applies to the salad as well.
the label in the top right says "20% discount -- the marked price already includes discount". It doesn't specify if it is discounted for quick sale or for other reasons. In any case, I have also seen regular packages without the discount tag, and with the current day marked as packaging date.
It is not customary here to put salad or other edible items as decoration -- I have never seen this done with other fresh food on sale.
upon request, full translation of the white sticker. The notes in brackets are mine.
Il gigante [supermarket name] - the fresh food specialists. Corso Marche [address of the supermarket]
Net Wt 0.354 kg price 4.43 EUR
tare 0.032 EUR/Kg 12.50
prepackaged on: 04 August 2014
Tagliata con rucola [name of the dish, see picture above]
Meat preparation NC16 [not 100% sure about the code, it's blurry. No idea what it means, I assume it's some bureaucratic category for the meat]
Ingredients: bovine meat, rucola, sunflower oil, salt
Store at 0-4 degrees [32-39F]. To be consumed after cooking. Cooking suggestions: in pan, 3 minutes each side. In oven 175 degrees [350F] for 30 minutes. Produced and prepackaged for immediate sale by "Il gigante", Turin.
Note that I did not take this picture myself; this one comes from the internet. I can take a similar one the next time I visit my local supermarket, but it's probably going to be 7-10 days from now.
I imagine it is only for the display, not for eating.
I believe that the label in the upper right also says, essentially "discounted for quick sale"? Even if I trusted brand newly packaged beef with the greens, I wouldn't trust beef that's been sitting around in the shop for long enough to be put on discount.
@Catija I have added more information in an edit. The discount isn't always present; you can assume that the meat is fresh and hasn't been in the aisle for more than one day.
Here's the question... would you eat this meat raw? If the answer is "yes"... then also eating the salad raw isn't going to be any different. If the answer is "no"... then think about why you wouldn't eat it raw and apply all of those reasons to the salad because they all apply. Personally, I don't eat raw meat because it's unsafe... particularly from the grocery store... I agree with Jefromi's answer and urge you not to eat the greens.
that's not "salad". it's just ruccula, a vegetable leaf that is used to decorate food. you're supposed to clean it, cook the meat, then add the cleaned, raw , unprepared ruccula to the dish. probably the salad bags are on the vegetables section, not on the meat one.. -_-
A closer look at the picture reveals "preincartato il" with a date (third row on the left). That'll give you an idea of how fresh the contents are. Also the label says something like "preconfezionata per la vendita immediata" (packaged for immediate sale), indicating it shouldn't stay on the shelf for too long – probably for that reason.
So, the instructions specifically say "to be consumed after cooking"... Why would that apply to the meat but not the other stuff that has touched it?
@Catija The instructions do not specify either way, but the dish "tagliata con rucola" is mentioned, and that's a dish with raw rucola. Compare this to seeing a pre-packaged "burger set" with meat patty, lettuce and a tomato slice: you wouldn't normally think of cooking the vegetables, would you?
Your instructions specifically say "to be consumed after cooking". That should apply to everything in the package. If one thing in the package is unsafe, everything is unless it's separated somehow, like in its own packaging. I have never seen a "burger set" like what you describe. It's probably illegal to sell stuff that way in the US.
In the US, the ensuing illness from cross contamination would be a profitable lawsuit.
@Catija I agree with you that this looks crazy/illegal, and I know that "burger sets" do not exist. But suppose you saw one walking by a supermarket. You'd probably think "huh, how is this stuff even legal?", and then maybe "perhaps I should ask on cooking.stackexchange just to be sure of what's going on with food safety here". Which is exactly what I am doing.
It seems that adding the rocket is a cheeky way to get around labeling requirements regarding the origin of the beef. Putting the salad in there makes this technically a "prepared" food and therefore exempt.
Was the animal factory farmed? The meat might have feces on it.
What you're looking at is called (in the US) "cross contamination". You have a food generally considered "unsafe" (beef) that is coming into contact with a food generally considered "safe" (salad greens).
This contact makes the greens "unsafe" to consume raw.
Cross-contamination is the transfer of harmful bacteria to food from other foods, cutting boards, utensils, etc., if they are not handled properly. This is especially true when handling raw meat, poultry, and seafood, so keep these foods and their juices away from already cooked or ready-to-eat foods and fresh produce.
The rule in the US is to always keep these products away from each other so that the "safe" foods stay safe.
The only way to make the greens safe to eat is to cook them, thereby killing off the bacteria that may have been transferred to them in the juices of the meat.
I don't think the term "cross-contamination" is specific to the US or to US English.
If beef and seafood were “generally considered unsafe”, that would include sushi and carpaccio – which are raw fish/seafood and raw beef, respectively, and are widely sold and consumed. Some kinds of meat, including beef, are fine to consume raw – the key is that they have to be fresh and kept refrigerated throughout. Others are not – I definitely wouldn't recommend eating raw pork or chicken.
@user149408 Those products are of specific quality and stored in a special way. The stuff you buy in the grocery store does not follow those guidelines and is not safe. And, regardless, as far as the food safety goes, even those products are considered unsafe, which is why they carry warnings on them in restaurant menus.
@user149408 - There are places in the world that consume raw pork and raw chicken as well. (In Japan, the home of the sushi you mention, it is quite possible to encounter chicken sashimi (toriwasa), for example.) Anyhow, as Catija said, all of these raw meats have special requirements for production to try to ensure safety. Raw beef used for carpaccio or steak tartare is handled with special hygenic practices and often the exteriors of the meat (where most bacteria are) are trimmed off before final prep/consumption. I highly doubt a supermarket packaged meat would meet such standards.
@DavidRicherby That is probably true but they didn't say that it is specific to the US. They probably just wanted to qualify their statement because they know that it is called "cross-contamination" in the US. After all there are plenty of words that have different meanings in US English and British English.
@Andrew It wasn't a criticism. I also read it as a disclaimer of "I'm not sure if this term is used outside the US", which is precisely why I supplied the information that it is.
I work for the heath department here in Canada. If a restaurant were to be found cross contaminating something like raw meat and salad like this, there would most likely be fines or other actions taken against the establishment.
@user149408 Raw pork is safe too. It's called Mett and is popular in Germany. Your caveats still apply: it must be fresh (same day for the ground pork).
No, it's not safe to eat those greens without cooking, for exactly the same reason it's unsafe to eat the meat that's touching them without cooking it. If you have to cook the meat before eating to make it safe, you would have to cook anything it's touched to make it safe. Maybe it's not quite as risky as eating the meat, but it's still risky.
They could expect you to discard the greens (if they're just for looks), they could expect you to cook the greens, or they could just not care that much or be that aware about food safety. I don't think there's a good explanation; you can speculate for yourself about which of those is most likely given what you know about the store.
Thanks! I have added more information in an edit. I don't think it has been processed in any special way, and the label states that it is not to be eaten raw.
Yup, I saw the edit, my answer still stands.
I would be surprised if supermarkets "don't care much" about food safety, the more likely explanation is that it is safe by Italian food safety.
Thanks for your answer -- I can't accept two of them, unfortunately, so I had to choose.
@rumtscho That's kind of what I meant - I just don't really think that if your food safety standards require cooking meat but at the same time permit that kind of cross contamination, the standards themselves don't seem to care a whole lot. It's kind of like saying that it's dangerous to eat raw meat, but if all you want to do is lick it, that's fine.
In the UK the food standards are a little farcical in this respect. Beef that's fine to eat raw will still often have on the labelling a recommendation that it be cooked. Sometimes it will give a range of cooking times including "rare" and also tell you not to eat it rare. The standards permit it, they just don't encourage it. So it's possible that in Italy too there's a mismatch between the real opinions of the people who designed the product (and put the rocket in), and the lawyers who wrote the label including "cook before eating".
... so I don't see any contradiction between labelling that says to cook the meat, and a product that caters to people who choose to ignore the label. Personally I doubt I'd eat the rocket though, I wouldn't count on random packaged beef to be fine to eat raw.
@SteveJessop Okay, sure, but... it's labeled with the name of a dish where it's cooked, and it's clearly packaged to look like that dish too. I really don't think the intent is to eat this meat raw.
There are equal concerns with fresh and now apparently even frozen vegies in the US. I have not seen food packaged this way although each food has an equal concern. I will address only the vegetables, but note that given current concerns, just tossing out the pretty greens that have touched the meat would not address the issue, if the meat is not going to be cooked well. There are concerns with the lettuce, sprouts, cilantro, etc. I have read that the more a food is handled in the chain of production, the more likely the contamination. That makes sense. I cannot bring myself to eat any type of uncooked sprout and I buy canned. No one wants a plate of boiled sprouts, lettuce and whatever else as a salad. Here is the US cite: http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm114299.htm
I do not believe there are clear answers, common sense has to be used, wash it if it is possible. I wash all such vegetables in very hot water and I use soap, rinse well, dry, and refrigerate. I wash foods I am going to peel (no, not garlic or ginger, not yet anyway). I discard outer leaves of a head of lettuce. Why take a chance when we can take some reasonable steps. At least when you get done washing, rinsing and crisping up: make that salad, you have done your best by all reasonable means.
The other answers seem to focus on the cross-contamination issue, with the raw beef being unsafe. Let me point out that beef cuts are often served rare, as it is in your illustration of the dish, and that is considered fine. So I really don't think there is much of an issue here. (Raw ground meat, from a factory setting, and undercooked pork are far more unsafe than rare beef, of course.)
The outside of the meat is still thoroughly cooked even though the inside will be rare - that's because the outside, exposed layer is the part where bacteria is going to be present and therefore the risky part.
This would be iffy advice no matter what (as Kareen points out) but it seems especially odd to say given that the OP's meat explicitly says it must be cooked, even despite the weird deliberate cross-contamination.
This answer is dangerously wrong, for the reason that @Kareen points out. The reason that raw ground meat is dangerous is precisely because it has a huge surface area to hold bacteria. The reason that rare beef is safe is that the flesh is dense enough that bacteria can't penetrate beyond the surface, and the surface is sterilized by cooking.
Raw ground meat is dangerous because the bacteria is transferred from the surface to the inside during the grinding part.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.938298
| 2016-06-22T18:10:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70890",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cave Johnson",
"CptEric",
"Crashworks",
"David Richerby",
"Federico Poloni",
"J...",
"Kareen",
"Max",
"Robert",
"Shaymin Gratitude",
"Steve Jessop",
"element11",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"rumtscho",
"user149408"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99100
|
Why does pasta dough need to be kneaded for such a long time?
Some dough recipes caution that we shouldn't knead the dough for too long, lest it become too tough to be rolled as thin and wide as the recipe calls for. Why isn't the same thing true about pasta dough, which needs to be kneaded for more than 10 minutes?
@moscafj but some dough recipe says don't knead too much or else gluten develops and it will be hard to stretch the dough later. Very confusing.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/26122/67
@alim1990 these recipes will be easier to shape and will taste less like standard pasta. You are free to choose what is more important to you.
Kneading aids gluten development, which does facilitate dough stretch-ability. You do need to let the dough rest, after kneading. This allows for hydration, but also lets the gluten structure "relax" so that the dough can be stretched. Gluten development also impacts crumb texture. So, for, say biscuits, you would not want to knead and develop gluten. For pasta and pizza you are looking for a different final texture/chew.
It took me a long time to learn the full need and benefit of a correct relax rest. It really is key to many pastas after an adequate kneading. It makes the whole hassle of pulling out the roller worth it.
So gluten will destroy the crumbly texture of biscuits ?
@alim1990 crumbly biscuits (the dough has hardly been kneaded) have a very loose gluten structure.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.939452
| 2019-05-22T09:51:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99100",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"alim1990",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83878
|
How long will a refrigerated risotto stay safe to eat?
First time posting here.
I made a risotto Sunday (Arborio rice, butter, onion, white wine, chicken stock, mushrooms, asparagus, peas, turmeric, lemon, parmesan).
It's been refrigerated since cooling completely. It's now Thursday. Am I better to be safe than sorry and toss the last of my leftovers, or should I be okay giving it a good nuke in the microwave before eating the last portion today?
There is not any notable off aroma.
Edit// There's no information in that wonderfully long detailed list of food storage/safety pertaining to cooked rice whatsoever. Thanks anyways...
@StevenXavier see the "cooked dishes" section of the possible duplicate question response. Also note that re-heating or "a good nuke" does not make spoiling food safe, nor is aroma a definitive guide.
The reason people won't answer these types of questions is that there are too many factors, and are (perhaps errantly?) concerned about liability. Was there any cross contamination? How long was it left out before it cooled? Will it be reheated to cooking temperatures before it's consumed? What's the internal temperature of the refrigerator?
Many foods, such as rice, also have special concerns. Bacillus Cereus can survive cooking, and if the rice was left at room temperature for a number of hours before it was refrigerated, can produce toxins which will make you sick even if the rice is reheated. This has a tendency to hit sushi places particularly hard.
The truth is that there's no binary "safe/unsafe" with food— it's all about reducing risks and making judgment calls. Considering we have the binary choice about whether or not to eat it, that makes questions like yours a bit difficult to answer remotely.
All that said, if it was my rice, I'd make some risotto balls, bread them, fry them, and eat the ever-living-sh** out of that tasty leftover risotto. Should you do the same? Uh... Let me point you to a stackexchange answer-turned-community-wiki-entry on the topic... ;-)
Thank you! Your simple comment was much more helpful, especially the second paragraph. I ended up tossing it out. I did debate making some arancini out of them and freezing those to bake off when needed.
Also, I wasn't aware something packaged and also so dry had this bacteria. I know a lot of restaurants par-cook their risotto and finish to order. Interesting. Thanks again bud!
Hi ChefAndy, I see where you are coming from. Nevertheless, it is not that we don't answer this kind of question - we simply use the strict interpretation of food safety, which is "complies with food safety regulations". This means that there is a binary safe/unsafe, and that personal choices are immaterial. We have agreed to not write answers under other interpretations, simply because then it comes up to gut feelings, and our site is ill equiped to determine whose feelings are "righter" than another person's. We would have written an answer to this question too, had it not been a duplicate.
@rumtscho Just because government food regulations provide a method of making binary decisions regarding food safety does not even remotely mean "there is a binary safe/unsafe."
Is steak tartare safe to eat?
Rare hamburgers?
Nonpasteurized runny eggs? That's why the FDA food code requires restaurants to warn people about eating those things on their menus, even if they're allowed to sell them.
The asker clearly appreciated the information I gave in regards to the risk factors— especially with Bacillus Cereus— which was clearly more useful to him than "duplicate. here's a wiki entry."
He specifically said that the wiki entry didn't even address the specific concerns that he had.
"Safe" has many definitions. The emotional one, as in "it feels safe to eat this" as opposed to "I feel anxious about eating this" is close to binary, or at least has a pronounced bimodal distribution. The probabilistic one, as in "what is the chance of getting sick if I eat this" is very far from binary. The regulatory one I know as a perfect binary, but I am not too versed in the restaurant related regulations, so maybe the items you list are in a third category - but there is certainly a very small number of discrete categories with clearly defined limits. (cont.)
(cont.) On this site, the first two definitions are off topic, the first would have to be closed as subjective and the second is impossible to calculate even approximately. It is normal that an asker finds a personal reaction to his post more useful than a closure, but writing answers as yours has hidden problems. We cannot rewrite the most basic facts of food safety such as "any cooked food has bacteria" every time a new asker comes, nor contain them all in a single post. Giving partial information (the way you did) makes the OP feel better informed, but is misleading.
In the end, I do think that we are failing at making askers understand what our answers mean, what their questions mean, and what food safety is about. Our approach is flawed. But the past has shown that the approach in your answer does not solve the problem, and in addition it also hurts our usual guidelines of not getting into wars of opinion. So we simply live with trying to inform the askers that what we are answering are the guidelines, and not their hopes of "these people will tell me if I'll get sick".
My summation: 1) it's complicated— there are many confounding variables, 2) rice is of particular concern, 3) there's never a guarantee that it's safe, and 4) if I had cooked it knowing what I'd know, I'd probably take the risk. Especially since he stated that the provided material didn't answer the question, I'm even more confident that this wasn't worth closing as a dupe. Hey, it's your downvote button, but I completely disagree. As an aside, it might not be your intent, but I find your tone to be off-puttingly patronizing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.939613
| 2017-08-24T14:53:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83878",
"authors": [
"ChefAndy",
"StevenXavier",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61074",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84166
|
Is there a disadvantage to a textured cutting board?
My new plastic cutting boards have a textured surface. Is this unsanitary?
The textured surface consists of tiny bumps molded into the surface. The pitch of the bumps is about 1mm.
I'm not sure if it's unsanitary or not but many plastic cutting boards are treated with triclosan (which has been linked to hormone disruption, etc.)
I read this post and had to comment. cutting boards are usually 2 sided, one side textured the other not textured. the textures side is great for grinding garlic, onions, crushing herbs, holding slippery veggies in place. the flavors from pasting using the back of the blade by running minced garlic or onion across a textured board is amazing.
I'm not saying it replaces my mortar and pestle, but for a quick grind of any herbs is really nice across a good textured board.
Also, filleting and de skinning fish is always done on the textures side. it's too slippery and dangerous using a smooth surface.
The smooth side is all about cutting meat. I don't like using the textured side for meat at all. And the smooth side for sashimi is a must. Doing large volume food prep, it's good to have a textured board on a damp towel for all the veggies and herbs. And a second board that's smooth for meats. the damp towel helps with counter sliding since veggies are on the lighter side and usually require many more chops.
When doing a quick dish, I just use 1 board on a damp towel and do my veggies first, then flip it over and do meats on the smooth side.
This is interesting! However, all of my cutting boards are textured on both sides. I'll have to keep my eyes open, but I think most cheap cutting boards anyway are all the same texture, and effectively become one sided due to warping anyway. If you're paying 5-10 bucks for a cutting board, that thing can go through the dishwasher lol.
There is another disadvantage to consider with very acute knives (eg sashimi knives, usuba bocho, gyutos sharpened to 12 degrees per side or below) on these kinds of boards: The edge tends to get trapped between the bumps, and instead of camming out, can be bent out of alignment if torque is accidentally applied to the blade (easily happens with rock chopping/walking techniques). Also, you tend to get unclean cuts (similar to a tear-off perforation) at times because the edge bites into the bumps while the food is pushed between them (can happen eg when cutting very elastic foods, like raw dough).
Also, the anti-slip effect from that texture is questionable at best, these boards can be even more slippery on some surfaces - if textured both sides, they can also slide around on your work surface (this is dangerous!) even more than if they were smooth - some mitigation can be achieved by putting towels or paper between the surfaces...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.940106
| 2017-09-05T22:32:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84166",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer",
"padma"
],
"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
}
|
86155
|
Ratio to subtitute mesquite liquid smoke for mesquite smoke powder?
I'm making some seitan sausage and there's a new recipe I want to try but it calls for mesquite smoke powder (1 1/2 t for flavor). I only have mesquite liquid smoke, which I'd like to use instead. I'm aware I'll likely have to adjust the dry ingredients slightly since I'll be adding another wet one, but my question is:
How much liquid smoke do I use in place of the smoke powder to achieve the same flavor?
I've never used the powder, but liquid smoke is pretty strong, so I doubt it would be a 1:1 swap. Does anyone have any experience in trying such a substitution?
Because of the strength of liquid smoke, it's hard to provide a substitution ratio without knowledge of the full recipe you are using.
As you mentioned, liquid smoke is pretty strong stuff. Smoke powder seems to be made from liquid smoke, thus the powdered smoke may be more concentrated than the liquid smoke.
Many comments on smoke powders on Amazon mention that a little goes a long way. According to this official description this powder is "tenfold-strength":
Mesquite smoke powder is made from real mesquite smoke, which is spray-dried onto a neutral maltodextrin base. Shake a little of this tenfold-strength mesquite powder into barbecue sauce, baked beans, or homemade potato chips for an addictively sweet and smoky flavor.
Ingredients:Corn Flour, Natural Mesquite Flavor. Gluten free.
– thespicehouse.com/mesquite-smoke-powder
Another consideration when using liquid smoke instead of powdered smoke is if the powder part (maltodextrin) plays any part in the formation of the seitan. This description of another smoke powder mentions that the powder is "highly hygroscopic" (it absorbs water) thus if substituting liquid smoke you may want to also add some maltodextrin or perhaps a little cornstarch.
This smoke powder is to be used as a dry rub as it is highly hygroscopic in water, meaning it balls up when combined with liquid and does not mix well. When using this as dry rub, I recommend that it's used at a rate of 1oz-5oz per 100 lbs of meat (It really doesn¡¦t take much to get a very good smoky flavor). I also recommend that you use gloves when applying this or you will smell like hickory smoke for a while :)º Alternatively, you can mix the smoke powder with a small amount of vegetable oil, creating a paste, and apply it to your protein that way. A tiny bit of vinegar can also help break up the smoke powder and won¡¦t impact the flavor at all. After you have applied the rub or paste to your protein, you should let your protein rest so that all of the smoke flavor permeates the meat. I always use the smoke powder as a dry rub and have transferred it into a salt shaker for easy application.
– comment from The Colorado Spice Team on Amazon
If you are open to other liquid smoke substitutes:
Smoked Paprika Powder
Chipotle Powder
Smoke Tea
If you wish to use liquid smoke as your substitute, I would suggest that you look at a few other seitan recipes which use liquid smoke and adjust based upon your recipe’s yield.
Also take a look at this guide on How to Make Perfect Seitan
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.940362
| 2017-12-06T05:40:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86155",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87488
|
How long are egg-free dressings like Just Mayo okay to eat after sell by date?
I recently ordered a jar of Just Mayo from an online store and was sent a bottle that has a sell by date for about a month ago. The obvious complaint aside, it got me wondering how likely it is that such a product would actually be unsuitable for consumption. I mean, products like Just Mayo or Vegenaise don't have any eggs or dairy in them (its kind of their selling point). So they wouldn't 'turn' nearly as quickly as traditional mayonnaise, right?
My question is, how long would it take for an egg-free mayo to actually go bad? I've seen similar questions here about condiments and sell by dates, but whenever it comes to mayo, the eggs always come up as a key factor and that's not an issue with the products I'm talking about.
Here are the ingredients of Just Mayo:
What is its normal shelf life for these products? Exceeding the expiration date by a month on a product that expires a month since manufacturing date is way different than exceeding it by a month with one that expires 3 years after manufacturing.
How is the food starch modified? I wouldn't expect <2% pea protein to thicken oil.
I couldn't find a previous answer specific to sell by dates and condiments. Most condiments, mayo with egg included, are made safe by creating an inhospitable environment for bacterial growth. The addition of acids (i.e, vinegar, lemon) or other "preservatives" accomplishes this. Sell by dates are usually an indicator of quality, not safety. Items such as this are safe for a very long time after the expatriation, especially if unopened, though the quality (taste and consistency) degrades. Once opened, you have the opportunity to introduce bacteria and spores to the contents. Again, bacterial growth will be inhibited by the product itself. The most likely problem would be mold growth. If this occurs, discard.
I do not think that there is a definite time period that can be given for this question. In the UK, and I think this is the same for all of Europe, foods that do not spoil because of microbes are given a minimum expected lifespan. Companies fully complying with the law do not need to invest any more money in, i.e. bother to research, finding an upper limit.
Once this date has passed it becomes a game of chance - a certain percentage of the same batch of foodstuffs spoil after a certain time. As time goes on this percentage increases. This is dependent on many things, such as cooking process, just as much as ingredients. Unless someone buys a large batch of Just Mayo and samples them until they spoil (usually by taste testing), then releases their findings, I think that no suitable definitive answer can be given.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.940618
| 2018-02-03T06:06:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87488",
"authors": [
"SF.",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35028
|
How do I clean my hob?
I am using a Creda Capri hotplate hob (possibly this one [pdf]).
The problem is the area around the burners has became too dirty, with sticky burns. Here's a photo:
I have tried using Dettol Spray Power And Pure Kitchen but was unable to remove the stains. What I can do?
It looks to me like polymerized oil ... soap, hot water, and one of those green scrubbing pads generally works for me. The only problem is that if you scrub too much you might leave little scratches making this even harder to clean the next time around. (you've basically done the same reaction as seasoning a cast iron pan ... so scratches will help it cling better).
@jefromi, thanks for editing. Given that this was my first post, I was unable to add more than 2 links.
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22855/how-to-remove-film-from-stainless-steel-pan I think Barkeeper's Friend (oxalic acid is the active ingredient, if that product is not available where you live) may help with less risk of scratching your cooktop.
I've had good luck using a finer grade steel wool, though don't press too hard. For smaller stains I really like "magic eraser" type sponges which work wonders on the hood as well. I don't know what country you are posting from, but the magic erasers are like a very high density foam sponge. They are amazing on soap scum too.
Pour vinegar on it leave for 5 mins. Then add table salt. Leave to soak and then gently rub it off. Repeat until it comes up clean. You can also use bicarbonate of soda with the salt if it does not come up clean.
Try using "Easy-Off" oven cleaner. Spray and leave it for couple of minutes and just wipe it off. This will really work out in removing your stains.
Try applying vinegar with hot water too.
Will this mar typical visible finishes like enamel or stainless steel?
Try baking soda. Pour liberally over the burned area and cover with a damp cloth. Come back in an hour or so, and you should find that most of the mess wipes right off. I haven't tried it on this type of hob, but I have used it to great effect with food burnt onto a glass-top surface even when scrubbing was unsuccessful, as well as for stains on countertops.
Applying neat washing up liquid or a paste-based cleaner like Astonish with a toothbrush might be less abrasive than using a scourer (even a nylon-based one) and should loosen or break up the deposits, which can then be gently rubbed away with a microfibre cloth. I've found that, once the area is scratched, the burn marks soon reappear, but if you use a microfibre cloth after each use, it should help to minimise the build up.
Soda crystals - I note that Azula R has suggested baking soda, don't think that's quite the same thing, because household soda crystals aren't meant for cooking use. Switch the power off, make up a very strong, hot solution and pour into the hob so that it's as full as it can be without overflowing. Leave to soak for as long as possible,couple of hours at least, top up if it evaporates. It should mean (provided you can get the solution depth high enough) the solidified oil/grease just lifts off. Bit of a pain to remove because you can't lift the hob to pour it, but it can be done by sopping it up.
I've had some luck removing gummy oil like that using a degreaser like citrus oil or Greased Lightening. It still takes a lot of elbow grease, but a degreaser will help loosen it up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.940868
| 2013-06-30T20:18:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35028",
"authors": [
"BaRud",
"Joe",
"PlasmaBinturong",
"Prema Desai",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sebastian Rodriguez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87443",
"neha singh",
"rizu the daredevil",
"user2723984",
"user81809"
],
"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
}
|
99317
|
How can I tell the difference between unmarked sugar and stevia?
My wife just started back on her doctor-recommended ketogenic diet (due to a medical history of high blood pressure and Crohn's disease in her family). She's to have reduced carbohydrates and sugars, and to use artificial sweeteners for anything she would normally add sugar to.
While making our morning coffee, I found a clear plastic container with what looks like stevia stored away - a taste confirms that it has a slightly different taste than the sugar I have on hand.
But I want to be absolutely sure before I recommend she use it in her baking - is there any surefire way to tell if this is stevia and not sugar?
Note: It may also possibly be Truvia.
Please note that the question is very clear - how can the asker determine the content of the jar. This is not the place to discuss medical issues or dietary choices, especially as they are unrelated to the question at hand.
Don't throw it away. Worst case you use up the mystery sweetener on yourself, and use a new pack of Stevia for your wife and anything you share. That's what I recommend if you're not convinced by my solution or don't have sensitive kitchen scales.
At room temperature, sucrose (normal sugar) is very soluble in water: about 200 g of sugar will dissolve in 100 g of water.
It's harder to get a figure for the solubility of Stevia as it's not a single compound but a mixture of related compounds. However various patents claim "high solubility" stevia preparations of around 30 g per 100 g water, or around 1/7 as much.
This is enough of a difference to test: If (with plenty of stirring but no heat) the mystery sweetener will dissolve in an equal mass (weight) of water, it's sugar. If not it's stevia. This only works if you weigh it. You can't do this by volume.
You can always compare to known sugar; a comparison to know stevia is less useful unless it's identical, and brands evolve. The conclusion holds for fructose too (that's even more soluble), but glucose, which you're unlikely to have as pure powder at home, needs slightly more than its own weight of water to dissolve it.
Pure stevia is much sweeter than sugar, and when concentrated may have an aftertaste. It's also sold blended. When blended with other sweeteners the solubility test probably still applies (certainly in the case of erythritol, find in Truvia). Sometimes stevia is bulked out to make it a more direct substitute for sugar. The bulking agents may well be rather soluble and a source of carbohydrates (maltodextrin is sometimes used).
How do you know it's not something other than stevia... some mixture - sweet'n'low or one of those other chemical monstrosities?
@Tetsujin the OP only offers two possibilities
Speaking honestly, Truvia is also possible. Not sweet & low though. I'll add it to my question though just to be through.
Truvia looks like a mixture of stevia and erythritol, in secret proportions. Erythritol is more soluble than stevia but the test should still work. I'd do it myself but I don't have any non-sugar sweeteners in the house.
I think I've got some glucose at home, but I'm pretty sure I've never bought fructose.
@MartinBonner that's interesting. I've got liquid glucose (i.e. syrup) but in solid form it's not common in the UK, while fructose is sold as "fruit sugar" in most big supermarkets .
@ChrisH solid glucose is sold as sugar :) Because that's what it is.
@jwenting, common sugar is sucrose, not glucose, whether it's from sugar cane or sugar beet. A molecule of sucrose consists of a molecule of glucose bonded to a molecule of fructose, but in terms of physical properties it's a stretch even to say sucrose is 50mol% glucose.
Ants don't care about artificial sweeteners.
Make two piles: one of your mystery sweet stuff and one of real sugar (as a control to make sure there are ants around). Maybe moisten them some or make syrup. Leave them outside somewhere you see ants. Then check them later.
Carbohydrates (sugar) are fuel for all animals. Stevia has no food value. Ants taste things differently than we do. They only care about stuff with food value: real sugar. They will not go to artificial sweeteners.
Experiment on yourself.
Or you could use yourself as a guinea pig. Eat the ketogenic diet with your wife. When your ketostix are good and purple you are in ketosis. Then eat a hog load of the mystery powder. Sugar will break ketosis within 15 min and your ketostix will go back to white. If it is sweet and does not break ketosis then it is fine for the ketogenic diet. That is what she really wants to know, anyway.
Interesting, I'll have to test this on the maltodextrin component of Splenda. (Maltodextrin is probably the only component they might go for)
Ketostix aren't a reliable method to determine whether you are in or out of ketosis. All they show is that, at some point in the past, your body was producing ketones, and now it's discarding them in your urine. It says nothing about the state you're in now. Having been in ketosis over 7 years, I could pee on one and it wouldn't turn at all, because my body knows how to use ketones, and doesn't discard them. While ingesting a large amount of sugar could raise insulin high enough to shut down ketone production, the body would still likely discard existing ones in urine.
Stevia is not an artificial sweetener. It's a plant extract. I have no idea whether ants care for it, however.
This is a really fascinating suggestion. Is there any reference available to validate that ants will completely ignore artificial sweeteners?
@dwizum And if that's the case, do they also ignore stevia?
Some artificial sweeteners have calories: tagatose, trehalose, trehalulose, maltodextrin, sorbitol, xylitol, maltitol, mannitol, .... Non-caloric sweeteners are stevia, erythritol, aspartame, neotame, saccharin, sucralose http://www.nutrientsreview.com/articles/sweeteners.html
@Jan - I hope you have a middle school science class. That would be an impressive layout of sweeteners. You could do more than just ants.
This answer is specific to OP's situation, and doesn't apply for the general case where "getting it wrong" has fewer consequences.
is there any surefire way to tell if this is Stevia and not sugar?
No, there is no surefire way you can tell.
Within the bounds of an everyday kitchen, and lay-person knowledge; there is no method by which you will be 100% certain of the contents of the jar. As this is for the health of your partner, who has a medical condition - it is not worth taking any risk whatsoever.
Furthermore; testing that the majority of the jar is Stevia, does not ensure that the jar only contains Stevia.
The cost of a new jar of Stevia, is far lower than the cost of accidentally harming your partner. I would strongly recommend not to take any risk, and accept the cost of replacement as part of your transition to a new, better labelled life-style.
Of course, the existing jar does not have to go to waste, I'm sure you have plenty of neighbours and friends who will happily make use of a jar of "probably Stevia".
I do appreciate this comment as it is important to be cautious on an extremely strict diet - in this case, my partner's diet is not so strict (and I've edited my question to say so), but I still appreciate this answer.
Wow, do not throw it away, especially if you have a scale or yeast handy. There are 2 easy methods to determine whether the unknown sweetener is sugar or not.
Try fermenting unknown sweetener with yeast
With the exception of lactose, yeast can feed on all "real" sugars, or at least the ones you'd normally keep in your kitchen. On the other hand, in all of my testing, I was unable to get any "artificial" sweeteners to be fermented by yeast. Those tests included Splenda (maltodextrin + Sucralose), erythritol, and even allulose (psicose). The same would likely be true for Stevia granular sweetener, as it's a mix of maltodextrin + stevia.
Use weight and taste to determine sweetener type
First of all, pure stevia powder that isn't cut with anything would be incredibly sweet (with possibly a bitter aftertaste): the sweetness is much more concentrated than sugar. Generally, pure sugar substitutes like stevia extract, sucralose, etc. are usually "cut" or bulked with less sweet ingredients like maltodextrin (hardly sweet at all) or erythritol (75% as sweet as sugar).
Anyway,
1 cup of sugar weighs around 200 g.
1 cup of Truvia (erythritol and stevia extract) should weigh around 224 g.*
1 cup of Swerve (erythritol, oligosaccharides and natural flavors) should weigh around 204 g.*
1 cup of Splenda (maltodextrin + sucralose) should weigh around 27 g (yes, it's that light).
1 cup of maltodextrin + stevia extract should also weigh around 27 g.
If she's ever used this sweetener for baking, then it's unlikely that it's Equal (aspartame), as that loses its sweetness when subjected to heat.
* Note that any sweetener that contains erythritol will be easily distinguished by the extreme cooling sensation it has on the tongue compared to other sweeteners. With Swerve in particular, I've found the that the sweetness sensation seems to linger for minutes after I've tasted it (provided I don't eat anything else). I don't get the same experience with Splenda. Sorry, I don't know how this compares with sugar (sucrose), as it's probably been 7 years or so since I've tasted it.
This paper suggests a bulk density of around 400g/l (100g/cup) for maltodextrin, which is more than you've got but still much less than white sugar. Do you have any idea of the variability in the packing fraction of sugar? If >=10% you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between sugar and Truvia/Swerve
@ChrisH Swerve and Truvia both contain erythritol, which is easily distinguished by the cooling effect on the tongue compared to other sweeteners. Pure maltodextrin powder is likely around 100g/cup, but in the Splenda & other mixes where it's used, it's been highly "fluffed up". Sorry, not sure how to describe it. I mean, if I scooped out a cup of Splenda, and I worked at it, I could probably compress it down into about ¼ cup of volume, once I've forced out all the air. Hope that makes sense...
Fluffing up would make sense for something that's essentially a bulking agent, and partly why I discounted the idea of using density as powder density is so variable. This could probably be achieved by controlling how it's dried.
OK, this one will not be very practical, but I was inspired by one of the answers who claimed that
there is no surefire way to tell
But there is.
Sugar is optically active. A linearly polarized light beam will rotate while traveling through sugar. There is an instrument that measures this called polarimeter and, actually, its main use in business is to measure sugar quality by this exact property.
So, if you somehow manage to get access to one, just check which of your substances does make the beam turn.
I've actually got access to enough kit to do this, and it wasn't my first thought. A well deserved +1
surefire way : check both of their spectrums.
ahh, nice to see a fella scientist :)
Put a pinch of each into a pan and heat it.
Real sugar will turn into brown and sticky caramel. Sweetener won't.
Actually, sugar alcohols (erythritol) do melt and carmelize like sugar. IIRC, they do have a different melting point than sugar, though, which might be a way to distinguish them...
When I do keto, I can tell within a short period of time by the buzz, if something has sugar in it. So the easy solution is for you to do keto for a few days, then drink a cup of this stuff.
Edit:
Mark mentions that this is susceptible to psychological error. Firstly, this indicates to me that Mark hasn't ever done a long term keto diet. I've gotten steak at a steak house, assumed it was just steak, and got a huge buzz from the steak. I asked, and later I found out they added sugar to it.
Nevertheless, the way around this is to do this as a double blind study - get 32 people, give have them all do Keto for a few days, then give them unlabeled cups of Stevia vs sugar water, and ask whether they experienced a sugar buzz or not. This should result in a statistically significant measurement concerning which is sugar and which is Stevia.
This is highly susceptible to psychosomatic effects, where you experience a buzz because you're expecting to experience a buzz. See also: people getting drunk off non-alcoholic beer.
@Mark Good idea, edited
Ah, I see Willk has a better "taste it and test it" method.
I believe you when you say you'll experience a buzz if you eat sugar after being on a long-term keto diet. But I also believe you'll experience a buzz if you eat something that you expect will contain sugar, even if it's actually sugar-free.
@Mark No way. It's like cocaine. Notice that you write "I believe" instead of "I know". Like, spinach gets this really sweet flavor after a few weeks. And carrots? oh my!
"keto for a few days" won't really do it. Most people don't enter ketosis until several weeks into the diet.
If the buzz hits within 30 seconds, it's psychosomatic. Sugar can't go from your mouth to your brain instantly.
@Robyn Thanks, I was writting a with colloquial English. Fixed it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.941212
| 2019-06-02T16:12:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99317",
"authors": [
"Astor Florida",
"Chris H",
"George Menoutis",
"Jan",
"JimmyJames",
"Mark",
"Martin Bonner supports Monica",
"Mazura",
"NSGod",
"Robyn",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Willk",
"Zibbobz",
"dwizum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75888",
"jwenting"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44933
|
Using whole wheat flour instead of all-purpose and semolina
I want to make pasta at some point and I am wondering if I could use all whole wheat flour instead of a blend of all-purpose and semolina flour. I know the taste will be a little different, but can I use only whole wheat flour instead of AP and semolina for pasta?
You can, although the vast majority of whole wheat pasta recipes also include flours that are not whole wheat. When I first answered this question I missed that you were looking to make pasta using only whole wheat flour.
One way it can work to use all whole wheat is to make the dough, knead, and then rest it overnight recipe, but I'm a bit dubious that the final result will be completely satisfactory. Simply put, if using whole wheat alone can make good pasta, we would see more recipes that only include whole wheat.
If you search for "whole wheat pasta recipe" you will find many recipes that include whole wheat and another flour. The ratio of whole wheat to other flours will vary, I'd definitely look for recipes from very solid sources or recipes that have many excellent reviews. There are a lot of not-very-good recipes out there.
Of all the recipes I looked at from sources that I trust, Mario Batali's uses the highest proportion of whole wheat. He uses a 7:1 ratio. The reviews on that particular recipe aren't stellar, but the comments suggest that the reviewers liked the pasta, just not the sauce.
okay for the whole wheat it says to use 1 cup and for the all purpose it says to use 2 cups. Is there really that simple 1:2 ratio of whole wheat to all purpose?
@caters I'm sure that if you keep looking, you will find a variety of ratios, and that they produce different results. If that's your question, you should ask it.
ah but I found one that does not use any semolina or all purpose and it called for 1 cup of whole wheat flour.
@caters I'd love to talk to you about it more. If you click on this, it will take you to the chat room http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/16/the-frying-pan
100% whole wheat works fine. The reason you don't see such recipes online is that so few people cook this way.
Resting is more important if you are making pasta without a machine. When using a machine, put the dough through on the largest setting, fold it over and do it again and again. At one point you will get to the smooth texture that you are looking for.
Please note that this site is meant for answers that concretely address the question on top. Rants, even ones related to food, are not permitted. Neither is any content that does not address the question directly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.942250
| 2014-06-17T07:42:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44933",
"authors": [
"Carol Yagel",
"Cascabel",
"Caters",
"Gator Dumpster Rentals spam",
"Joe Kolodny",
"Jolenealaska",
"Profile Spam Account",
"SUNNY DEE ",
"Spammer",
"Zeus138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"kingsman Trading",
"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
}
|
78706
|
What makes meat overly juicey?
Yesterday I cooked a steak and today I cooked another (from the same cute). Today it turned out much better and on reflection it was because it was LESS juicy. Now, I find this surprising as I always thought juicy is something desirable for meat. Also today I added olive oil where yesterday I didn't add anything but spice.
How do you control the level of liquid that comes out of a piece of meat when you bite it? When is it desirable for meat to be juicy?
I cook steak on a George Foreman Grill with slanted grills that are non-stick. I heated it up to 450 F but it always looses temperature quickly so I expected it was 375 when the steak was actually in it.
How do you control the level of liquid that comes out of a piece of meat when you bite it?
Did you rest the second steak, the one you liked better?
Resting meat after cooking is an influential variable in controlling juice release. This article discusses [I am not affiliated with the link].
From the article:
...as one surface of the meat hits the hot pan (or grill), the juices in that surface are forced away towards the center, increasing the concentration of moisture in the middle of the steak. Once the steak gets flipped over, the same thing happens on the other side. The center of the steak becomes supersaturated with liquid—there's more liquid in there than it can hold on to—so when you slice it open, all that extra liquid pours out. By resting the steaks, you allow all that liquid that was forced out of the edges and into the center time to migrate back out to the edges.
A picture from least rested to most rested steaks, from the article linked above. Cut at 2 1/2 minute intervals.
\
Important distinction: The rested steak is not less juicy, it has the same moisture. It's just that it is better contained in the meat while you eat. I suspect that's what you liked about your second steak.
There could be other factors in your experience: seasoning, grill temps, starting temp of the the cut, etc. But resting is probably the most influential.
I rest my steaks for 7 to 10 minutes with a piece of aluminum foil lightly laying over the top.
How juicy your steak is will always depend on how much moisture you have left in it. A dry rub steak that hasn't been tenderized through marinating will always come out drier than an oiled and moisture prepped one. Also consider moisture levels while cooking. Often alongside a roast a small dish with water will be placed in the oven to create humidity. Also a steady medium temperature will dry out the meat if cooked without liquid whereas a high heat may only sear the outside (thickness is always a factor when cooking meat). In your case a part from marinating or doing an oil rub, I would suggest using tin foil in your George Forman grill - it will keep in some extra juices. Hope this helps :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.942488
| 2017-02-25T10:42:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78706",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109941
|
Baking bread without yeast
Can I make bread without yeast? Thanks!
What do you define as 'bread'? Chapattis are bread, flour & water.
Can you [edit] the question to specify what do you mean with 'yeast'? Added commercial yeast (fresh yeast, instant yeast, etc) or any kind of yeast (wild yeast, like sourdough bread)? Is there a particular type of bread that you have in mind?
While beyond the equipment of most home bakers The Chorleywood process essentially does this
@JourneymanGeek From your link: “Flour, water, yeast, salt, fat,...”
You could look into making flatbread, which often (though not always) gets its name through being unleavened, and thus, flat (yes, I am oversimplifying here). Common examples are tortillas or roti.
It is unclear what you are asking. If you mean...
Can I make bread without buying yeast from the store and adding it, and without the bread tasting yeasty?
...then the answer is definitely "yes". Sourdough bread works perfectly fine without added yeast - the reason being that the sourdough itself contains yeast microorganisms as part of its natural composition. In some countries, this is the primary way to make bread, and the strong yeasty taste of e.g. more Italian/French breads (baguette etc.) puts them in a quite separate category.
If, instead, you mean...
I am allergic to yeast, how to I make bread?
...then it gets a little complicated. There are some bread-like recipes which contain no yeast (and no agent to make it "fluffy") in any form, for example Roti or other flatbreads. Very tasty and easily made in a pan, but some people would not necessarily identify it as "bread" per se. Still, try them out and see if you like them. You can also play around with soda or other replacements, but it will be quite different.
Nitpick: Naan is usually leavened with yeast. Are you thinking of rotis or chapatis?
Yes, I was thinking of Roti, thanks @MichaelSeifert
If you want it to be bread, you will need some type of leavening. You can create a starter (think sourdough), which is essentially growing your own yeast and bacteria. This, of course, takes several days until it is useful. Alternately you can use a chemical leavener, like baking powder or baking soda. These obviously result in different types of bread.
Flatbreads are breads.
Soda bread is a great example of a bread that uses baking soda as a leavening agent.
@chrylis-cautiouslyoptimistic But sweetbreads aren't
@chrylis-cautiouslyoptimistic- my answer does not preclude flat breads. Many do have leavening (naan, pita), while I will allow that some, such as tortillas, do not.
Three options, depending on exactly what you mean by "no yeast":
No purchased yeast. In this case, you would make a sourdough starter, essentially cultivating your own source of wild yeast from your environment. You'd have a startup time of several days to a week before you could bake a loaf of bread this way. There are any number of directions for how to do this available online, especially these days; a reliable and easy-to-follow one is the King Arthur Flour recipe. Once you've established your starter you can bake a "regular" loaf of bread.
No yeast at all, but a risen loaf. In this case you need to look into an alternative leavening like baking soda or beer. Looking for recipes for "soda bread" or "beer bread" will help you find something here. Beer is, of course, made using yeast, so depending on your reasons for avoiding yeast this may or may not be an option - there almost certainly won't be enough live yeast in your beer to act as a leavening agent (the leavening in beer bread comes from the carbonation), but if you have other reasons for avoiding yeast it may not be an option.
Completely unleavened bread. This will limit you to flatbreads; not all flatbreads are unleavened, but some like chapatis and tortillas are.
Soda bread, which is bread made with baking soda as the leavener, is not that far from yeast-risen breads, and can be used in a similar fashion. The crumb isn't nearly as fine as that for a yeast bread, and so it's a bit closer to muffin texture in many ways (for obvious reasons), but it's not a terrible substitute - and it cooks far quicker than yeast breads (1 hour or so from start prep to finish, or even less if you make rolls or other smaller breads that cook faster).
The type of soda bread I prefer is Irish soda bread, or this one similarly - both are very simple, few ingredients (4-5 depending on if you have buttermilk or not).
Sourdough bread
Assuming by "not using yeast" you mean not using commercially bought yeast, you can make Sourdough bread; which relies on naturally occurring "wild" lactobacilli and yeasts
You could also make
Smooth Bread
Which is apparently:
NO yeast NO flour
That doesn’t meet my definition of “bread”, even if applied very loosely. Plus, this post is just a name and a link, I must encourage you to [edit] your post into a standalone answer or it will be removed as “link only”.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.942743
| 2020-07-30T13:26:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109941",
"authors": [
"AnoE",
"Double AA",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Laconic Droid",
"Luciano",
"Michael Seifert",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic-",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83713",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84704
|
Where can I get Melfor vinegar in Spain? Or can someone suggest a good substitute?
It's a low-acid vinegar from the Alsace region of France, made with spirit (alcohol) vinegar and honey, and infused with herbs. There is a version of it available on Amazon.
I can't find anywhere to buy it here in Spain. Does anyone know where I may be able to purchase it or order it online for delivery to Spain? Alternatively, can somebody recommend a substitution?
Did you try contacting them directly to see if they have distributors in Spain ? Maybe big box like El Corte Ingles have them ?
Thanks @Cindy and Jefromi for helping me understand the norms here. I'll edit my question to ask for substitutions instead of recipes. And thanks Max, I'll try that if I get desperate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.943134
| 2017-09-28T11:27:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84704",
"authors": [
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55405",
"lucas"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9857
|
How do I keep the rice cooker from boiling over?
I am having epic rice-cooker failure here.
I measure out the amount of rice suggested by the little cup thingy. I rinse it with a bowl and a strainer until the water is clear while rinsing. Then I put the rice in and fill it to the appropriate line in my Rice Cooker with fresh water. After cooking for a little while, it immediately begins to boil over and nasty bubbles start popping out of the little hole in the top, dumping yucky, sticky water all over the place.
The Rice, when all is said and done, is alright but it's a hell of a mess! What am I doing wrong?
The answers here (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8618/stopping-water-from-bubbling-over-when-cooking-rice) may be of help to you. For example, do you wash your rice before cooking?
I do. I rinse it with a bowl and strainer until the water is clear.
@Sam Holder - I actually think the substance of this question is somewhat different, as the asker is already trying the proposed solution of the question you linked as a duplicate. I have voted to reopen.
@juskt, I reopened. I still feel that the question is a duplicate of that one though, its just that other answers than the accepted one might be correct in this case. We can leave it open and see if it gets any new answers which specifically answer this then merge it with the other maybe...
I think that since rinsing is done, that this is a different question which requires a different answer.
I've heard that adding a little olive oil (any kind) can help with bubbling over.
Otherwise if you don't get any answers, consider that your rice cooker might be broken. If you get that far, try to borrow someone else's and repeat your method.
Can confirm this is the way to do it. I break all the rules, using 3:1 water to rice, using Basmati brown, and I don't even rinse or soak it. I had big issues with boiling over, but adding some olive oil fixed it. I'd guess any cooking oil works, but olive oil is what I have on hand.
How to keep a rice cooker from boiling over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRmzEy8Kdk
or
keep a wet paper towel over the vent
or
place a wooden stick or string of rope across the container
cooking rice without it boiling over
http://simplykarendipity.blogspot.in/2012/09/cooking-rice-without-it-boiling-over.html
it's a good idea to summarize links, in case of link rot. In this case, the first video link is the last 'or' (placing wooden skewers below the lid), and the link in the comments is the piece of string under the lid.
Put a little bit of butter in before cooking. The fat on the top will prevent the bubbles from surviving for too long and therefore not allow it to boil over. The olive oil should work as well, but I don't know if that has the required amount of fat needed.
Olive oil is 100% fat whereas butter isn't. So you have your logic inverted.
I just talked to a pro rice cooker person, he says forget about the instructions, prep the rice as usual, put it in the rice cooker, then add just enough water to cover the rice, turn on the rice cooker, and voila, perfect, fluffy rice every time!
Funny how when I follow the instructions, that's exactly how things look. Perhaps some people are using full cup measures instead of the mini-cup measure that comes with their cooker and end up adding too much water; so it boils over.
This happens to me, too...in fact that is exactly why I am here, because I was googling for a solution! I will try a more through rinsing of the rice and the butter thing next time. BUT I think the real answer is the quality of the rice itself. When I used a higher quality rice (when I first got my rice cooker) I didn't have this problem, of late I have not bought the better rice and I have a mess on my hands. So maybe the more aggressive rinsing will help.
You mention you're using the recommended amount of water according to the rice cooker... have you checked, or tried, the amount of recommended water according to the rice?
Varieties or preparations of rice use different amounts of water, sometimes varying by quite a bit - I've seen them from just under one-cup-per-cup-rice, to three-cups-per-cup-rice. Your rice cooker can't change the lines to suit the rice, and may be making assumptions that don't fit the rice you're using.
Personally, we made rice a lot growing up, and I never noticed the amount of rice we made, or the amount of rice and water we started with, actually fit the rice cooker's lines.
Beyond that, you should probably try reducing water, even if your rice recommended amount of water is fairly close to the rice cooker's. You clearly have too much of it for your rice - the amount of water making your rice come out right plus the amount that gets dumped out the vent. And rice is a biological rather than processed product, like flour or tea or vegetables, where different weather, different years, and other minutely different factors in growth, production, and usage means that one batch of even the same variety of rice may end up being different from another batch - so you may need to tweak recommendations to fit what's actually going on.
maybe just try reducing the water by a little amount at a time, each time you make it, until it works out right? seems odd to me that even though you are rinsing & measuring your rice, and adding the recommended water, that this would be happening. my rice cooker is foolproof when i follow the directions like that!
My rice cooker never boiled over using converted rice, but we have a bunch of regular long grain rice that was given to us and every batch boils over.
I always follow the ratios on the back of the rice, but I’ve just read the instructions on the back of long grain enriched rice and it calls for half again as much water!
Problem solved!!
It has been an ordeal to us for a very long time. You can blame the manufacturers because its really a problem. We have used 2 brands and still have this problem. Just put wooden stick on the lid and place the cover, when the cooking is done, remove the stick and return the cover.
When simmering/steaming rice of any type the rice/water ratio is always 1:1 plus more water for evaporation loss
Your evaporation loss can generally only be determined by trial and error
The evaporation loss amount is fixed for the type of rice, cooking vessel/machine, and temperature used
If you cook 1 cup of rice with 1.5 cups of water, then you can cook 2 cups of the same rice and same method with 2.5 cups of water. This is 1 cup of water per cup of rice, plus 0.5 cups for evaporation loss). If you use 3 cups of water you will have left over water, and in a machine probably overflow
Many packets of rice actually say this, they just don't spell it out why, so many people think it's a miss-print and just multiply the rice/water ratio for 1 cup of rice
I'm going to have to disagree. Short grain rice only require 1:1 ratio but the long grain variety require more water.
I threw out the only rice maker I ever tried, because I can do better myself... but I use something similar to this ratio, just in a pan. No rinse, start with boiling water, drop rice, stir once & reduce to min temp. 15 mins simmer, 15 mins rest. Serve.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.943259
| 2010-12-07T19:23:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9857",
"authors": [
"Alan Martin",
"Drew",
"Gerry",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Monica",
"Party Bus Hamptons",
"Rhonda",
"Sam Holder",
"Siva",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"denise Tracy",
"einnocent",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"justkt",
"kzh",
"robbfitzsimmons",
"user20201",
"user57326",
"wayne duffield"
],
"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
}
|
80851
|
Marinade sauce bottle left open for longer than recommended - safe to use?
I have a marinade bottle from Nandos, it was opened and then kept in a cupboard for about 6 months.
Is it safe to use?
I can't find any information of what could go wrong about sauces. It still smells the same so I don't see any issue aside from the bottle saying:
Once opened, keep refrigerated and use within 3 months
If it says keep refrigerated and you didn't, I wouldn't chance it. A lot of things need refrigerator temperatures to prevent nasty things from growing and keep them safe. There are also some things that are actually safe unrefrigerated but retain quality better when refrigerated, and will say "keep refrigerated" on the bottle, but you don't really know which is the case here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.944111
| 2017-04-12T17:34:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80851",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82166
|
Scoring medium hydration dough after it's been in the oven
I've been using this setup for 60% hydration dough:
20 mins in cloche, covered, 500°
10 mins in cloche, covered, 450°
20+ mins uncovered, 450°
For all intents and purposes, the cloche works like a Dutch oven, trapping moisture:
(You can see in my second photo my rescue attempt)
I've got a baking sheet with water to maintain humidity in the oven as I bake it.
The problem I'm running into is that when I score the bread (1/4" - 1/2", single cut along the centre, trying my best for a 45° angle, immediately before it goes in the oven), the score actually glazes over, becoming part of the crust, and preventing the score from doing it's job of 'ventilation'. The first time this happened, my dough blew out. The next two times, I've caught it happening in the first 5 mins and re-scored it after it's been in the oven.
So, two questions:
Is scoring bread after it's baked for a few minutes a common thing? Do bakers do this?
If not, what can I do to my baking method to prevent the score from crusting over?
What angle are you cutting it at? if you just cut down, it's not as effective as cutting a flap that can open up as the bread bakes ... and you often want to cut much deeper than a 1/2"
@joe trying my best for a 45° angle.
Related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/40378/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/21555/67 ;
What do you think is supposed to happen? The score is there to allow the expansion of the dough and then it IS part if the crust after is sets. Perhaps you think it should expand more? I would suggest that covering the loaf with a cloche is not going to allow the moister in your pan to reach the loaf. The dutch oven method is dependent on the steam generated inside of the cloche. Once the crust is set the moister has done its job.
Hrm. Interesting thought. Before I tried the pan + water for steam, the crust was hardening so quickly under the cloche the bread was blowing out. But now I'm seeing it so wet that the crust is glazing over the score instead of glazing beside it, while the score expands gently.
If the single score isn't letting the bread expand enough before it sets, have you thought of more than one score? If each allows the same amount of expansion in the same time, that might be enough to let the bread rise fully and prevent it blowing out.
I could try more than one, but they seem to glaze over so quickly that one or ten, I fear I’d have the same problem? I can try two or three next time and see what happens
No luck. Multiple scores just meant multiple places where it glazes over. At this point, I’m going to try without steam in the oven to see what happens?
How much oven spring are you getting? Maybe you should look into trying to increase spring in order to help your scores expand from the inside as the loaf bakes. Instead of using scores solely as ventilation, they can also function as openings for the bread for the bread to "blow out" along.
Quite a bit actually - loaves are rising nicely. Lately I’ve been dropping the water pan entirely and it seems to be working better; will post an answer if I can get something scientific.
It looks like there may be some misunderstanding about how the cloche is supposed to work, and what scoring will/should look like. I think the bread in your photo looked like it didn't need any further scoring. I think it looked like a great result, since there aren't any visible blow outs on the bottom. If you preheat the cloche in the oven, and put the bread in, with one or two deep scores, you should get some spring and steam from the oven as the water escapes from the bread inside the cloche. This is what causes the wide opening of your score. The fact that it doesn't look like the "leaf" or "lip" that professional bakers get is mostly due to practice with the angle/depth of the score, and likely the amount of steam that is in the oven. The cloche will create some steam, but not as much as is in a commercial oven with steam jets. I don't see anything wrong with your pictured loaf. It may be different from what you were expecting, but I think it is perfectly fine. There was probably no need to do the second scoring.
Sadly I wish it were true! But I’ve tried it without the second score (just a single before I put it in), and it blows out every time.
I guess it must need a deeper score then.
I’ve been out of town a lot lately and haven’t been baking, but I’ll definitely try a deeper (perhaps more angled) score next time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.944315
| 2017-06-04T17:46:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82166",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Jennifer S",
"Joe",
"Megha",
"Seth",
"brandonscript",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81340
|
Why is egg and orange juice such a bad combo?
Eggs and orange juice are not uncommon around the breakfast table, but unfortunately, eating and drinking both in the same mouthful was an unpleasant surprise.
It was as if a chemical reaction had created a third foul taste that was nothing like the two ingredients. My untrained tongue can only describe it as bitter.
Update 1:
I wonder why the combination doesn't taste like the sum of its parts; this combination specifically.
Update 2:
Use your imagination! Human perception is merely the null hypothesis (obviously uninteresting), so I'm really asking this: Is there something more to it than that? First of all, is this a chemical reaction, or is it not?
Example answers:
Oh boy, this is a chemical reaction! Eggs contain sulfur, and oranges contain E300 (acid you know) so this becomes sulfuric acid! That's why.
The acidic solution breaks down the egg much like stomac juice, releasing H2S, which tastes rotten. That's why.
The acid + your spit makes instant biodiesel out of the fats in the egg. Beat that!
Sad to disappoint you, but nothing special is going on with this mixture. Your tongue tricked you.
I have some trouble finding an answerable question here. Are you wondering why the combination doesn't taste like the sum of its parts? This is true of all things we taste, the brain creates a unique perception for everything it senses (and that combination is unique for each person and context). Are you wondering why you didn't like the combination? This is not answerable, it is literally a matter of taste. Are you wondering why your brain picked the label "bitter" when you wondered how to describe the taste? This is also not answerable, another person would have picked something else.
Maybe you perceive the taste of egg in a very sour environment as spoiled?
Hi, I saw the edit. No sensory input is ever perceived as the sum of its parts, and the "why" is an explanation of how human senses work - a very interesting area, but it is basic neurology+psychology and has little to do with cooking. Your question basically amounts to "how does human perception work".
We also have compounds that block or modify our taste buds. Something in toothpaste mutes our sense of sweetness, so orange juice is then horribly out of balance.
It's a fair question, it didn't seem opinion based to me - there are reactions that occur and perceptions that are common with certain combinations of ingredients, and no way to know if this specific mixture was one of them or not before asking. There may be a chemical reaction or may not, a common effect or not, but that is a question that can be asked (especially since "no known reason" is listed as an acceptable potential answer)
@GdD: Reopen? It's not opinion based – please see Update 2. Thanks.
@user2394284 Maybe the title and motivation for the question should be changed in light of your last edit. Something along the lines of "Is there a chemical reaction between eggs and orange juice that causes foul taste?"
Even with the edit, your question remains hard to answer. There are probably dozens of chemical reactions going on there - I doubt that somebody has even listed all chemicals contained in an orange. Trying to name one as the cause of your dislike would be pure speculation. Also, you still seem to believe in the false dichotomy of "chemical reaction" vs "tongue tricking you".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.944696
| 2017-05-01T20:57:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81340",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"tkmckenzie",
"user2394284"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92223
|
Substitute to grain mustard
I am planning on doing a recipe of mustard sauce pork. Here is the recipe for the sauce (quantities are approximate, the recipe is inspired from a Gordon Ramsay Youtube video):
Ingredients
1 tbsp vegetable oil
1 tbsp garlic
1 tbsp chopped shallots
calvados
chicken stock
cooking cream
1 tbsp dijon mustard
1 tbsp grain mustard
Method
In hot pan, caramelize garlic and shallots.
deglaze with calvados, flambée if possible and reduce.
Add about 1 1/2 cup of chicken stock and reduce by half.
Add cream for richness and thickness, bring to a boil.
Add mustards and let simmer for 5-10 minutes to meet desired consistancy.
This previous is the sauce of a more complete recipe but it does not depend on the rest of the dish to be a fine sauce, asides from the pork residue in the pan for taste.
Now the problem is, I don't have any grain mustard, but have mustard seeds at home as well as regular Dijon mustard.
Would it be possible to substitute the grain mustard by the same quantity of regular Dijon plus mustard seeds without compromising the taste too severely?
Hi, can you tell what the recipe is and list ingredients instead of writing this recipe? We shouldn't need to open a link or video when you can easily describe it here. Please [edit] your question to add this information.
@Luciano the question has been modified, thanks!
I would skip the mustard seeds and just use 2 tbsp of regular dijon mustard
Where does the recipe come from? It's not what he says in the video.
Some components are added assumptions. Such as the recipes and the final sauce simmering (I'm doing this to compensate the lack of letting the pork sit in the sauce and rest at low heat) The recipe is more specifically inspired by the video using the same ingredients. That is not the point of the question though. The question is the final paragraph.
But the recipe doesn't call for "old style Dijon". It calls for "grain mustard". Mustard can be both, but doesn't have to be.
MY bad, you are completely right. That was my mistake, let me modify, the question holds.
It is my considered opinion my answer stays valid even after your modifications. ;-) :-) ;-)
Indeed! But I want to try it before accepting any answer. I will not forget though!
Yes, add the mustard seeds to the Dijon mustard and add a splash of vinegar, stir well and let it sit like that for 24h.
For the impatient / I don't have 24h ;-)
Microwave the newly created mixture for one minute @ 750W (without the metal lid on!) and stir again after microwaving. (Use oven mittens!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.945004
| 2018-09-12T13:53:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92223",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Fabby",
"Louis",
"Luciano",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57652"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85090
|
The Perfect Smoothie - Liquid Milk versus Powdered Milk
I recently attempted to make myself a Strawberry Milkshake Smoothie (as what is defined here, that is, no ice cream used) and failed miserably. This made me wonder about two things regarding this drink.
This time I tried to make it using powdered milk instead of the liquid one usually contained in Cartons. What I did was to put all those three ingredients (water, powder and strawberries) into the blender and then blended it until it had the desired consistency and color. The result was not as I expected, as the drink was not too flavored (tasted like water mostly, and seemed like it did not blended properly).
Could the order of preparation have affected the quality of my Beverage? I am no master chef at all, but I have at least prepared Lemonade to know that order sometimes matters here.
Also, that made me wonder if using powdered milk versus liquid milk could affect somehow the preparation of drinks like Milkshakes or Smoothies? I tried this time the powdered option, as I think I saw my favorite Milkshake seller use it instead of Carton milk so I thought it could be worth the try.
Other possibly important details on my failed attempt: The Strawberries were cold (not frozen but considerably cold), powdered milk was whole and fresh and used "standard" measure and added at most 2 cups of water (was a drink for one).
Yes I could, maybe I'll try that :) although not sure if he will reveal his secret to me... I still could appreciate advice from other sources here anyways.
It sounds like you are making something that we would call a smoothie in the US. You might find some ideas searching for that term.
@Jolenealaska thanks for clarifying, I tried to include the ingredients as well to avoid ambiguity, hope that is ok
I wonder if you didn't add enough powdered milk
@JourneymanGeek the powder envelope indicated aprox. 4 Tbsp. per cup, so I added that much plus a bit more (as I had more than 1 cup). Maybe too much strawberries? (added about 7 of them).
You might want to consider just editing your question to say "smoothie"; it's confusing to me as well as the couple others who pointed it out already, and I think it may've led SnakeDoc's answer astray as well - everything there is definitely talking about normal (for the US anyway) milkshakes.
@Jefromi thanks will do. I thought that including a link to another question that specifies what Milkshake is would clear those doubts. Also is why I included the ingredients to reduce any ambiguities.
@Jefromi done, is it better now?
@GrayCygnus Yup, thanks! You weren't entirely wrong that the other version would clarify if people read really carefully, but a lot of people are going to assume they know what a milkshake is or just miss it. It was kind of like saying "I'm making a cake (this kind)..." and then the link turns out to be bread.
@Jefromi funny that you wanted such a change, since for me it fits the "milkshake" description than the "smoothie" description. I guess we have hit a mine of hidden cultural differnces here.
@Jefromi I see, terminology is important for quick readers :) I also gave a better read to the question linked and see why you suggested the edit (as I never used ice cream, apparently essential for it to be considered milk shake). Thanks again for your help
@rumtscho I also thought it was milkshake, but seems that the Line between both of them is really thin, probably the big difference according to that post I linked is that Milkshakes have icecream, smoothies dont. Besides that they both can/cant have milk and other ingredients. Probably worth to give more attention to that question as to come to a consensus on some term.
Oof, possibly there's some UK vs US difference here? Sorry, I didn't realize I might be dictating US terms here. Smoothie still seems more unambiguous in this case, though - as far as I can tell, it's understandable in UK English too. See also https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/300547/when-talking-to-american-clients-should-i-say-smoothie-or-milkshake
@Jefromi yep, that English SE post seems to agree with the definition used in the liked question I posted. Therefore this is more Smoothie than Milkshake but still seems that the terms may be somewhat interchangeable.
I've never heard of Powdered Milk being used in a Milkshake, personally.
When I worked at a restaurant, majority of our shakes were made from a Soft Serve machine. Having had shakes at other locations, I gather most use Soft Serve unless they specify "hand-scooped" or "real ice cream", etc.
We'd pour the Soft Serve into a tall metal cup, and add some milk (not too much at first, you don't want it too runny), and then blended with a milkshake blender (can be imitated at home using an immersion blender).
We also had Simple Syrup to add on occasion (can be made at home, or found in your local grocery store, usually in the alcohol/bar isle). You can add flavors, like strawberries, bananas, pineapple (chopped or diced and then thrown in before blending), chocolate syrup, strawberry syrup, etc. Top with whipped cream and candied/maraschino cherries.
We also offered hand-scooped shakes, which were made exactly the same way, except we used real ice cream instead of soft serve.
The trick was to not put too much milk in, you can always add more and blend again. Blending will thin it out too, if you do it too much - so be careful.
So you did used Liquid milk then (that is not powder?)
Yes, always liquid milk, never heard of powdered milk being used, personally.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.945248
| 2017-10-19T06:25:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85090",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"DarkCygnus",
"Jolenealaska",
"Journeyman Geek",
"SnakeDoc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62292",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129568
|
What does this symbol (that looks like a triangle on top of a thermometer) mean?
I can't find a single explanation online, and image search engines did not help either. One theory is that this refers to a pressure cooker, but I am not sure. My intention is to vacuum seal the glasses by boiling them, so I am a bit wary that the high temperature might damage them.
Regardless of what the symbol means, Weck glasses are intended for canning. They are absolutely suitable for water bath canning, without getting damaged. I have also used them for pressure canning, and also for that they work well, although I was somewhat unhappy with the performance of the rubber rings in that case. No glass breaking though.
I am reasonably sure but can’t yet find a source/citation for this, but it appears to refer to the “thermal shock” resistance. The symbol looks a lot like the delta used for “delta T”, or a change in temperature. That would fit with the symbol on the left which looks like the maximum temperature.
Taken together, it’s saying that it’s rated to a maximum temperature of 200°C and up to a 50°C temperature change, both which are typical of soda-lime glass.
That’s correct - and the reason why Weck states that for canning jars with cold contents go in a cool water bath and jars with hot contents in a warm or hot water bath. (And yes, I’d have to dig through my library to find that reference, if I even still have it.)
Interesting: Once I understand it it seems quite clear! I think it's the interpretation of the triangle as a delta which makes the difference. I first thought it might be a roof or something.
@Peter-ReinstateMonica I noticed that the triangle is not the sane line thickness all the way around - it’s subtle, but that’s what convinced me to write an answer (plus when I looked up the thermal shock resistance and temp limit of soda-lime glass, it matched the numbers in the image).
This sounds about right, thanks a lot!
Weck's FAQ confirms this; "How do I avoid breakage? — In order to avoid thermal shock the temperature between the glass jar and the operating ambient temperature do not exceed max. 50 degrees C."
and so do their books and other sources. While not always giving specific temperatures they do give instructions to preheat glasses before filling with hot substances.
The Triangle is a "Delta" symbol, from the Greek character. It means "change". So yes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.945691
| 2024-11-16T20:00:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129568",
"authors": [
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Stephie",
"TylerW",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75428",
"jwenting",
"martinarroyo",
"mckenzm",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117390
|
Why do Brussels sprouts only taste good when cut?
My mom always used to cook or steam Brussels sprouts whole. I always hated them and still do now if they are prepared that way. They tend to get a very sharp, slightly bitter vegetable taste, similar to over-boiled fennel.
But on the other hand, then cut in halves or quarters they taste amazing. Especially fried in butter/olive oil, but also when boiled, with a hint of lemon juice I started to absolutely love them.
I was wondering why that is that they do not develop that distinctly disgusting flavour when they are cut?
I have some theories, but I would love to hear your thoughts on this:
Maybe by the time the centre is cooked the outer part is already overcooked.
The caramelisation that happens much more on the cut side makes them taste better. Perhaps the sweetness from that overtones the bitter flavour?
Or is there actually some chemical compound in Brussels sprouts that can not evaporate when they're whole?
A good question! I like sprouts either way but I have noticed that they taste different when cut in half or even better, shredded.
@GdD Shaved raw and served as salad.
I was thinking of trying to do them raw in a cole slaw instead of cabbage @Stephie.
@GdD Then we agree ;-)
Try whole sprouts but make two cuts like a cross shape at the end of the "stalk" where the sprout joins the main step of the plant. Cut as deep as you can without actually cutting the sprout into four quarters. Personally I prefer them whole, picked from my own garden, and preferably after a hard frost which increases the flavor of the plant's natural "antifreeze" - otherwise they taste of nothing much IMO.
steaming sprouts keeps a lot of those flavors people dislike in the sprouts, as does leaving them whole. cutting and sautéing them lets those flavors escape. the alton brown good eats episode goes into a lot of detail.
@eps I'm not sure I believe in the "flavor escaping" theory due to cutting - sautéing them of course covers the flavor nicely (as noted in the answer) but bitter flavor isn't something that's very likely to evaporate like the more volatile/gentle esthers (in fact, that's the main problem... the "good" flavors are much more volatile and evaporate while the bitter ones stay; see tea or coffee, for example.
To test: steam cut brussel sprouts and whole ones, and compare flavor
@Joe M it is probably just the process that Sneftel explained, that green veg can turn bitter/sulfurous when overcooked – which I did not realise can happen as I wrote this question.
I don't really eat meat any more, but try frying (sauteing) them with some chopped up bacon. That's the only way I used to eat them.
Some of us think that they don’t taste good even when cut, so at least they are consistent.
It could be that you have a double dose of the TAS2R38 gene. Some people with that double dose can't stand members of the cabbage family due to the bitter taste. Others with a double dose of the gene have learned to like those foods precisely because of the bitterness. People with a single dose of the gene tend to find those foods neither particularly objectionable nor favorable (or flavorful). People lacking the gene find members of the cabbage family to be a bit tasteless.
Could be that roasted veggies almost universally taste better than their boiled or steamed counterparts. A lot of flavor gets lost by boiling or steaming vegetables, leaving behind the bitter and bland parts of the flavor profile.
I think you're on to something with regards to cut pieces cooking more evenly than whole sprouts. But I also think you might be seeing causation where you should just be seeing correlation.
The "classic" way to cook Brussels sprouts is to leave them whole and steam them. That results in minimal flavor development. When overcooked, chemicals are produced with bitter, garlicky, and/or sulfurous overtones. Similar chemicals are produced when long-cooking many other other green vegetables, and are likely what you associated with overcooked fennel. Since no other "interesting" tastes are really produced by steaming, those tastes take center stage, no matter how much butter you put on the sprouts.
Cooking the sprouts at high heat, as restaurants generally do these days, results in caramelization and Maillard browning. Those taste good, and dominate the flavor profile, covering up some of the unpleasant tastes which steaming (but also other cooking methods) produce. Getting a good sear when shallow-frying Brussels sprouts requires cutting them, so there's an association between how they're cut and how they're cooked.
There's another aspect to "modern" Brussels sprouts. In the 1990s, agricultural botanists in the Netherlands bred Brussels sprouts with much lower bitterness than classic cultivars; over time, these new sprouts took over the market. So cooking processes aside, Brussels sprouts today are less bitter than the ones from your childhood. (For that matter: as you age, bitter tastes become less unpleasant.)
As I mentioned, you may be on to something with regards to cut pieces cooking more quickly, not giving the outside a chance to overcook, but I suspect what you're primarily seeing is just the result of modern cooking methods compared to the frankly unpleasant results of classic "steam 'em for a while" treatment.
Great answer - it would be even greater with a link or two, particularly backing up the 1990s breeding (which are easily found).
@JoeM https://xkcd.com/2241/ Here you go
@Eric Duminil this is misinformation – just tried it again and the gel packets still just taste soapy and burn while swallowing. XD
There is also some evidence that the like/dislike for brussels sprouts has a genetic component. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2011/nov/01/brussel-sprout-gene
Where did the "in Belgium" come from? As far as I know this was a Dutch development (sample source: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/10/30/773457637/from-culinary-dud-to-stud-how-dutch-plant-breeders-built-our-brussels-sprouts-bo )
Huh, I remembered it being Belgium. Updated.
@uɐɪ There isn’t merely “some evidence”, it’s firmly established.
@DavidMulder: It would have made more sense for the scientists to be Belgian. They are Brussels sprouts, after all. [I'll show myself out]
This confusion would be better resolved by simply placing a link to the study (perhaps the link that is in the xckd - not the comic itself please!) in the answer, then it's not just memory...
@JoeM “The” study doesn’t exist, there are multiple (a single study is never sufficient to “firmly establish” any one fact). As a single, authoritative reference the OMIM phenotype entry is probably as good as it gets.
@JulianSteinmann In fact, silica gel isn't anything gel like at all - it's a porous form of silica (aka: SiO2, quartz, glass) that has the property of being hygroscopic. The "do not eat" warning isn't because they taste bad, soapy, or burn - it's because the glassy gel beads have a habit of exploding into sharp glass fragments when hydrated quickly (like in your mouth). I realize you're making a joke, of course, but it should be more about a mouthful of broken glass rather than a mouthful of soapy-gel.
I don't disagree with any point in your answer, but there is a clear, concise, scientific explanation for what OP is asking. In that sense I think it's a bit lacking
From a strictly scientific standpoint, you're spot on that cutting them in half reduces bitterness. Brussel sprouts contain thiocyanates (a type of glucosinolate) that cause bitterness, and are more heavily concentrated in the center of the sprout[citation needed]. Thiocyanates are broken down with heat and acid, so cutting them in half helps more bitterness to be released during the cooking process.
This study, while about thiocyanates in a completely different process/context, shows conclusively the breakdown of the molecule being dependent on both heat and PH levels - so lemon juice/other citruses for acid are also making a big difference(and cutting is increasing the surface area in general to increase the reaction).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.945963
| 2021-10-03T12:21:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117390",
"authors": [
"Beefster",
"Chris H",
"David Hammen",
"David Mulder",
"Eric Duminil",
"GdD",
"J...",
"Joe M",
"Julian Steinmann",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Michael Seifert",
"Ralph",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"TCooper",
"alephzero",
"data",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9901",
"uɐɪ"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88578
|
Is onion good with leek?
I have onions and leek and I want to sautee the two together. Can I use both?
What are French onions?
Oh lol ok ahah, my bad, leek and onion I ment. In portuguese leek is 'alho francês', which would translate to 'french garlic', so double fail :p
Leeks and onions can be cooked together without any problems.
Does it make sense or just too much acid in the sautee?
Onions and leeks have approximately the same pH value.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.946743
| 2018-03-23T20:06:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88578",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"RealAnyOne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58347",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89146
|
How long to cook a 150 lb. pig in the ground?
I am cooking a 150 lb pig in the ground for Cinco de Mayo.
I am using a Kalua Hawaiian method but using taco Al pastor flavoring.
Feeding over 100 people street tacos. I have researched and have read different times on how long to leave the pig in the ground.
I will have two wireless thermometers. One in the shoulder and one in the butt.
The pig's cavity will be stuffed with room temperatured whole pineapple.
Very very hot dry rocks will be placed in the pig's joints. Four corners, before tieing up and laid to rest. One true cord of apple wood will be burning, so a solid foot of hot coals. Old cabbage and water will be applied to create steam to help with the cooking process. The pig will be butchered appropriate and accordingly. Wrapped in banana leaves and aluminum foil.
Two Questions:
•If I want the pig done by 4pm (food on the table by 5pm), when should I have the pig in the IMU, covered, cooking? I would rather have the pig finished early and held hot rather than have 100+ hungry people staring at me, waiting.
•What temperature do I want the shoulder and butt to be? Different temperatures? I have experience in braising pork shoulder, chuck beef, etc.
If this is made for tacos, is it safe to say that it is acceptable for the meat to be overcooked? This would make it more tender a bit more dry, but not overly so unless you push over 180 significantly. If this is the case, perhaps err on the side of overcooked.
Last time I did one it was an overnight proposition, sources I find recommend planning on 24 Hours for a 150lb Kalu-a-que.
A pig roasted in the ground, Hawaiian or Kalua style, can take 12
hours if done right and if it is filled with fruits and vegetables it
can take 16 hours or longer.
If your pig is a purchased commercially (from a local farmer or reputable butcher) internal temps above 145°F are considered 'safe' but some people are still not comfortable with pork that is still that pink...so you should probably aim for 155°F (some will still be pinkish, others will have moved onto whitish, without (hopefully) drying out too much.
If you are serving up a wild pig/boar... (IMHO) Nothing less than 180°F will do.
I would recommend giving yourself at least two hours of 'slack' to pull the pig out of the hole two hours before scheduled feed time and start slicing (and storing in a couple of ice chests (no ice...insulated to keep the meat warm) so that serving goes faster. Slicing/chopping 'to order' will create a bottleneck in your festivities.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.946822
| 2018-04-16T02:45:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89146",
"authors": [
"Behacad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61080"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82572
|
More efficient way to cook fresh caught fish while camping
I am camping over the weekend in Idaho. Plan on catching primarily trout. Will keep the fish fresh and alive until dinner time. A camp fire will be maintained through out the day to ensure hot embers to cook on.
Ingredients and utensils I will have:
• box of kosher salt
• an abundant amount of tin foil
• tongs
• a half sheet pan
• clean towels
• lemons
• fresh herbs from garden; thyme and sage.
• butter
• garlic
I plan on cooking the fish wrapped in foil after cleaned, salted and stuffed with condiments stated above.
What else should I bring?
Other techniques on camp fire cooking?
Will be out there for two days, so a salt cure?
My time spent is fishing and cooking so plenty of time to play around and get technically with my preparation.
As you will have the freshest fish possible and only limited equipment and ingredients in your camp, why not choose a preparation that is in its simplicity highlighting the fish, needs almost no equipment and creates no trash:
Plank cooking, also known as Loimulohi.
The cleaned fish, filleted or butterflied, is nailed on a wooden plank, either with ordinary nails or wooden pegs. Then the whole board is either stood up vertically around a (blazing) fire, leaned forward towards the fire or placed over the embers, depending on your preferences.
You can use basically every untreated, non-poisonous wood, in the Pacific North West, cedar is traditionally used because of the aroma it imparts.
You can use the same technique except with a branch, you essentially use the branch as a skewer.
If you are driving to your campsite or canoeing to it then I would suggest a cast iron frying pan because you can set it directly on the coals and cook. Simple pan-fried trout with a bit of salt and pepper is extremely easy and tasty too. If you have to haul all your equipment then your foil cooking is a great idea, you can also weave your (flat) fish through a hefty stick and then put the stick into the ground so the fish is near the coals.
I don't know that much about salt curing on a campsite, but you could make a ceviche with the raw fish, all you need is some acid like lime juice. If you do campsite salt curing or acid curing like ceviche you need to be aware that there is a risk of parasites as the fish has not been frozen to get rid of foodborne illnesses, and you won't have temperature control during the curing process. You'll need to go into that with your eyes open.
What about fish parasites? Since the fish hasn't been previously frozen isn't there a higher risk when eating raw fish, in case of the ceviche?
When you go camping there's a higher inherent risk of foodborne illnesses, however you have an excellent point and I will edit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.947031
| 2017-06-23T03:40:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82572",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82369
|
Why do catered baked deserts have a yucky aftertaste?
Baked desserts from home and fine restaurants leave no bad taste in my mouth. But catered deserts at my workplace or those purchased from a grocery store leave a nasty aftertaste that I can't stand. I've noticed this consistently for years with food supplied by multiple locations. Frequently I resist the temptation to indulge because the yuck factor after is not worth the initial yum. What ingredient could it be that leaves such a terrible taste in my mouth that has me scrambling for a toothbrush and toothpaste?
Since taste is subjective and the ingredients list in a dessert will be extremely varied, I'm not sure we can really give you a definite answer. If you happen to find a specific dessert you've noticed this with and the ingredients it contains, I don't think this is answerable.
There must be a common ingredient that is NOT used at home but is included in grocery store bought birthday cake, cookies, brownies, carrot cake, etc. I'm surprised I haven't found others with this reaction. The aftertaste to me is disgusting. What could it be I wonder?
I can't eat most packaged cookies/cakes because they have an off flavor I've always associated with preservatives but I don't have this reaction to house-made desserts at grocery chains... I'd argue that most in-store recipes are simply large-batch versions of what you might make at home... they aren't designed for long-term storage... things like packaged cakes/cookies etc definitely have chemical ingredients, though.
I think this is a valid question. Even though taste is subjective, there are definitely certain ingredients that desserts from the grocery store have in them that homemade desserts never have. Some of these may be un-taste-able by almost anybody, but there must be at least one ingredient that is responsible for DeveloperDan's reaction. And yes, its taste is subjective, but asking what that ingredient is - is an objective question with a simple answer. ... Just because some people can't taste saffron, that doesn't mean questions about saffron are un-answerable.
@LorelC. The thing that's iffy about this is not that there is no answer but that it's probably difficult to actually figure out what it is. There are presumably a lot of things that routinely get added to commercial baked goods but not small-batch baked goods, and "it tastes bad to one person" isn't really enough to narrow that down.
Wild guess: The fat - subpar baking margarines (which can taste the unpleasant kind of greasy), or pure butterfat (last time I handled it I found it turns nasty rancid real easy), or...
@DeveloperDan sure there must be a difference. Its called "preservatives"
Preservatives and shortening probably plus way, way too much sugar. I know what you mean, I notice it with store bought squishy bread too, tastes awful to me, and the list of ingredients is long including dough conditioners, etc.
It's possibly whey or something like that. People don't usually use it at home, but it's in lots of stuff at the store. I've heard it can cause issues for some, but I'm not sure about taste.
It may also be the kind of oil they use. Stores are known for using more kinds of oil than consumers usually do, in my observations. Oil can definitely affect aftertastes, in my experience.
The leavening agents they use may be different.
Maybe preservatives of some kind are causing the aftertaste.
It could be the substance or method they use to prevent the baked deserts from sticking to the pan. I imagine they don't always do the same stuff there that cooks at home do.
It's possibly not an ingredient at all that is causing the aftertaste. It may just be unfamiliar fungi and bacteria coming from all the people hovering around the food making unfamiliar byproducts that you smell after you eat the food. This is just a hypothesis, but I do sometimes notice a similar phenomenon around food on tables at indoor parties in other people's houses and such, when it's left to sit more than a half an hour or so, especially if people are talking over the food. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it can be unpleasant. If it's at my house, or if other people aren't around, it's not normally an issue, if so.
However, it might rather be a contaminant, like maybe wood alcohol (which is said to be in lots of stuff, due to contamination) although I don't know that wood alcohol contributes an aftertaste.
This answer perfectly illustrates why this question is too broad. The realm of possibilities is infinite.
It might be that they are using canola oil. I find that it has this weird aftertaste that other people don't seem to notice,,, although I can tell the difference when I taste the deli foods at Whole Foods with and without.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.947268
| 2017-06-13T19:27:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82369",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"DeveloperDan",
"Lorel C.",
"Mennyg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58545",
"padma",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112845
|
Blackstrap molasses vs regular molasses
I'm aware of how molasses and refined sugar are made from sugar cane and how brown sugar is white sugar with molasses added back to it.
But -- how "different" are the three grades of molasses (light, dark, and blackstrap) when they can be used together with sugar?
I understand light molasses have more sugar than dark or blackstrap. But does that simply mean that light molasses is exactly the same as "white sugar + dark molasses" ? And likewise, dark molasses is identical to "white sugar + blackstrap molasses" ?
I'm curious if I can simply just use blackstrap molasses only and just add however much white/refined sugar as needed (to balance out), rather than having to specifically use "light" or "dark" molasses (especially in things that might get blended, where everything is going to get very "well-mixed" anyway!).
Brown sugar used to be simply less refined than white sugar. None of this retro-fitting by adding molasses.
Blackstrap molasses isn't exactly just light molasses with less sugar. It's been cooked for longer during the refining process, leading to more Maillard browning. But that's not a major effect. If you add some sugar and a bit of water to blackstrap molasses, you'll basically have light(er) molasses.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.947637
| 2020-11-26T19:27:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112845",
"authors": [
"Pete Becker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57871
|
What causes congealed bacon fat to have a wrinkly surface?
Earlier this week I refrigerated some rendered bacon fat in a small metal prep bowl, for later use. Today, after making bacon again, I went to add more grease and saw a surprising texture on the surface of the congealed fat (click for full 2592x1456 resolution):
If it's not clear from the picture, the surface is very wrinkly, with the edges significantly raised---it looks like it expanded unevenly as it solidified, but this would seem to indicate the presence of water. Water and fat, of course, don't mix and it looks totally homogeneous.
I've stored bacon fat plenty of times before and it always had a smooth surface after solidifying---schmaltz tends to be a bit less smooth but still a flat surface. When I look at pictures online, such as in this blog post, I also see nothing but smooth, flat fat.
I don't think I did anything different this time. I've used these metal prep bowls and I've used glass bowls. Does the way it solidifies say something about the quality of the bacon, how the fat was rendered or how it was stored?
It has been in there for 3 or 4 days and we haven't had any earthquakes or step-dancing parties.
Here's the same 60 mL prep bowl with more fat from the same package of bacon added this morning, on top of the older fat, after sitting for ~30 minutes in the fridge---no longer wrinkly! This seems to rule out the particular batch of bacon as an influence.
Was the wrinkly stuff hard to the touch? Fat is usually rock hard in the fridge.
@Chee'sBurgers Yes, it's definitely fat, and has the same consistency as the newer fat on top. I sliced it down the middle and slid one half out of the prep bowl, and the only difference I can see is that the smooth layer is paler in color.
When you put it in your container was it hot and did you cover it right away and put it in the fridge without letting it get to room temp. Sometimes we forget to let food/fat get to room temp and cover it too quickly and the condensation forms, then drips, hence the wrinkly design. Just a thought
@user33210 I didn't cover it at any point. It might have still been warm to the touch when I put it in the fridge, but it didn't go in right away. Same procedure for the second batch, though.
@Air Was the location in the fridge different? Maybe it was under something that sweated above it and that caused the water to drip and then that formed the swirls. Condensation can also occur when something is warm and put in the fridge and it just "sweats" and makes the swirls on its own. Another thought, could something have leaked into the fat accidently or the electricity went off and went back on. I also noticed that the sides of your bowl were a bit lighter, almost looking like a mist. Any possibility that the bowl was cold or wet before? Just a thought.
I've never done any experiments on it, but I've seen it plenty of times. I suspect that it has to do with the fat shrinking as it cools (outside sets first, then the middle sets later, sucking the fat down the bowl) Notice how the fat in the middle is shrunken in the middle. When you added more fat later, it would come down to temp more quickly (transferring heat to the already cooled fat). I suspect that using a bowl would increase the effect (being thinner at the edge with more surface area, while the middle would take longer to cool)
@Joe Ahh, I didn't consider how much more surface area the second batch of cooling fat would have. Wider area at the top, plus wrinkly interface with the fat below it - that's probably why they behaved so differently!
Great pan of precious fat you have. To answer your question, fat and meat contain air and water. When the water and air evaporate the fat will move.Those spaces that do not fill in will be wavy.
Generally when you render fat, you're boiling off all the water in the process, and air won't remain either. Are you saying the OP didn't do that? Or that more water somehow came out of the fat afterwards?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.947756
| 2015-05-30T17:19:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57871",
"authors": [
"Adam Wall",
"Air",
"Brenda Perkins",
"Cascabel",
"Derpy",
"Elaine Bishop",
"Joe",
"Mark Brooks",
"TMAKY",
"Tony Ware",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40929
|
Removing that eggy smell from cakes
I've been baking for not that long now and I usually peruse the web and the hundreds of books I have at home before I attempt a recipe. However there is one thing I am just not able to get down right.
Whenever a cake or something involving eggs is baked, I get a really strong eggy smell that puts me off. Even after it has cooled down, the egg smell and taste remains. But I don't notice this in cakes from stores or bakeries. I don't know what to do to neutralize this, or is it completely normal?
I use brown farm fresh eggs that aren't pumped full of stuff (at least that's what they say on the packaging).
Update: I will try to figure out what the cheap eggs taste like in the next cake that i bake. Furthermore, i will also compare with results i obtain from a new professional line oven that i am purchasing soon. One of these is the culprit, since whenever i eat baked goods elsewhere this issue is rarely experienced.
Do cakes from stores/bakeries/restaurants smell too eggy to you as well? If not, perhaps the eggs you're baking with have a stronger flavor than normal.
'farm fresh' means different things to different groups ... eg, they came straight from the farm and straight into the coolers to be sold at some later date. If you have a farm stand near you that can get you really fresh eggs, you might see if that makes an improvement, as older eggs can smell a bit more.
I saw your comment on rumtscho's answer, and edited that very important fact into your question. In the future you might want to do that yourself - you're unlikely to get helpful answers if the key facts aren't up at the top.
It is normal that eggs smell of eggs, yes. Some people are just more sensitive to certain smells than others and detect them in smaller amounts, and sometimes all people perceive a smell with equal strength, but a few will have a negative reaction to a smell commonly regarded as pleasant.
If you react with unusual aversion to the smell of baked eggs, there is nothing you can do about it. If you are indeed using standard recipes from widespread books, they probably smell OK to the general public.
There is no way to remove the smell of eggs. But you can do two things:
avoid overcooking the eggs. When somebody finds the eggs smell unpleasant, they are usually reacting to the sulfur compounds egg proteins form under high temperatures. This is not a universal solution, because a properly baked cake has been exposed to temperatures high enough to form lots of these compounds. But in dishes which can be overcooked, such as custards or boiled eggs, less cooking is usually much better smellwise.
choose recipes with less eggs. This will mean that you will have to restrict your cake eating habits a lot. Genoise is probably completely out of the question, but if your sensitivity also shows at pound cake and similar, then there aren't many traditional types you can bake. It is possible that whites-only or yolks-only cake types won't trigger your problem, but if both do, you will possibly have to start replacing some egg in normal recipes. Sadly, eggs are very important for the texture of a cake, which means that substitutes only work in certain types of cake (pound cake, sponge cake) and even then, the larger the proportion of substitute to egg, the worse the final texture. But it may be worth it, if it lets you enjoy cakes you wouldn't eat when made with eggs.
Update after comment
If you don't smell this in bakery cakes, there are still a few possible explanations:
the sensitivity theory is right, and the bakeries in your area rely on some kind of product different than fresh eggs, such as powdered eggs. The processing used in industry ingredients could change eggs in some way which removes the components which cause your sensitivity. This should be easy to test: if you can eat homemade cake with fresh eggs, it is not the cause.
the smell compound to which you react could be something entirely different from the sulfur compounds always present in eggs. You said that you are buying fresh farm eggs. But the point is that fresh heirloom products are normally much more chemically diverse than mass-produced food. It is especially noticeable in fruit and vegetables, but I guess that chickens held under less-than-optimal conditions and fed standardized food mix will produce eggs which have much less exotic trace compounds than those of chickens raised on small farms under sunlight. You could try baking with the cheapest supermarket eggs and see if this solves the problem for you.
maybe my sensitivity theory is completely wrong, and you are indeed doing something unusual to the cake. As mentioned above, overcooking is a suspect. If your oven is hotter than the dial shows (very common), you may be consistently overcooking every single cake. Try inserting a roasting thermometer into your cake and yanking it out as soon as it reaches 90 Celsius. It might have a slightly floury taste, but at least you will know if it is the smell of overcooked egg or something else which bothers you.
The thing is, i guess i should have clarified, i don't really get this smell or this aversion to the smell when it's a cake that has been baked by someone else(usually store or bakery bought).
Perhaps i'm just smelling it more because i was handling eggs throughout the baking process?
I too thought of the possibility that i may be tasting eggs that are of a higher quality only infrequently and as a result am not used to the smell.
However i would add more credence to the overcooking theory of yours. My oven is not the best and the temperature, i am sure is unstable, I have no confidence in it. To overcompensate for the lack of heat it generates i usually leave what i'm baking in a few more minutes than prescribed because it usually seems undercooked.
If you don't have an oven thermometer, you can calibrate it using water (boils at 100 Celsius) and sugar (burns at 192? Celsius, search for exact temp and method online). Personally, I think the hassle is not worth it, because a thermometer is one of the most useful tools in the kitchen and it will cost somewhere between 15 Euros for a basic model and 35 for a fancy one.
Hi i have the same problem and the only way to cut this smell is by adding lemon and orange zest to the batter. Also you can try a table spoon of whiskey or cognac.
+1, seems like between those options you'll probably have something that fits with most cakes, and if it masks the mild egg smell, there you are!
+1, because that is certainly going to reduce the effect of eggy smell.
There's nothing wrong, it's perfectly natural for cakes that have eggs as an ingredient to smell of eggs. If you have a problem with egg smells then don't use egg. There are egg-free recipes out there, plenty of them work just fine.
The other option is to use ingredients with strong aromas to overpower the egg. That could be spices like cinnamon and cloves, or alternatively citrus as in a lemon cake.
You could I suppose experiment using egg whites instead of whole eggs and see whether that works for you, I can't be sure it is a solution tough.
if the person is indeed sensitive to the smell of eggs (I can't prove this, but the context suggests this might be the case), then using strong spices will do absolutely nothing for them. Human senses work very well at detecting smells they hate, I have seen this both in myself (trace amounts of anise will make me spit food out, no matter what other strong tastes get used) and in others (I had a flatmate who couldn't stand vanilla, she couldn't eat most sweets or use most cosmetics even when we could notice no vanilla smell at all).
I remember reading in a Cook's Illustrated article that a lot of the "eggy" taste and smell comes from the whites, not the yolk. Removing whites from a baking recipe can be tricky since it provides a lot of structure
When I began baking, I initially had the same problem. But after several attempts at creating a cake, I eventually rid my cakes of that eggy smell.
I believe the secret lies in properly beating the eggs. If the eggs are not well beaten into the batter, they will retain the smell of cooked eggs. It probably has something to do with the incorporation of the eggs into the mix.
This is just my opinion on the matter and it is based entirely on my own experience.
Removing the chalaza of the egg (the white strand attached to the egg - it's about an inch or so in length) has worked for me. I use egg mask for hair treatment and often times my hair used to have that egg smell even after shampooing twice. After removing the eye, there is no smell of egg in the hair whatsoever. It has worked for me in pound cake also where I removed the eye and added some lemon zest. Do try removing the eye and adding fruity flavors such as orange zest.
By "eye" you mean the chalazae?
There is a very simple trick to remove the Yolk smell... The smell itself is not from the yolk but from the film that keep the yolk together in its form... So simply put the yolk on a strainer and get rid of that stinky skin... the smell will go 95% away...
where i am from they remove the little white gellatinous material that attaches to the yolk to reduce the eggie smell. They call this the "eye". Try that and see the difference.
Honey will help, and works in any flavour of cake. You can use vanilla extract in vanilla cakes.
Hello Meg and welcome to Seasoned Advice. Your post does not seem to answer the question that was asked. If it was intended as part of an answer, please elaborate. As a new user, you may want to visit the Help Center (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help) to review how to post good questions and answers on the site.
@Cindy If I understand, the idea is that these will mask the eggy smell, Meg just didn't say so explicitly. I'm going to leave it, because it's definitely plausible, especially with one other person suggesting vanilla works.
Do use beater to beat the batter. It will definitely reduce the egg smell in your cake. I have been using beater for cakes and it works.
I have noticed several times that if I inadvertently omit the salt from homemade pancakes, they taste noticeably eggy. My husband agrees.
Egg smell is more evident in pound cakes where the ratio of eggs used is higher. In layered cakes it is less as fats and eggs are in nearly equal proportion. Besides a combination of two essences where vanilla is common and any other like mixed fruit, almond or other as per requirement can be used. Sugar quantity is increased and milk powder is added, thus eliminating the egg smell.
I have had the same problem and suggest adding some strong flavors to your cake. You can use rose water, lemon or orange peel, chocolate (powdered or melted), vanilla (even large amounts won't make the cake bitter), cinnamon. Use what you prefer, according to your taste, but just enough so that you no longer smell the egg. Adding sugar to egg whites while whipping them also helps, as does adding the cream/milk to the batter.
I believe two things can be done about the eggy smell. First, I have never really liked eggs, so what I do is to use them in limited quantity when baking. Second, after you are done beating your butter and sugar together, add your eggs, whisk together, and then add your milk. I find that milk at this stage eliminates the smell of the eggs used. Try this method and see if it works for you.
I found that interesting about the yolk sac and the eye, the eggy smell of cake also bothers me so I will try removing it next time, another thought you might want to watch, if you are using butter make sure it is room temperature or the eggs won't incorporate properly when you mix and it might look kinda curdled, I know I'm often impatient and use butter and eggs straight from the fridge and I think this is why the eggy taste is worse
use some drops of vanilla essence. your smelly egg issue will be completely resolved!
if you want to do eggless baking altogether, you can use full cream yoghurt instead of eggs. the fluffy, lightness will be retained.
Simply use lemon, lime or orange juice and/or rind. Use a quarter teaspoon of rind and a teaspoon of juice of any one per 3 eggs (make sure to remove the white eyes). In order to experiment with flavour you may use different combinations of the fruits for multiples of 3 eggs. Use only the coloured part of the peel, do not use the white part. It would help greatly to get a zester.
And if they don't want a citrus cake? This also runs into the same issues that S K's answer has. By adding acid, you could interfere with the leavening process.
Just don't use egg. Milled Flax seed mixed with water will be an alternative that you can use in most cases. I am allergic to eggs and I often bake cakes with this alternative and it's perfect for binding AND you won't get that eggy smell.
1 tablespoon of milled or ground flaxseed: 3 tablespoons of water is usually equivalent to one chicken egg.
Adding a few drops of lemon juice will remove any odourof eggs or baking ppowder.
By definition, if you add enough lemon juice to remove the odor of baking powder, you have interfered with the leavening process. If the recipe was well balanced for leavening at the beginning, you will get a less well risen cake by adding lemon juice. Of course, if the recipe was bad and contained too much baking powder, your lemon juice will actually improve the leavening action, but why bother using bad recipes in the first place?
The answer is not to use an electric oven. I am a food teacher and we have both gas and electric ovens in my classroom. All cakes were made with the same ingredients, the ones baked in the electric ovens smelled eggy whilst the gas oven cakes did not. I have had the same problem at home when I had an electric oven. Switched to gas and the problem disappeared :)
There was probably something else going on here. Heat is heat; if you're actually baking at the same temperature, the heat source shouldn't change the flavor of your cake. Perhaps the temperature calibration is off in the electric ovens you've used.
My wife always closes windows to prevent fresh air streaming in the flat and specially the kitchen. And surprisingly it really helps to get rid of eggy smell or taste in any dish or cake or bread containing eggs. Try it and I am sure you will be surprised. Even when emptying dish washing machine, she closes all windows, otherwise all the disheswhich were in contact with eggs get eggy smell which is very annoying. Bakeries have no window open while baking ! I have no explanation for that but it is the solution.
Welcome to the site! I have to say, I'm confused by your claim that plates coming out of the dishwasher will smell eggy in any circumstances. The dishwasher should have cleaned any egg off them.
If you beat egg whites separately and egg yellow and sugar separately and followed by flour, I Am sure you will not get an egg smell in your cake. After beating both you have to combine both and fold. I find this is the best way.
From years of experience: doesn't work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.948168
| 2014-01-07T12:24:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40929",
"authors": [
"Alexandros Kourtis",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cheryl James",
"Cindy",
"David Richerby",
"Davido",
"Duane Green",
"Eric",
"Eric Simonton",
"Ezza Valdez",
"Joe",
"Julie Inman",
"Katy Chapman",
"Linda Jones",
"Michelle Jardine",
"Prahlad Yeri",
"Ron Drake",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Spuds Malone",
"Stephie",
"V2Blast",
"Wanda B Mamaw",
"WindowsEscapist",
"banavalikar",
"chueh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97588",
"jalbee",
"pneumatics",
"rumtscho",
"sylvia Hill",
"user143986",
"uwu spam bad boy uwu"
],
"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
}
|
85565
|
How Old Is My Meat Slicer?
I just purchased this Berkel GC for $50, which to me is a steal, it was rusty and crusty as can be, running poorly and smoking. The blade moved but it has a ton of resistance, I've taken everything apart, cleaned up all the grease, rust, and dirt and will get replacement parts once I start working again. I plan on rebuilding and restoring it sometime in Dec.
However my biggest gripe is I don't know the age of this thing. Anyone have a clue? I want to say it's 1940's tech, but i'm not sure. There isn't much if any documentation of these older Berkel slicers at all.
Here is a pic of it.
It came with everything, sharpening stones and catch platter. FYI, it's in my bedroom now, it was outside because I had to strip the paint and also use phosphoric acid to remove the rust.
Here is the serial and motor #.
original file for motor specs.
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4579/38288529602_c0f7734dec_o.jpg
The motor looks 1940s. I don't get any hits on that model number though. Any patent numbers anywhere on the unit? Ah, here's an NP76510 motor dated 1943: https://www.ebay.com/itm/5KC47AB490D-G-E-Vintage-Motor-N-P-76510-/332021029025 (top-left number on motor label)
Sorry no potent numbers, the spec plate is missing.
I checked also. That GE end cap. WW2 threw Korean war. Do not mess that end cap up! That motor can still be rebuilt. But no parts are listed for it as being sold by G.E. today. I checked there parts catalog. But a motor shop can still rebuild them some as long as windeings are not burnt.
That sounds about right, How can I prevent windings from becoming burned up?
Do not over load the motor. So it heats up. Make sure the cutter is spinning. The bushings & brush's can be replaced. Armiture needs cleaned at time of brush replacement. With a hack saw blade snapped of. Is the way we use to do it. Bushings you can go to thick wall then ream out to size. Shaft cam be polished in the motor . On a lath. Just polished. When new bushings are put in. Take to a motor shop today to do. Does not need often done. Use motor till it needs repair first. With the cap hole that motor probably needs a drop of oil put in there. Those motors had bushings not bearings.
If the blade is not turning freely, fix what is keeping it from doing so before attempting to run it again. Your motor smoking means it is overloaded - it might or might not already be permanently damaged. Having a competent motor shop (one that could do a rewinding if necessary) examine it is a good idea. If any motor windings have lost their insulation integrity against another (from age or running it overloaded too long), that will not "fix itself" - a shorted turn in a winding makes the whole motor act like a shorted high current transformer. Fire and shock hazard.
BTW, this might just be a diy.stackexchange topic ...
That is hospital white enamel paint. So WW2 to 1960 would be a good guess. Look at the tag. I can not read it. Run that on a search. Give you a better idea. Those names can still be found. Also the red tag. Does the motor have a name & number on it? With that you can do a number check often to get it down to year motor was made. With luck. Any serial number on it those can be ran on a search. Threw company records if it is found. Or post good photo's of the tags. & numbers.
Added info if that helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.949484
| 2017-11-10T23:06:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85565",
"authors": [
"J Bergen",
"Lump Coon",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62763",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85579
|
Changing a vegan cookie recipe?
I am tyring to cut refined sugar from my diet and I have Celiac disease so no gluten is a must. Both of these things make baking a challenge. I have been using a mixture of coconut palm sugar and pure maple syrup and am liking both the flavor and the results.
So, I find a pumpkin oatmeal cookie recipe and get to making it before I realize it has no eggs. The resulting cookie is okay, not bad really, but not "cookie texture" to say the least. I want to add an egg next time to add structure and chewiness but since the batter is already quite wet, what should I add (more flour? more oats?) so that the cookie dough isn't a gummy mess?
1 cup quick cooking (GF) oats,
3/4 cup flour (GF),
1/4 tsp sea salt,
1 tsp cinnamon,
1/4 tsp nutmeg,
1/4 tsp ginger,
1-1/2 tsp baking powder,
3/4 cup pumpkin puree,
1/2 cup maple syrup,
3 Tbs coconut oil (melted and cooled),
1 tsp vanilla
Mix dry ingredients and wet ingredients separately, then stir to combine.
Bake on in a pre-heated, 350 degree oven for 11-15 minutes. Use parchment paper to avoid cookies sticking to the pan.
NOTE: I do not need exact measurements to try - I have baked all my life. Just an idea of what to increase, add or subtract.
What's the recipe? Odds are there's something in there as an egg replacement that may need to be removed
Nope. Ingredients are Oats, coconut oil, GF flour, spices & baking powder, pumpkin, maple syrup and vanilla.
It is now edited.
So would egg really help with texture?
Also, mind the nutmeg - some canned "nutmeg" is a composite that might have non-GF filler, so read ingredients list or grate fresh.
Maybe the recipe is relying on some properties of the GF flour as a ninja egg replacer? Some GF flours seem heavy on legume flours, which are very potent egg replacers....
@rackandboneman : and gums or starched to hold things together. I'm thinking that if I were going to try adding an egg, I'd want to remove some of the pumpkin, then a little more flour to try to get the consistency similar to the unmodified recipe. And i'd mix in or top with pepitas
Some kinds of pumpkin are very starchy, that could indeed upset things further.
There are a couple of things in that recipe that appear to be used as an egg replacement:
Pumpkin puree - usual rule (as far as I'm aware) is to use 1/4 cup per egg. This is particularly good for adding moisture, so reducing this would be a good start. Baking powder can also be used in conjunction with this to leaven the mixture.
Coconut oil can also used as an egg substitute in the right context. Honey (or, as this is a vegan recipe, maple syrup) can also be used in conjunction with this, as can baking powder. However, baking powder and to a lesser extent, honey/maple syrup could still appear in a recipe before the egg has been substituted.
All in all, my suggestion would be to first reduce the amount of pumpkin puree (or possibly even remove the pumpkin puree entirely).
An alternative (although possibly a less effective one) to this, or if removing the pumpkin puree doesn't manage the job, would be to cut down on the amount of coconut oil. As you've mentioned that you like maple syrup, cutting down on that would be the last resort.
There is a question of whether the baking powder is also used to help with the lack of eggs, but baking powder often appears in recipes with eggs as well, so qualifying whether or not to get rid of baking powder is more likely to be dependent on the flour (self raising or not) used.
While solid fat can act as a binder by simply potting everything together, it is far from an egg substitute....
@rackandboneman I'm slightly confused - I haven't mentioned 'white solid fat' anywhere and while nothing I've mentioned would be able to perfectly match what an egg does (although coconut oil is pretty good), what you substitute an egg with depends on what properties you want that you were using an egg for in the first place. If you're using an egg to provide moisture, pumpkin puree is a valid substitute. Here, the problem is too much moisture, so it appears to be caused by the pumpkin puree
I've been baking with oats A LOT for the past several months, and I can tell you that oats + insufficient fat = a gummy end product. In addition, cookies that contain a lot of pureed fruit or beans or veg will be cake-y unless you increase the flour and the fat. And, your results will be better if you grind the oats into flour -- makes a big difference. (You can grind them in a food processor or a blender; sift the flour to remove the bigger, tougher pieces and save them for a soup or a spaghetti sauce.)
If you want to add an egg but are worried about the extra moisture, then also add 1 TB of coconut flour -- it absorbs a TON of moisture, much more than other flours. After adding it, let the dough rest for a few minutes to see whether you want to add a little more. If you can't find coconut flour, then add a little almond flour; it won't absorb as much moisture, but it will absorb some, and it will improve the texture (if you want the cookies to be crispy-crumbly).
Finally, 3 TB of fat is too little if you want a more typical cookie texture -- it's not enough for the quantity of flours and puree you noted. (Tonight I made cookies with 1 cup of oat flour, 1/2 cup of sugar, and 4 TB of fat [half oil, half vegan butter] -- that was a bit too much for 1.5 cups of dry, but oat flour does needs a fair amt of fat to prevent gumminess.)
Oats will soak up the moisture, and add a egg next. How much is up to you but start with a fourth of a cup. If you need more you will know it. One egg will gave you the raising and try it to see how it works. You can try it in a frying pan first, and if it is firm put it in the oven to bake, 350°F.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.949798
| 2017-11-11T23:53:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85579",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Michelle",
"Mithrandir24601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"user3528438"
],
"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
}
|
118099
|
Loaf Cakes Always Sink in The Centre
Every time I bake something in a loaf pan, the centre doesn’t cook and the loaf sinks - badly. The edges are well cooked. This happens on more than one recipe: Lemon Loaf, Banana Loaf, etc. But items that I bake in round or rectangular cake pans turn out fine.
The attached image is the worst example.
I’ve checked the following:
-ingredients like eggs, milk, etc are not cold from fridge.
-baking powder and baking soda work well in other recipes, so are not expired.
-oven temperature is spot on, verified digitally
I’ve tried:
reducing oven temp 25 degrees F (eg from 350 F to 325 F) I even tried 300F!
adding more flour to make thicker batter
putting foil around outside of loaf pan to reflect heat.
adding an extra egg yolk.
reducing balking powder (or baking soda depending on recipe..)
using full fat dairy, (eg sour cream or milk, etc) instead of "lite"
baking for a longer time so that centre finally sets. In this case, the outside of the loaf cake overcooks and is hard as a rock.
The loaf pans are from Baker’s Secret, and although the pans are dark, I’m sure thousands of people around the world use these pans. Besides, I did try one experiment in which I lined the outside of the pan with aluminum foil - no difference
Any suggestions appreciated
It seesm to happn on any loaf pan recipe. Here's an example that sunk: Bon Appetit's Best Banana Bread
Hi, welcome to the site. For help when a recipe doesn't turn out, it's best to post/link to a full recipe with as much detail as possible. There are multiple things that could go wrong with ingredients and method--but to be able to find an answer (rather than guessing!), The recipe is key!
I think you were absolutely on the right path - what you need is a lower temperature for a longer time. Many of your observations in your answer point in that direction - the liquid core, the fact that the crust overbakes when you bake longer, and the fact that the same recipe works well in a flatter shape (in a rectangular pan), where the heat reaches the core quicker.
You wrote that you have already tried it - it just seems that you didn't go far enough. Temperature is just a number, you have to change the temperature until the results are good, not the other way round.
The other thing you can consider is turning off any convection function, if you have one. It will bake slower, but more evenly.
If food is burning, overcooking or drying out on the outside, but is still raw in the middle as shown in the example, then the oven is too hot and you didn't cook it for long enough.
This could possibly be caused by confusion over oven types (ie. conventional versus fan oven) and the cooking temperature and times given in the recipe. This could be even more crucial since a loaf tin constrains the batter to a thicker/taller shape (a loaf) compared to something more spread out with a larger surface area such as a round cake tin.
Recipes should always mention which type of oven the temperatures and times are intended for, and preferably give conversions for each type. If not, then find a better recipe that does.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.950264
| 2021-12-04T23:29:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/118099",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82574
|
What is the function of salt in chocolate?
Iv'e recently seen, for the first time, chocolate coins filled with caramel and "Atlantic salt". I did a bit of searching and found some more of these types of sweets:
To the food simpleton that I am, adding salt to chocolate and caramel seems counter-intuitive. I realize that these are small amounts of salt (at least compared to the sugar). What is the idea behind this practice?
Also, what is "Atlantic salt"? Salt from the Atlantic ocean? Does it really make a difference which salt is used?
Salt caramel is just a flavour option in chocolate, like orange or peanut butter. When it comes down to it, all that matters is if its a flavour you like with chocolate. There doesn't need to be "idea" behind it beyond enough people liking it for it to work as a product.
I beg you to taste sea salt, and then table salt and tell me you can genuinely taste a difference. Sure there's texture but at the end of the day all salt tastes the same. And salt from the Atlantic vs salt from the Dead sea etc is littereally just a marketing gimmick.
Salt tends to enhance tastes, and make flavors pop, and is used in many foods for this purpose. Even most sweet foods, desserts or baked goods, will have some amounts of salt added for this purpose. Some certain kinds of salts - including many kinds of sea salt - are also called out for additional tastes or textures, caused by trace minerals or crystallization patterns - such are usually known as finishing salts, since dissolving looses many properties (including texture, and some elements of taste which are easier distinguished in concentration). I would assume Atlantic salt is one of these finishing sea salts.
Also, contrasting flavors and/or textures are fairly common in cooking - in this case, sweet and salty. This often seen in savory dishes (sauces for meats, for example) where sweetness is added - sometimes quite a bit - even though the resulting dishes are generally considered savory. And while such foods quite different from foods without that added sweetness, if well balanced they can be well received.
A sweet-with-salt, like salted chocolates, or salted caramels, is very different from a pure sweet taste. It isn't inherently better or worse, just different. Too much sweet can overwhelm the tongue (one reason milk, rather than juice, is favored with many kinds of desserts), and adding salt to that sweet cuts the sweetness, adds flavor and contrast, and also adds texture as large grains of finishing salt, often sea salt, are used rather than fine dissolved salt. The result can be very pleasant to some.
Also, while your example is a sweet with salt added for contrast, it may be worth noting that chocolate is not itself inherently sweet, but generally has a more bitter flavor profile (unsweetened chocolate) and so can be easily used in savory dishes - for example, Mexican mole sauces. Sweet chocolate is very common, yes, and tastes very good, but the base flavor can certainly take salt without trouble - and the less usual pairing can increase the novelty factor and the pleasure one takes in the salt and chocolate pairing.
Salt is a bit special because of its action on the tongue. The sea salt, in this case, is a major ingredient added to be intended to be an independent flavor, but it is also a flavor enhancer. Often in chocolate, large crystal sea salt in used to give a salt crunch and taste.
So, for this purpose, salt can be considered a complementary flavor enhancing the flavor of both the caramel and chocolate. Instead of caramel, chile peppers or orange peel could be used with the sea salt. That is while you'd be hard-pressed to find Anchovies and Sea-Salt Dark Chocolate.
You'll also find concept of flavor opposites in South East Asian cuisine like Salty(Salt)/Sweet(Sugar) and Spicy(Chile)/Cooling(Mint).
Genius!: Anchovies and Sea-Salt Dark Chocolate, the next big thing.
While this is a different question, the answer is essentially the same as https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/17264/6279.
Salt is both a seasoning, with it's own unique flavor and a catalyst for other flavors. The collection of taste buds on your tongue are not 'all created equal' while some react to acidic, sweet, salty flavors others do not. When salt comes in contact with the tongue not only can you taste it with the 'salt sensitive' taste buds but it also triggers a reaction with the 'sweet' sensitive taste buds to make them 'more receptive' to sweet flavors...
For a more thorough description, with visual aids and all, Check out "The Ballad of Salty & Sweet" from Alton Brown.
I think it serves as more of a psychological or marketing gimmick than any real food-chemistry function. It seems to be a current fad to add salt to sweets. Maybe the idea is to satisfy two of our instinctive cravings -- sugar and salt -- at the same time.
"Salty caramel", especially seems to be all the rage these days (ice cream flavor, cake frosting, also: filling for chocolates...) I guess it is particularly tempting to add salt to caramel, because it ups the butteriness of the caramel since we commonly associate salt with butter.
You know it's cool and up-to-date too, because they didn't just add "salt", but "Atlantic salt". And no, it doesn't make a difference which salt is used. [...Sorry; I almost ranted]
There doesn't have to be serious chemistry for something to be real; "it tastes good" is real too.
More salt or less salt does change the taste of a food - it tweaks, balances, or emphasizes certain flavors - and if taste isn't a food chemistry function, I'm not at all sure what is. And if something makes a difference for a "psychological reason", it still makes a difference, because that is a reason - presence or type of salt included.
I think that they are playing with marketing but it really adds something on the final taste of the product.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.950809
| 2017-06-23T04:50:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82574",
"authors": [
"A.D.",
"Cascabel",
"Doug",
"Lorel C.",
"Megha",
"Ross Ridge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82693
|
One Cup in Grams
How much is a cup of milk in grams?
Of course I can search google and get it (240gr) but that sounds too much for making pancakes . I don't have a measuring cup and I have to use 1+1/4 cup milk and I don't know how! 240 sounds too much.
this is the recipe :
1.5 cup of floor, 1.25 cup of milk, 1 egg. the rests are not main ingredients.
Just curious why you're trying to convert a pancake recipe? There are loads of metric pancake recipes out there. FWIW, I've been making pancakes my whole life (both American and English style) and by far, the best, most foolproof recipe comes from this gem of a cookbook - Yeo Valley Great British Farmouse Cookbook: http://amzn.to/2uhA2LQ - It's also an incredibly solid and reliable cookbook - loved just about every single recipe.
It would also be interesting if you could [edit] your question to add the rest of the recipe you're using, so we can see the proportion between the ingredients
Very, very helpful chart for converting volumetric measurements to measurements by weight (or vice versa). Hundreds of ingredients - grams or ounces: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/learn/ingredient-weight-chart.html I use it all the time.
That sounds pretty close, since there are over 28 grams per ounce, and eight ounces per cup, but we're mixing weight and volume units (would come to 227 grams by weight. 1 & 1/4 cups = 10 ounces, so 283.5), a bit.
Sacrilege, but: pancakes tend to be be forgiving and I tend to adjust to my own liking as for and thick or thin anyway, I would use a drinking glass that I thought was about 12 ounces (1 1/2 cups) and fill it all the way with flour, then not quite full with milk and you have the right ratio.
You are correct.
One cup of milk weighs 245g. So 1+1/4 cup weighs 306.25g.
If the mixture turns out too runny, just add a bit more flour.
well the thing is that i gotta add one egg, 1+1/4 milk (cup) + 1+1/2 flour, isn't that funny? guess the ingredient is for 2 eggs and is actually twice the ingredient for one egg ! it's meant to become pancakes!
@parvin 1+1/2 what of flour? Cups? You know that would be about 150 grams (depending on your flour), right? By the way, I did a Google search for "pancake recipe" and looked at the very first hit. http://allrecipes.com/recipe/21014/good-old-fashioned-pancakes/ How 'bout that? Exactly 1 1/2 cups flour, 1 1/4 cups milk, and 1(!) egg (plus 3 1/2 tsp baking powder, 1 tsp salt, 1 TBS sugar and 3 TBS butter)
is the egg enough for all those milk and floor? if so I have to change my recipe. thank you! :)
Yes, one egg should be enough. Pancakes don't really need many, they just need quite a bit of liquid. This is assuming you aren't making American pancakes (called crumpets in Britain) because in that case the ratios seem a bit off. If you are making normal, flat and thin pancakes then it seems fine to me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.951258
| 2017-06-28T08:17:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82693",
"authors": [
"ALR",
"Jolenealaska",
"Luciano",
"PoloHoleSet",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58854",
"kettultim",
"parvin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43808
|
Edible Mushrooms
Does anyone know if these mushrooms, that are growing in my back yard, (see picture) are edible?
I'm fairly certain that no one is going to be responsible for answering that question in the affirmative.
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about mycology. Culinary practice starts after it is harvested and in the kitchen.
There are a handful of distinctive mushrooms that are usually safe to pick, even for a layman. This ain't one of them. This looks quite a lot like a member of the Amanitaceae family (shaped like an umbrella, with white "gills"), and people tend to avoid those because they all look similar, and some of them can kill you.
If you don't know for certain what they are, don't eat them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.951504
| 2014-05-01T05:12:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43808",
"authors": [
"Christina Pierce",
"Dade",
"DinsdaleNC",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marcus Brash",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22725
|
Parmesan Cheese Substitute
Possible Duplicate:
Cheaper alternative to parmesan cheese?
What cheese tastes most similar to Parmesan Cheese?
Note: I am not looking for a fake-cheese substitute, just a real cheese that tastes similar to Parmesan.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/20318/2001
This has been asked several times: What's a good nondairy substitute for parmesan/grana padano as a salad-topper?, Cheaper alternative to parmesan cheese?, Non-cow's milk replacement for Parmesan cheese in Genovese pesto. I'm closing as the most likely duplicate.
Romano cheese is nearly identical to Parmesan, as in you almost certainly will not tell the difference between the two, either in texture or in taste. You could probably also get away with an Asiago. While it has a different flavor and melting properties, it does share a similar nuttiness with Parmesan.
Parmesan is a non-protected name for Parmigiano-Reggiano, and the quality of Parmesan cheeses varies widely.
Good Parmigiano-Reggiano is at least $15/lb, so I assume you're looking for cheaper cheeses.
The first next-closest would be Grana Padano. However, good Grana Padano is also fairly expensive.
After that, your next best is probably Sean Hart's suggestion of Pecorino Romano. I wouldn't describe them as "nearly identical", though. But all three are good cheeses, and you can often substitute one for the other.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.951719
| 2012-04-02T21:38:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22725",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alexey Belostotsky",
"Sobachatina",
"george anderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51246",
"jan.vdbergh",
"willy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61499
|
Residue in cork
I opened a recently purchased wine (a Grenache 2012), and the part of the cork that was in contact with the wine looked like the picture
Part of the residue looked like small crystals, some whitish and others reddish.
What is that residue, and how did it get there?
Tartrate crystals, they are formed from tartic acid which occurs naturally in grapes. From Wine of the Month:
First, let's deal with tartrate crystals. They are formed when a method called cold stabilization is performed on a wine. Cold stabilization is often done in white wines to remove excess potassium bitartrate, a natural substance found in grapes also known as "cream of tartar." White grapes contain fairly large amounts of potassium bitartrate. If most of it is not removed, the wine will form crystals when placed in the refrigerator. These tartrate crystals will either cling to the underside of the cork, if the bottle is on its side, or fall to the bottom of the bottle, if it's standing up, where they appear to be ground glass to the uneducated eye
Also from the same article:
it's totally harmless
Whoops! You beat me by a moment. +1.
Note that their density is more similar to that of the wine than the sediment in red wine, which means they are more difficult to remove by decanting. The 'fining' process (which often involves strange things like egg white and china clay) is designed to remove them, so wines using organic or vegan methods is more likely to have more tartrate.
Thanks. I assumed they were harmless and drank the wine anyway :)
You have a common, harmless situation: tartaric acid or other tartarates. They are naturally occurring in grapes (and other plants). They tend to collect on the cork (especially in red wines) and at the bottom (especially in white wines).
They're harmless and tasteless, though they do have an unpleasant gritty texture. Be careful to leave them in the bottle when pouring the last bit out of the bottle if you see some sediment, or just leave the last sip in the glass.
Several other articles have more detail about this, including from...
Wine Spectator
Wine of the Month Club
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.951855
| 2015-09-04T14:37:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61499",
"authors": [
"Carolyn Cooper",
"Elly B",
"Jannes Van der Merwe",
"Phillip Shafer",
"Tina Mcardle",
"abligh",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33955",
"user1906"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45653
|
How do I make black rice turn out better in a rice cooker?
There appears to be little to no info out there specifically regarding black rice and rice cookers. My rice cooker manual says nothing about it. The article on wikihow, "3 Ways to Prepare Black Rice", does mention that black rice "does not cook well in a rice cooker." But, I am simply not willing to cook rice the old fashioned way. I already spend too much time on eating and cooking (fast metabolism means I eat all the time, which is time consuming).
Therefore, even if it does not work well in a rice cooker, I need to figure out how to make it better. I recently got a new rice cooker, an Aroma ARC-150SB. I made black rice for the first time with it, and it was terrible. It was really mushy, watery, and very sticky. It looked almost as wet as below:
(That's just an image from some pudding recipe on another site; it's NOT my own photo.)
Further details: I used 2 parts water to 1 part rice, as told to do on the rice packaging. Specifically, it was 2 cups rice, 4 of water. I briefly rinsed the rice via a strainer with cold water from the faucet. I used the "brown rice" setting on my rice cooker and left it overnight. (It switches to "keep warm" after it finishes cooking, of course.)
Now, what is the explanation for my result, and what can I try next?
My suspicion is that there was a lot of starch. The wikihow article suggests a very thorough rinsing, although the instructions on the rice packaging say nothing about rinsing. Is thorough rinsing really all it takes? Like I said, I did rinse it a little. There are other variables here that I can change. I could try playing with the water:rice ratio. I could try to not leave it overnight. I could try the white rice cook setting?? Although that one sounds counterintuitive. Maybe a thorough rinsing AND a different water:rice ratio is necessary?
The objective is to have it turn out more like this:
In addition to the water reduction others have mentioned, if you want a loose rather than sticky final product, rinsing and soaking the rice does wonders.
Perfect black rice in a rice cooker - I just cooked 2 cups of black rice, after a single quick rinse using a wire strainer in my Zojirushi rice cooker (fuzzy logic). I used a standard American measuring cup. I added 3 and 3/4 cups of water (vs. the standard straight 2 waters for every one unit of rice - I do this for ALL rice types as I like a fully intact rice kernel with texture remaining - that fluffs and separates as you expect ).
I also added a crumbled organic vegetarian bullion cube (just one) it adds just a little seasoning (still neutral) but I think also provides a little coating on the finished rice that makes it fluff and separate better.
The rice came out perfectly - tender, with just the right kernel bite, fluffed and separated as expected.
One other note, I NEVER use the keep warm function and always pop open the cooker at the first bell signaling cooking is complete, unplug, and I fluff immediately - I leave the cooker open a minute or two to allow steam to escape, then I close it. The rice stays perfectly warm after that for a very long time, long enough for a leisurely meal and warm rice for second helpings.
I can't say enough great things about the Zojirushi rice cooker. It is worth every penny. In addition to rice it cooks wheat berry, rye berry, millet , barley, and many other grains ( including perfect oats) automatically ith zero fuss. I have owned two in 22 years and replaced the first only because the bowl was list and the model was discontinued so no replacement bowel was found.
Many blessings in your rice cooking journey!
Looks like too much water was added. That's possible even with a fuzzy logic cooker. Try cutting back to 1.75 cups water per cup rice, or perhaps even 1.5, and cooking as with brown rice.
Did you use the "cup" that came with your cooker to measure water, or marks on the side of the cooker bowl? A rice-cooker cup is 180 ml, rather than your usual American 236.6.
If it comes out horrid again, try giving it a second cycle, that helps with whole oat groats, and some of the tougher grains.
If you use the rice cooker 'cup' measurement, you also can use the rice cooker bowl's 'cups', if you use cooking measuring cups, you do that for both rice and amount of water you put in (which means having to drain rinsing water thoroughly lest you put in extra water)
@setek Yes. Switching "cup" sizes may be what got fr0zensphere bad results here. Or perhaps a 2:1 ratio is just too high for this particular type of black rice.
Adding a bit of clearance to the ml measurements - it typically boils down to a "rice cooker cup" being 3/4 the size of a full cup, give or take.
I'm actually confused by the water and rice instructions with this rice cooker. Mostly because they're different from my previous rice cooker. This one does not use specific water:rice ratios. (My previous one did.) It has lines on the inside of the cook pot, and it says to fill water until as many lines are covered as # of rice cooker cups of rice placed in it. Example: if I placed 2 "cups", then add water until it's up to line 2. I'm also confused because the manual says the rice cooker cup = 3/4 of standard cup, but the marking on it that says "3/4" is not at the top (rim) of the cup!
So, if I were to fill up the rice cooker cup to the brim with water, then it's higher than 3/4 of a cup, but less than 1 cup?? Is that right?? I don't get it -- what's the point of that? Anyway, I tried making brown rice by ignoring these directions and just using the standard 2:1 rice:water ratio, and it actually came out just fine. I'll definitely try changing the water ratio and see how it impacts results.
I've never used a rice maker to make black rice and and I don't have any to experiment with at the moment, but I'll update this answer when I do.
I have had the best luck with black rice by rinsing it thoroughly several times and then soaking it for at least a couple of hours before rinsing it again, then cooking it.
After that, it behaves pretty much like rinsed brown rice. The manual for your machine recommends using the delay function for brown rice, so I would recommend rinsing the rice very thoroughly, soaking it for at least two hours, rinsing it again, then putting it in the rice cooker using a delay of at least a few hours and the setting for brown rice. You should be OK adding water in a 2 to 1 ratio, fresh water to dry rice, even though brown rice takes a bit more water than white rice in a rice cooker, because the rice will have soaked up some water in its initial rinses and soak. If your rice was overly tender all the way to the core then you might want to pull back a bit on the water.
Black rice has seemed to continue to cook when I have left it off heat with the lid still on, so it may not handle the "keep warm" cycle as well as other rice. Try to get to it within 10 minutes or so of it finishing the cook cycle. If it's done yet water remains, drain the excess water and use that much less water next time.
The white rice setting does seem counter-intuitive, but if it still seems mushy after trying the above, that would be the next thing that I would try.
Good luck, let us know if this works for you. If it doesn't, let us know that too. I'll play with it some more on this end.
Thank you for all your detailed thoughts! Interesting suggestions. I'm going to start experimenting with variables, one by one, starting with the easiest. I'll just make 1 cup of black rice at a time. And I'll see what helps and what doesn't. I'll start with the water ratio, as in the other answer by Wayfaring Stranger, and then try your suggestions as well. And I plan on documenting it here; hopefully I won't forget!
The trick to black rice is to soak it for 4+ hours or overnight, then cook it. You will find an amazing difference.
You do not mention the type of rice cooker you are using.
I have a National rice cooker and I have cooked many, many types of rice in it, including black (forbidden) rice. They all turn out perfectly. It is an old on/off model and I live at high elevation. I use the ratios you use for most of the whole grain rices; I may adjust it if the rice package recommends otherwise.
How high of an elevation are you at? That could be quite significant. (I believe that the rice was cultivaed by people living in mountains ... I wonder if they specifically selected rice that worked better for higher elevations?)
"...then I left it overnight...."
"Well, Bob, there's yer problem, right there!"
Put in in 40 minutes before you can stop a second to eat it. Use a little less water than 2 to 1, put in a couple of tablespoons of butter or coconut oil, 1/2 teaspoon or more of salt before putting in your rice and water.
See how that goes!
Rice cooker is NOT a crockpot!!!
Rice is not beef bone, or a roast!
Welcome to SA, Peter! Note that this is a very old question, so the original poster is unlikely to read your answer.
I made it for the first time today and just rinsed it, and put it in my small rice cooker, using the cup included with the cooker at a ratio of one cup of the black rice to two cups of water, it cooked in about the same time as brown rice, and turned out perfect. I usually cook brown rice, but not anymore... the black rice is my favorite! :)
I bought black rice last night for a dish from an Asian store.The first package I tried to buy was a solid, shrink-wrapped rectangular block of Thai black rice that was specifically labeled as "Black Rice." The owner told me it was "very glutinous and sweet-tasting" and perhaps I might instead buy another brand of rice, so I did: Riceberry Rice Red Elephant Brand, from Thailand. This was not specifically marked as what type of rice it was, but it looked black (but I've also seem dark rice that's labeled red rice so IDK).I've previously cooked black rice, specifically rice labeled "Forbidden Rice," but it was a long time ago, so I forgot the steps. I have an old Aroma-brand rice cooker. I used the measuring cup that came with the unit and measured out 1 1/4 cups rice that the recipe called for. I decided to go with a ratio of 1 cup rice to 1 1/4 cups liquid, even though recipes for brown rice call for a higher liquid ratio. And last-minute I threw in an extra 1/4 cup of liquid. I used chicken broth instead of water, and I rinsed the rice first for several minutes in a strainer, and then used the "steam" setting to brown it a bit in some butter and olive oil before adding the stock and switching it to the "Brown Rice" function. An Internet search produced different opinions on this subject of the dry to liquid proportions of cooking black rice. For brown rice I usually double the amount of water. This rice took nearly 2 hours to cook on the Brown Rice function, so do factor that in when you are preparing a recipe. I kept it on the warm function for about 45 minutes, and it came out perfectly for use in my salmon poke bowl. I am thinking about why your rice turned out so glutinous and watery. Maybe it's what would have happened had I used that other "black rice" from Thailand the store proprietor warned me about? Maybe that, in tandem with too much water??
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.952071
| 2014-07-17T06:44:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45653",
"authors": [
"Derpy",
"FuzzyChef",
"Gary Adams",
"Joe",
"Jon Bryant",
"Ming",
"Shonna Booth",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"fr0zensphere",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"jsanc623",
"zulu34skycom"
],
"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
}
|
77024
|
Risk of eating potato skins with anti-germination treatment
Most potatoes are given a chemical anti-germination treatment to stop them sprouting before we eat them.
With crispy potato skins and baked potatoes seen as a luxury, I wondered what research has been done on the health risks of eating potato skins and what government health advice says about this.
Obviously potatoes need to be washed first, to clean them and to remove residues of treatment. Should they be soaked first? I also realise that potatoes are safer when peeled.
Being told to wash, soak or peel potatoes makes me want to see hard research data or analysis on the food-safety of chemical anti-germination treatments for potatoes. Which is why I see this more as a biology question - where I originally entered this question - than a cooking one.
UPDATE I recently bought a bag of small potatoes which are promoted as "ready to cook in a microwave oven", though marked "With anti-germination treatment". The potatoes are in their skins, in a transparent bag which looks like cellophane. As the instructions on the bag do not mention washing the potatoes, I looked at the supplier's cooking instructions and was amazed that the video says "No need to peel them. They are ready to eat!" This seems to go against all logic.
Is "just get organic potatoes when you know you want to make that kind of dish" acceptable? :) They certainly germinate like billy-o if stored wrongly :)
Leave a potato on your counter long enough, and I have yet to see one not sprout.
It kind depends on what kind of treatment it is. If it's radiation treatment then it'll be fine because it doesn't leave any residue. If it's chemical it's probably OK because FDA or USDA (or similar agencies) wouldn't assume potato are always peeled, so any FDA or USDA cleared treatment method would be fine or at least a warning message would be on the package(like one you see with meat and eggs "consumed raw is risky")
I was thinking specifically of the risks from chemical treatments, so have edited my question to clarify this.
In Your Food: The Chemical Treatment of Potatoes to Inhibit Eye Growth: https://www.decodedscience.org/chemical-treatment-of-potatoes-to-inhibit-eye-growth/45175 Patent on a mix of 3-chlorophenylisopropylcarbamate (CIPC) and a component selected from the group consisting of clove oil and eugenol: https://www.google.com/patents/US8207090 As a chemist, these are not compounds I'd eat by the gram. However, we're probably talking ppm here. MSDS on CIPC, suggests not terribly toxic when eaten, but not totally innocent either: http://14group.com/fileadmin/PDF/English_MSDS/CIPC_MSDS.pdf - Your call.
@rackandboneman No, organic produce sometimes has more pesticides and whatnot on it than regular produce, because the treatments they're allowed to use aren't as effective. You should always wash all your produce, even organic!
Of course you should wash it. It's about the safety of the washed peels.
@rackandboneman, I agree with you. I feel distinctly uneasy about the advice of the supplier that the potatoes in the microwaveable pack were 'ready to eat'.
@finch "ready to eat" and in a cellophane bag means that the potatoes were washed at the packaging facility, and possibly washed better than you would at home.
This is specific to the MSDS provided by @WayfaringStranger. Disclaimer: I am drawing upon my experience at an FSIS-inspected facility, which is peripheral to the subject commodity, so YMMV.
Inferring from the report contents, the pesticide in question is considered to be toxic at ≥500PPM, and the pesticide itself is distributed at concentrations of ≈400PPM. It would thus be reasonable to infer that what is applied by pre-gate facilities would be less than what would qualify a chemical hazard of concern.
Additionally, foods that bear the labeling category of "Ready to Eat" involve additional stipulations, both in the regulatory as well as retailer context. For cases where pesticide usage is cited as a potential source of risk (food safety), there are more stringent testing regimes to ensure the preclusion of residual pesticide presence. Not to mention, at the third party auditing levels — as well as retailer, typically — there are clauses that address this concern, and these are necessarily revalidated at minimum on an annual basis.
Lastly, another regulatory control regarding RTE product would prescribe the use of an adequate produce wash and subsequent processing/packing. These are typically machine-agitated wash tanks that use wash solutions, e.g., sodium hypochlorite 12.5% at 200PPM ±15PPM at 6.5pH ±0.5pH, peracetic acid, or other similar chemical solutions (note: I am referencing a NRTE process, RTE concentrations may differ) that are verified at controlled frequencies (usually every two hours, and hourly during challenge studies). Subsequently, retention samples in representative volumes are usually sent out to a certified laboratory for chem and bio analysis; this is usually not done at the pre-gate, but post-gate level (by the final packer prior to distribution to retail).
The toxic stuff enters not only the skin, but even to 1 mm flesh.
Washing the potatoes is useless.
So, always peel your potato
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.952930
| 2017-01-01T17:19:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77024",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"Kat",
"SnakeDoc",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"finch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"rackandboneman",
"user3528438"
],
"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
}
|
85910
|
How do I make french fries that are crispy inside and out?
I want to make french fries that are crispy through and through. These days, it's very popular to "double fry" them, resulting in fries that are crispy on the outside and white and fluffy on the inside like a baked potato. I hate white and fluffy on the inside like a baked potato. I want them crispy all the way through.
Here's what I'm doing now: I make cris-cuts, using a cris-cut tool that I specially modified to make the slices even thinner. Then I fry very small batches at 325° F for one minute only in safflower oil. (It's a small deep fryer so I have to make small batches.) When they are all done, I fry them again in larger batches at 385° for about 3 minutes.
The above seems to work all right, but is there some secret to get them really crispy on the inside?
You might want to look up 'matchstick potatoes'. Otherwise, go with the oven recommendation
"These days"? How about (at least) the last 45 years...
I rarely bother to deep fry fries. I buy them precut, blanched and frozen in the supermarket and bake them in the oven. If I bake them as intended, they are fluffy on the inside. If I forget them in there for about double the time, they become harder and crispier throughout.
I don't think you can imitate this with a fryer only, because you need a certain temperature there, else the fries soak up the oil. So maybe do your one-minute fry first, then put the drained fries in an oven for as long as it takes. Or just start with the convenient prepared kind and use the oven from the beginning.
I once got the advice to double-fry them at different temperatures:
First you fry them for 5-7 minutes at 325F / ~162C
Then you remove the fries from the oil, increase the oil temperature to 350F/~175F, and fry them for another 2-3 minutes until golden & crispy.
It is best to soak the potatoes in cold water before frying to remove the excess starch.
Guy Fieri shares his pro advice on double-frying here.
That sounds pretty similar to what the OP is already doing. Was the advice you got presented as a way to make the fries fully crispy on the inside, as the OP is asking for?
I never had the "mushy inside like baked potato" texture with the method described above but this could be subjective. We fry them until the color is dark gold with a hint of brown. To make them super crispy, you can also slice your potato into very thin circles (best to do with a mandolin or food processor that has a slicer insert) instead of the french-fry cut - or as it was already mentioned above: matchsticks
Cook them thrice
The trick to crispy fries is to remove moisture. I highly recommend trying this recipe by Heston Blumenthal. I'll provide a short description, but you should really follow the recipe when you're trying this method.
The first cook is in water (I assume to remove starch and get them softened already), the other two follow roughly the double fry idea.
The important parts are in-between cooks. Rather than just letting them cool off on their own, you put them in the freezer (after cooling). That helps remove even more moisture from the fries which makes the final product crispier.
Side-note regarding temperature:
You really shouldn't be frying potatoes above 180 degrees Celsius or 356 degrees Fahrenheit. While deep frying always produces acrylamide which is carcinogenic, frying at temperatures higher than that causes needlessly high levels of the stuff. For more information, see this page by the American Cancer Society.
I don't know about this. It seems to me that this would only produce fries that are crispy on the outside, but white and fluffy on the inside like a baked potato. I hate white and fluffy on the inside like a baked potato. What I want to know, is how to I get the insides crispy, too? If you read the OP you would have known that.
@Jennifer this does make them more crispy on the inside than just baking them twice. This is because more of the water is removed from the fries. The less water in the middle, the easier they get crispy.
I'll have to try it then.
@Jennifer if you do, I suggest cutting the fries thinner as well. If you have experimented with thickness before, I suggest using the thickness that worked best when you cooked them only twice. Depending on that, reduce cooking time in the water to make sure you don't cook them to mush. ;)
Yes; as I stated in the OP I use a cris-cut tool which I have modified to cut them even thinner than the tool was designed for. I'm just wondering if there's something else I could do as well.
@Jennifer cooking them (in water) and the freezer steps should help. If you cut them even thinner they just become crisps, no fluffy stuff but I don't think that's what you want.
No, I'm not trying to make potato chips (crisps to you) but yes, I am trying to eliminate the fluffy stuff.
Normally, French fries are cut thick. To make whole crunchy French fries, just cut them as thin as you can.
The crosscut of ordinary French fries is about 1 cm (0,4 inch), you can make 1 mm crunchy fries. I propose you test different widths and report back on your findings.
"Potato Sticks" are made but a combo to @BaffledCook and @rumtscho's answers, to cut the potatoes into matchstick sizes. Using a mandolin with a small size may be the easiest way to get a reasonably uniform cut. Deep fry batches in hot oil. Blot excess oil, and add salt or desired spices and put into a pre-heated oven while you do additional batches. The longer you bake, the more crisp through. Larger cuts will tend to take longer and be more prone to soft in the middle. Small batches with reduce temp drops in the oil which would promote a tend to soggy spuds. It can work with larger cuts, so you would want to experiment for exactly the results you want.
My fries always come out crispy and I want them fluffy on the inside. Here's how I do it. First, I use Russet or Idaho potatoes. Then I use a mandolin to cut them into "small fries." That is, fries about the size of MacDonald's fries, not larger. I immediately put them in ice water. While they are chilling out (pun intended), I heat up the oil, usually canola or peanut oil to over 350 degrees, usually not over 375. Then I drain and dry the potatoes. I use a clean kitchen towel to dry them. I put the fries in the oil a handful at a time to maintain temperature. When they are all in, I fry them until crispy. As I said, they turn out crispy all the way and not fluffy on the inside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.953365
| 2017-11-25T07:31:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85910",
"authors": [
"JJJ",
"Jennifer",
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"SpookyWitch77",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94784"
],
"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
}
|
64991
|
Normal lifetime of non-stick teflon pans
Questions such as Are Non-Stick Bread Pans Destined to Fail? conclude that non-stick pans do not last forever, especially cheaper ones. I am trying to find some information that allows me to quantify this to some extent.
I normally use teflon non-stick pans some 3 times a week. I only use wooden and plastic tools on them, never metal ones. For some dishes, however, it is necessary to exert some rather punctual pressure (through the food) on the pan's surface, as well as dishes that require quite some oil (sometimes added in between, i.e. while the pan is heated) even in non-stick pans in order to not stick.
In my experience, my teflon pans live for some 3 to 4 years before they start showing some minor, but visible blank spots of one or a few mm² where the teflon has disappeared. Which is when I start considering looking for a new pan.
At my usage rate, is this within the expected lifetime range of teflon pans? or, asked more generally, What is the approximate expected lifetime for teflon-coated non-stick pans?
As I only keep a couple (ie, 2) teflon pans, I can't really give an expert answer ... but I know that in the past I seem to have killed mine from heating them too much. I wouldn't be surprised if pre-heating the pans, or differenent construction between brands were significant. (I seem to recall one company saying that they had a pattern of bumps / ridges in the metal, so there was more surface for the teflon to stick to, and so that metal utensils wouldn't scrape to the bottom ... it might've been Circulon)
This probably depends on the brand and quality of your pans. I don't think there's one answer for all cookware.
As other comments have said, I think the answer will vary significantly depending on the pans. And, as you seem to reference in the question, the answer will depend on how you use the pans -- how hard you cook with them, what kind of utensils you use, how hard you scrub or wash them, how often you do all these things, etc. I've had cheap pans fail noticeably within a year and little use, but the only nonstick pan I own now (a crepe pan, which I mostly use for scrambled eggs these days) I've had for well over a decade with no noticeable degradation in the coating or any sticking whatsoever.
I got tired of my Teflon wearing out so I got a cast iron skillet. It's been pretty awesome, but the manual cleaning is a bit of a pain. Also consider stainless steel.
My Teflon pans have a 10-year guarantee (& the ones without the special 'grippy' handles are also dishwasher-safe.) My last set actually did survive 15 years of dishwasher before i replaced them. You get what you pay for ;) They do get the odd accidental ding & scratch, but they never start to peel even then.
America's Test Kitchen says that good quality nonstick pans last them about six months.
They're presumably cooking with them several times a day, so if you use it once every couple days, and are as good as they are about not doing things that'll damage the coating, you might get a few years. So your experience sounds roughly normal.
As another data point, they also quote the Cookware Manufacturers Association: "'If you get a year to a year and a half of life out of [a new nonstick pan], we think you got a pretty good deal.'" That's coming from people interested in selling pans, possibly not talking about the best quality, and with experience based on typical less-careful usage, so I'm not surprised they gave a lower number.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.953979
| 2016-01-01T22:48:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64991",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Catija",
"Chloe",
"Derek Ferguson",
"Joe",
"Robert Brown",
"Tetsujin",
"Tori Chanel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679"
],
"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
}
|
66581
|
How to fold cabbage leaves for cooking?
Is there a way to fold cabbage in a pot so that you maximize the amount you can fit?
I just split my cabbage head in 8 45° wedges and sort of flatten the leaves to layers. But I still was able to fit only one (albeit large) head plus some add ons and it's a 2 gal pot.
Maybe just boil halves/quarters of the head? It seems nature packed the leaves pretty tight. (though I prefer washing every leaf)
Try removing the core from the cabbage completely. This can be done by slicing it in half and using a "v" like pattern for coring it. After the core is removed, all the leaves should flake off very easily. It is usually easier to fill more in a pot when you lay the leaves flat on top of each other. Alternatively, and with a bit more work, you can also just peel the leaves away from the core individually. This is a good way to get bigger leaves (especially useful when making stuffed cabbage).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.954297
| 2016-02-17T04:47:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66581",
"authors": [
"Amanda Morris",
"Doug Endicott",
"Eugene Petrov",
"Kenneth Riddles",
"Pouyan Surush",
"Ronnie Cheetham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36272"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67008
|
How to prevent flies sticking to hood fan lightbulb guard?
I hope this is not OT. I'm struggling mightily with little flies and other bugs getting stuck all around my hood fan but the worst part is the lightbulb guard. Is there anything that can be done about preventing it? My hood fan (which does vent outside, luckily) is exposed to my oil rich cooking and resulting fumes although I do clean it regularly.
Related, and might be of use to you: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46613/how-can-i-keep-flies-out-of-my-kitchen
It might be helpful (but not a complete solution) to leave a fly trap (as in explained here: How can I keep flies out of my kitchen?) on your stove when not in use. Use several around your stove when they seem to be bad.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.954421
| 2016-03-01T23:48:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67008",
"authors": [
"Carla Paulson",
"Dean Vesperman",
"Jill Mulford",
"Jolenealaska",
"Tina Hansen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68743
|
How to prevent shitakes from sticking to pan when sauteeing?
Is there any way to prevent shitakes from sticking to the stainless steel pan when sauteeing in olive oil? I cook with many different kinds of mushrooms and only shitakes, and to some degree portobellos, do this.
You need to use more oil, and fry at a higher temperature. The oil in your picture is not nearly enough to lubricate the sticky parts, and at the low temperature, the mushrooms are producing quite of bit of wet gunk. Also, you should be stirring (or jumping) them a lot, not leaving them to sweat alone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.954520
| 2016-05-02T22:31:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68743",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62936
|
Cooking in painted metal pots
Is it safe to expose a painted metal mug/pot to high heat for cooking or, even more frequently, boil water? My concern is how the paint responds to heat and whether it affects the food safety.
Is that painted or is it enameled? It looks like enamel to me from the style. If it is coated with enamel, it can withstand very high heat. If it is coated with paint (or a decorative glazing inside and out) then maybe less so.
I think it's enamel
This cup is not painted, but enameled, which means it is covered with a thin layer of molten glass (emaille).
As vitreous enamel is basically glass, it brings the same chemical and physical properties: chemically resistant, durable, scratch-resistant, smooth and long-lasting.
Enameled cookware is very safe, even at high temperatures (oven-proof), and easy to clean. The main weakness it the fact that the coating chips easily if the pot is dropped, but modern cookware is relatively resistant compared to older models. Some well-known manufacturers produce pots and pans with enamel, random examples are Le Creuset, Staub, Le Chasseur and others.
The kind of cup you have was quite common in farmers' households world wide a century or two ago and is still available in eastern European countries and the Balkans. It has fallen out of favour a bit in the West over the last decades but the recent "retro" trend has enameled goods (including tins, jugs and bowls) appear again, it seems. Note that campers, hikers and hunters always loved them for their versatility and sturdyness.
So don't hesitate to use your enameled cup on the stove, it was made for that use.
Your "emaille" link isn't working - were you trying to direct here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitreous_enamel
@logophobe Thanks, yes, that should have been the Wikipedia link. Fixed it!
I have a few le cruesset pieces, they are great!!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.954609
| 2015-10-29T03:50:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62936",
"authors": [
"Cora O mahony",
"Escoce",
"Jennie Brevitz-White",
"Joyce McCombs",
"Maz Ford",
"NadjaCS",
"Pam Evans",
"Pierre Seguin",
"Stephie",
"Tijana Veljkovic",
"amphibient",
"hi blye",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51944
|
Boiling vs soaking rice noodles
The instructions on this package of large rice noodles says just soak them for 6-7 min.
I did that and then fried them in some oil and soy sauce but they were still too crunchy. I just want to eat them as a side, not in pad thai or something similar.
Should I actually boil them to get a desired softness and approximately for how long?
No, just soaking in warm water will get them soft without turning them into mush. Just test the noodles by eating one every minute or so until they are the consistency you want, then rinse in cold water and drain. Boiling will take them from crunchy to mush so fast that you will likely miss the window.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.954822
| 2014-12-24T22:41:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51944",
"authors": [
"Cherie Barbeaux",
"Estateasset12",
"Lebesgue Lukas",
"Lizal Fynn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123196"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119721
|
Can we ferment cellulose (outside of our body) to turn it into food?
I recently read about (wild) fermentation of vegetables. I learned that:
By adding salt and water and keeping out the oxygen, we create a biome that favours cetain types of bacteria/yeast.
The bacteria/yeast metabolize certain molecules of the vegetables, grow/multiply and excrete fragments of those molecules.
This leaves both the excrements and the bacteria/yeast for us to eat, which are partly more easily digestible for us than the non-fermented vegetable (e.g. we can't digest inulin well, fructose works better), and partly we get molecules this way that were not even inside the vegetable in the first place - the bacteria/yeast produced them.
Then I read about ruminants:
They have certain types of bacteria in their stomach/gut.
The bacteria turn cellulose into smaller molecules and grow/multipy.
The ruminants then digest both the smaller molecules and the excess bacteria.
It is exactly the same. Since cellulose is everywhere, and if it were food, nobody would need to starve - the question comes quite naturally:
What ruminants do with cellulose in their digestive systems, can we do the same in a jar?
I assume people have tried that before and didn't succeed, since otherwise it would be part of food processing culture at least somewhere in the world. But I haven't heard of it. Why is it so difficult?
Don't take the question "in a jar" literally. Nowadays we have so much technology at hand that we can probably emulate the digestive system of an animal, with different chambers containing different types of bacteria, having different temperatures etc.. Has anyone ever done this successfully? And if yes, was the total energy yield positive?
If you think this question fits better into another stackexchange site, please leave a suggestion in the comments.
This might be better on chemistry. My understanding is that this is one of the goals for biodiesel to use a more diverse feedstock, such as grasses
It's an interesting question, but I don't think it's cooking related. Making the sugars in cellulose available for biofuel production using bacteria and enzymes has been studied for some time, without much progress. It can be done, but it's not worth the cost. As for why we don't try to source nutrition using cellulose, well we do by outsourcing it to ruminants, which have evolved over millions of years to be able to digest cellulose. Note even they don't do it very efficiently which is why especially beef has a high impact on the environment.
I’m voting to close this question because it's a chemistry and not a cooking question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-mWK_kcZMs and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHuFizITMdA may be relevant.
@GdD it looks like a food question to me. He's asking about turning cellulose into food via kitchen fermentation. Which actually isn't out of the question ... one can produce ethanol from cellulose "in the jar".
I've taken a crack at it @FuzzyChef, if the community thinks it's on-topic I'll give it a go.
@FuzzyChef I'm asking about turning cellulose into food via fermentation, but not necessarily kitchen fermentation. That's why I said "Don't take the question 'in a jar' literally." and the following sentences. I AM mostly interested in the possibility of doing it at home, but also in doing it at all (in a factory or wherever).
@FuzzyChef You say one can produce ethanol from cellulose in a kitchen environment. Do you mind telling a bit about it in a seperate answer?
I've never done it, that was just a note in an article on cellulose.
You may be asking 'why don't we eat grass, after all it's everywhere', and the thing is we already do. All cereals (wheat, rice, corn, barley, etc.) are grasses which have been selectively bred to increase the size of the starch bearing part of the plants. The way humans have been approaching food is to improve what is already edible or learn to replicate biological processes that occur naturally on food we already eat. Most of what we eat and drink is produced by methods that have been used for thousands of years, only produced on an industrial scale, it's only relatively recently that science has given us the tools to look beyond that, including how ruminants digest their food. So as for why we have never looked at how to get nutrition from cellulose, partly it's that we never really looked at it as we concentrated on what we could already eat.
The other reason we don't do it now is that it's not simple to do. You can't ferment cellulose, but you can ferment sugar. The problem lies in breaking the cellulose down into sugars in an efficient way - cellulose is designed to be tough and inedible by design, it's nature's way of giving plants structure. If it was easy to digest all animals would be eating it and it wouldn't serve its purpose.
Cellulosic Ethanol has been a goal for years, being able to convert prairie grass into biofuel for example and it can be done, but it takes more energy to make it than comes out of the process, which works like this: First you use an acid to break down the cellulose, then you put it in a container of water with the same enzymes in a cow's gut or fungi from a termite to extract sugars. At this point you have a weakly sweet liquid. Yeast can be used to create alcohol, then it needs several distillation cycles to turn it into alcohol of any strength. The problem for ethanol production is that all this takes heat, and by the time you add up the energy and other costs to collect, transport and produce something useful you use more energy than you gain. You also end up with a lot of byproduct that you have to find a way to dispose of in an environmentally friendly way. You can't feed it to animals as there's no energy left in the waste, you could possibly burn it but that's not good for the environment.
From a cooking perspective it is a bit different, as @rumptcho points out energy efficiency isn't a prime concern in home cooking. There's no reason you can't extract sugar from cellulose at home by replicating the industrial processes on a small scale, although you may need special equipment to control the production - perhaps modified home brewing equipment. Once you get the sugars extracted you could evaporate water off to create a sugar syrup, or even evaporate all of the water to make sugar granules. The thing to keep in mind is that sugar is all you get out of the process. Ignoring energy use, it's time-intensive way to produce prairie grass nectar.
This answer seems to say "not worth it", but it is written very much from an "energy production" perspective. For cooking, the conclusion would probably be different. Once you have the "sweet liquid" (which presumably consists of digestible sugars) you have reached the goal stated in the question. It can probably be consumed, or thickened to produce some kind of "hay syrup", which is likely to be not that different from corn syrup. Sure it will cost energy to produce, but that applies to pretty much every food we cook :) The ethanol part is also optional for consumption.
That was good feedback @rumtscho, I've made significant edits and I like this answer better.
Thanks for this answer. You say "sugar is all you get out of the process". Are you sure about that? Wikipedia says that the cellulose is broken down into volatile fatty acids by the gut microbes of ruminants, and both these acids and the microbes are then digested by the ruminants. So in our setting we might get sugar, volatile fatty acids (don't know if we can digest them), some other byproducts from the fermentation, and the microbes themselves - which would give us proteins as well.
Kjara: this is increasingly sounding like a question for Biology SE. We're cooks here, not microbiologists.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.954928
| 2022-02-02T11:49:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119721",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Kjara",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86184
|
"elven slices" - What is the real name (if any)?
In the video game "Sacred" (2004), the player can find recipes. They are usually written in a fantasy-like manner. In the German version I found a recipe called "Elfische Schnitten aus Tyr-Hadar" ("elven slices of/from Tyr-Hadar"). I was curious and tried it out. Here is the description, roughly translated from German:
Take 8 tablespoonful of honey and heat it up to make it liquid. Add 12
egg yolks of hard boiled eggs. Add pepper and 175g bread crumbs. Mix
everything with an egg whisk until you get a homogeneous mass. Form a
block and let it cool down. Cut it into slices. [...]
That's how it looks like (I used a bit too much bread crumbs / too little honey, so it's quite crumbly):
It tastes sweet, much like regular cake.
Is there any real-life recipe for this? If yes, how is this food called?
So... it's sweetened egg yolks coated in breadcrumbs? Is it baked? Fried? Uncooked other than the egg yolks being hard boiled already?
Uncooked (except the eggs of course), just as the recipe says.
The reason I asked if you cooked it is because "let it cool down" doesn't make sense... the honey being warm isn't going to heat up the 12 egg yolks and bread crumbs much.
I think the point of heating it up is to make mixing easier, and the point of letting it cool down is to get a more solid loaf to serve (if you take a type of honey that is more solid and less liquid in room temperature). At least I noticed a difference in solidness of the loaf between freshly made (warm) and cooled down.
Huh, interesting. Do you have an image of what the slices look like?
I'm curious what German word translated as "cuboid".
It almost sounds like a sweet take on a Scotch egg, except it's not fried... I'm very interested to hear how it tastes!
@JoshuaEngel "forme einen Quader"... "block" or "brick" would perhaps be the more colloquial choice.
@Erica I was thinking a croquette but not fried, too... I even found recipes for "egg croquettes" but again, they're fried or at least baked.
Looks a bit like a treacle tart filling. The cooked egg yolks are a bit odd though.
I think this has got to be a completely made up recipe.
This would really be a better answer if you explained why you think this. I know it's hard to prove a negative, but probably best to at least explain your thought process.
I don't have anything substantial to add to my answer. I was a chef for 10 years, have traveled the world and eaten and studied the human foods from many cultures. I have never seen a use of dry cooked egg yolks, outside of polonaise sauce, some rare Chinese buns with salted yolks, or the very direct use of eggs boiled in the shell (e.g. boiled eggs, sliced boiled egg, egg mayonnaise, goldenrod, etc.). Based on my intuition I think it is painfully obvious that the video game reference was an attempt to create a completely unique recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.955499
| 2017-12-07T18:56:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86184",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Douglas Held",
"Erica",
"Joshua Engel",
"Kjara",
"Richard",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63545"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86253
|
How to cook better cookies despite a terrible oven?
I am a college student living in a dorm for the first time. One of the luxuries I used to have at home was the ability to cook store-bought cookie dough cookies in my oven and have them come out tasty and goey.
While my dorm does have the luxury of an oven I do not think it is a very good one. Maybe it is just me but the cookies that come out of it arent goey or that enjoyable. They are pretty dry and sometimes need to be cooked for 0.5-1.5 minutes more than I would cook them at home.
How would you suggest I change my baking strategy so I can get better results from my oven? (Rack placement, dough shaping, temperature, time, etc)
I believe my oven is a very basic electric oven. I usually place the pan on the 3rd (out of 4) rack up.
Do you have an oven thermometer other than the one built in to the oven? Is it gas or electric? I'm confused how you're needing to cook them longer but getting a dryer result. It's difficult to tell you how to change your rack placement, shaping, temperature, time, etc... if you don't tell us what you're doing already.
Kudos for wanting to make use of the dorm oven. You will make many friends. The first thing you should do is buy an oven thermometer, as @Catija implies. They are inexpensive, hang in your oven, and will let you know the actual temperature. This will be an important starting point.
Yes I am using the same brand
Are you sure it is the oven? Are you using a different cookie sheet to bake them on? -- or did you bring the one you used to use along with you to the dorm?
That oven looks much better than I imagined a "terrible dorm oven" to be. In particular I wouldn't expect a dorm to have a glass/ceramic range, given the extra care they need.
What was your previous oven? Gas, perhaps? Nothing particularly terrible-looking about this one, Usually a calibration issue (as all the oven thermometer comments indicate - often wrong by 50 °F) sometimes you can also benefit from placing aluminum foil on a lower rack (or the bottom of the cookie sheet) to reduce the amount of radiant heat .vs. hot air that impacts the cookies. "have to cook longer" and "come out drier" appear to be contradictory - to make them come out moister you need to take them out sooner, not leave them longer...
@RossRidge : I suspect it's to prevent the issue of someone not noticing that the person before dripped something below or on the burner, and then smoking uo the whole place. Glass top might risk damage, but it's easier to clean after sloppy cooking, and more obvious when it hasn't been cleaned thoroughly
As suggested by Catija, moscafj and Ecnerwal the first thing you want to do is get a oven thermometer to verify that the temperature you're setting is the one you're actually getting. If possible you might should to bring it back home to see how well your home oven is calibrated. It may be the case that your home oven is slightly off in one direction and your dorm in the other direction so you might need to make a bigger adjustment than just testing your dorm oven would indicate.
That said, it sounds like your problem is that you're leaving the cookies in the oven for too long. Chewy cookies are basically under cooked cookies, you want to take them out of the oven when they're golden brown on the outside while still soft in the middle. Differences in lighting and glass between your old stove and the new one might make it harder to judge when the cookies are done, causing them to appear less browned then they actually are. Also cookies will still cook a bit while cooling on the counter, hardening up, so you're aiming for cookies that are a bit less done than you want in the end.
It may help to bake them at a higher temperature.
The combination of needing to bake longer and coming out drier seems to me to be interlinked, moisture is lost in that extra time. A higher temperature should mean they will take less time to bake, which should let the cookies set before losing their moisture.
in the same vein, it is possible that the oven calibration is off, so it may help to check - this can help figure out adjustments for any other recipes. If you can find or borrow an oven thermometer, this would help.
Final suggestion - if the cookies are still coming out too dry, even after playing with baking time, you can try dripping water (or milk, etc) on top of them while baking. The moisture will evaporate off, of course, but it will prevent some of the internal moisture evaporating out while it lasts so you end up with a moister product. If you are making the dough, like from store-bought mixes, you could add more water to begin with, but even the pre-made dough can be wet down before baking (or during) with little difficulty.
I have a history of bad apartment ovens, and at least 2 dorm ovens. The two things I can strongly suggest are a thermometer, so you can know with some certainty that when the oven thinks it's at 350 the temperature in the oven is actual 350. Oven temps will peak and valley around this number, but should normally withing 5 degrees in "good" oven, but I've had one with a 15 deg F variance.
One other thing would be to add some mass to the oven (thermal sinks). My go to is a pizza stone, but I know some people who would wrap bricks in aluminum (fireplace bricks recommended). Cheaper ovens hold less stable temperatures, and the added mass helps stabilize oven temps. Flattening the peaks and valleys of oven temps will help tame a bad oven. After it's tame you might find that 350 is actually 375, and you will have to adjust down now that peaks in temperature are less likely. Your preheat time will get longer with the additional mass in the stove.
I've read that the type of oven can affect the bake. An electric oven being one of the dryer ovens, while burning gas can create small amounts of water vapor. Professional bakers' ovens often use steam heat, creating a very moist environment for baking. You can add a tray of water, usually on the lowest point in the oven, to create steam. I've done that for bread baking. Bonus: the water will also act as a heat regulator, like the pizza stone.
All else fails you can pull the cookies earlier, or ball cookies to make a large center mass that could cook slower.
Good luck and enjoy the challenge of dorm cooking.
Ohh pull your cookies off the try you used in the oven as soon as possible. The cookies will continue to cook on the sheet after they are out of the oven as the sheet cools the cookies will continue to cook.
Rotate the tray half way through?
My corner cookies always brown faster so I either arrange in a circle pattern (wastes space) or make those corner cookies fatter/smaller diameter.
Also, err on the side of gooey. If a couple are too raw, they can even be briefly (shock horror) microwaved.
I have the same oven and the same problem! One side of the oven cooks hotter than the other. Also, it takes forever to preheat. I have a thermometer hanging in the oven, and when the preheat signal says that the oven is up to temperature, the thermometer always says it's still 10 or 20 degrees cooler. So I wait until the thermometer reaches the right temperature before I put anything in. Don't trust the preheat signal. But that still hasn't solved the dryness issue.
This oven don't have any form of vent/ air circulation. When cooking put a tray of water at the bottom (or heat-resistant bowl).
Put the tray with dough in the middle and use both heaters. In such oven I usually cook cold dough so the time of cooking is +10% of normal time.
You can experiment and after cooking time don't open the oven and leave cookies for 5 minutes for "cool down".
If the oven, as you claim, lacks a vent, introducing even more moisture into it is counterproductive. If you mean that it lacks a convection feature - that is no big deal, recipes are usually written for still ovens and need temperature adjustments if a convection oven is to be used.
Yes, I meant convection. Usually the recipes are written for the gas oven. The electric ones are very dry and if you don't count that in in your dough (ie. when making from premade one) it will be dry and stale.
Some electric ones are vented (dry air) it seems, some not (steam buildup). Had exposure to both. I prefer the dry, vented ones - nearly hermetic ones tend to leave you with soggy food and burnt nose hair.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.955768
| 2017-12-10T19:45:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86253",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"J.Doe",
"Joe",
"Lorel C.",
"Ross Ridge",
"RunThor",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64003
|
What to call this utensil
I'd like to know how to call this cooking utensil, great for stirring soup and sauces. Origin eastern european, this particular one is Polish. Am trying to buy more but do not know what name to look for.
Try a variety of "quirl" - eastern European for that variety is probably right. Found this one: http://www.ostprodukte-versand.de/cnr-108/Haushaltswaren/anr-1415/Quirl-26cm-mit-Loechern.html (no endorsement whatsoever)
I'm unsure about an English term, but in German it is a "Quirl", related to the "whorl" of twigs on a stem it was originally made of - for example from old Christmas trees:
(source)
Later versions mimicked this with a star-shaped wooden or porcelain "head" on a wooden handle,
(source / source)
the plastic head is a more modern twist:
(source)
In Central Europe you should be able to buy them from either kitchen stores or - if regionally less common - from various online retailers.
The stick that is "made from a christmas tree" is actually slovak in origin, very effective for breaking curds when making cheese or something.
Anyway, for sauces I really like to use the wooden one - you can twist it really quickly between palms, and the flat head easily mashes any formed lumps (e.g. from added flour).
"Kvedlačka" in czech, probably something like "twirl-stick" in english. I suspect it would be called "trzepaczka" in Poland.
EDIT: The exact variety on your photo is probably not produced anymore, it's a kind-of-very-post-communistic item here. :)
Good point - in Germany it was much more common in the former GDR. The western part preferred the wooden variety, no idea, why.
Thank you for the information. Good to know the polish (and czech) name too.
"Quirl" in German describes both this Utensil and the so called Schneebesen (=balloon whisk, Very literally "snow broom", reasonably "beaten egg broom".)
The other answers are interesting (and likely correct) but for completeness' sake, if one were looking for such a thing in the US, or something for similar purposes, a molinillo might be a useful term to look up. The molinillo is a wooden whisk (much like the pictures of the german quirl in Stephanie's answer) traditionally used for chocolate making. The rounder shapes are popularized online and a bit easier to find in the US, though reportedly variations are widely available in Mexico and further south.
The one most commonly seen is circular, with deep ridges, elaborate carvings and loose rings to make the chocolate more frothy (as seen in the first image), but I have seen ones more similar to the original instrument (with fewer flat paddles) as seen in the second picture below. There are some interim shapes (and alternate names like batidor) here.
And, if one were looking for such a thing in India or possibly through asia, one might look for a handheld buttermilk churn. The steel varieties look more like the original picture, the wooden ones look more like the molinillo or quirl (rounder and with ridges instead of paddles). One site I looked at called it a steel Mathu, another mentioned it as a handheld mixer or churner - but these terms are hard to search generically, and seem to be website-specific when I search for them. Looking for buttermilk churner seems to indicate the right tool in a conversation or an internet search.
Nice last link. Tells me how to use it, though that's what I would assume/do just by looking at them without any other specific advise or instruction.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.956563
| 2015-12-01T18:10:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64003",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Robinson",
"Billie Harkrider",
"Cathy Brown",
"Erin Peterson",
"Jelly Flower",
"NOTjust -- user4304",
"Richard Ashwell",
"Stephie",
"exa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"pritaeas",
"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
}
|
5974
|
How to convert a cup to SI units?
Possible Duplicate:
How do I convert between the various measurements?
How to convert a cup to SI units? In otherwords, how many liters (or deciliters) one cup is?
Strictly speaking of SI units, you should use cubic meters, which is too big for all days use (one cubic meter is one thousand liters).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.957191
| 2010-08-25T19:11:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5974",
"authors": [
"avpaderno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5450
|
Excessive water when cooking scallops
This is partly a continuation of this question, since that one was already closed, but my question is about a specific problem encountered the last time I cooked scallops.
I got the pan up to a reasonable temperature and put the scallops in, and as they were cooking, TONS of water came out of the scallops and filled the pan. I poured it out, continued cooking, and more water came out. Several iterations later, I thought they were done, but they were still very raw inside, so we ended up tossing the batch (it definitely wasn't sushi grade).
Where did all the liquid come from, and is there any way to avoid that the next time?
I've had this issue with crappy supermarket scallops before. Alton Brown covered this. From http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Season9/scallops/scallop_trans.htm (section 5):
dry scallops are usually ivory, or
slightly pink, or even orange in
color, not white. Of course, they
don't actually look dry. The term
refers to the fact that these lovely
lozenges have not been soaked in any
kind of chemical, say, sodium
tripolyphosphate. This solution is
used to help scallops retain moisture
when frozen. Now there's nothing wrong
with that per se, unless the scallop
in question is not going to be frozen.
You see, treating fresh scallops with
S.T.P. causes them to gain moisture,
making them heavier, which could be a
good thing for a retailer, but it's
never good for a cook. Because once
this stuff is inside the scallop, they
become very difficult to cook
properly, and they are impossible to
sear properly.
Diver scallops are probably good. Look for a bit of color when buying. The good news is that you probably aren't doing anything wrong, the scallops just aren't going to sear.
When you buy for searing, get scallops that haven't been treated with chemicals. Diver scallops are almost always untreated. Look for a bit of color, which is usually a sign of quality. Don't buy them if they are in a pool of milky liquid (as they usually are in the fish section of the supermarket). Buying diver scallops is also much more sustainable and eco-friendly, since large ships that freeze their stock at sea dredge the floor to get scallops. Divers are much more selective and do negligible damage to the ocean floor.
Am I to understand from your answer that diver scallops actually means scallops caught by a diver rather than a specific type of scallop called diver scallops?
Yes, diver scallops are picked by hand by divers. Most other scallops are caught by large ships, which package and process on the boat in order to stay out longer (less port time = more fishing time = more $$). I'm not sure if the term is regulated in the states, so it might not be wise to rely on to determine freshness.
Make sure you are not crowding your scallops in the pan. If there are too many, then there is not enough empty surface for liquid released to boil off. This also ends up steaming your scallops rather than frying, which I don't like nearly as much. If you have enough hot, open pan around the scallops, then liquid will boil off very quickly.
Scallops are like little sponges. Don't let 'em soak in water, or they'll absorb a ton of it and then release it all when you start cooking them.
If you need to wash them, put them in a strainer, and run them under the water for a second. Then pat them dry with some paper towels.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.957265
| 2010-08-18T13:42:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5450",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Alexey Blinov",
"AndrewMarconi",
"donjay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"makitocode",
"standgale",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7075
|
Can I use the green part of leeks for stocks?
Most recipes call for the white and the inner green parts of leeks. I feel like I'm wasting half leek.
After googling a little, I've found some people consider it edible if properly cooked. I guess a couple of hours of simmering should be enough, but my book says to use only white and inner green parts for stock. Is there a reason not to use it, if properly cleaned?
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4584/which-vegetables-to-use-for-stock. In general, you can put most of your vegetable "scraps" into stock with good results.
Absolutely, go ahead and use it.
I always ignore the "white and light green parts" instruction anyway, and use the leek up until the point where it feels dried out instead of firm and fleshy—well into the dark green parts—and it's always delicious, even when cooked for significantly less than several hours.
I thought there would be a reason... You're saying that's kind of a myth?
My mother always said it was just that some people think the white and pale parts are more attractive. The dark green parts aren't quite as tender, but it's a pretty slight difference. It's certainly not something that would make a difference for stock, where you're removing the solids and any texture issues anyway.
I've always used the entire leek including the dark green. Why waste it? If it has a more robust flavor that is fine with me because I like bold flavors. The potato and leek soup I make says to discard the dark parts but I don't. I also puree the soup. It does come out a darker green than some people may be used to but it doesn't bother me at all. I think taste trumps the color of your food.
I must admit I have thrown them out before. I never will again. Sliced up and simmered in chicken or veggie broth for about 40 mins., they make a wonderful soup, especially with a little heavy cream at the end.
If you're trying to make a vichyssoise or a warm potato-leek soup then I wouldn't recommend it as the flavour is a bit strong. But if you're making a robust stock for any other purpose, then go ahead.
I like to throw them in whole, so that I can remove them later.
By all means you should do this. Do split it and wash the grit out. Sediment in there is too fine for a sieve and gelatin will make passing finished stock through muslin impossible. Plus you'll literally infuse the flavor of dirt (and whatever chemicals were in it) into your stock.
When I use onions for stock, I keep their skin on. I don't peel my garlic, I sometimes throw a whole bulb in. With tomatoes, I keep the vine in the pot! It infuses their great flavor ten fold.
Yes, I always use the green parts. I only cut the very top off, about 1/4 inch or less. I use the green parts for soup and it gives it an absolutely amazing taste, much better than onions!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.957586
| 2010-09-10T16:59:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7075",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"In the Booley House",
"Julio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2251",
"kevins",
"raschwilliam925",
"selina Dorrill-Bradley"
],
"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
}
|
91689
|
All fried rice recipes seem to have the same toned down interpretation
I have been trying to recreate the fried rice from a restaurant that I loved before moving. They were a Japanese steak house (called the Iron Chef), the type that cooks in front of you, and they made this incredibly saucy fried rice. It had this sort of savory perhaps umami taste to it that was so incredible. However I can’t recreate it. Other than their secret sauces and pastes the only difference from your average recipe is that they had larger chunks of zucchini in it.
I did try one of the internets self proclaimed best fried rice** recipes* but it was pretty flat and boring and toned down, even from your average restaurants version.
All the recipes I find for fried rice seem to be quite similar to each other and are meant to result in a much more toned down less savory and saucy result. Very few of them involve mixing in a sauce that is any more than just soy and sesame. Boring! Not only did the restaurant have some sort of paste but they also had a sauce.
How do I look for recipes that might be different and might be able to create a memorable fried rice like the one from that restaurant.
*it is worth noting that I did not follow the part of the recipe that asked for Shaoxing wine as I am underage and can’t buy that. That can’t be it right?
**Some people are reporting having trouble using the link so here is the ingredients list.
3 tbsp neutral oil
1 medium onion
1 red bell pepper
2 carrots
1 tablespoon garlic
1 cup peas
1 tbsp ginger
3/4 cups rice
2 eggs
1/4 cup Shaoxing wine or water
2 tbsp soy sauce
1 tbsp sesame oil
1/2 cup minced cilantro
Salt pepper to taste
Did you use high quality ingredients? For example, if you use the cheapest soy sauce out there, you can't expect much of a result. Also note that there are different kinds of soy sauces. This of course applies to almost anything, soy sauce is just one example. Please note that you've linked a recipe that you need an account for to access.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate is probably the most well known flavour enhancer.
Replace dome of that wine/water with more soy sauce, for a start. The amount of salt/MSG/soy sauce in commercial fried rice recipes is shocking. That's why they taste so good (and I generally go easy on the salt)
A sprinkle of MSG might be all you need to bring the umami flavor you are missing. Glutimates are natural. Contrary to longstanding myth...there is no Chinese Restaurant Syndrome, and MSG is not "bad" for you.
Are you trying to recreate the fried rice from the restaurant, or just create a strongly-flavored fried rice? Those are two different questions.
Also, if you are trying to recreate the restaurant recipe, you're going to need to be more descriptive than "savory" and "saucy".
For best results you want to use fish-steaming soy sauce. Also, adding some fish sauce can bring your magic to your dish. I don't want to mention MSG and/or chicken essence, but that's a thing too...
I don't know what you qualify as 'saucy', but you might want to try adding either a little bit of miso (japanese; fermented soy bean paste) or oyster sauce (chinese; a thick sauce made from salt, sugar, and extracts from oysters). Also consider the heat that you're cooking at -- you risk burning things at high heat, but it changes the flavor of food significantly if you brown it. (and low heat risks turning the food mushy because it cooks the middle before the outsides have browned).
That list of ingredients looks totally fine to me, except for the suspicious omission of eggs, which are crucial to any fried rice dish. However, ingredients are not important for fried rice; you use whatever you like, and one can make absolutely amazing fried rice with just eggs and soy sauce. On the other hand, making fried rice requires a lot of technique, and practice makes perfect.
There are some problems that you may be making while preparing the dish:
your rice must be set aside for a while. You can't make good fried rice with rice that has just been cooked; the starch has to be at least partly retrograded or otherwise the rice will be too sticky, and the starch would not be able to fully engage in the Maillard reaction. Set the rice aside for a while or even overnight. Then, split the rice so that it doesn't lump together.
heat issues. Fried rice must be cooked on high heat; that's why teppanyaki restaurants can make tasty fried rice. Make sure that your pan or wok is hot enough. If your cooking utensil isn't hot enough, the reverse retrogradation (of the outside of the rice grains) will happen before the Maillard reaction, and that gives you soggy fried rice.
eggs are crucial because they provide a very strong aroma to the dish. There are many ways different chefs handle those eggs, but for a beginner I'd recommend coating the rice in the eggs (but not too many eggs, otherwise it would be soaking) before cooking.
If you pay attention to those, you'd be fine.
I wouldn't add douchi because fully releasing the flavor in douchi requires a good amount of liquid in the dish, and fried rice is a very dry dish. Rather, if you want some umami flavor, try adding fish sauce, shrimp paste, or XO sauce. Or MSG. No, they're not bad for you :-) If you want to add any soy sauce (or any sauce), make sure you add it when you're almost done. Otherwise retrogradation and Maillard reaction blah blah...you know the drill.
Shaoxing wine OR water, I don't think so. You will get completely different results with water and the wine.
As for your question: Add some Douchi (or black bean sauce), or Doubanjiang (if you want it spicy) for a focus on umami. I'd omit the cilantro altogether as well. A dash of rice vinegar might go a long way. Be careful though, since you've already added some acidity with the wine.
What do you mean by a dash of rice vinegar? I’m new to cooking to in terms of tsp or tbsp would be useful for an idea
Depends on your personal palate, I'm afraid. Start with a teaspoon and have a try.
@J.Doe : see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/82364/67
Xuq01 has the correct answer but I will park a couple cheats here:
Use oil saved from frying something delicious. I reuse falafel oil.
There are retail stir-fry oils.
Bean paste to replace all or portion of soy sauce. Best is from sichuan adding a greater depth with its fermented flavor.
Smoke flavor to reproduce high heat wok char. Finest is Amoretti.com Natural Charred Barrel
One thing that might help you to find what you’re missing:
This style of cooking is called ‘tepanyaki’ in Japan and ‘hibachi’ in the US (although hibachi is a type of grill, not a griddle)
If you search for ‘tepanyaki fried rice’ you might be able to figure out either the ingredient(s) or technique that you’re missing.
It’s also worth noting that when cooking over a large griddle, it won’t hold in steam the way that cooking in a pan or wok will. You will likely want to use a large, wide pan with low sides (or a very large griddle, and be prepared to clean up the mess afterwards)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.957884
| 2018-08-14T09:44:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91689",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"J.Doe",
"Joe",
"Johannes_B",
"Raditz_35",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"kraligor",
"moscafj",
"xuq01"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86278
|
Irish Bacon Ribs
Does anyone have the recipe on how to make these classic, old-school ribs? I'm not looking for the cooking recipe but the following:
What pork cut is it? (I believe it's the babyback rib rack)
How do you cure it? (probably similarly to corned beef since it's typically pink)
What spices do you put in the cure?
The above info has been particularly hard to find anywhere on the Internet, so any info would be appreciated.
Welcome to the site @PMSGoog. Did you mean to post a picture or a link? If so, they aren't there.
Bacon Rib is actually made from a specialty cut, at least specialty in the US, typically called a belly rib cut. It is a full rack, and full belly. I have not had it cured, but just like bacon I would assume it could be prepared either cures or fresh. Typically it would be smoked for as long as 18 hours. Then the ribs would be cut, again with the belly still in place, and used for the final dish. Boiled with vegetables and cabbage is one typical route, or trimming up ribs to make them look nice and sauteing them and making a sauce with the drippings. I cannot say how common doing a full cure is, I have seen them served only a couple times and those were smoked but not cured. That however was in the US, and traditional Irish might have different tendencies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.958451
| 2017-12-11T13:35:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86278",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90176
|
Using Pressure Cooker to Make Bone Broth
I have always read that when making bone broth you should keep the heat to around 180F and do not let it get to an aggressive boil because it will emulsify the fat into the broth and also because you will lose flavor and nutrients through the boiling process. I always let mine simmer for about 2 days. I am considering opening up Bone Broth kiosk in my city and someone suggested using a pressure cooker to quicken the process. I would think this would also be considered cooking at a very high temperature. Has anyone ever used a pressure cooker for making broth and would you consider this to be a decent way of keeping the nutrients and flavor intact while speeding up the process?
You don’t explain what you mean by “traditional simmer”- do you mean pot on stove? If so, how do you prevent it all evaporating if like you say it takes 12 hours?!!
@Bob first, put a lid on the pot, this will mean most of the evaporation will condense and drop back in the stock. Second, if you are really running low, just add a bit of water.
Like @Greybeard, I've had a great deal of success using a pressure cooker to make stocks and broths quickly. Pressure cooking is, by definition, at a higher temperature than normal simmering or boiling. In those methods, the upper temperature is limited to the boiling point of the liquid (212 degrees F, 100 degrees C for pure water, a bit higher for solutions with dissolved solids such as salt). The pressure buildup inside a sealed pressure cooker actually raises this boiling point; it's the opposite of why water boils at a lower temperature at higher altitudes, and a higher temperature means generally faster cooking.
In the case of stocks and broths, this higher temperature increases the rate at which collagen hydrolyzes; basically, it untangles from its original tough, tightly-woven state and forms free-floating strands which then tangle and interconnect as the solution cools, producing the characteristic texture of gelatin.
So: a pressure cooker is good, in that it reduces the amount of time that this process takes. Rather than 8 hours of simmering, you can use a pressure cooker and get a similar amount of collagen extraction in perhaps 3-4 hours of cooking.
If you're like me, you'll take a look at this result and wonder: if I can make a great chicken stock in 3 hours, what happens if I let it cook for 12? The answer, unfortunately, is disappointing. Bones will crumble will barely any effort, but the resulting stock won't be any more viscous or tasty than a stock cooked for a shorter amount of time. What gives?
Howard McGee's classic tome On Food and Cooking offers a hint: gelatin isn't impervious; those long strands are delicate, and they can be denatured or damaged by acids or enzymes. McGee also notes what a lot of people seem to miss: at higher temperatures, collagen strands on their way to becoming a tightly-bonded network of gelatin can become damaged, or "cut" partway down their length. Instead of a dense network of long strands, you get fewer bonds between shorter strands, and we perceive this as a less "gelatinous" broth.
In other words, using a pressure cooker raises the temperature so much that it can actually damage the collagen you're trying to extract over a longer cooking time, even as it takes less time to extract in the first place. This happens much less with an extended simmer, even one measured in days, because the temperature isn't high enough cause much damage - indeed, it can't be, because it's limited by the boiling point.
There's a balance point here: a pressure cooker will allow you to produce stock comparatively quickly, but it introduces the risk of overcooking (in the sense of destroying some of the collagen you've worked to extract). 3-4 hours under pressure seems to be the sweet spot for chicken stock; turkey can go a little longer, maybe 6 hours. For a beef or pork stock, where there is much more collagen to be extracted, using a pressure cooker is still faster but almost counter-productive; you can't fully extract all the collagen you might want without damaging some. If you really want a full extraction of all the collagen present, a traditional simmer is the way to go, even though it takes longer.
That said, you may decide that the advantage of speed for a commercial enterprise is more important, and opt for something like a 6-8 hour pressure cook for pork or beef bones; I wouldn't go much more than 12 hours, personally. You might even decide on an initial extraction in a pressure cooker, followed by simmering the already-cooked bones in the traditional manner until you've extracted everything that's left. You'll want to experiment a bit as you try to make this a viable business, but I'd definitely advise being aware of this limitation before you run into some less-than-optimal batches of stock like I did. (Don't get me wrong - the end result was still good, just not any better than stock pressure-cooked for a shorter period of time.)
EDIT: Somehow I made it through this entire long-winded answer without noting that many modern electric pressure cookers are also designed to be used as slow cookers, holding a sub-boiling temperature for an extended period of time without pressure. This is great - you can safely maintain a lower-temperature extraction for an extended period of time (though you need to make sure you use the "high" setting to get above the hydrolyzation point of collagen). They can also be programmed to switch from one mode to another. I've started successfully experimenting with hybrid methods: pressure cooking for an hour to jump-start the extraction, letting the pressure release, then slow-cooking overnight before straining in the morning. If you're going to consider pressure-cooking at all, this may be a way to get the best of both worlds.
This might sound weird, but could you pull this off with a sous vide stick too?
@BillSambrone Well, definitely not the pressure part. I don't think I'd try it regardless; those heating elements aren't designed to be submerged in anything other than water. Slow cookers might be less precise in temperature terms but they're also significantly cheaper.
A pressure cooker is a fantastic way of saving both time and energy. I've used mine to succesfully make both chicken stock and bone broth. The major advantage I've found is the way the gelatin etc. is extracted only after a few hours.
As far as nutrients and taste as concerned, I'd say a PC is the way to go. I put my electric pressure cooker on full pressure for 3-4 hours and the bones will easily crumble/snap.
The only reservation I would have is the final colour, which will end up cloudy. I don't know if you were intending on adding any aromatics etc. to your broth, nor if the latest generation of electric pressure cookers would alleviate this issue as you can program both pressure and cooking cycles etc.
You have to be careful about the type of pressure cooker that you use. Cooking Issues had an explanation, but they've either removed or rearranged, so use archive.org:
For years Nils and I have maintained that pressure cooking stocks and broths is the way to go. We’ve always said that the high temperature in a pressure cooker gives better extraction and meatier flavors than normal cooking. Turns out we were wrong. Sort of.
While I hate being wrong, this particular error taught us a lot – including:
All pressure cookers aren’t created equal. The cooker you use affects flavor.
Pressure cooking can be used to modify conventionally cooked stocks.
Not all stock ingredients react the same way in the pressure cooker.
Basically, the pressure cookers that rely on escaping steam to regulate pressure don't do as well as cooking on the stove, while those that don't release steam were better than conventional cooking.
I'd really suggest reading the whole article.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.958595
| 2018-06-05T15:17:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90176",
"authors": [
"Bill Sambrone",
"Bob",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53587",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90492
|
Fully baked cookies in a 90 F car
I made some cookies about four days ago - a modification of a fairly standard chocolate chip cookie recipe augmented with cocoa powder in the dry ingredients, and marshmallows in the center. They are moist at the center and crisp at the outside. Baked at 350 F for about 15 minutes.
They were left in my car, at a temperature of probably about 90 F (outside temps were cooler, and I was parked in the shade, but it was very hot out), for about two hours later that day. They've been in my refrigerator since then.
Now, ordinarily I wouldn't hesitate to leave them out on the counter (at a normal 70 F or so) or in the fridge, and eat them until they were gone, or became too stale. I confess, I didn't think twice about eating one this evening, either, until I read about food safety on here and saw the special rules about 90 F and higher temperatures.
My question is: Are foods that are normally considered safe for some days/weeks at 70 F unsafe after a shorter time 90 F? If so, does the standard "one hour at 90 F" rule apply, or is it some longer period of time? Is the added risk significant enough to be determinable?
Edit: In appreciation of the thorough answers, just want to update everyone: after more than a day, no ill effects. I've continued to eat them. Believe me, they are amazing cookies. If anything else happens, I'll update again, but otherwise, thanks for the responses and it looks like no harm, no foul! (Naturally, this is only anecdotal, but at least it's a nice data point.)
Baked goods are generally considered to be a 'low risk' food when you're dealing with health codes. That is to say, you don't typically need to worry if they've been kept in the 'food danger zone' for too long on a period.
In fact, I'd say that some of the best cookies I've had in the past decade were chocolate chip cookies that had spent an hour or two in a hot car shortly before eating. (the chocolate was just to the point where it melted in your mouth as you ate it, without being so warm that it was melting all over your fingers).
So, is there increased risk? Yes, especially if they had been contaminated with something before being put in the car. But for breads and cookies, I wouldn't personally worry about a couple of hours at a warmer temperature.
I'd be more cautious with baked goods more hospitable to microbial growth -- wet pie fillings, meat pies, etc. Although pepperoni rolls are generally okay, as the pepperoni itself is something that's shelf stable for multiple weeks. (and they're really good when they're slightly warmed, like having been in a warm car)
If you wanted to be really paranoid about the whole situation, you could've put most of the cookies in the fridge, but have left out a couple at room temperature in a sealed container. This would serve like a petri dish to attempt to determine if there is significant microbial contamination to worry about. If they don't go all strange on you after a couple of days, the ones in the fridge should be fine to eat.
I'm not so sure about the test in the last paragraph where some of the cookies are left out. Food can be unsafe to eat long before it goes all strange. However, the rest of the answer is fantastic. Since cookies have lots of sugar and very little water, it's really unlikely that any dangerous microbes will grow in them.
@mrog : which is why I'm saying that the ones in the fridge should be okay, not the ones on the counter. As most microbial activity doubles for every 10°F increase in temperature, a 'room temperature' of 70 to 90°F should spoil 8 to 32 times faster than what's in the fridge. So if it doesn't show signs of spoiling after two days, what's in the fridge should be fine. But I'd only do this for low-risk foods, and mostly only because I was raised in a family where you didn't waste food.
Okay, that makes sense. I've never seen a spoiled cookie, though. They tend to just get stale. But, I suppose it could happen if there's enough water present.
@mrog : I've only seen it happen with a fairly moist cookie in a sealed container. (it was kinda fudgy ... more like a brownie than what I typically think of as a cookie). But I'd probably do the same test if I ever made maple bacon cookies again and ran into this situation.
Okay, I can see how that would happen with a fudgy cookie in a sealed container. I bet the cookies were really good before they went bad. :-) I don't usually make cookies with more moisture than a typical chewy chocolate chip cookie, and I live in a dry environment, so I'm not used to cookies going bad.
One of the most important things to consider with regards to spoilage is "Water Activity"...Bacteria need water to be able to reproduce, and things (like cookies) that have very little water activity are very unfriendly to bacterial colonies.
I wouldn't worry about cookies. They'll go stale, but it's unlikely they'll grow any significant bacteria.
Interesting! How would the moist-ness of the cookie affect water activity? These are probably a "normal" level of moist, e. g. crispy on the outside and moist on the inside. Does that mean they'd be less safe than, for instance, a biscotti?
@ivraatiems: Biscotti last forever...I'd think a moister cookie wouldn't last as long, but it'd still be safe for a good long while...Weeks. Lot of what makes them moist is fat, and fats last pretty well at room temp.
That's an excellent answer. There's very little water in baked cookies. The abundant sugar helps a lot, too. It's unlikely that anything would grow in them, even after a few days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.959255
| 2018-06-22T01:59:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90492",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Satanicpuppy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67740",
"ivraatiems",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36352
|
Temperature-stable spices
I would find it very useful to have a list of empirical data on temperature-stability of spices.
Are there any systematical studies available?
Which spices can easily bear long durations of broiling, hot oven or barbecue?
Which lose flavor or deteriorate quickly?
Which develop displeasing flavors?
Which become unhealthy or even poisonous?
What can be done to preserve sensitive spices during hot cooking?
This topic comes close to my question. Can someone elaborate somewhat deeper on the matter?
UPDATE: I understand that my question may be too open-ended. I don't expect an exhaustive answer here, just hints and starting points for further study.
Can you specify a temperature range? Braising or bbq spices?
I do not want to specify too much on temperature range, ways of cooking and types of spices. Very much asked but: I'm looking for information as broad and complete as possible.
As broad and complete as possible would be a research study or book, which is outside the general guidelines of this site. A much more specific and focused question would be more answerable, as there are a myriad different herbs and spices, each with their own active ingredients and properties. There is no reasonable way on a QA site to enumerate all of them, especially the more unusual ones like sumac or rarer ones used around the world but not mainstream in western cooking.
Are there any systematical studies available?
I am not aware of any such study or resource, but ignorance of or lack of evidence of a thing doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist.
Which spices can easily bear long durations of broiling, hot oven or barbecue?
Broiling is an especially intense cooking method, directly transferring energy to the surface of the target food by radiation. It also is not a method used for long cooking duration, because it is so rapid, and easily would burn or char the outside of the food.
As a general principle, hard, woody spices and hard seeds tend to be the most heat insensitive: black pepper, cinnamon, anise, nutmeg, cumin and so on.
In the herb family, the hardier herbs (bay leaf, oregano, and sage for example) can stand up to some prolonged cooking without adversely affecting their flavor.
Delicate herbs (cilantro, parsley, tarragon, basil for example) do not fare well as their flavors are very volatile.
Which lose flavor or deteriorate quickly?
See above; this is just a rephrasing of the same question.
Which develop displeasing flavors?
This is an open ended list question.
For a significant portion of the population, cilantro starts with a displeasing flavor.
Badly overcooked garlic can become bitter, if you consider it a spice. Similarly, paprika and many of the capsicum peppers become very unpleasantly bitter when burned.
Most flavors simply lose their intensity and become muted or difficult to perceive.
Which become unhealthy or even poisonous?
I am not aware of any.
What can be done to preserve sensitive spices during hot cooking?
Don't add them during prolonged cooking; add them at near the end of the cooking period or even after cooking is completed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.959697
| 2013-08-27T18:05:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36352",
"authors": [
"3Q6Dev",
"Chico the Friendly Monkey",
"GUZi",
"Kevin",
"Lawrence",
"MandoMando",
"Richard Muthwill",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85543",
"nansen",
"numaan mir",
"pvaid"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45925
|
What should I look for in a crepe pan?
Amazon link
Remarkable to find them all together like this, but these are the options I am considering.
Hard-Anodized Aluminum
Non-Stick (Teflon)
Blue Steel (I've never even heard of it)
Cast-Iron
Carbon Steel
Until yesterday, I hadn't made a crepe in twenty years. A friend mentioned an interest in a Mille Crepe Cake
Recipe
and, I have to admit, I'm a bit intrigued too. So I played a little and quickly had lovely crepes, but they weren't uniform enough to stack twenty of them to make such a fussy cake. So then I looked at crepe pans.
The pan will only be used for crepes and pancakes, and I can't imagine that it would ever be used more than 6 or 7 times a year. That being the case, I'm leaning towards the Teflon. It's the least expensive option and doesn't require seasoning. But, if I'm going to go to the trouble of making 20+ crepes for a cake, I want to make the best possible crepes! Is there anything else I should consider? I have an electric coil stove.
I have to say, this is the first time I've encountered the notion that a palacsintatorta is "fussy". But then, Hungarians don't tend to make nearly as big a deal out of palacsinta as the French do out of crepes.
@Marti Yeah, those French chefs have to make a big deal out of everything! :)
As long as you don't use metal tools with the teflon, I don't see why you shouldn't just go with that. Iron or steel would have to be very well seasoned (think cooking scrambled eggs). Besides, for $15 you aren't out a lot of money if it doesn't work out.
Edited to add: Teflon is when Alton Brown went with in the crepes episode of Good Eats.
Alton Brown often has very sage advice. I'd add that if you have a choice between Teflon options, you may want to look at weight. An overly thin pan will probably wind up with hot spots (see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/1076/25059) leading to unevenly cooked crepes. All else being equal, you'll get more even heat distribution with thicker material.
Alton is such a nut :) The transcripts are fun, but boy I miss having all of the episodes available on YouTube.
A thin pan also tends to warp, which leads to even more uneven heat distribution.
If you want perfect crepes, iron is the way to go.
You don't need the super high temperatures achievable by iron. In fact, if you get the temperature too high, your crepe will throw bubbles. But for perfect browning, you want the large thermal mass of the iron quickly baking the crepe. Teflon produces much paler crepes, and because you have to leave them on for longer, they also can dry out and become papery (if your batter was dryish) or leathery (if the batter was more fluid).
Carbon steel (and blue steel, which is used roughly interchangeably), is not so practical a choice. It also makes very good crepes if handled properly. But you need a perfectly tuned procedure to not overheat the pan. An overheated cast iron pan will make an unsightly crepe, after which you reduce the temperature. An overheated carbon steel pan (or forged iron pan) is likely to warp, possibly permanently.
I don't think the anodized aluminium will be nonstick enough for crepes which separate from the pan by themselves (although I never tried it for myself). Although iron is sometimes brushed with oil, you should never make crepes with a real layer of oil, because then they fry instead of baking.
The teflon can work, especially if the pan below it is heavy steel instead of thin aluminium. But I have only ever encountered crepe pans of the thin kind. And besides, it just doesn't transfer heat as quickly to the crepe, as mentioned above. And don't forget that you'll probably overheat the pan a few times unless you standardize your procedure perfectly (which is hard to achieve if you are not making crepes frequently), and teflon dies when overheated. I once got a cheap alu/teflon crepe pan as a gift and had to throw it out after a single use.
Keeping this information in mind, I don't know if you even need a new pan. I make my crepes in a standard cast iron pan. The only downside is that they can grow up a bit of lacy edge up the pan side, but this is easily cut off. The advantage you get with a professional crepe maker with iron plates are no walls for batter to creep up, and probably more even heating than a resistive stove. But the things are huge and expensive.
A low-wall crepe pan lets you insert a spatula for turning more easily, but still makes the lacy ridges. Besides, the wrong material makes the end result worse than the normal skillet. And American style cast iron pans are typically lowsided (even though not as low as a crepe pan), so getting a spatula in is not a problem.
So, unless you have a professional creperie, you probably already have the best tool in your kitchen. If your crepes are not getting uniform enough, you can consider buying a wooden spreader only, and spread the batter with it instead of tilting the pan.
Aarrgghh...and just when I thought I had made up my mind!
Regarding the browning: There are two very distinct styles of crepes ... the slightly crispy edged, well-browned sort and the softer, paler more eggy sort. If you prefer the pale-style (probably more appropriate for the mille crepe cake you mention) then teflon is probably a fine choice. For something you're only going to use a few times a year and it seems unnecessary to get a separate item for your kitchen with the main goal of making more uniform size crepes. Just use your existing pan and trim the crepes to size if necessary.
I could not imagine a better pan than the top of my Lodge Double Dutch oven. Thhe cover is a shallow rounded edge skillet. I make my batter with the melted butter blended in and my skillet needs no butter. I am totally against using Teflon skillets and my carefully cared for iron is far superior than Teflon or ceramic. I am very proud of watching my family eat my perfect crepes. I keep a jar of batter in the fridge, give it a good shake and it takes no longer than pop tarts to make. Fresh fruit, greek yogurt, butter, Splenda and cinnamon is my fave.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.959970
| 2014-07-28T05:21:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45925",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Bev Quaife",
"Caroline",
"Deepak Kumar",
"Fred Forbush",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lucien Jaccon",
"Marti",
"The Wolf of Bitcoins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30624
|
Untwisting stuck salt shaker
Any idea how I can facilitate the untwisting of this stuck salt shaker? I was thinking an oil filter wrench but that may break it. Should I try soaking it?
Doesn't cold help shrink metal or something? Maybe ice water?
I always submerged mine in warm water and, bare handed, worked the cap until it came free. The water should dissolve the salt with the help of the mechanical action. That was with glass bottoms and metal tops. You should be able to brute force your full metal shaker with no ill effect as the metal will have a much higher shear strength than the salt that is binding it.
+1 for real science concepts like shear strength :-) I was afraid to suggest warming the shaker, with the reasoning that since both parts are metal, they would expand equally and stay locked together (unlike a metal lid on a glass jar), but I didn't think about dissolving the salt at the same time.
Soak overnight in white vinegar.
I tried everything to get the lid off my sterling silver salt shaker which was stuck on by corrosion - hot water, ammonia based products and even pliers which were in danger of causing permanent damage. It wouldn't budge. Online forums also casually suggested using white vinegar. And magically that did the trick! I soaked the top of the salt shaker (upside down in a very small jug) in white vinegar overnight and hey presto, the next morning is easily unscrewed.
Warm water will help dissolve the salts in the threads.
If it were a metal top on a glass container the difference in the thermal coefficient of expansion could be used to help loosen the lid. Because the lid and container are the same materials, You won't get much help from the thermal expansion or contraction.
I would go with the first answer regardless of the problem of the salt bidding the container and I strongly suggest to avoid applying cold or ice-water as you suggest. Every container that I had problems opening was way easier to open after immersing it in warm or hot water and then drying it thoroughly. This is personal experience I am not sure of the physics behind.
Definitely white vinegar but ten to fifteen minutes is plenty. The vinegar can discolor the metal of the shaker or take the plating off. This worked perfectly for me. I had two that were utterly stuck. Like never coming off. And the vinegar did the trick. You can see the corrosion on the top one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.960474
| 2013-02-02T02:26:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30624",
"authors": [
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"Emily Johansen",
"Lewis Sherlock",
"Linda Dumkee",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephanie",
"gadfly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210",
"mic"
],
"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
}
|
87085
|
How does a marzipan knife work?
So, marzipan - or is it marchpane? English is not my native language, but I own a cooking book where it is called marchpane - is pretty sticky, and cutting it with a normal knife doesn't really work that well. Luckily I have a marzipan knife just lying around. And it actually works.
Now I did read somewhere, that the marzipan (or fondant for that matter) doesn't stick to the knife because marzipan knives are mostly made of plastic, but that definitely isn't the reason why mine works: it's made of metal.
So what is the actual reason? Why is cutting marzipan with a normal knife so much... stickier? And while we're at it, why is the knife two-edged?
Marzipan is the modern spelling; Marchpane is a historical spelling / forerunner of marzipan depending on the reference you use.
Can you add a photo of or link to the knife you are using? A simple image search doesn't suggest one single likely type of tool...
Not sure why it works, but the knife you have pictured says Niederegger Lubeck on it. Niederegger is a pretty famous German company that makes marzipan, so I feel like they know what makes a marzipan knife work... if no one here can give you a good answer, you might try asking them?
Judging from the picture, the knife gets thinner towards the spine after reaching a point of maximum thickness somewhere in the middle of the blade. This means a straight piece of sticky food cannot stick to all of the blade face at once unless it actually bends to conform to its curvature - and marzipan is a rather stiff medium. Also, since the food will not be stuck flush to the blade face at spine height (levered away from it by the thickest section of the blade), it will be much easier to grab and detach from it.
Also, it appears the surface finish has intentionally been left somewhat rough, further preventing adhesion effects.
If the spine is actually sharp, package this diligently when transporting it in public - a double edged knife tends to be interpreted as a weapon and not as a tool under some countries' laws.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.960705
| 2018-01-15T00:10:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87085",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"rackandboneman",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107598
|
Can lemon sodas go bad?
So, I just opened up a bottle of lemon-flavored soda that had been sitting in my family's garage for a few years, and I noticed that its flavor seemed different than it normally is. I wasn't sure if it was safe to consume or not, so I tipped my glass out into the sink after a couple of sips, and then looked at the bottle and noticed that the color looked a little yellowish, rather than completely transparent like normal. One of my family members tried a small glass of it, noted that it lacked carbonation, and said it probably just tasted strange because it was flat.
The best before date on the bottle was in 2018, and we live in an area where temperatures in the summer can reach 30-40 degrees C, though I'm uncertain exactly how hot the garage gets. It wouldn't have been exposed to direct sunlight, though.
Can bottles of soda go off, either due to chemical changes in the soda, or due to the plastic in the bottle breaking down? It was sealed the entire time, so I don't think that any bacteria or wild yeast would have gotten into it, right?
It’s a regular soda, not diet. Ingredients on its label are “carbonated water, sugar, acidity regulator (330), natural flavour, preservatives (211, 202).”
Was it regular soda or diet?
@DebbieM. Regular soda.
Acidity regulator E330 is citric acid. I found no indication that it's chemically instable at temperatures < 100°C and a study found it stable over a period of 5 months.
Additive E211 is sodium benzoate that's used to stop bacterial and fungal growth in acidic foods and drinks. A study found that over a period of 90 days 4 - 8% of sodium benzoate degrades. I'm no chemist and don't know what chemicals the result of this degradation are, but they could influence the taste of the soda and loose the ability to stop bacteria growth.
Another study found that in peach puree treated with sodium benzoate, the amount of sucrose (common sugar) decreased and the amount of glucose and fructose increased. Although all 3 are different types of sugars, there is a notable difference in taste.
Additive E202 is potassium sorbate, another food preservative and probably the culprit for the yellow color. Food Reviews International writes:
However, in solutions and in foods, [potassium sorbate] undergoes autoxidation during storage, forming carbonyls and other compounds. Many factors (e.g., pH, temperature, packaging, water activity, and composition of food) influence its stability. Degradation of sorbic acid is associated with development of browning in foods. Acetaldehyde and /3‐carboxylacrolein have been reported to be the major degradation products of sorbic acid in aqueous solutions. β‐Carboxylacrolein is found to be responsible for sorbate‐induced browning in foods as it reacts with amino acids and proteins to form brown pigments.
Plastic bottles are known to let the carbonation of carbonated water escape over a long time. Carbonation means that carbonic acid is solved in water, which then forms little bubbles of carbon dioxite (CO2). As long as the carbonic acid is still dissolved in the soda, it adds a slightly tart flavor to it, which we are used to. Once most of it evaporated, the overall flavor of the soda changes to that of a stale soda (which it basicly is).
As to the "natural flavor", since it's not named, we cannot know for sure what it was. But there's a good chance that it also degenerated at least partially over time.
So, to answer your question: Yes, lemon sodas can go bad. That's why there is a "best before" date printed on them. As far as I understand the chemistry involved, your soda wasn't poisenous, but it was chemically altered enough to be considered "gone bad".
According to your wikipedia link, apparently sodium benzoate can break down into benzene, and it's been known to do so if it's mixed with vitamin C? The drink doesn't have any vitamin C in it, though.
There is no way but a lab analysis to know whether there was benzene in that soda or not. I know that vitamin C has a lemony flavor, so it might be a "natural flavor", but I don't know if that must be declared in the list of ingredients. A seperate article about benzene in softdrinks states that "... sugars have been shown to inhibit benzene production in soft drinks." In any case, benzene is not toxic, it's carcinogene and small amounts of benzene are allowed in water and drinks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.960898
| 2020-04-15T08:48:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107598",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Elmy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71396",
"nick012000"
],
"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.