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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
90776
|
Flour is many years expired but still looks good
I have a bag of flour in my pantry that expired 3 years ago, but it looks and smells perfectly fine. Is it still safe to eat?
EDIT: To clarify, today is July 3rd, 2018, and the flour best before date is "2015 SE 04"
Question is different from other existing questions on the topic because the duration of time passed is more extreme (other questions describe a few months).
Possible duplicate of Should flour be thrown out past its expiry date?
It usually starts to smell rancid, and you've given the inevitable bug eggs 3 years to hatch.
I would advise against the use of that. However, it's still okay to a certain extent as it is only a best before date - not use by.
3 years is a long time, but as stated, that is not an expire date. "Best By" means that in the packer's opinion, after that date the product will start to deteriorate. How much it deteriorates and how quickly is opinion.
I am using flour that expired in 2018. I had to use some of my emergency flour due to the corona virus shortages. Its pretty good but not as good as fresh. Id say 90% as good tasting. Yeast on the other hand is different. Ive had a one pound block of yeast in the freezer since 2014 and it still works. Not very well but it works. I have to double up the amount and wait twice as long so the bread tastes very yeasty but it is good to know it can last this long.
I found a 4year old bag of seasoned flour, A-No-1 seasoned flour, I use brand all the time so must have bought too much lol, but it was ok, I add a little baking powder and salt it's same., Was too much money to throw away before trying lol
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.961353
| 2018-07-04T00:20:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90776",
"authors": [
"BauerPower",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58326"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91048
|
Help me understand why my stainless steel skillet becomes non stick after frying one egg?
I've been playing around with making my stainless steel skillet stop sticking to my food. I found that seasoning with oil that's just about to smoke works a bit, but doesn't work that well when frying eggs at high temepratures (to get a good crust with a runny yolk).
However, one thing that's been working with great success in frying an egg with very minimal sticking is to fry an egg beforehand in the same cooking session (even if the first egg sticks completely). I really don't understand why this happens. I don't think the second egg cooks at lower temperature because I leave the pan to heat after taking out my first egg and I can also tell by the way it reacts when it hits the oil.
My best guess was that the cold first egg causes the open pores of the hot pan to close and capture the oil in the pan and that this action is too slow to make the first egg not stick. I tried to replicate this by putting my oil in freezer 20 minutes before cooking and pouring some before the pan heated and then more after it was hot to simulate the first cold egg, but the eggs stick stuck, and the next eggs still didn't. Please help me in figuring out this mechanism so that I can utilize it properly without having my eggs stick at all.
I presume the albumin protein of the first egg coats the pan, maybe even in areas that are not overtly white, and this is what creates the nonstick barrier.
That sounds very possible. Could it occur even after some scraping with the spatula in your opinion? If so then it's the most likely mechanism.
I've also been experimenting with letting the oil heat up more before the first egg under the presumption that they always stick and not the next ones because I don't give the oil enough time to heat up and I've been getting some success. However, the way they slide on the pan after the first egg is still miles better than the first egg with heated oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.961509
| 2018-07-15T12:41:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91048",
"authors": [
"Brother58697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92888
|
Should pasta be started in cold or boiling water?
There are two main methods, either putting the strands into water already at boiling point, or putting them in cold water and then putting on the heat.
Which method is the best to cook pasta?
Does it make a difference if you add pasta to cold or boiling water?
You should mention the type of noodles you would like to cook. The word "pasta" implies Italian wheat or wheat/egg noodles.
Probably even more important is fresh vs dry pasta. My guess is that you're in a part of the world where most is dry so it's the default, but it's hard to be sure.
I was asking about dried as well as fresh pasta ..
Rule of thumb I was taught was that if it grows above ground, heat the water first, if it grows underground, start cold. So start with boiling water for pasta and cold water for potatoes.
@DrydenLong ... and as everyone knows, spaghetti grows on trees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVo_wkxH9dU
I can't add an answer unfortunately because the question is now protected, so I'll post this as a comment: It does matter whether you start with cold or hot water. For a long time I was sure the opposite was true – though for a slightly different reason than the answers given here: I thought that once the water was boiling, I could just turn off the stove to save energy because, you know, the water would stay hot enough. Well, it indeed did but since the water cooled down, my spaghetti took longer to cook. Now if the water cools down too quickly and the pasta thus takes exceptionally long…
the pasta will end up being rather mushy on the outside from being in the water for too long – even if, on the inside, it is al dente. This suggests that the temperature-over-time curve while cooking does have an impact on the pasta's texture. In particular, if your stove is exceptionally slow, starting from cold water might not get you as good a result as starting from boiling water does.
For dried pasta it doesn’t really matter if you start with cold or hot water, as most of the time pasta spends in water is for hydration. And once the hydrated starches reach a certain temperature they gelatinize, thus cooking the pasta. When you start with cold water, you should use less water, which is actually a plus...
Note: I forgot to mention, you should swirl the pot every couple of minutes to prevent sticking.
However, when you’re cooking fresh pasta, you should directly start with boiling water. As it’s already hydrated, you just need gelatinization.
As for which you should do for dry pasta, there are benefits to both:
starting from boiling
more consistent timing (and less attention), since you can time from when you add the pasta
works with long shapes like spaghetti and fettuccine, since they'll soften quickly to bend submerge
starting from cold
faster overall - less water to boil, and pasta is already starting to cook by the time it hits a full boil
easier to avoid initial sticking
starchier pasta water, useful for sauces
Do you have any interest to cite a source? I have never heard of cold water pasta cooking, except for in energy saving situations like mountaineering.
A quick Google search yields this, as one of many sources: https://www.seriouseats.com/2013/05/ask-the-food-lab-can-i-start-pasta-in-cold-water.html
The Food Lab article zetaprime linked links to another with even more explanation: https://www.seriouseats.com/2010/05/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boiling-tips-the-food-lab.html, and from there to Harold McGee's article: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/dining/25curi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. It's not at all a new idea, and plenty of prominent writers (as well as plenty of users here) have had great success with it.
I'd suggest editing in some of the benefits of this method, because the boiling tradition is really hard to shake. The articles we've linked include plenty to start from.
@Cascabel Agreed. I will add some, and you’re more than welcome to edit. I will cover some of it as I have time during the evenings.
As stated in another answer, Italian tradition is that all pasta is cooked in boiling water. A reasonable explanation for this usage is that it's easier to get the time right this way.
Pasta is very sensitive to cooking time, and will easily turn from 'al dente' to an overcooked mush if left on the fire a couple of minutes too much. By cooking it in boiling water, you ensure that it cooks in uniform conditions, always at the same temperature, regardless of the starting temperature of the water, the temperature of your kitchen, and the power of your burner. So it is a safer bet that cooking it for the same amount of time will work.
In my experience, the time marked on the package is almost always accurate for pasta cooked in boiling water. So it gives you a useful reference point, which you don't have if you cook it starting from cold water.
I've never tried cooking from cold, but I do pre-soak when I'm making gluten-free pasta .... and it's actually easier to get al dente (which is really tough to get with gluten-free pasta) ... but of course, you have to watch it, not leave it alone for the time it says on the package.
It's true that the timing is easier, though you still generally have to check toward the end. There are downsides though: you need to boil more water and the pasta isn't getting a head start from the pre-boiling time, so it takes longer and you don't get nice pasta water. It can also be harder to prevent sticking, because the starch gels immediately, no chance to rinse any into the water. So overall it definitely works well, but that's not quite the same as saying it should be done this way.
@cascabel what's a "nice pasta water"? The water used to cook the pasta most of the times is thrown away or a bit of it used to prepare the "sugo" for it.
@FezVrasta See "cloudy with a chance of delicious" in this article. It's a good emulsifier that helps all kinds of sauces, and starchier works better.
No one cares about "Italian Tradition", this question is trying to get past folk lore and nostalgic mumbo jumbo.
@JamieClinton I agree --- that's why my answer does not stop after the first sentence.
When cooking eggs putting them in boiling water also results in a better timing calibration.
Be aware that this is not true for high altitudes where the pressure is lower, and thus the boiling point of water drops below 100°C.
@Cascabel in my experience, the starch level from a big pot at the end of the hydration time is enough for any sugo that might go with it, since it does not really need great emulsification power unless it's cacio e pepe.
TL;DR please be nice with yourself: only drop pasta in a pot of boiling water (approx 1 liter every 100 grams of pasta)
To the eyes of an Italian, the mere allusion to cooking pasta by dropping it into a pot of cold water is unthinkable.
You always need to drop pasta into a pot of boiling water in order to cook it. On the contrary, you'll end up eating a dish of overcooked pasta with an unpleasant gummy consistence.
The rule of thumb is approx 1 liter of water for 100 grams of pasta.
Another rule of thumb is opting for the best brands, the ones whose plants are settled in the southermost regions of Italy (Campania, Basilicata, Calabria, Puglia, Sicilia, Molise etc.).
Agreed, 100% on-target conventional wisdom.
Are you talking about fresh pasta? The question is most likely about dry. And if you're talking about dry, do you have an explanation for this based on something other than strongly held tradition and conventional wisdom? My experience, and that of some pretty serious experts, is that dry pasta can be cooked just as well if not better starting from cold water, and it definitely does not end up overcooked or gummy. Finally, please do not be rude to anyone here, even if you think they're wrong.
Why don’t you just try, cooking pasta starting in cold water? I mean dry pasta
@zetaprime In this case I have tried cooking pasta from cold water.... not really my experiment, but due to another cook's accident [cooking-while-distracted], and that pasta turned out awful. I think it was elbow macaroni for macaroni and cheese, and it was a big gluey mushy mess.
And like I said, I've started it cold (probably at least a dozen varieties, including macaroni) and it works as well as if not better than starting from boiling. It's possible to make good or bad pasta either way. Additional anecdotes about it aren't going to resolve anything; we've pointed out the issues in the answer at this point.
Also, I'm just going to remove all the religion analogy stuff. It's just distracting from the actual points.
In this second segment of this video you can see that even professional Italian chefs sometimes use a method involving non-boiling water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF_G2a8xsa8 He hydrates dried spaghetti in 37°C water for 45 minutes, and then cooks it in the sauce.
Actually both given answers and options in the question are wrong. The highest temperature starch needs for hydration is 83°C. Water boils at 100°C, thus you don't need boiling water. Cold water is also wrong, but not because of the pasta, because of the cooking pot. The salt is made of ions which need to connect to other atoms when the salt is dissolving. If the water is cold but you heat up the cooking pot, then the ions might connect to the high energized iron atoms instead of being surrounded by low energized water molecules. Damages to the cooking pot will be visible after 10 years though.
In the cooking water the salt is added to prevent starch granules in the pasta to merge with each other instead of swelling during hydration. Because if they merge the pasta lose elasticity and the sugar taste of the starch is less accessible for our tongue, making the pasta taste bad and feel clumsy. For this fact you can allegedly never add too much salt to the boiling water. Rule of thumb is 1 teaspoon for 1 liter of water. There is no rule of thumb for the ration of pasta and water, since you can even cook pasta like a risotto.
The best way to cook pasta is to heat water in a cooking pot until you see bubbles at the bottom, then add salt and then add pasta, stir occasionally.
Boiling cooking water is for lazy cooks who don't want to stir all the time and cold water cooking is for soaking the pasta when you are low on heating fuel.
There are some points in this post that I reckon may be good advice, but also quite a few that seem more like pseudoscientific gobbledygook. “the ions might connect to the high energized iron atoms”... sounds like you're describing the pot rusting, but that's not really something you can influence much with temperature.
Your advice will ruin a stainless steel pot. You need to get it to a full boil before adding salt so you don't get the chemical reaction that causes pitting: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/30253/67
@Steve Just a minor note... Water produces steam at 100 degress C... at 1 atmosphere of pressure. At high elevations where the pressure may be lower, water steams at significantly lower temperatures.
@Beofett can you quantify "significantly lower"? Assuming this poster is correct and 181 F (83 C) is the highest temp needed, at what temp will water steam at higher elevations? I know the boiling point at 1 mile in elevation is reduced from 212 to 202 (94 C), but I am curious about steaming temp.
@Steve Yes, for what I've heard termed a "light boil" the water will all be at the boiling point (in theory anyway). If I remember my university physics though, water will convert to a gas at lower than boiling temperatures. The exact temperature depends on the relative humidity. I have seen a pot of water steam a lot, but still be minutes from its boiling point - that is the number I thought you were talking about. I have a laser thermometer, I'll try using it when it is at the "visible steam" temperature. If the comments aren't locked I'll post my result. Hope that makes sense.
@leftaroundabout - I can't comment on whether or not salt in cold water causes more corrosion than hot (although the proposed mechanism sounds at least vaguely plausible, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt) ... but I will say that if you're adding enough salt to water for boiling pasta that it's a significant corrosion hazard for a stainless steel pan, you're doing it wrong.
@Joe I explained the pitting corrosion from line 3.
@Jules When Pasta came into existence in Europe, people used sea water for cooking since salt was too expensive to use for just water.
@Steve Thank you for your advice. I just prefer this method because it saves a lot of energy and any additional temperature will not make the pasta hydrate faster.
In the UK the Minister for Energy ordered a study on energy waste of boiling water for tea. If you prepare hot water for a cup of tea, you usually heat a little more water than you need. This excess hot water won't be used, but the energy is still lost. The study found out the cumulated energy wasted for excess water in the UK could be used to power all street lights in the UK for the whole night.
And pasta needs 20° less.
@leftroundabout Yes you can influence it since heat = energy = bonding ability of atoms. If the atoms in the steel have a higher energy than the atoms in the water molecules then the salt ions looking for bonding partners choose the steel atoms more often than with warm water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.961723
| 2018-10-14T09:46:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92888",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Beofett",
"Cascabel",
"Douglas Held",
"Dryden Long",
"Ewan Mellor",
"Federico Poloni",
"Fez Vrasta",
"Harry Pachty",
"J. Chris Compton",
"Jamie Clinton",
"Joe",
"Jules",
"Laila",
"Lorel C.",
"M.Herzkamp",
"Max",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"balu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7019",
"leftaroundabout",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95460
|
Shea Butter (or Cocoa Butter Equivalent) tempering while making Chocolate
This is more of a theoretical question. But assuming I have the following ingredients
Cocoa powder / Cocoa Mass (containing no cocoa butter or trace amounts of it)
Sugar
Shea Butter
I've been reading that CBEs like Shea Butter can be used for replacing Cocoa Butter while making chocolate[1]. However most resources say it requires tempering.
How can I temper shea butter in chocolate?
What is the right ratio to use shea butter if I were to make pure shea butter based chocolate?
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20190107151600/https://knowledge.ulprospector.com/1085/fbn-cocoa-butter-alternatives-chocolate/
Interesting question, but for practical purposes, I think it is a dead end.
If you want something resembling a Lindt chocolate bar, you cannot make it at home. You just don't have the machinery needed to create the needed particle size of the starchy phase. There is by the way no "cocoa mass containing no cocoa butter or trace amounts of it", the best you can get is strongly defattted cocoa powder at about 5% cocoa butter, and that is already so dry that you couldn't have it behave as "cocoa mass", you can only get is as powder. And this powder particle's sizes are several orders of magnitude larger than those needed for a chocolate bar. You need a tightly controlled industrial process with specialized machines to make the bar from that point. Even if there are manufacturers who have managed to engineer a similar process with shea butter as a substitute, you can't replicate it in your kitchen.
If you want something else instead of a smooth bar, the best you can get will be some liquidish product, maybe a ganache or a hot chocolate replacement. There you don't need tempering, because you dissolve the whole thing and emulsify the fat, it is no longer sitting around in crystalized form.
I already have a melanger. Which I use to refine the cocoa solids and I can already create the smooth bars using cocoa mass and cocoa butter.
Can you reconsider your reply, with this knowledge at hand, that's the reason why I specifically asked for shea butter tempering (if possible)
Oh, it's news to me that there are home-compatible versions. Then I am afraid I don't have the more specific information you wanted, else I would have loved to update. I think I will leave the answer here instead of deleting it, since the information is probably relevant to the vast majority of people who stumble on the question, even if not for you, since you are lucky to have the equipment. Very interesting project you've got, I hope somebody else can supply the information you need, and I'd love to hear how it turned out.
I'm repurposing an indian spice grinder, also known as wet grinder.
Aha, and this gets you the right texture with pure chocolate mass? This is very interesting, I am now itching to write a question of my own how it is done so you can answer it.
@rumtscho I'd think a Sous-vide setup, which is also a darn fine water bath for anything between 30° and 100°C might make it possible, especially if you build a container with a port for a homogenizer.
@WayfaringStranger the problem is not the constant temperature, the problem is being able to grind the cocoa particles to the right size so you can not taste any grittiness, but don't make them so small that you lose the robust cocoa aroma. A "port for a homogenizer" wouldn't be enough, the homogenization process is long, and you have to keep an optimal temperature during that (which might not be the same as the optimal temperature for tempering). You might even need a means of cooling alongside with a means of heating. But the hardest problem remains getting the right particle size.
@WayfaringStranger actually, if you speak German, one of the early episodes of the Omega Tau podcasts explains it in more detail - they had interviewed Ritter Sport people on how they manufacture chocolate, and also on how they design their process. But I am 90% sure that it was a German episode, not an English one.
@rumtscho I have German, so perhaps I'll look it up. Some of these commercial production processes are amazing. Some are kludgeable at home if you have a decent shop in the basement.
@rumtscho Yes I just start with melted cocoa butter, topping it up with roasted nibs and finally sugar when it all seems to be combined. After grinding for 24 to 36 hours, I get a very fine “melted” chocolate. And what’s left is just tempering ;)
@zetaprime 24-36 hours! That's some serious grindage. Do you happen to know the grit size of your device? What's it made of?
It creates particles less than 20 microns in size. It’s made of granite.
Particle sizes for comparison: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/particle-sizes-d_934.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.962764
| 2019-01-08T08:28:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95460",
"authors": [
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"rumtscho",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99638
|
Dietary Fiber with Crunchy Texture
I'm looking for a dietary fiber or a mix of dietary fibers (and other ingredients which act like dietary fibers such as sugar alcohols) with really low (even zero) food calories that I can create a crunchy (as in chips) or crusty (as in bread) texture.
Please think of molecular level fibers not as in fiber-rich food. For example a common dietary fiber is Inulin (which is a fructan) and can be used as a sweetener. Another one is Glucomannan which is used as a thickener and a gelling-agent. Both of these have no calories.
I thought of using Isomalt, which to some extent acts like a dietary fiber, to make hard candy, but I think it's not going to be as low calory as I want since it's just half the calories of sugar or flour. I'm looking for recommendations to achieve such a texture, which could be considered suitable for a calorie controlled diet.
As a response to the close requests:
I'm not asking for a recipe, the question is about ingredients and techniques
I don't think it's broad for the following reasons:
I'm asking for a very specific texture and how to achieve it.
I don't know of any combination that could result in such a texture with low calories. Think of a combination before voting close for this reason (better yet, write it on the comments :))
I'm voting to close this because it's a recipe request. It's also too broad, there are many, many possible combinations.
I don’t know of any... And it’s a question for an ingredient or a technique for an application
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/67404/67
@Tetsujin Chicory also won’t do, as main fiber in Cichory is not about texture or the structure. I’m not trying to follow some kind of a fad diet, but I believe you need to slow down on rushing to conclusions based on keywords you see and the very first association it brings to your mind.
@zetaprime Were you able to find an answer?
I want to explain few things about dietary fiber.
Soluble fiber is not digested in the small intestine but it can be fermented in the large intestine by normal intestinal bacteria into nutrients (which are absorbed) and gases. Soluble fiber can have 1-3 Cal/g (sugar, starch and other digestible carbohydrates have 4 Cal/g) and can cause bloating and gas. For exact calorie value of the exact fiber, you need to check the Nutrition Facts labels. Or you can check in MyFitnessPal, which says that, for example, 1 tsp of glucomannan has 10 Calories.
Examples of soluble fiber (naturally present or added to foods):
Fructooligosaccharides (FOS), inulin, galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS), isomalto-oligosaccharides (IMO), lactosucrose, mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS)
Beta-glucan (in whole barley and oats)
Pectin (in apples, bananas...)
Gums: acacia (arabic), beta-mannan, carob (locust bean), fenugreek, glucomannan (konjac), karaya, tragacanth, guar, tara gum
Resistant starches (in potatoes)
Algae and seaweeds agar, alginate, carrageenan
Other: arabynoxylan
From the digestion viewpoint, sugar alcohols (isomalt, maltitol, mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol) are similar to soluble fiber; they have ~2 Cal/g, except from erythritol, which has close to zero calories.
Insoluble fiber is not digested in the small intestine and not fermented in the large intestine, so it has practically zero calories and does not cause gas.
Examples of insoluble fiber:
Cellulose (in whole grains, in cabbage family of vegetables, in fruit skins...), hemicellulose and methylcellulose (as an added thickener)
Lignin (in wheat bran, flaxseed...)
Many of these fibers are available in markets. Before buying, find the info about "relative sweetness."
Here's the source with links to all individual fibers.
Here's an one page comprehensive article about Texture modifying agents, such as gelatin, corn starch, pectin, guar gum, methylcellulose, etc.
Almost all glucomannan products are marketed as zero calories. Is that because they are really long molecules and before being fermented they are almost wholly defecated or the "common knowledge" is wrong and they should be considered ~2 Cal/g too?
The label on this glucommanan product says it has 2.5 Cal/g. I need to edit my answer a bit: there's an agreement to say that all fiber together (insoluble + soluble) has 2 Cal/g to make calculations of calories from the nutrition facts labels easier. Insoluble has close to zero Cal, but soluble can have 1-3 Cal/g - thee calories come from the bacterial fermentation in the large intestine. So, saying that glucomannan is indigestible and thus has no calories is misleading.
Do you think there's any literature on the texture of the insoluble fibers?
I would need to search, but so can you. Insoluble fiber is a "digestive," not "cooking" term, so don't use it in your search, but rather search for cellulose + texture, hemicellulose + texture...I'm not sure if the texture and crunchiness depend on type of added fiber, but probably on other physical factors, such as the distribution of air in it. Apples, which contain 25% of air are more crunchy than pears that contain only 5%. https://foodcrumbles.com/vegetables-fruit-texture/
This is a very broad question, as you haven't said anything about what type of food it is that you're trying to prepare.
There are plenty of low calorie crunchy items if you look at raw vegetables, but you might have to eat a fair bit of them to get high amounts of fiber. You might consider celery, cucumbers, and similar high-moisture items.
For snacking purposes, you could also looked at dehydrated greens -- kale chips are quite trendy right now, and would have a fair bit of fiber in them. Popcorn, so long as use an air popper and don't load it with butter or oil is relatively low calorie.
If you're looking for a topping on casseroles or the like ... bake some rolled oats 'til they're crispy, and sprinkle it on top of the dish before serving.
I think my wording of the question could have been better. I'll try to rephrase my question, I'm looking for a molecular level fiber once some technique is applied it yields a crunchy texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.963149
| 2019-06-20T15:57:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99638",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Jan",
"Joe",
"happybuddha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103023
|
Millet (wild yeast/sourdough) fermentation decreasing thickness of the slurry
In order to reproduce a traditional Turkish drink recipe for Boza. Which has a thick consistency, low alcohol content (around 1%), and a slightly acidic sweet flavor.
I'm repeating this two step recipe in batches. First batch is with the starter, subsequent batches are using the "boza" from the previous batch.
Millet Wild Yeast Starter:
Grind some millet grains into flour (i.e. using a coffee grinder).
Mix 50 g millet flour with 50 ml water.
Keep covered with a cheesecloth and wait for it to ferment for 2-3 days.
Boza:
Cook 50 g millet grains with 550 ml water.
Blend into a slurry which has a thick consistency, let it cool down to room temperature.
Blend in 50 g of sugar and start the fermentation either by inoculating with old Boza or the starter (50 g).
Let is ferment for 3-4 days.
I'm trying to understand the reason why the following is happening:
The first 2 or 3 batches, I end up having a "Boza" with a very very thin consistency akin to water; after the 3rd or 4th batch or so the final product starts to get the desired thick consistency and further batches after that keep producing the same desired results.
I initially thought, the problem with the first batches could be caused by an enzyme like amylase (from the millet flour used in the starter) breaking down the starch and thus reducing the thickness. To test this idea, I've heated the millet flour to 135C (just shy of browning) and kept it there for more than an hour to deactivate enzymes like amylase that might be present. Still the results were the same, the first batch turned out to be as thin as the first batch from the other iteration.
What's the underlying reason for the first batch turning out this thin?
I don't know about the thinness thing, but the recipe is highly unusual. All recipes I have seen start with flour, which is baked, then mixed with water, then mixed with sugar (sometimes cooked at that step), and finally innoculated. The grain thing makes me doubt your whole recipe, unless there are regional differences.
@rumtscho instead of cooking the flour with water, the grains are cooked with water and then blended to break-down the grains.
The steps should be producing identical results in terms of the pre-inoculated product.
That's the point I was making I saw what you are doing differently, and the process is so different, that the probability that it will produce equivalent results is close to zero.
I think the main difference is baking part, and I can with absolute certainty tell you that even with the baking, the processes are producing equivalent results pre-inoculation.
And even using the above recipe and inoculating with boza I had brought in from Bulgaria (the roasted one) I get desired results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.963940
| 2019-10-23T14:04:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103023",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"rumtscho",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104870
|
Dried and Salted Fish Fillets (e.g. cod) Sous Vide
I don't have much experience cooking with dried and salted fish, but as far as I have read traditional recipes start with a long soaking time in water (and also changing the water multiple times) to get rid of the excess salt, followed by poaching or confiting in olive oil.
I have cooked fresh fish many times sous-vide with excellent results at around 50C. I suspect due to an extensive amount of salt, probably, changing the protein structure of the fish; this temperature might not work for rehydrated and desalted fish.
As per this question confiting is covered and another recipe for confiting sous vide also suggests 65C. However in these recipes, next to confiting, the main aim is to extract the gelatin from the fish to be later used in the sauce.
However I wasn't able to find much information on replicating poaching results with sous vide.
Does anyone have experience or resources regarding cooking temperatures for rehydrated and desalted fish.
Do you mean sous vide cooking after soaking, or instead of soaking?
I mean soaking and then sous-vide cooking, sorry if it wasn’t clear.
I think you're right about wanting a higher temperature; in standard cooking, you boil the salt cod at a roiling boil, something you'd never do with fresh fish. However, I've never tried to sous vide it.
One problem you'd have is that typically the cooking medium carries away some more of the salt, and of course in a plastic bag it wouldn't.
The purpose for salting fish is to cure it (originally for preservation). It does not need to be cooked. The reason for soaking and/or boiling salted fish is to remove the excess salt and to rehydrate the fish for consumption. Sous vide probably doesn't make sense in the preparation of salted fish, but I'd be curious how it comes out. You should soak to remove salt to taste. Be sure to taste the inner flesh when testing for saltiness.
For sous vide preparation, I would suggest soaking in cold water to remove enough salt and then cooking at a lower temperature. 50°C is a good temperature, but you can go even lower for salted fish. You might experiment as low as 40°.
Salting cod is to dehydrate and increase the shelf life. It is generally not boiled to rehydrate, rather, it is soaked in cold water, which is changed multiple times. The rehydrated fish can then be used in a variety of applications, usually cooked, but not always.
@moscafj — There are different ways people prepare which includes soaking and/or boiling. See https://www.thespruceeats.com/de-salting-salt-fish-instructions-2138097. I have seen die-hard salt fish fanatics who advocate the boiling method. You could be right that most people soak and not boil, but I don't know the statistics.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.964196
| 2020-01-21T04:56:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104870",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"moscafj",
"myklbykl",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105339
|
Kiwifruit - slow drying
Last year, I accidentally slow dried some yellow kiwifruit in my refrigerator. I had simply forgotten about them. It must have been at least four months before I realized. When I pulled them out, still in their plastic container, they were in no way rotted, moldy or even soft. They seemed to have slowly dehydrated and reminded me of giant raisins. Let me tell you, they were AMAZING. The flavors were so intense! Does anyone know of a system or actual method for this? I want to do try this as a regular thing, but I also do not want to waste kiwifruit...and to have my hopes and dreams dashed upon the rocks because it did not work again.
I think you were just lucky in that they didn't go moldy or rot in your refrigerator. So, if you want more control, it would be a simple matter of peeling, slicing and dehydrating. You can do this in an oven set on it's lowest temperature, or more reliably by using a food dehydrator. You can certainly experiment with whole fruit or larger chunks, but I think slices are the way to go for ease of use and storage.
I can give you no more advice than with any dried-fruit process.
make sure the fruits do not touch
make sure the fruits have appropriate airflow
check periodically for any damaged or mouldy ones and discard as appropriate.
You should be able to achieve the first two points with an egg carton.
But if you want fast and reliable results and don't mind getting slices a dehydrator is probably your best bet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.964433
| 2020-02-15T23:15:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105339",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
111082
|
Why did the apple skins turn blue/purple-ish in my apple pancakes the next day?
Yesterday for dinner I made apple pancakes. I cut the apple into small pieces (with the skin on) and just put it into my pancakes batter. The skin was dark red. After cooking it, everything was looking fine.
Now the next morning, I took out the pancakes from the fridge (on a plate covered with aluminium foil) and noticed that the apple skin turned blue/purple-ish. The apple flesh still seems normal (white/yellow), so I'm confident it is the skin that was originally dark red.
It seems safe to eat, smell and taste are completely fine. I mean it's only been 1 single night after all.
So why did this happen?
I've never heard of this. I've baked apple cake before (with skin) and it never turned blue-ish even after days.
The recipe I used includes flour, sugar, baking powder, salt, eggs, oat-almond milk, molten butter and 1 big apple.
After closer inspection it does look more grey-ish with dark purple-ish around the edges.
Unfortunately I can't provide images as the pancakes are long gone.
Oh and as someone has mentioned, the pancake interior around the apple piece was coloured purple-ish. As if some of the color of the apple skin "leaked out".
Could you share a photo with us, please?
I feel fairly confident that what you see is anthocyanins (naturally present in apple skin) reacting with some leavening in your pancakes.
Here's a link that explains in more details, but I'll summarize: https://extension.psu.edu/fruit-color-promoting-red-color-development-in-apple
Anthocyanins are a natural pH indicator present in many fruits and vegetables. Red cabbage and blueberries are common examples. Elderberries and black sweet rice, and even many flowers also contain these compounds.
And they turn red in the presence of acid like vinegar, buttermilk, or fruit juice, and blue in the presence of a base like baking soda or baking powder.
So when you bake or cook with certain fruits that contain anthocyanins, you might be surprised that your blueberry muffins came out green, or that your "purple" rice is hot pink. This is because anthocyanins are water soluble, so they'll disperse throughout what you're cooking easily, and visually indicate the pH. You may even notice a blue shadow in the pancake around or under the apple skins.
But if this is the case you are a-okay. Judging by the contents of the recipe, it only contains a base for leavening, but no acid for it to react with. So it makes perfect sense that your apples, the only acidic component, would react and turn blue. If you want to get more rise, include some buttermilk or lemon juice next time. When it reacts with your leavening you'll get more floof, and your apples will stay red (or pink at least.)
Yet another reason that all pancakes should be buttermilk pancakes.
I edited my post with the ingredients and a more accurate color description. Can't provide images though because the pancakes are already gone. Oh and what you mention with blue shadow is absolutely true. Around the apple piece, some of the fluffy pancake interior was coloured purple-ish.
I didn't include in the answer, because it's a little off-topic, but I've noticed recipes that include a chemical leavener without an acid, or not enough of one, tend to use more sugar to cover up the chemical taste. If you get the leavening and acid properly balanced, it's a great opportunity to cut back on the sugar. Double-acting baking powder, which is standard in the US does react with heat... But you still want to use an acid. Otherwise you're only getting single action, when you're paying for double! Outrageous! Lol.
At least here in Austria baking powder usually comes with acid mixed in. To get pure sodium bicarbonate you’d buy „Natron“.
Ours also has acid mixed in, but it's not enough based on my experience. But who knows, maybe I just buy cheap stuff? Pure sodium bicarb here is called "baking soda."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.964581
| 2020-10-10T10:10:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/111082",
"authors": [
"Michael",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88022",
"kitukwfyer",
"wizard003"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86811
|
When heating up a pizza, edges burn while middle still liquid
(Please excuse the fact that I don't make my own pizza...)
I have a thawed (originally frozen-bought) pizza of about 25.5cm diameter, a microwave, and a convection toaster-oven, whose internal space' dimensions are 38cm x 30cm x 23cm WxDxH. The pizza is neither super-thick nor super-thin.
When I heat my pizza in the convection oven, I can't get the different parts of it to be done simultaneously: Either the surrounding crust has its brown color slightly deepening, so it's a bit toastier than originally but not totally dry - but then the middle is still barely warm and very much liquid-laden; or the surrounding crust has blackened, charred, and is inedible, while the middle is just about properly done.
You might be wondering what temperature I'm using. Well, it's 180 degrees celsius or so, but actually I have no idea what to set it to. I was wondering perhaps playing with this setting would help, but I don't even know whether to increase or decrease it.
Just to be clear, are you heating a previously cooked delivery pizza, a previously cooked frozen pizza from the grocery store or never before cooked frozen pizza from the grocery store?
@RossRidge: Bought frozen from a store. Edited to clarify that.
If it's never been cooked before (eg. the cheese has never been melted) you just need to follow the instructions on the box.
@RossRidge: That's what I did, actually. That didn't even properly get the crust done. The box is fake news!
The key here is that you said you’ve thawed the pizza. Frozen pizzas are designed to be baked from frozen. The instructions on the box should reflect this.
But wouldn't doing so only excerbate the problem? I mean, the edges have less water content, so they would take less time to defrost, while the middle would take even more time to defrost and evaporate the water. I mean, I could try it, but what's the rationale here?
@einpoklum When baking from frozen, the water in the ice evaporates as it melts, which allows the crust to crisp and the cheese to melt, leaving you with a fully cooked, delicious pizza. However, if you thaw the pizza first, the water from all the melted ice soaks into the pizza itself. That means that when you bake it, you have to remove water from a soggy pizza, which is much harder to do than simply melting the ice in an environment hot enough to evaporate the resulting water almost immediately. Starting with a soggy pizza, you'll never get the entire thing crisp before something burns.
It usually doesn't help to second-guess what food manufacturers tell you about their products. Modern industrially prepared food is highly engineered and they know exactly what works for their products, and have invested time in writing simple instructions for user-friendly processes (sometimes even to create the products in such ways that they are suitable for these user-friendly processes). You can still try some variations out of curiosity, but if they don't work out, sticking to the original instructions is the way to go.
How big is the pizza in relation to the toaster-oven? If it takes up most of the interior area I could see this possibly happening. Have you considered cutting the pizza into smaller dimensions to see if you get a more even cook?
I've edited my question with the oven dimensions and corrected the pizza's diameter. I haven't considered cutting it up before because it seems it's mostly the crust-vs-filling difference, and because of aesthetics.
A little bit of fussy work (as Cooks Illustrated likes to say), but have you considered forming a protective "collar" of tin-foil to put around the perimeter and remove it partway through cooking?
@LorelC.: No, but you could make that an answer I suppose.
In general, when the edges are burning (or even just overcooking) while the inside is undercooked or raw, you can usually improve things by cooking at a lower temperature for longer.
A higher temperature means a higher temperature gradient, you see, because ovens/heating elements are always hotter than the food (to get things up to temp quicker), and it takes time for the food to come up to temperature from the outside in, so the higher temps will give more of a contrast, and lower temps have time for a more even heating.
You'd need to do some experimenting to get things right, ovens, dishes, and preferences all differ, but you can start moving the temp down (in F I'd suggest going by 50 degree increments, in C maybe by 20 degrees?) and start checking at the same time it used to be done, you'd only need to keep an eye on it a few times till you start to get an idea of how long it will take.
Another technique, a bit more limited but still effective, is to turn off the oven just a little early, and letting the pizza sit in the heated oven a little longer - effectively letting the food cook in the indirect leftover heat instead of using the directional heating from the oven elements. You can actually get quite a bit of cooking done this way, especially if you've a large oven, or a heat sink like a baking stone, but because the effects are finite it's best to use this for fairly minor tweaking. (I could for example, get a pizza to go from kinda watery to deep brown, smooth&dry [yes, a bit much], or cook three tortilla-base pizzas in the time between turning an oven off and when it cools - though as I said, that is my large and strong oven with a baking stone).
And third technique, if you're mostly happy with the outcome of the pizza base and it's just the toppings that are a bit watery or pale, is use a broiling or top oven element for a bit right at the end of cooking. The heating will be surface-stuff, especially in the middle (ie, won't make the insides hot), but it will work to give some nice browning or surface drying or toppings-cooking if that's your primary complaint.
Useful suggestions, but TBH - in my case it was the thawing that was my mistake.
@einpoklum - It can be a mistake or it can be a choice, depending on circumstances. If it works for you to cook from frozen, good, if you decide to cook from thawed again because reasons, also good, and these kinda suggestions may be helpful for more than pizza. I've done and will continue to do both - I tend to thaw when not cooking the whole thing at once (easier to cut to personal portions), cause I like fresh-cooked better than leftover, or when it thawed cause I was busy and didn't get it to the freezer in time, and I cook from frozen when sharing or if it's small sized. All is well
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.964906
| 2017-12-31T13:52:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86811",
"authors": [
"Lorel C.",
"Megha",
"Ross Ridge",
"einpoklum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64104",
"rumtscho",
"senschen"
],
"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
}
|
87100
|
Can trehalose be organic? How is it listed as an ingredient?
I saw a worrying report of an article in Nature, no less, questioning whether the sugar substitute trehalose could be a cause of the recent rise in Clostridium difficile infections.
As a precaution, I'd like to know how to avoid trehalose. Our family here in the UK eats mostly organic food. Is it possible for trehalose to be present in an organic certified product? I note that some suppliers purport to sell "organic trehalose".
If a food contains trehalose, how does it appear in the ingredient list? (Especially in the UK.) Will it be called "trehalose", or some E-number, or something else?
Thanks!
Beware of supermarket sushi (as in, not prepared fresh to order) - trehalose is commonly used to keep the rice from staling.
Looking online at the ingredients in UK supermarket sushi, I see "sugar" added to the rice, but no mention of trehalose. I wonder if they can just call it sugar? It is a sugar, after all. Thanks! Plus, I see that trehalose does not have an E-number, unless it's called something different there.
Sugar, Modified Anystarch, Spices and Flavourings - while they are not necessarily bad for you, they are bad for ingredient disclosure.
I wrote to the UK Food Safety Agency with this question. Their computer says I should see an answer in a few days. Or 20 days if it's a hard question.
Some sushi recipes (and fresh sushi) use ordinary sugar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.965411
| 2018-01-15T16:20:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87100",
"authors": [
"emrys57",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64463",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88422
|
Making sourdough bread with just flour and water (and no starter)
Suppose I do not have a starter and I am not interested in creating one. Would the following recipe work to create an edible sourdough bread? If not, why not?
Recipe:
Mix 10 cups of flour with about 5 cups of warm water. Mix well.
Store the mixture in a warm place (about 23-24 Celsius degrees)
Knead/fold the mixture everyday at the same time.
After 5-7 days, add salt and bake the mixture.
As a point of reference let's look to this "Sourdough Starter Recipe"
Combine ¾ cup flour and ½ cup warm water in a glass or plastic container. Make sure the container can hold about 2 quarts, to avoid overflow.
Stir vigorously to incorporate air; cover with a breathable lid.
Leave in a warm place, 70-85°F (21-29°C) for 12-24 hours.
Feeding every 12 hours will increase the rate at which your sourdough starter is multiplying its organisms; feeding every 24 hours will take a bit longer, but may be more sustainable depending on your time commitment.
At the 12 or 24 hour mark you may begin to see some bubbles, indicating that organisms are present. Repeat the feeding with ½ cup warm water and ¾ cup flour.
Stir vigorously, cover, and wait another 12-24 hours. Repeat feedings every 12-24 hours by removing half of the starter before every feeding and discarding it. Feed with ½ cup warm water and ¾ cup flour.
After about 5-7 days the sourdough starter should have enough yeasts and bacteria to be used for baking.
The ratios are a little off and you are just dumping everything in at the start. Despite your stated desire to "not do so" what you would be doing is making a sourdough starter...but what would probably not be 'a very good one'.
Edible is a matter of taste, yours would probably qualify in some 'technical' sense (unlikely that someone would become ill from eating it) and it 'would be sourdough'. The process of gradually adding and removing flour and water through the week stretches out the food supply. Your "dump it all in at once" approach would likely cause the yeast to multiply too fast to the point of creating a toxic environment for the yeast, however I doubt it would reach that level in 5-7 days. Since you aren't trying to create a sustainable culture that would not be your concern.
Would it "be" sourdough? yeah...
Would it be "good" sourdough? not likely...
Would I do it? not a chance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.965556
| 2018-03-18T16:36:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88422",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30024
|
Mustard-fried burger patty
One of the signature items of the California-based burger chain In-n-Out Burger is the "Animal Style" burger from their secret menu, which features a mustard-fried burger patty. It has a slightly tangy flavor to it, with a crispy, almost caramelized surface but a juicy center, and is often quoted as the best fast-food burger available.
I know the basic idea behind the process: squirt some mustard on the grill before putting the burger down. But I haven't tried it, and I'm curious if anyone has, and what specifically works best. Is it better to put the mustard on the burger, or directly on the grill? What type of mustard to use, and how much? At what point in the cooking process: just once before adding the burger, or a second time before flipping?
I know this falls under the restaurant-mimicry category, though I think I did a decent job of following the rules; If not, feel free to edit, or leave a comment and I'll try to clarify.
Here is Kenji Alt's in-depth recreation of the double-double animal-style burger. The core of his technique is:
The process is simple: Sear the patty on one side, and squirt some
mustard on it as it sizzles. Flip the patty over so that the mustard
cooks into the second side.
The patties are covered with the cheese, then the caramelized onions
are applied liberally to a single patty before topping it with the
second, fusing all the elements together into a single cheesy, beefy, sweet, oniony, gooey, salty, oozy, crispy, meaty, savory, melty, delicious mess.
He uses basic yellow mustard, btw.
In response to the question from comments about how long to cook, here is what the recipe says:
Add burger patties and cook without moving until well browned and
crusty on first side, about 2 1/2 minutes. While they are cooking,
spread 1 tablespoon mustard on raw side of each patty with a spoon.
Meanwhile, top each bottom bun with up half of spread, 4 slices
pickles, 1 slice tomato, and lettuce. Flip patties with a thin spatula
so mustard side is down and continue to cook for 1 minute
on a griddle? is it meant to char a bit or keep the patty moist?
Kenji just specifies "a skillet" although from reading his blog articles, I know he favors cast iron. See edit above for more details on the cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.965809
| 2013-01-13T02:27:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30024",
"authors": [
"Blind as a bat",
"Giannis Sideris",
"K Sager",
"Lisa",
"Pat Sommer",
"Regina",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Teresa Ortega",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70173",
"user70173"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102282
|
Omelette stuck to pot on low fire with extra virgin olive oil
I've tried to cook an egg with some oil underneath on low fire, trying to make an omelette, but the egg still got stuck and when I turned it over a plate it collapsed apart. It was just some egg and hard cheese bits. Anyone know what went wrong?
Maybe it's because the small pot was not nonstick. I thought it would turn out ok anyways.
Hello, this post has been marked as a duplicate. However, I think it is not, because it is about trying to cook an omelette with a pot rather than with a pen (which, seems like it's something people world not do, but one needs to ask oneself why, besides, one may run out of pans because they may all be scratched, have burnt stuck to them, or be dirty, and a novice user may ask themselves, whether it may be worthy, to use a pot, instead of a pan, or whether it may even be feasible).
Thanks.
If this is your first time making eggs on non-nonstick, then it is expected. I think we even have a question which says "I followed all advice and it still stuck, why" - basically, you need to train doing it right.
I always buy cheap teflon for my egg cooking. A little butter and it works every time. Stainless can be very unforgiving to delicate soft things like eggs.
I would recommend using a pan for an omelette not a pot, as it makes it easier to get a spatula under the omelette. Also, if you are not using a nonstick surface, use a little more oil (or preferably butter) and get the oil hot in the pan before putting in the eggs (medium high heat).
Why does the oil need to be hot before putting in the egg, how hot does it need to be, and isn't extra virgin olive oil healthier than butter?
@JoselinJocklingson oil being hot prevents sticking. I've seen a couple of explanations why and I'm not sure which is the actual reason, but it definitely does help. See the duplicate questions as to how hot it should be. Whether oil or butter is healthier is a question for your doctor or nutritionist, not this site.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.966066
| 2019-09-12T10:27:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102282",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"Joselin Jocklingson",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97466
|
Peas with onions
I was wondering whether it is best to cook peas with onions in a pan or in a pot. Is there any difference between the two approaches?
Thanks.
Could you add a few details about the dish, please? Are you talking about fresh or dried peas, for example?
I'm not sure the cookware is going to make a great deal of difference, in & of itself. You need to give us more to work with; your prep, method & how it would differ between the two pan types...
The only thing I can think of, is that frying or sauté pans usually have larger cooking surfaces and will aid in evaporating liquid more quickly compare to pots
if you use fresh peas it should not have any benefit one way or the other, but if you use frozen peas, then they will have more humidity (liquid) and using a pan might make cooking the peas easier.
I probably have done peas with onions in both pans and pots many times and have not seen much difference to make me choose one over the other.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.966397
| 2019-04-14T13:56:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97466",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124193
|
Mnemonic tricks to remember all cooking steps correctly
I am looking for some advice on what some mnemonic tricks could be for remembering the following, when memorizing or preparing to cook a recipe by heart:
oven temperatures
procedures (remembering the right steps, in the right order)
all the ingredients, without omitting any
ingredient amounts (also, with the number of people to cater to, kept in mind)
Thank you very much.
Thanks.
I don't understand the downvote on this one, mnemonics are used for many things: colors of the rainbow, great lakes, critical actions for pilots, etc. It seems like a sensible question to me.
@GdD I will refer folks to a point I tried to raise in meta a while back. It didn't seem to gain any traction there. I don't believe any question should be downvoted. It only serves to discourage questions. I believe we should encourage any and all questions. We have numerous ways to deal with problematic questions, without downvoting. These range from suggested edits and asking for clarification, to flagging and closing. So, to me, downvoting serves no useful purpose. Since then, I upvote all downvoted questions.
I feel similarly about this @moscafj, I rarely downvote a question for that very reason. Very occasionally I will downvote a question if someone has posted something that shows absolutely no effort or is taking the mickey somehow. If something is off topic I vote to close, I see no reason to downvote.
The best 'trick' is to understand why a certain temperature, ingredient or quantity is used, which comes from reading good recipes, cooking with others who have more experience, and practice and experimentation.
The second 'trick' is to get used to what details are important or specific to one recipe. Once you realise that lots of different dishes are in fact very similar in construction, you stop thinking in terms of memorising specific instruction lists. Don't think "180°C", think "default oven temperature". Don't think "add 1.5 tsp salt to 1 litre simmering water", think "this needs boiling, so I need a pan of boiling water and that always needs salt". Instead of "50g chicken breast", "that looks about right for one meal for me".
In other words, when you see someone cooking without looking at a recipe, it's not that they are mentally consulting a memorized recipe and following its steps. They just combine their knowledge of cooking methods with what they have and what they are trying to make. An analogy might be someone travelling across a city they know well – they aren't following a memorized list of directions, they just know the general way to go and how to navigate each part along the way.
The place for mnemonics is in remembering specific baking recipes where it is more important to get the ratios of ingredients and temperatures precise, and there are some of these out there for classic cakes. But my recommendation would just be to cook with a recipe to hand; now that we have the internet and smartphones it's easy to get high quality recipes and you don't have to worry you've forgotten something.
It's true that it's never been easier to access decent recipes, but it's also never been easy to access some rather questionable ones as well. And as for the screen turning itself off just when you've got dough all over your hands... I often write down ingredient quantities - in order - and any non-obvious steps. This sort of summarising is a good learning technique in its own right
@ChrisH conveniently, the recipe app I use has a setting where you can have it never turn off the screen while it’s actively showing a recipe. I imagine others might but I wouldn’t know for sure
@fyrepenguin I find the idea of a recipe app rather strange - presumably you're tied into their library, and the whole point about looking for recipes online is to discover more unusual things (though for classic recipes I do have a few goto websites)
@ChrisH it’s not subscribing to a library of recipes, it’s a repository for your own recipes (or those shared with you). And it has hooks that let you automatically import recipes from the web, too, which is convenient. But I used it to digitize dozens of family recipes. Conveniently lets me cross off ingredients as I go, as well as scale the recipe by any scale factor. Plus I can directly add ingredients to my shopping list. Not affiliated to them, just really appreciate the software
@fyrepenguin it sounds sort of interesting. But combining my experience of trying to scrape information from websites with the unclear writing of a lot of online recipes, I wouldn't trust the import without proofreading - and that would be the most useful tool
@ChrisH it's pretty decent with a lot of common websites, who tag/format things in such a way that they can be reliably imported. If you're particular about exact ingredient naming like I am, it does take a little comb through after. This is getting a tad off topic, so I wouldn't mind continuing this in chat
This might not be exactly what you're looking for, but my "mnemonic trick" is ratios.*
Many complex recipes are really just an amalgamation of several simple recipes, and many simple recipes can be reduced to a ratio of 2-4 ingredients, plus seasoning to taste.
For example, the ratio of a basic roux-based sauce is 1 part flour, 1 part fat/oil, 8 parts liquid. The ratio for cooking grits is 1 part grits to 4 parts liquid, plus salt. This vastly simplifies a recipe for shrimp and grits, to:
Make 2 parts grits
Make 2 parts roux-based sauce, using stock as the liquid and butter as the fat; add creole seasoning and garlic
Cook some shrimp in the sauce
Combine
Baking is even more ratio-driven.
(* I do recommend the book linked from that article, Michael Ruhlman's Ratio)
I'll speak to oven temps. The rest is probably more specific to what you are cooking and understanding why procedures work and when to use them, which comes with experience, rather than having and overarching mnemonic.
So, about oven temperature...all you really need to know is low, medium, and high. Ovens are rarely the temperature that it says on the dial setting (they are not built for accuracy), and the temperature around your food is much lower than you think (due to evaporative cooling). It turns out that being in the ballpark is good enough. Just think in terms of low (up to 300F), medium (up to 400F), and high. Not much happens at low...perhaps a braise that you started on the stove in a dutch oven and moved to the oven...think gentle heat for a long time...or maybe those ribs that you are cooking "low and slow." Most of your oven work happens at medium or high. Roast a chicken?...high.....Sheet pan of squash? Medium.... Apple crisp? ...medium. Just keep an eye on it and and you will soon get a feel without worrying about having to know specific temperatures.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.966525
| 2023-05-16T04:54:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124193",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116691
|
How do you properly and consistently pan-sear shrimp?
Anytime I attempt to pan-sear shrimp, I struggle to achieve a perfect char. I typically turn the stove on high, pre-heat a stainless steel pan, use butter + olive oil, and then add the shrimp for a couple minutes each side. I also use a fish spatula to make sure they're flat to the pan. I find after a few minutes each side, the shrimp are done but not charred or crisp, but if cooked much longer, the shrimp become too well done.
Do certain pans help accomplish this? Does type of shrimp matter? Is oil / butter preferred? What is the proper way to effectively pan-sear shrimp?
Charred shrimps are usually not fried, they're grilled, without (or with very little) fat.
There are a few things you can do to help your shrimp get a nice sear.
First, make sure they're as dry as possible before adding them to the pan. Use paper towels and pat dry. Especially if you're using shrimp which you had to thaw, they can be pretty wet, and that'll cause them to steam instead of sear.
Another thing which can cause your meat to steam instead of sear is if you overcrowd the pan. Use a larger pan or do less shrimp at once. When I cook shrimp, I can see at least 2/3 of the bottom of the pan through the shrimp. If all you can see is shrimp, it's way too much, and the water it releases will get trapped instead of quickly evaporating off.
Getting your shrimp to room temp can also help, as the colder your meat is when you put it in the pan, the more your pan will cool down when you add it. A thicker pan is another solution, as it has more capacity to hold heat. Cast iron is ideal for searing for this reason. Adding less shrimp at once will also reduce this effect.
By using the fish spatula, do you mean you're pressing down on them while they're cooking? I'd skip this, it can squeeze out liquids, so it might hurt more than help. Shrimp are pretty flat, so just toss them in the pan and then leave them alone until they need flipped.
Lastly, I might skip the butter and only use an oil which can tolerate high heat. Butter will burn at high temps, so you have to keep your pan cooler, which means less of a sear. Your butter/oil should not be smoking at any point, that means the temp is too high for that type of oil. Shrimp in butter does taste better though IMO, so you can try changing this as a last resort.
I would hesitate to try frozen shrimp at all. Or worse, those that come in salt water.
@StianYttervik Why? Unless you live in a fishing town (and even then!), chances are the freshest shrimps you can get are high quality frozen shrimps. Non frozen shrimps you buy are most likely just defrosted ahead of time (and were frozen on the trawler that caught them).
@KonradRudolph I'm pretty sure that Gordon Ramsay would disagree with the idea of frozen shrimp being fresh at all.
@nick Based on what evidence are you asserting that? — Besides, Gordon Ramsey can presumably afford to buy fresh catch for his restaurants on a wholesale fish market, something not accessible to most people. Most people are limited to supermarkets and regular fish mongers, and most of these don't sell seafood of any kind other than frozen and defrosted.
@KonradRudolph "Based on what evidence are you asserting that?" All the times on his Kitchen Nightmares show where someone presented frozen food as being fresh, and he expressed his displeasure with them.
@nick012000 The obnoxious snob on Kitchen Nightmares is a fictional character that Gordon Ramsay plays on TV, in real life he’s reportedly very different. Even so, the TV show presumably pokes fun at the use of unnecessarily frozen ingredients or ready meals, and not at freshly frozen high-quality produce.
@nick012000 A lot of fish is frozen on the fishing vessel long before it reaches port. See http://www.fao.org/3/v3630e/v3630e14.htm -- unless you live on the gulf coast of equivalent, all shrimp you have ever eaten where frozen at one point.
@Konrad I agree, if you live more than 3 hours drive from the coast, frozen are likely as good or better. I am influenced in my opinion by being a coastal inhabitant.
@StianYttervik It’s not “more than 3 hours drive”. I live in London, which is very close to the coast (as is every other point in the UK, really). All seafood (and most fish) I can buy here (except at wholesale fish markets) was at some point frozen. Even in coastal towns, virtually all fresh seafood you buy was at one point frozen, unless it was caught locally. And this is completely unrelated to quality: the quality of frozen seafood can be excellent.
Also keep in mind that not all seafood is available off all coasts.
I live more than 1000 miles from any coast. I expect any seafood I can get to have been frozen at some point...or I really don't want to eat it.
@KonradRudolph I think your are right on. Fishing boats often freeze their catch onboard, send it to Asia to be deboned, frozen again to be sent to market. Not sure if that applies to shrimp but it's probably frozen at least once.
+1 Don't crowd the pan is key for browning/searing many things. The wetter it is, the more batches you should have. If the pan gets too hot, do a bigger batch.
Sure, if you have a friend with a boat, catching your seafood fresh and eating it that night is ideal. I live near a coast and have done that. I still usually buy my shrimp frozen from the store. Regardless of your opinion, lots of people reading this likely cook frozen shrimp, so the advice is applicable.
Supplementary answer:
It does depend on the type of shrimp somewhat. Inexpensive shrimp are often treated with sodium triphosphate or similar chemicals. This makes the shrimp plumper and better-looking by causing them to soak up water instead of losing it. The problem is, when you put such shrimp in a hot pan, they release that water and steam instead of searing.
The solution to this is to buy shrimp that are not treated with sodium compounds.
You are fairly close on technique. I would recommend beginning the process by using a paper or cloth towel to dry your shrimp as much as possible. Use the heaviest pan you can, cast iron is good, but I have success in stainless. Preheat well. High heat is good, but if using butter you don't want it to burn. Place the shrimp in the pan without overcrowding...leave plenty of space... and don't touch them. You may need to reduce heat slightly at this point. Cook them 3/4 of the way done (this depends on size). Flip to finish. In my experience, the critical element is to start with the driest possible shrimp at the start.
I was gonna say pan frying doesnt give you a "char". That is what a grill is for. Just coat in your favorite oil and seasoning and char grill them for a minute or 2 on each side till they curl. Done.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.967124
| 2021-08-04T18:00:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116691",
"authors": [
"Deleted",
"JimmyJames",
"Kat",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Quasi_Stomach",
"Seth R",
"Stian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95019",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95724
|
Balancing Flavours
I've been taught that various taste can be countered with others. For example, if something is too acid or spicy I could bring it back down with fats and sweetness. I understand that there are abundant ideas surrounding these balances with many overlaps along with many radar charts and star graphs (some of witch I'll include); but whats the reasoning behind them?
Do they mask the other contradicting flavours, meld with them, or is there a chemical reaction causing for it to mellow and or enhance the flavour? Is it just perceived to us weaker or stronger instead of actually being that? Possibly and most likely a mixture of both and many other factors, chemical, perception, placebo and more.
What's the reasoning that some flavours balance others.
Additions for clarification:
When I say perception in the question It's more in the sense of how having something bitter before something sweet will make the sweetness shine through seemly infinity more than having the sweet item alone. This is a noticeable change regardless of personal preference. Even if the sweet tooth thinks it could be sweeter and another person thinks it's too sweet, they both will notice a change in sweetness if severed the bitter before hand, making both tasters perceive it tasting sweeter than it would without the bitter.
@bruglesco Coffee and Tea (that's been brewed too long) can end up being bitter. Lemons and Limes are generally considered sour.
@SF could you elaborate this as an answer, I like where you're going I'm not looking for a definitive answer but something like you're saying that helps me understand it and what's happening.
Do they mask the other contradicting flavours, meld with them, or is there a chemical reaction causing for it to mellow and or enhance the flavour? Is it just perceived to us weaker or stronger instead of actually being that? Possibly and most likely a mixture of both and many other factors, chemical, perception, placebo and more.
All that and more.
The star-charts are woeful oversimplifications as different foodstuffs producing one flavor affect different products producing a different flavor differently.
Let's track the path.
First, you have the products in physical interaction. Solvents dissolving solids, definitely intensifying the taste, or embedding grains of insoluble solids isolating them, changing texture which does contribute psychologically too, e.g. solidifying a 'goo' into something chewy, bubbling to make it fluffy etc.
Then there's chemical interaction. Different substances react, either removing or introducing flavors, depending on their sources.
Then you add the third component - your taste buds. Again, they can be physically isolated, coated by a layer of fat, or cleaned and with increased blood flow intensifying taste, e.g. through liquors, but also their chemistry may be affected by chemicals of one food, so they react to a different food differently.
Double this up, with the aroma. While the sense of smell is located in the nose, not in mouth, the scent definitely affects the perception of taste, and substances providing it undergo all the same interactions.
Next comes genetics. Not everyone has the same taste buds. Example: Broccoli for most people tastes normally, for a specific percent it's impossibly bitter - there's a genetic difference between the chemistry and build of taste buds of different people, so they may react to given substances differently.
And then there's what you called 'placebo effect' and perception. The concept is called Qualia. Our interaction with the reality is 'filtered' through our mind, and shaped into our perception - and this is an individual thing, where a lot of factors completely independent from the subject perceived are a factor. It will be aesthetics, it will be mood, associations - memories, similarities, habits, there will be expectations, habits, cultural influences - all kinds of factors that will modify the way we perceive the reality - including taste. The pleonasm of "Different people like different things." If you taste chicken, how are you to know, that if a different person eating the same piece of chicken perceives it identically? While the chicken composition and texture is the same, the brain through which the sensation of flavor is transferred, isn't. Its neural links were shaped through different experiences, different memories and associations, and the same 'raw input' can produce completely different output on the 'conscious layer'.
So, back to your original question - you can 'engineer' a lot of these interactions. Knowing how given products interact with each other and taste buds, you can create the mix that for most people will affect the way their taste buds act. And you can 'engineer' the surroundings: appearance of the dish, impression of the serving and location; a neat restaurant with food nearly arranged on fancy plates will automatically make one perceive food as better than the same food served in a dirty stall, mixed in a slop bowl. It will never work for everyone, as people are different, but you can achieve the effect you intend with most.
This, while surely leaving more to discuss, seems like the most apt for this this question. Any idea if there are common reasons why one flavour will affect another or is it always different depending on the the origins? (like if I have two different types peppers but used fat and sweetness to mellow it out for both is the same reaction and such happening or is it always going to be different no matter the scenario)
@JadeSo: Some flavors are carried by a very limited number of substances: Salty is about universaly NaCl. Very little besides glutamates carries umami. If it's sour, you may be sure an acid of some kind is involved, or a salt with the negative ion more reactive than the positive. Sweet will be sugars and complex alcohols. Only bitter can be pretty much damn anything. That means combining foods of taste X with foods of taste Y, a lot of the time you get the same reaction between taste carrying substances.
This topic will be open to a lot of varying opinions, simply because everyone has (to some degree) thier own interpretation of what a flavor is (or isn't). For instance, my understanding is that "umami" puckers your mouth, something similar to a Dill Pickle. A person who eats Dill Pickles on a regular basis, would become less affected by the mouth puckering than someone who was trying their first one. Likewise, since I don't like the "bitter" taste of Coffee, I drink a lot of soda. As a result, while I recognize the sweetness of sugary confections, someone who does not drink soda or eat candies will be put off by items containing excessive sweeteners.
As for one flavor attribute masking or altering your perception of another.... perhaps the most important word there is "perception". If you eat a meal that is particularly spicy (far more than you are accustomed to), you may find that drinking water will only make things worse, but milk will help cool your taste buds down. Beer generally works for extra spicy things as well, if you are old enough and like the flavor of beer. But, does it actually work, or is the milk/beer just washing the undesirable spiciness off your taste buds?
When cooking, if you add too much salt to a recipe, you can add potato. The potato absorbs salt, so the finished dish is repaired (in a manner of speaking). Of course, not all recipes lend themselves to having potatoes combined with the other ingredients. One way to avoid this is to measure the seasonings off to the side into a seperate dish. If you ever wonder why cooking shows have everything set up in their own little dish, this is why. It's easier to re-measure the salt in a seperate container than try to repair a recipe because the salt clumped and then dumped too much into your saucepan. Along the same lines, my Mother's Spaghetti was too acidic for my Father's ulcers. Adding shredded carrot, or sugar, would reduce the acidity and make it easier for Dad to digest without negatively affecting the flavor.
Most of the "fixes" that I know about were handed down to me, but the exact science(?) might be something they teach in culinary school. Perhaps there is an accredited Chef who could better enlighten us...
Cook's Illustrated - Baking Soda vs Sugar and Acidity
Note: the old myth of using potato to reduce salt is just that, a myth. See https://blog.kitchenmage.com/2011/12/debunk-of-day-potato-fixes-over-salted-soup.html & many others.
While this skirts the subject, I feel you are overly focused on the "perception" part. Tolerance and a palate accustomed to something does exist I agree to and see you point but even with that in mind I'm was asking why is it that I can add a type of taste and it will noticeably reduce or enhance the strength of another taste regardless of personal preference. An simple example would be how if you add sugar to tea it'll taste sweeter than before regardless of having a sweet tooth or not. After adding a taste to it it'll make it sweeter than before.
...That was a overly simplified example of what I was asking because it only used one of the taste. I did that to try to help you understand I'm asking about the foods taste rather than the persons' personal thoughts. When I say perception in the question It's more in the sense of having something bitter before something sweet will make the sweetness shine through seemly infinity more than having the sweet item alone....
....This is a noticeable change regardless of personal preference. Even if the sweet tooth thinks it could be sweeter and another person thinks it's too sweet, the bitter before hand will make both tasters say it taste sweeter than it would without the bitter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.967700
| 2019-01-17T01:10:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95724",
"authors": [
"Jade So",
"SF.",
"Tetsujin",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46168
|
Ways to Store Carrots for more days
I recently brought a whole 2KG bag of carrots. They seemed fine the day I brought, but eventually, the skin of the carrot evolved to a black layer. However, when I peeled them off, the carrot looks perfectly fine. Is it good to continue using these carrots ? Are there any precautions that I have to take to store them ?
Please find the reference images.
This is how most of the carrots now look :
After peeling the carrots that are black :
What do you mean by "eventually"? How long did it take for the carrots to develop the black skin? Did you store them in the refrigerator?
Ya, I kept them in the refrigerator as soon as I bought them. It took 2 days to develop that black coat on carrot skin.
possible duplicate of What is the best way to store carrots?
2 days is nothing for carrots, they should stay good much longer than that. It doesn't sound like you did anything wrong, you were sold bad carrots.
I can regularly get 4-6 weeks out of carrots. In a worst case scenario, they'll start to put out little hair-like roots as a sign of age. 2 days is likely a sign that something was wrong well before you brought them home. (if it's not, then it's a sign that something is horribly, horribly wrong in your fridge)
I have worked in the CPG industry for almost 30 years. A few years back I had the privilege of representing one of the largest produce brands in the US. I learned quite a bit about produce storage and what speeds up the deterioration rate.
One thing I noticed in your picture is that there appeared to be moisture (condensation) inside of the bag of carrots. It is certainly okay to leave them in the bag they were purchased in, but you want to be absolutely sure that there is no moisture in the bag. Moisture can be a real devil when it comes to mold and mildew or other fungus.
Another very important thing that affects the length of time produce will remain good is air circulation. You have to have really good air circulation around produce. Bagged salads, slaws, etc. will go bad quicker (even if they are unopened) if they are stored so that they don't have proper air circulation around them. In the case of the carrots, I would recommend opening one end of the bag so that they can get air.
Overall, I would rceommend that produce be stored in the produce crisper in your refrigerator. Crispers are designed to maintain an appropriate temperature and level of humidity that will help produce stay fresh longer.
If your refrigerator does not have a crisper, I would get a plastic rectangular container and place it on the bottom shelf of your refrigerator to use as a make shift crisper. If possible, cut one inch holes generously in the lid to allow for air flow. If you don't have a way to do this, leave the lid off.
Regarding using the carrots, I would be reluctant without knowing with certainty what the black is and probably would not use them.
I think you just bought the wrong carrots. Carrots can keep for ages if they are mostly left in their natural state. But the cheap carrots in large German supermarkets tend to be quite processed before being sold. The ends are cut off, and the dirt is removed by some process (I don't know if it's chemical, physical, or both) which destroys their outer skin. This makes them as perishable as any other peeled fruit or vegetable, so just 1-2 days in the fridge. The condensation in the bag makes it even worse.
If you buy carrot bundles from the market, with a little bit of leaves on them and still a bit of dirt, they will keep. The whole leaves look better, but will dessicate them quicker! Or you can buy the whole leaves kind and keep it in wet sand.
Wet sand? In a big container in the fridge? Does that work for other root veggies too?
I don't know about a big container in the fridge, we did that in the root cellar when I lived with my parents. The carrots kept throughout the winter. We never kept other root veggies this way - I assume that the tougher skin of potatoes etc. makes them easier to keep without water and sand.
I guess more suitable for root crops you have grown, or are sure are in a more natural state .. the way my grandpas did it ... (both of them!)
The problem with mold is that it's there even when you can't see it. So it's acceptable to cut off a moldy part of a hard shelled fruit or vegetable but not so for bread or other porous items. Carrots are pretty inexpensive so I recommend throwing them away. Especially if you're planning on eating them raw, as in salad. In the future, keep carrots in a well ventilated chilled environment, or peel the whole lot and keep submerged in cold water, in a refrigerator.
Store them in refrigerator in a plastic box complety filled with water (more than a week completely fresh)
Store them in refrigerator in a plastic box each layer separeted by the next one with kitchen paper to prevent moisture (5days nice and perfect without problem)
Roll each carrot in a slightly umid kitchen paper and put it in a plastic box in refrigerator
Cellar in a box filled of sand (over the winter), layer by layer covered, recommanded but not tried => they used to do it in the old days so it should work out pretty
=> Best place in refrigerator as low as possible! Dont know if because of humidity, refrigerator design, airflow or temperature.
What i dont know is what is the difference between condensation moisture and moisture that keeps the carrot fresh and prevents that i looses water. To me they should be the same - anybody knows?
I stick to point 2.
When they get the blackening just peel them, dip them in 1 litre chilled water with a half (or whole) teaspoon of vinegar, then place in a freezer bag (these actually do breethe) in your crisper in the fridge.
Niel, welcome! Please focus on answering the question ( see [answer]), you will be able to comment on other posts after gaining enough reputation on the site. I recommend you take the [tour] and browse our [help] to learn more about how the site works. If you have questions, we’re here to help!
My gut is telling me not to peel them and stick in the ground, and they will not only last forever, but grow small carrots.
No, they will not develop small carrots, that’s not how carrots propagate. They would - at best - go to seed, then die. You probably confused carrots any potatoes.
Upvote, though.. it's not a bad way of storing carrots
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.968414
| 2014-08-07T11:42:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46168",
"authors": [
"Chris Fahy",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kate Gregory",
"Michael Cristel",
"Mugisha Anthony",
"Pat Hu",
"RHLK",
"Robin Betts",
"Shreedevi Nair-Pal",
"Skcudym",
"Stephie",
"elvira",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"user110186"
],
"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
}
|
23596
|
Is the root/rhizomes of ground elder edible?
Ground elder is a terrible weed with delicious leaves. But is the root edible too?
Wikipedia:
Aegopodium podagraria, commonly called ground elder, herb gerard, bishop's weed, goutweed, and snow-in-the-mountain, is a perennial plant in the carrot family (Apiaceae) that grows in shady places.
[...]
The tender leaves have been used in antiquity and throughout the Middle Ages as a spring leaf vegetable, much as spinach was used.
I found this on http://www.dgsgardening.btinternet.co.uk/freefood.htm
Ground-elder
Aegopodium podagraria all parts edible
young leaves in salads or cooked as a spinach,
roots dried and ground into a flour.
Jeannet
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.969073
| 2012-05-05T10:18:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23596",
"authors": [
"Deb_cooker",
"Jack Schmidt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54277",
"joseph rigan",
"ruffin",
"user53457"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105091
|
Can cooking oil selection effect Maillard reaction?
Ignoring flavor impartation. When pan-frying: Does picking a higher smoke point oil like avocado oil affect the speed of the Maillard reaction? Will it occur quicker if a lower smoke point oil like olive is used?
The Maillard reaction occurs at temperatures greater than 285°F (140°C). So, ignoring flavor, the oil you use (if any) has no influence over the reaction. It needs a particular temperature to begin happening. For what is happening, see the link. Now, in practice, flavor comes from both the Miallard reaction and caramelization (apart from other flavor ingredients), so the oil and the temperature can have significant impacts in that regard.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.969169
| 2020-02-01T17:43:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105091",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91962
|
Substitute for Palm Sugar
What is typically the best substitute for palm sugar? I've been getting away with brown sugar or molasses if I really have no time to get the actually stuff.
Honey, granulated sugar, maple syrup are others I've tried but they don't seem as effective as the main two I use.
Am I forgetting an obvious substitute or is there a simple way to make palm sugar that's fast that I should be doing instead?
Explain what is the result you want to achieve using palm sugar in lieu of other available sugars?
The caramel finish it has along with that brown sugar taste. I think brown sugar is pretty much my answer but I was curious if there was something better.
I don't think you can any better than light brown soft sugar!
It has a similar taste, similar moisture content (though palm sugar varies hugely in moisture content from a thick honey texture to a solid block), similar color and caramelizes in a similar way.
An ever closer option is jaggery, which is almost identical to palm sugar, just made from sugar cane rather than palms. It is probably more difficult to get hold of though, and the difference is rarely noticeable in a finished dish, so I would say light brown sugar is your best option
Why light? I've been using dark.
Light is definitely more similar in flavour. Palm sugar is actually quite mildly flavoured compared to brown cane sugar, especially when made from coconut palms rather than sugar palms. I also find dark brown sugar a bit too rich tasting. Ultimately it's a matter of preference though, so stick with dark if that's what you prefer!
The legendary chef David Thompson also suggests light brown sugar or light jaggery as a substitute
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.969258
| 2018-08-29T19:27:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91962",
"authors": [
"Cynetta",
"Jade So",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91155
|
Wok Cooking on a Home Stove
I work with woks at work and know about the wok pit used to cook on for heat, to hold the rounded bottom, and to toss the food. Is there a tool or way to use my at home gas stove for my wok (specifically round bottom) or would I have to install a wok pit.
I know of flat bottoms and have one of them as well but I'm dissatisfied with them.
Depends on the stove but on some you can remove the grate.
I can but there's still the burner there and it wouldn't fix the stand issue
I use something called Wok Ring Stand. You can buy them online. I made mine from a steel bowl because it was faster than waiting for delivery.
You can find flat bottom woks that work on flat ranges effectively. They are sub-optimal though, as they don't evenly distribute the heat across the sides. In this use a high sided saute pan is just as useful. I have heard of mounts that sit over a burner as well. These are usually useless for home-use because stove heat output is too low.
A wok ring stand will work with most(gas) stovetops and will make your rounded bottom wok usable. They still aren't ideal though because the heat output is still focused on the lower apex of the pan and the sides get much less. therefor heat distribution is still off.
There are also small individual wok burners that run on propane. but most of them are large (think outdoor grill size) and may/or may not, be the solution you need.
I read that a lot of wok ring stands are unstable?
@JadeSo They are often flimsy pieces of crap that deteriorate from exposure to frequent heat. I wouldn't buy one because I have been dissatisfied with the results of using one (as pointed out, poor heat distribution) but if I were to buy one I would absolutely do comparison shopping to make sure I got one that would hold up over time.
I had to weld my own ring stands to get one that actually worked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.969398
| 2018-07-19T22:07:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91155",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Jade So",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Summer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96159
|
Should I "sponge" tea?
I went to a tea shop for Chinese New Year and the owner was incredible adamant about rinsing, sponging and reusing the tea. Is this a normal thing? Should I be doing it? What teas should I be doing this with and what shouldn't I?
Sponging tea to my observation seemed to be like steeping but more for the refreshing and "waking up" the leaves rather than steeping which is more focused on the water and to flavour the water.
How many times should I wash my tea and should I sponge it before washing it, before drinking it or both?
How long should I "sponge" it?
How do I determine when to do this and when not too
When should I stop reusing tea?
I've no idea, I've never heard of rinsing tea before, I'm curious to see the answer.
Tea preparation is basic an extraction. Without going to taste and quality of the prepared drink, I, as a chemist, would be able to exhaust the tea . This might require repeating steps or a continuous process. If the quality of the tea is considered I guess that if one knows you can reuse partially the initial tea. It really depends on what one is accustomed to. I have saw continuous tea preparation too, it wasn't clear what the new and the old tea was (turkish style I guess).
@rumtscho♦ I fixed my question and tried to make the emphasis of the sponging part more apparent. I'm more curious about the sponging rather than the steeping and washing. I'd like to reopen this if possible instead of just asking the it as a new question.
indeed, it is no longer a duplicate. Thank you for taking the time to improve it.
My father-in-law is an avid tea drinker (his hobby in retirement is literally drink and discuss tea with his friends). He has shown me how to rinse tea (a few different ways), however he and I don't speak the same dialect of Chinese (I speak Mandarin, with a heavy western accent - he doesn't speak Mandarin at all). So I can't speak to the difference between rinsing (discussed at length below) and sponging. Does anyone know the difference?
Rinsing tea is normal in a ceremonial preparation of tea. There can be several reasons for rinsing:
To wake up the leaves: Especially with tightly rolled teas, the infusion is more optimal when you let them unfurl a bit during a short rinse.
Remove unpleasant flavor on the surface: With some roasted oolong teas or pile fermented teas, the earthy or smokey flavor on the surface can be unpleasant. So people like to rinse the first layer of flavour away.
Remove impurities: There's a lot of processing steps involved to produce a tea. And when the environment isn't kept clean, the final tea may not be clean. I personally always rinse ripe pu erh tea and oolong tea. These teas have the most chance of being 'dirty'. I don't rinse green, black, raw pu erh and white teas.
How long do you let them unfurl and soak? When you say "rinse" how long, with flowing or still water? This is more focused on rinsing rather than sponging and not really answering the question unless you are saying rinsing and sponging are the same. To my knowledge rinsing and sponging are different. Sponging also seems closer to soaking than rising unless you are soaking when you rinse.
Generally 'rinsing' is the term used in a ceremonial preparation. With loosely compressed/rolled teas, this is just a matter of seconds. With tightly compressed (e.g. a pu erh tuocha) or tightly rolled teas (e.g. Tie Guan Yin oolong), the rinsing time is longer, maybe 30 seconds, so I think this would be closer to what you mean by 'soaking'. No matter the time, the purpose is the same as described above in my answer. Is this clear?
Back in the day my grandfather would prepare for us "功夫茶" as a closing part of a meal. He would add near boiling water to the tea leaves and then discard all the water through the teapot. The second time adding water is for brewing the tea. This process takes about 2-3 minutes. Reusing the tea leaves is up to personal preference and the type of tea leaves used, but usually the tea is only good for up to 3 uses.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.969598
| 2019-02-05T08:23:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96159",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"GdD",
"J Crosby",
"Jade So",
"Lisa at Teasenz.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89425
|
What, if at all, is the difference of cooking an egg on high or low heat?
When I fry an egg I frequently cook them on medium-high and it takes 2-3 minutes with one flip. Some of my family will cook eggs over a very low heat that takes as much as 10 minutes.
Do the eggs come out differently this way? I personally don't taste/see much of a difference between my high-heat approach and my families lower-heat approach.
Are you asking why it takes longer at a lower temperature?
I can confirm that there is a difference in eggs texture depending on the chosen temperature, and it is not only my personal impression, I have also seen it mentioned in books. I am torn about writing an answer, because the problem is that all I can write is a longer version of "this is how the world works" without giving details about the exact thermodynamic behavior of the different proteins. But at least I can confirm that the question refers to an existing phenomenon.
The proteins in egg white and egg yolk behave differently at different temperatures. It is an ingredient that responds to very subtle temperature variations. That is why it is a favorite item to cook for those of us interested in low-temperature cooking using an immersion circulator (sous vide).
However, predating the immersion circulator, the Japanese lowered eggs into the Onsen hot springs, cooking them low and slow, to produce a texture that was not able to be produced any other way. More recently, Dave Arnold created a handy chart that illustrates eggs cooked sous vide at various temperatures.
Of course, when cooking in a pan, you have less precise control, however, you can certainly come up with different results by using high heat, medium heat, or low heat. In fact, ChefSteps has instructions for a "fried" egg that they called the "emoji egg." It uses very low heat and takes several minutes.
All of this to say is that you are able to control the texture of the white and yolk with subtle variations in temperature. Also keep in mind that at higher temperatures, the browning of fat in pan and egg white will contribute to flavor. There is also an added bonus of lower temperature egg cookery for some people who experience, and are turned off by, the sulfur aroma that eggs cooked with higher heat have. It turns out that cooking below 72.5 C (162.5 F) keeps these aromas at bay.
Really just adding to @moscafj's answer with some personal observations:
If you use something like a duck or goose egg, you really see the differences due to the different protein structure. With them, at higher heat, the white will come out about the consistency of a rubber band. My experience is that a fresh chicken egg sees the same effect but less noticeable, and as the egg ages the protein the the white loses structure and the differences become more subtle. As a matter of taste, some prefer the firmer texture, others the softer, and some may not even notice. In my opinion though, the lack of difference between methods with he older egg is simply the result of lower initial quality.
In addition, frying at a lower temp I find can allow more heating and an almost custard like thickening of the yolk without cooking it hard. Again a matter of taste between an extra runny yolk that I would call not cooked at all, to warm but still runny, to cooked hard, and depending on which way you prefer your eggs you may not see a difference.
When heated, the protein molecules suspended in egg white unfold, straighten, bind with each other and precipitate out. The more heat and/or time is applied, the more this happens and the more the white solidifies. Meanwhile, the watery suspension medium evaporates.
See: https://chem.libretexts.org/Textbook_Maps/General_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Map%3A_Chemistry%3A_The_Central_Science_(Brown_et_al.)/13%3A_Properties_of_Solutions/13.6%3A_Colloids
I, like jpaugh, like crisp-edged (but not rubbery!) whites and a runny yolk, which requires quick cooking and high heat (I prefer olive oil for this). Crisping on lower heat would make the whites more rubbery and the yolk less runny.
On the other hand, Gordon Ramsay challenges Master Chef contestants to produce a consistent soft texture throughout the egg without browning or under- or overcooking, which is better achieved with lower heat and more time. By making it a speed/quantity contest, he encourages exactly the wrong approach.
Fast food eggs are rubbery because they are purposely overcooked for safety and because they often sit around under heat lamps. And they are often put in sandwiches, where solidity is desired.
It all depends on fat you're using. Small/low heat is good for butter. The egg will not be burnt on side, yolk will be creamy and runny.
Frying egg on high heat can be done with oil and there's a high chance it will have this brown outline, the white will be kinda chewy and yolk firm. It's the type of egg you get at fast food.
Difference in taste in noticeable with butter (and I mean butter and not god save the queen it's not butter) as it add sweetenes or saltines where oil fried will have, well, oil aftertaste.
Ah, but I like burnt eggs! You can have a runny yolk at high temperature, yet with crispy edges around the white. I wouldn't say this matches fast-food eggs, and I certainly wouldn't guarantee that you'd like the taste as much as I do.
@jpaugh agreed, I like them better with the crispyness but a runny yoke. I can't seem to reproduce this without high heat
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.969938
| 2018-04-26T14:06:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89425",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"USER_8675309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54605",
"jpaugh",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24807
|
My banana Muffins won't rise like I want - Why?
So I just tried this recipe for banana muffins. They taste great (even directly after baking) and the texture is really nice and soft - like a muffin is supposed to be.
The problem: They don't rise like I want them to do.
This how I want them to look:
And this how they look like (not my picture, but identically):
I already found this: Why don't my muffins rise and develop tops properly?
The accepted answer has many great hints, but I truly don't believe any of these points target my problem. I thought that I maybe didn't fill the forms enough, but the recipe is for 12 muffins and I made, using 100% of the batter.
I baked them on the middle tray of my oven, using heat only from the top and bottom, no ventilation.
So I think that maybe they don't rise that nice because of the banana? Is it possible that the banana makes the dough so heavy that is gets soft but doesn't rise that much? Or do you have any other ideas what could cause this - is it allowed to post the recipe?
Edit: Ok, so here is the recipe:
180 g flour (I used Type 550 wheat flour)
120 g brown sugar
1 teaspoon baking powder
1 teaspoon baking soda
a pinch of salt
75 g melted butter
4 ripe mashed bananas
1 egg
some vanilla seeds
First I mixed the sugar, the egg, the butter and the mashed bananas together and added the vanilla seeds. Into a separate bowl I sieved the flour, baking powder and the baking soda, then I added the salt. After that I combined the dry-mix with the wet-mix. At that stage I notice some bubbles in the batter which was a good sign I believe. I put the batter into my muffin form and baked it approx. 20 minutes at 180 °C.
It is allowed to post recipes, there is a question on meta about that. Posting recipes can help to troubleshoot things, so go ahead.
OK, the recipe is for 12 muffins - but are you sure that the recipe writer expected such unusually high tops? See also that the answer you linked to says "they're not supposed to double in size like bread" and a comment below notes that a recipe for 24 muffins should be baked in 17 hollows to get high tops.
No I am not sure about the high tops. But how to make 17 Muffins out of the same amount of batter? I mean of course I have to fill the form really really full, but actually I already filled them to the top, so how is this supposed to work? Does this guarantee high tops?
If the muffins have a slightly chemical flavour, it could be that there is not enough acid in the recipe to react with all the baking soda. Bananas do contain malic acid and citric acid but you could try adding some lemon juice to be sure. You could also play around with the proportions of baking powder to baking soda. Try 1 1/2 tsp baking powder and just 1/2 tsp baking soda.
I also notice that the muffin in your picture looks slightly anaemic compared to your ideal muffin. Get an oven thermometer if you don't already have one and check that the middle tray of the oven is reaching the correct temperature.
Did you preheat the Oven?
At our facility we preheat to 400F then lower to 360F just as soon as we close the door. Why? Muffins do not rise enough (we feel) in a warm oven. The time the oven door is open also cools the oven itself 30-40 degrees. So we preheat, then it's at the right temp as soon as the door is closed.
We try to cook fast in a hot oven rather than slow in a warm oven. You have to achieve the chemical reaction part rather quickly or it fizzles out.
That is only one of many reasons for small round tops, as you're finding out. Here is another article that may also help the train of thought.
As others have suggested, try pre-heating your oven. You also seem to be using a lot of butter, you could try reducing it.
There's nothing shocking with your recipe. I made banana muffins daily for two years in University and I used a ratio of 400g/200g/100g flour/butter/sugar and mine were perfect almost every time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.970661
| 2012-07-02T20:08:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24807",
"authors": [
"Dorit",
"Mien",
"Mohamed Taha",
"Sven",
"Teresa A Brandt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65116",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90020
|
Cleaning plastic bags used for sous vide
I am using this kind of vacuum bag for sous vide. They work perfectly but recently I have been having a problem cleaning them.
I let them sit for a few days after using them without cleaning them, because I was too lazy - no excuses here.
Then I got to scrubbing. I scrubbed them thoroughly with dishwashing liquid and even though they were completely clean they still smelled foul. So I scrubbed them again with antibacterial soap, thinking bacteria began to thrive from the decomposing meat and somehow clung to the bag, but they still smell bad.
Before I used to use the same kind of bag but bought from a different seller. The "model" was exactly the same, save that both sides of the bag were smooth. The ones I am currently using have one of the inside sides sort of "ribbed" with tiny horizontal and vertical grooves. I had no problem cleaning my old bags but now I can't seem to be able to get rid of the smell of these ones.
The smell wouldn't be bothering me so much if I knew it was safe to reuse them but I'm thinking it might harm the food if I cook it in them.
Am I correct in assuming so and, in either event, how should I get rid of the smell?
Just to be clear my main point is I am asking how to best clean my bags not if it's safe to reuse them.
90% of the time I use zip style bags, the other 10% I vacuum seal. I don't reuse...not for safety reasons, but because it is a p.i.t.a. I see your link, they look reusable, but I wouldn't leave them unclean for any length of time. I am also recalling a previous question on this topic...found it.
Possible duplicate of Is safe to reuse plastic bags used for sous vide
@moscafj : not an exact duplicate, as there's the variable of leaving them dirty for days before trying to clean them
Also worth mentioning that the texture of the bag might make it harder to clean, but they exist so it's so that when you place a cut piece of meat down on the bag it's less likely to form a suction and trap air bubbles or prevent marinades from getting to it. (when I used to do vacuum bagging for composites, we'd put down a layer of non-woven fabric down to prevent the air bubble issues)
@moscafj, thank you but I am asking how to clean them thoroughly and if the smell is a bad indicator, not whether it is safe to reuse them. Although you could look at it as if I am asking if the bags in my current state are safe to reuse, the linked question is for their general reusability.
@J.Doe FWIW, smell is not a reliable indicator of safety.
@moscafj, I thought a foul smell was a good indicator for things being unsafe.
@J.Doe there are many unsafe food situations that do not smell...and sometimes unsafe food products smell foul....it's simply not a reliable way to assess food safety....also see the answer below about lingering odors in food containers.
I agree with @moscafj's answer to the linked question. As long as they are thoroughly washed and dried, the bags should be safe. However, you are still left with the smell.
Some plastics will absorb odors and it can be quite unpleasant. My go to for any issue with odors in plastic is baking soda. It works well in absorbing these odors and getting them out of the plastic material.
I would suggest placing some baking soda inside the bags and closing them up. Let them sit for a few hours or overnight. Discard the baking soda, then rinse well and dry thoroughly. If there is a small amount of residual odor, you can repeat the process. At the most, twice should definitely take care of it.
I will certainly try that and comment to say how it went. :)
Sorry to say the baking soda didn't help much. :(
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.971046
| 2018-05-27T18:43:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90020",
"authors": [
"J. Doe",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89619
|
Additional dipping sauces for cheese fondue?
I have the fondue set pictured below (picture is of the box of the set):
I will be using it for the first time and see that on the picture of the box there are saucers with additional sauces/dips. I was wondering if this is really done for cheese fondue and what sauces would be appropriate for it?
Hello, and welcome to Seasoned Advice. Might those sauces be used when the unit was used for an oil-heated meat fondue?
@DanielGriscom, that's what I'm trying to find out. There isn't an instruction or anything just this picture on the box.
But you asked about Cheese Fondue; are you instead asking about either?
@DanielGriscom, I'm asking if such additional sauces/dips are served with cheese fondue or not.
I haven't heard of it; perhaps someone else will step in.
I was taught to make cheese fondue in Switzerland and also have a fondue cookbook and I've never seen or heard of sauces being used with cheese fondue. I would fill the containers with bread for cheese fondue, sauces for meat fondue and fruit and cake for chocolate fondue.
I'd second that.
Additionally I've heard of (crazy) people trying to do a "healthier" cheese fondue by using vegetables instead of bread.
I've never tried it myself as I love bread far too much :)
No extra sauces for cheese fondue. Though it is common to have cornichons, pickled small onions and other pickles, as well as bacon, ham and whatever you like with melted cheese on the table. Not in the fondue! Some people like to use vegetables instead of bread, which I find a bit risky as you don't want lost pieces of such in the fondue. But you can have them on your plate and cover them with melted cheese if you like.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.971498
| 2018-05-05T21:05:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89619",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"J. Doe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66976",
"yetanothercoder"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90045
|
Homemade Marinara Sauce: Shelf-Life and Reheating Question
I just made marinara sauce yesterday, sauced some pasta with some and put the rest in a mason jar. How long can I expected this to stay fresh? It's completely sealed-off in a mason jar, I used canned tomatoes and fresh ingredients to make it.
Also, was just making some fresh pasta and accidentally pre-heated all of the marinara in the microwave enough that it began steaming: can I seal-off any that I don't use and save for a later date?
For reference, Marinara and/or Tomato Sauce is not listed in the "storage guide."
Sealed and stored in the fridge?
If you've left it out it's already spoiled. If it's in the fridge then look at the link @moscafj posted.
Doesn't list anything for tomato sauce or marinara. Didn't leave it out, had it in the fridge, but heated it all up in the microwave, didn't use it all. Can I put the remainder back in the fridge?
The dupe target lists "cooked dishes", your sauce falls under them. In general, we don't repeat the same basics of food safety (including reheating, shelf life etc.) every time a person wonders about these, because the volume is easily larger than all other questions combined, and the answer boils down to a few very general rules, which are intentionaly easy to apply. If you never read those official rules, we have a summary of them under https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.971666
| 2018-05-29T00:55:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90045",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"GdD",
"dre",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67369",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117670
|
Cooking liquid in oven turns crispy skin soggy
A few recipes I have tried calls for some liquid, typically a ladle of stock or broth, to be added to the baking tray before placing into the oven to finish the cooking process. (To assist in cooking the protein, not crisping the skin)
For example, a pan roasted chicken thigh is pan fried quickly to colour the skin before placing into the oven, skin side up (bottom and inside basically raw)with a ladle of stock. 15 minutes later, the chicken is cooked nicely but the skin is not crispy.
I have my oven set to 200 degrees celsius fan assisted. I suspect its all the water vapour inside the oven preventing the skin from becoming crispy as when I open the oven door, a large cloud of steam is released. What could I do to fix this?
Another example would be when roasting a belly pork with crackling. The belly sits on a rack above a tray of water. When the pork cooks the juices collect into the water below in order to make a gravy afterwards, but the skin isn't always as crisp as I hoped.
If you want crispy skin don't add liquid to the pan, I don't know why a recipe would call for a ladle of stock to crisp up the skin because it would have the opposite effect. Steaming before baking is a method used for making crispy chicken wings, but with that method you pat the wings dry before you bake them as moisture will prevent them from crisping up.
I love crispy chicken skin, and it's easy to achieve in a dry oven. I rub the skins of the pieces with a bit of oil, then sprinkle with salt and spices before baking them in a 200°C (395°F) fan oven for 35 minutes. It works every time.
The purpose of the liquid was not stated to crisp up the skin, but another example would be making crackling with a large piece of belly pork, and a tray of water to collect the roasting juices for making a gravy afterwards
I'd agree with the other answers - adding liquid won't really aid crisping of the skin, if you are using the pan fry and then roast/braise technique that you describe (which I do like, and often use) I'd make sure that the skin is really crispy and browned in the initial pan fry (that's basically the point of that first step) - it might take up to ten minutes, but I generally find if the skin is properly cooked then, it doesn't get soggy in the second step.
The great thing about the technique is that its easily adjustable to basically any flavour combos, the braise is more for flavour/gravy rather than cooking - as Kenji covers here - note he also mentions early on the importance of thorough cooking of the skin and to keep the liquid level low enough to make sure you avoid this exact issue.
If you don't want the sauce/gravy with the chicken then cooking dry in the oven is the way to go.
The only possible reason I can think that someone might suggest adding the liquid could aid crisping of the skin is that it essentially means you can roast the skin & top of the thigh, whilst the meat underneath is braised. The braising liquid insulates the flesh and allows that to cook more gently whilst the skin at the top is subjected to the higher, drier (of not fully dry) roasting heat - but even with this guess, I wouldn't recommend it as a technique if the goal is purely crispy skin (if that's your only goal, then dry roasting is better).
I think you might be correct with the last part about braising the underside of the meat, as the majority of the cooking is on the skin side, the non skin side only sees a flash of heat before going into the oven. If this is the case, around how much liquid do you recommend adding? I would also assume that means I should crank the oven up to the highest?
I'd be sure not to add so much level such that it comes above the skin you want crispy - appreciate on thighs the skin often wraps all the way around, so I guess about 1cm? Personal preference on that as to how much crispy skin you want on top (everything submerged won't be crispy). And yes, I'd have thought that technique is most effective with much hotter ovens, so crank it up!
My method for roasted chicken with crispy skin on the outside and moist, tender flesh on the inside is to sprinkle desired spices on top of the skin with a bit of cooking spray and roast for 1.5-2 hours at 375 F (190-200C) uncovered. I think the length of time roasting makes a big difference and the chicken comes out delicious with crispy skin every time. ( This is for chicken thighs and legs on the bone. For chicken breast on the bone, I would reduce the cooking time by half hour at least) If you are still not obtaining the desired results, I would increase the temp and lower the cooking time. The large cloud of steam is from the water and I believe you are correct - the chicken will not become crispy with all of that humidity. Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.971852
| 2021-10-29T02:47:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117670",
"authors": [
"Diu.Lei",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90957",
"rhinds"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110340
|
I am canning quart jars of tomato sauce and heard a few "pop" before pressure was reached; is this ok
Is it okay if my lids "pop" before pressure cooking is finished
Did you hear the "pop" from the jars while they were in the hot water bath?
That means the jars have been sealed, however it’s just one of the safety measures of pressure canning. The other function of pressure canning is to kill the pathogens by exposing the food to high temperatures for a certain time. You should complete the full process to achieve food-safety.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.972291
| 2020-08-22T20:15:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110340",
"authors": [
"Brian K1LI",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73476"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92995
|
Vinegar Smell from Sourdough Starter
I am in the process of creating my sour-dough starter.
I've been mixing in water and "strong bread flour" around a 1:1 ratio (100g of each, slightly more water to make the mixture wetter).
The mixture sits on the side between feeds (approximately every 24-36hrs), and has bubbled up, as can be seen on the side of its home (a cleaned out old 1ltr ice cream tub).
However in the last couple of days, I've noticed a distinct vinegar smell coming from it, and it seems to slightly separate: brown-ish water layer and a thick dough layer.
Do I need to worry? I could have contaminated it, as the kitchen is always all over the place. And the feeds are supposed to be every 24hrs or more often according to online sources, so I may not have fed it often enough.
I'm in the UK, so 15-20C in the kitchen.
TL:DR - vinegar smell from sour dough, is that a problem?
The vinegar smell is an indicator that your sourdough is growing up in a too cold environment. Without diving into the details of the various lactobacillae found in the average sourdough cultures, the simple rule is that a cooler environment favors the strains that produce more acetic acid while warmer temperatures are better for the production of lactic acid - the former being the acid in vinegar and the latter the much milder acid known from fermented milk products.
As immediate measure, find a warmer place for you starter. Caveat: warmer temperatures will also mean more yeast activity, i.e. more bubbles and in the worst case, a tendency to creep out of the container, so leave enough room just to be sure.
The separation of layers is a sign that the microorganisms in your sourdough are starving - which can coincidally favour the slightly more robust acetic acid producing strains. Once your starter has been somewhat established, meaning you get a reliable activity after each feed, it’s better to learn from your dough which feeding cycle works best. Remember that feeding simply means supplying a certain number of microorganisms with food so that they can multiply. Warmer temperatures will also increase their growth rates, so you should take that into account.
Depending on the ratio of (starter) : (flour and water), feeding time can be every few hours or once every day and a half. Ideally you start with a chosen ratio and measure the time until it just starts to collapse again. This is the ideal feeding time. (measuring means you don’t have to rely on visual clues alone, but get an idea when to plan the next feeding.) If you have a very active starter, you’ll probably want to reduce the amount of starter for a given amount of flour and thus extend times between feedings. Do not go below 10% of starter or you risk spoiling: There won’t be enough sourdough microorganisms to keep the nasty kinds in check for sure.
Sourdough is a combination of yeast and bacteria. And the bacteria is responsible for the lactofermentation creating lactic acid. If you’re getting a sour smell like sour-milk or yogurt then that smell is expected.
Are you sure you’re not confusing it with lactic acid?
If you’re sure however you’re smelling vinegar; that must be acetic acid. The yeast in sourdough will produce some alcohol together with CO2; and that alcohol might ferment into acetic acid by some other fermentation process which is active in vinegar making, but not desired in sourdough fermentation.
In that case, you should start from scratch and prevent the surface of the dough from flies (lay a cheesecloth etc on the fermenation bowl, so it can still breath). As some flies are known to carry the bacteria for acetic acid fermentation, which is a nightmare for brewers.
That ist not correct in a minor detail which has an impact on your conclusion: the acetic acid is not a result of fermenting alcohol (from the yeast part), but depending on the bacteria strains they will be producing lactic and acetic acid. The presence of a vinegary smell is not an indication of an unwanted fermentation or contamination.
Yes, smells I guess depend a lot on the smeller, but sourdough bread always smells like vinegar to me. Perhaps Puffafish is on that same wavelength smell-wise.
@LorelC. if you are talking about the San Francisco Sourdough types, that’s to be expected: L. sanfranciscensis producing lactic and acetic acid and makes for rather “vinegary” dough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.972384
| 2018-10-17T13:06:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92995",
"authors": [
"Lorel C.",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83874
|
How to prepare rice in a very real emergency - no boiling (no electricity or alternatives)?
Earthquakes and typhoons are as plentiful as rice where I live.
The power distribution system is incredibly sturdy here and power outages tend to be managed well, though they happen.
Many people keep a nice supply of rice on hand, but only have electricity for cooking and have no access to gas. For these people (me included) if there is an extended power outage, the main source for calories (rice) can not be cooked.
In the very unlikely situation where no way to boil water is available, is there any possible, known way one could prepare dried rice so that it could be safely eaten for its nutritional value?
note: I understand that one could build a fire, but really that's impractical in large apartment buildings.
This is my first question here and I understand it's a bit unconventional, I've asked Zero gee rice cooker? How would that work? elsewhere for example. But this is meant to be a very serious and practical question. Help with tags is appreciated. Thanks!
Rice milk or horchata might be worth looking into. The nutritional values will be low but non-zero
@canardgras good point, didn't know it was made with raw rice.
@moscafj I see what happened; I misread one word of your earlier comment, seeing is available where you actually wrote is unavailable. I've edited the question and cleaned up comments. Thanks for your help!
As an additional way to save limited cooking energy, note that your rice needs not to be boiled all the time until done. Our great [...] grandmothers would have brought the pot with rice and water to a roiling boil, then placed it into an insulated container or simply put it into the bed and covered it with the (feather) duvet. A few hours later, the rice was ready to serve.
@Stephie I think that's a very good point! It has to stay hot for X minutes, but not necessarily actively boiling. To save on fuel, bring to a boil and then just insulate the heck out of it.
@uhoh works for other food as well, btw. I think if you add beans or lentils to your emergency supply of rice and prepare them by the same method, you will actually be pretty close to a balanced meal, considering the circumstances.
One way is to cook rice dry, like by baking or just dry heating and stiring, then grind into power, before storage, rather than store it raw as a grain. Then it could be eaten after mixed with water and rolled into a ball (or more water and make it a porridge). This is very common in Tibet, but the grain used is a mixture of rye and rice, while the liquid is milk and tea. Butter, poppy seeds, and other grains are also common.
I tried out the method mentioned by @Stephie some time ago to make soup. When the water that contained bones, meat and vegetables was boiling I put the pot in my bed and covered it with the duvet. And actually after some hours the soup was ready and the met was soft. The pot and its content was still very hot.
If you have plenty of Typhoons and Earthquakes: wouldn't it be a good idea to have a gas cooker at hand with some reserve fuel?
@eckes yes indeed, one would certainly think so! But not everybody thinks the same way as you or I, and there may be several other reasons why not every household in a region is well stocked with emergency supplies including poverty, frugality, superstition... Nonetheless I found this to be an interesting "what-if" question to ask.
There is no way to prepare the rice without heating. If you don't have a heat source, your stored raw rice is almost useless. I say almost, because in an emergency, raw rice is preferable to eat over things like cardboard or shoe leather or leaves of unidentified plants, but in anything short of a starving scenario, it is not suitable for eating.
You can consider ways to prepare the rice first and store it, then eat that when the emergency happens. Pressed cakes of puffed rice are a modern option, but I am pretty sure there must be durable breads made from rice flour too. The results are shelf-stable and can be kept for years as an emergency supply.
Another solution would be to store a camping gas stove and use it for cooking during an emergency. Then you can prepare your rice. This can present some practical problems though (will users remember to not use them inside, are you allowed to store gas where you live, do you have the storage space for a sufficiently large gas bottle to cook for a family for several days).
In challenging circumstances, having the ability to boil water has several benefits besides cooking rice. A small gas-powered cookstove (butane or something similar) sounds like a really excellent piece of equipment to have around.
Do not eat raw rice, you might get very ill. From LiveStrong:
Lectin is a protein that serves as a natural insecticide with a strong affinity for carbohydrates. Found on uncooked rice and beans, this protein is one of the top 10 causes of food poisoning and can lead to nausea, diarrhea and vomiting when eaten in abundance.
White rice contains less lectin than whole grains, but why take the risk.
There are also Bacillus Cereus which is a bacteria that can be poisonous in a similar way and cellulose which is indigestible fiber. All of these make cooking rice a very important step for consumption.
Even if you wanted to ferment it, you'd still have to cook or steam it first. So I'd say you either pack pre-cooked rice or choose something else to eat.
On another hand, if you have access to electricity you can cook your rice in the microwave almost the same way as with conventional heat. Add rice and water to cover in a microwave-safe container, put a lid on it (leave a small opening so steam can escape) and turn it on for 10 or 15 minutes.
Yikes! This is good to know, thanks. I wonder what happens to the lectin when cooking. Most of the rice I see here seems to be ready to cook.
lectin is a protein, so heat will probably break it down into more digestible bits or make it inactive
Just wondering if it can be cold cooked by acid pickling?
OTOH: gathering a little wood, or other simple fuel (even debris of damaged buildings) and making a small campfire between two bricks is perfectly sufficient to cook a small pot of pretty much anything. It takes the type of emergency like getting buried under a building for this not to be an option, and in that case lack of water will be a much more serious concern.
Of course, folks not used to cooking on fires will probably manage to have one get out of control, and the fire department may not be all that functional or able to reach the area, leading to further post-disaster problems...
The answer as as you've seen from the others is "no." But since you are preparing for it then a simple inexpensive camp stove that runs on propane, butane, or liquid fuel is good for an emergency kit. The small ones for backpackers are very small and easy to store in house or car. Get a good pot and lid to make it work most efficiently.
Pro for jet stove: small & cheap.
Con: fresh air/ventilation required, flames make fire (though some have a safety shut off if knocked over).
Other choices for an all around power outage kit could be an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) battery (though running a cooker would require a large, expensive one) or building a 12 volt system: a deep cycle battery, LED lights, charge phones, and 12v burners, stove, rice cooker, whatever you want. The battery and maintenance charger will cost some money, $100 USD or so depending on the size needed to meet your needs. The cookers are not expensive, but I'd test them to make sure they'll work for your needs.
Pro: All around solution for cooking and lights, radios, charge phones, etc. Can be solar charged.
Con: Requires some electrical knowledge and setup, expensive (about 300USD for all around system), bigger/heavier/less portable.
Update: since looking into this question I discovered more: lectin in the rice and other agglutinins have been increased in modern rice varieties, which have had their natural antibacterial and anti-fungal properties engineered to be stronger (fewer pesticides, longer shelf life); they rely on full high heat cooking for edibility and safety.
The UPS is really a DIY answer. I've asked what to do if boiling is not an option, and you've told me how to boil. As far as gas, I think something like this link is a little better for family/home use. Considering the possibility of aftershocks, I'd rather have something with a low center of gravity that won't tip over in an earthquake, burning me with scalding water before setting my place on fire: http://www.wokshop.com/HTML/products/steamers/steam_hp_portablestove.html
Good thought and there are arrangements where the gas bottle is attached by a hose so it can sit low. Also, small briefcase size butane stoves are cheaply available these days.
Just saw that you linked such a device!
I did say the answer was NO. Except you could grind it to a flour and drink it. Probably best to let it sit for a while and strain it. Lectin, cellulose, and bacteria can make people sick, things that cooking takes care of.
Even in Asia, I'm sure you've heard of Minute Rice which is a brand name of instant rice. Instant rice is rice that's already been cooked and then had the water removed (dehydrated). It tastes pretty bad/bland unless you're someone who was raised on it. A person is meant to add boiling water to it, stir and cover (without cooking it) and it's supposed to be reconstituted in a minute or less.
Since it's already cooked, the boiling water is only meant to make it hot for eating. Cold water would also work but take longer to rehydrate.
You can make instant rice yourself, dehydrate it and properly store it for emergencies. You'd need to make sure it's throughly dry before storage and that your containers are completely water and air tight. A glass container with a snug lid would suit but I'm not sure if glass containers might not be broken during a catastrophic event. Metal or very good quality plastic would be safer.
I'd not plan on storing your instant rice longer than a year (or less) but then most food stored as emergency supplies need to be cycled yearly. Since instant rice doesn't have the best flavour, I'd use the old supplies to make congee where long cooking is best for it anyway. This site explains how to make your own instant rice.
http://thehomesteadinghippy.com/make-instant-rice/
I don't have a dehydator but I use my oven to dry herbs. The oven setting doesn't go below 200° F (94-5° C) but I found that using a 100 watt incandescent bulb instead of the oven light bulb and leaving it on brought it close to the temperature a dehydator gives. I'd stir the rice around every few hours to make sure it dried evenly.
This is about the best solution to eating rice without any means of cooking it. Maybe not ideal but enough to provide your needs in an emergency. Instant rice only takes up a little more space than dried raw rice. You might even look into getting some of those food-safe silica gel packs for food products to absorb any moisture to be extra safe and add them to each container in storage.
Edited for further cautions
It doesn't matter how much food you have to eat if your water supply isn't safe. A suggeston I read years back given by the UN has stuck with me so I did some digging to find it in order to provide a credible reference. You can sterilize your emergency water supplies without boiling or treating it with bleach or iodine as long as it's sunny.
Since the information is I'm a PDF file, I'll give the link but summarize it here. Essentially, the UV rays from sunlight will kill any pathogens present. If contaminated with chemicals from a spill, I won't work, of course. Containers used need to be clean and be clear plastic. Used pop or water bottles work well. Please look over the link given to find the simple steps needed. In many places in the world, safe water is hard to come by and even clean water can be germ-laden. This method ensures almost anyone can have access to safe water. In extremely dire circumstances, muddy water could be filtreed through cloth a few times and let stand to take the clear water off and then sterilized. Water can mean the difference between life and death. One should always be prepared for the worse case scenario.
Water Sterilization link
Household Water Treatment and Safe - World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/household_water/resources/emergencies.pdf
I am not sure I believe that a plastic bottle will transmit sufficient UV to sterilize a few liters of water like that, even if there is one WHO web site that seems to says so. I'd like to see some scientific verification. About the minute rice, the whole point of the question is how to eat what is already plentifully available everywhere; normal rice! I think a good separate question might be asked about preparing emergency food, if it hasn't been asked already.
A parabolic rice cooker. You can make one at home using aluminum foil to create a reflective surface:
Video on youtube using a parabola and a pressure cooker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyIT_iAtpH4
Yes. But first, you must grind the rice until it turned into powder. Then put a bit of water, just enough to make it like you are making a bread. Then let it ferment, slice like a bread, put in a flat wood or anything you can find that is clean enough to set it. Then let it sit under the sun for awhile. Couple of hours will do.
that's interesting... does this have a name?
Can you offer more details on how to do this, or a link that provides more detail?
Rice uncooked is not the best to eat for health reasons. But I have seen the very poor. Grind it between 2 flat rocks. Add water & let set for 2 hours before eating. Or make a rice mush this way over a fire of scrap plastic bottles & such. In a tin can. Not the best but you do see such in 3rd world Countries. That is Hunger. So how hungry are you at the time? Raw rice can be ate. On the other hand you have not led a life to adapt to such in life. So not cooking rice may prove fatal to some.
I had one idea - though it's not very practical.
I know rice can be cooked, specifically popped, with heated sand - I've seen it done. So no boiling water required. (salt may be an alternative to sand, but that's speculation). It may be that soaking the rice beforehand will produce something closer to puffed rice, if the moisture will start to steam the rice before it dries out and pops/puffs - though that might also let sand stick better to the rice
The sand is usually heated with a fire, or some other heat source with which you could directly boil water. Even if not, that heat source - or the hot sand - can probably be used to heat up other things (rocks, etc) which can be used to indirectly boil water. So, fireless and waterless preparation is a very contrived situation.
If you wanted to try anyway, I would think it would work best with very dark sand - I know colored sands are available for craft purposes, though I don't know how food-safe they are. And to use it, solar heat seems like the best choice absent fire, electricity or other alternatives. If the sun is very strong, a thin layer may soak up enough heat to pop the rice (aka fry-an-egg-on-the-sidewalk heat). The heat may be concentrated with magnifying glasses or other lenses (even clear water-filled containers, aka plastic water bottles, supposedly), or with mirrors or other reflecting surfaces.
Of course, this is basically a solar cooker, and can almost certainly be set up to heat water or cook other kinds of foods. Or possibly start a fire, with which you can boil your water.
I think that popping needs much higher temperatures than frying an egg, and you are unlikely to get them from solar heated stone. Even if it did, I wouldn't try to use it in a survival situation.
@rumtscho - yeah, I said it probably isn't practical, but when I remembered the possibility it seemed too interesting not to mention. Not to mention in a survival situation one would almost certainly willing to go with any of the alternatives that do result in boiling water, so impractical solution for unlikely situation.
Rice is a well known desiccant, so it's always tricky to keep rice safe and dry. And also it's not recommended to can rice as well. However, shelf-stable rice products are available on the market. It might need some tooling and extra ingredients, but it should be possible to create shelf-stable rice portions at home.
I believe the commercial producers follow a similar process to canning and they make sure they acidify the product (most probably using lactic acid) in order to make it shelf-stable.
I'm not an expert on food safety, so I won't be giving a recipe and I never recommend getting a recipe online as well. Food preservation is a serious matter, and should be approached with utmost care and the guidelines should be strictly followed.
I believe that rice is not a very good desiccant at all, I think this comes from an urban legend about fixing your phone if dropped in water; 1, 2, 3. Personal experience + everyone I know + internet indicates that common varieties of white rice are just fine sitting in a bag for years, as long as you keep the bugs and mice out.
Storing Rice: How Long Does Rice Last, Cooked and Uncooked? and Does Uncooked Rice Ever Go Bad? and 16 Indestructible Foods That Would Outlast The Apocalypse
Of course you can store "dry" rice for a couple of years. But after that it will no longer be dry.
Yes, it's not a very good desiccant (and I had no such claim), but it's a desiccant after all... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27869510
I also recommend looking into academic sources on long-term storage of rice as well, general recommended practice is to use oxygen absorbers https://extension.usu.edu/foodstorage/howdoi/white_rice
Oh that's interesting; okay I'm going to look into this further, thanks for the link! The abstract doesn't mention a control (e.g. sand, or even nothing) but tomorrow the libraries will open (lunar new year shuts everything down for a week here) and I can have a look.
a quick google search yields this poster: http://www.lsl.usu.edu/files/Angela-Hayden-poster.pdf
I found this answer helpful, not sure why there was a down vote.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.972792
| 2017-08-24T06:49:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83874",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Hebekiah",
"Luciano",
"Megha",
"SF.",
"Stephie",
"canardgras",
"eckes",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"miracle173",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"uhoh",
"user3528438",
"zetaprime"
],
"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
}
|
113651
|
Are sprouting wheat berries safe?
I soaked some wheat berries for a bit more than 24 hours and now some white stuff comes out of it.
Is it safe if I boil and eat it as I usually do?
From healthline.com:
In one study, sprouting wheat increased the absorption of iron by over 200% ( 16 ). Sprouted grains are higher in several nutrients, including protein, fiber, vitamin C, folate and beta-carotene. In addition, sprouting decreases antinutrients, making the nutrients in the grains more readily available to your body.
From
Cultures For Health:
How to Use Sprouted Wheat Berries. Add to salads, soups, bread, and other recipes. Ferment sprouted wheat berries to make Rejuvelac. Transfer to soil and grow wheat grass for making wheat grass juice.
From
Kitchn:
Sprouted grains, like wheat berries and rice, are super simple, don’t require any major equipment, and are fun for both adults and kids to make. To make them actually sprout, the soaked grains are then rinsed, drained, and kept moist inside a jar for a period of 1 to 5 days. Sprouted grains are often eaten raw, lightly cooked, or ground into flour.
Seems like sprouted wheat berries are a common edible food.
Thanks, that’s the bit that makes it a good answer. (In fact, the last quote alone would be sufficient.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.974313
| 2021-01-08T14:59:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113651",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92940
|
What property does rice flour add to a shortbread recipe?
I bought a book with recipes for shortbread as I wanted to try making my own shortbread. However, most unusually (given its general availability in shops), many of the recipes call for rice flour in addition to wheat flour.
What would be the effect expected from rice flour in a shortbread recipe and is there a more commonly available substitute (I was thinking potato or corn starch, but I am unsure)?
There are numerous recipes also calling for corn flour or corn starch instead of rice flour; so you can substitute with any gluten-free and low-protein flour or starches (also potato starch). The idea, is pretty simple actually, cutting down the protein content of the mixture.
Considering there's a good amount of fat in the shortbread, it will inhibit the development of gluten.
Adding riceflour will help you utilize these two measures, in our battle against gluten development, resulting in moister and less chewy end results.
And please note that, afaik, the traditional recipe actually calls for oat flour. (which, i believe, is also gluten-free)
The purpose of the rice flour is to add starch without protein, thus reducing the overall protein content of the dough and making it "softer" and more tender. Its inclusion is traditional in some recipes, and older than you'd think (19th century). It's also supposed to make cookies "crisper", but I haven't observed this myself. There's a number of ways to work around this requirement if you don't have rice flour on hand. Note that all of these will change the resulting shortbread from the exact texture of the original recipe, but you might like the result anyway.
use all wheat flour, but use a lower-protein flour if you have it (e.g. "pastry flour" or "cake flour")
use another short flour in place of the rice flour, such as fine-ground corn flour or tapioca flour (not starch). This will change the flavor, but might be interesting.
use a pure starch to soften the flour, such as corn or potato starch as you suggested
For the last option, since those starches have no "body", I'd suggest changing the ratio. While cookie recipies may be up to 1/3 rice flour, a more reasonable portion of corn starch is 1/8th portion corn starch, as you would to substitute for cake flour.
Finally, note that if you can't find rice flour near you, you can make your own using a high-speed blender or a food processor and white rice. Might take a bit of work, depending on the amount you need, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.974449
| 2018-10-15T22:33:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92940",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109820
|
Sourdough Starter Very Runny
I think I'm having a problem making a sourdough starter.
I'm using the technique from King Arther Flour
I started with 113g of whole wheat flour and 113g of water.
Every day, I retained 113g of the starter and added 113g of AP flour and 113g of water.
On the third day I started doing that twice a day.
After a week, I went back to once a day.
It seems to be fermenting. It gets bubbly, has a fruity, sour, floury smell.
The trouble is, it is extremely thin. Like crepe batter thin.
It bubbles, but doesn't "double in size" because it's really really thin. It doesn't look like any of the pictures.
What am I doing wrong?
Edit to answer questions in comments:
I'm in Manhattan and it's been very warm lately. With air conditioning, I would guess room temperature is mid to upper 70s. Maybe warmer.
I guess the flour is coarse. I no longer have the packaging, but it's just whole wheat flour from the supermarket. Probably Gold Medal.
The starter doesn't rise at all. It's too thin to hold any kind of structure. It does bubble and what not, and develops a layer of hooch. There is clearly fermentation happening. There's activity within an hour of feeding.
The water is just cool water from the tap. It's NYC water with absolutely no chemical smell.
What temperature is "room temperature" where you are?
What kind of whole wheat flour are you using? Is it coarse?
In addition to the temperature and type of flour, how long does it take to rise? maybe there's just not enough yeast yet to rise a lot. What water temperature are you using?
Whole wheat flour is not the same as AP, at least not in my neck of the woods
@LucianoThe recipe says to start initially with whole wheat, then use AP for the feedings.
Actually, reading further on the link you provided I found this:
Why does this starter begin with whole-grain flour? Because the wild yeast that gives sourdough starter its life is more likely to be found in the flora- and fauna-rich environment of a whole-grain flour than in all-purpose flour. What if all you have is all-purpose flour, no whole wheat? Go ahead and use all-purpose; you may find the starter simply takes a little longer to get going. Also, if you feed your starter on a long-term basis with anything other than the all-purpose flour called for here, it will probably look different (thicker or thinner, a different color) and act differently as well. Not to say you can't feed your starter with alternate flours; just that the results may not be what you expect.
So perhaps your starter is just thinner because you're using AP flour. If you can, try to add rye or whole wheat to your feedings. That should make the starter stronger.
Another thing I'd try is to wait longer between feeding and check the starter's behaviour: how long does it take to rise? How much does it rise? Start feeding after the peak (when it starts going down) and see if that changes the behaviour. If you see hooch it's past feeding time, try to feed your starter sooner.
You can also try using less water (instead of 100% hydration lower it to 80%) maybe there's not enough gluten to keep a strong structure at a higher hydration level.
In any case, make sure you use water that is warm enough (24-30ºC) and be patient! It might take longer to get your starter stronger (it took me 2-3 weeks the first time, with the wrong kind of flour).
AP flour is specifically what's called for in the procedure. And the starter doesn't rise. It's too thin to have any kind of structure.
Seeing your edit I added a note about hooch, try to feed your starter before hooch forms.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.974655
| 2020-07-23T17:17:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109820",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"LightBender",
"Luciano",
"Misanthrope",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68612"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49251
|
How can I get gross, bloody stumps in my Halloween punch?
I like this for a Halloween offering.
The effect is achieved by filling a powder-free latex glove with water and freezing it.
I'd like to step it up a notch by making the hands look like bloody stumps. My punch is a great slimy green made with lime sherbet, and the hands themselves will be a touch brown. How can I make the wrists of the hands look like they've been chopped off with an axe?
Marzipan comes to mind. It is malleable and keeps form well and can be colored with any amount of chocolate powder to achieve the skin color you desire. The cut surface can be colored red (not sure what colorant to use) and the bone left uncolored.
@MischaArefiev That would be great if I were looking to put a lot of effort into it. I'm hoping to find something a bit simpler. I'll be refreshing the punch several times over three hours or so. I want to make a few hands and replace them as they melt.
Meat cleaver? You might try the latex glove trick, but with double strength gelatin and food colorings; before and/or after the jello sets.
What if you fill your glove with water, then tie off the opening as close to the hand as possible, and freeze it - then cover your frozen glove with another latex glove, cut little triangles or slits out of the wrist of the outer glove and dip them in a mixture of red gelatin (like raspberry or cherry) with a little water (enough to stick to the glove but not drip off) then freeze that. I'm thinking that the wrist shredding with gelatin might give the impression of a hand ripped from an arm. Plus the gelatin would dissolve slowly - maintaining the impression.
More answers! Fewer comments!!
Part of the problem with trying to do this is that you have to select something that's going to stand up to the liquid. I have a possible solution, but the problem is that the hand itself is going to deteiorate in the process.
Find a glove that's longer, so you have enough "wrist" to work with.
Insert two white plastic rods into the glove as the arm bones; Trim to length so youcan still seal the glove.
Fill with blood orange juice (not always the easiest thing to come by; I have to go to an italian specialty market that imports it) or cherry jello.
Freeze
Trim the glove to expose the wrist & bones.
If you can't find longer gloves, it might still be possible to make an enclosure to hold the glove upright while it freezeds. The problem is, you need to put enough pressure on the sides of the glove so that the palm doesn't balloon out too much. It might be easier to freeze the glove normally (with a weight on top to shape the palm), remove the glove, transfer it to a new one, drill to insert the 'bones', then freeze the 'wrist' portion in the new glove.
other notes :
it might be possible to add gelatin to the blood orange juice so it'll last longer; I don't know acidic the liquid can be for gelatin to still set. (do not use agar; it won't work).
as an alternative to the plastic bones, the only other thing that I can think of (other than using real bone), would be a panna cotta (milk jello) but maybe use coconut milk as it's a brighter white). But you want the bone to stay solid while the rest of the hand is deteriorating around it.
normally when you do this, the "hand" melts, but the glove still contains the liquid that was in it. In this case, as the wrist is exposed, the liquid is going to slowly leak out. For this reason, it might be good to fill the fingers with something solid (or test how quickly jello or similar hold up in liquids over time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.974948
| 2014-10-26T09:05:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49251",
"authors": [
"Caroline Toh",
"John Roberts",
"Jolenealaska",
"Laurie Rankin",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Spammer",
"Stephen Eure",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"caldersm44",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30421
|
Why does my lemon tart filling sometimes curdle?
My recipe, which is wonderful when it goes well is:
grated zest and juice of 2 lemons
142 mL double cream
6 oz castor sugar
4 large eggs
Whisk all ingredients together, then pour into pastry shell and top with a lemon and gin glaze..
The mixture sometimes curdles at the whisking stage and looks like scrambled egg, and looks as though the mixture is "cooking" in the lemon juice.
Why does this happen and what can I do about it?
Do you always combine the ingredients in the same order? Try adding lemon juice after stirring sugar into the eggs and cream.
RockyFord's comment has the heart of the matter, I think--the acid in lemon juice will begin to denature or curdle to the proteins in the eggs if it comes into direct, undiluted contact with them.
You can minimize this effect by beating together all of the ingredients except the lemon juice prior to mixing in the lemon juice. This will add a lot of sugar and milkfat which will buffer the interaction between the citric acid in the lemon juice with the egg proteins.
You can then bake your tart as normal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.975305
| 2013-01-26T13:24:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30421",
"authors": [
"Christian",
"Hexadecimal Hyuga",
"ParvBanks",
"RockyFord",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71071",
"umer abbasi",
"user71066",
"user71071"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35732
|
Shiraz / Persian / Wild Figs - How to eat them right? How to extract as much flavor as possible?
Today I was able to buy some dried Shiraz Figs (other names for them are simply Wild Figs or Persian Figs), looking like this:
Having heard great things about them I was very happy to try them, but to me they taste like a 'genereic' dried fruit, but maybe that's just because I don't know how to treat them right.
Is the whole fruit eaten, or only the dried pulp?
Is it common to soak them in water over night before eating?
Are there any good ways to extract their flavor, especially for use in pastry?
Regarding the last question: Will it work to cook them with cream and let that infuse for a few hours like it is e.g. done with vanilla pods? I am asking because there are some similarities, although vanilla pods aren't exactly dried fruits.
Actually, vanilla pods are exactly dried (and fermented) fruits of the vanilla orchid.
Shiraz figs are figs grown in Shiraz, much like Florida oranges are oranges grown in Florida. You use the Shiraz figs, in this case dried ones, as you would any other fig.
You can either eat the whole fruit, or peel them should you choose (that may be difficult with dried figs, but easier after reconstituting them.)
According to Health Food Made Easy:
Since it’s sometimes difficult to find fresh figs, dried figs are a
good option. They can be eaten as is for a sweet treat.
Dried figs can also be soaked to soften them, or cooked by themselves
or with any other dried fruits. They are good stewed, and are usually
sweet enough to require little or no sugar.
Soaking overnight will give them plenty of time to re-hydrate and plump up, should you choose to do so.
I have not heard of making homemade fig extract, or fig extract at all—but if you wish to try it, you would use essentially the same method used to make any homemade extract or liquer.
Cover the figs in vodka (or rum, but that brings the rum flavor), and allow to infuse in cool dark place for several weeks, shaking occassionally. This will be facilitated if you chop the figs prior to beginning the infusion.
You might also try making fig liquor, adding some sugar syrup to the infusion. You will find multiple recipes of you google; the linked one is only an example.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.975446
| 2013-08-01T18:42:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35732",
"authors": [
"David Ser",
"Howard Dare",
"Lukasz",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"WalterRamjet HeroOfOurNation",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83687"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24276
|
How best to store roast coffee beans?
Possible Duplicate:
Good ways to store coffee?
I opened a new bag of roasted coffee beans yesterday and put them in a plastic box - a box with a good seal, with clip-down sides. And I put the box in the cupboard.
Is there a better way to keep the beans? It'll take probably a few weeks for me to get thru the beans.
I heard that the cool of the refrigerator is good, but that the beans can get damp in the fridge. I heard the freezer is good, but I thought the same could happen…
How about this:
I was thinking of bagging the beans in portions of the amount I'll use each day. Putting the bags in the plastic box, and putting that in the freezer. Then each day I'd take out a portion of beans to defrost ready to grind the next day. I would use cheap bags, not freezer bags. The idea is that the bags might help because the beans wouldn't be exposed to air and possible moisture each time I open the box.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.975656
| 2012-06-07T14:22:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24276",
"authors": [
"Abdul Raziq",
"Chase Rocker",
"DAS COOL",
"Dan Temkin",
"Jiid",
"Matthew Sprankle",
"Paulette Mason",
"Sunita Chatterjee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55259",
"user55252"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90499
|
How can I keep my burgers flat?
I have tried to keep my burgers flat for a while but they always end up turning into a ball and I have to flatten them out as they cook, even tried the little hole in the middle of the patty but it doesn't work.
It's ground beef (90/10 angus beef) and I'm only adding salt and pepper before i shape them. I am doing 8 oz patties and grill at medium high temp.
Ok the inflation is gone, put no salt on it and added a bigger dimple. Now my second question would be, what can I do to keep the meat together?. Sometimes about 30% of the times it breaks a little from the sides.
The little hole in the middle of the patty thing is the accepted answer. The whole thing should be more or less concave.
Tried it but nothing they keep inflating like balloons. I compress them as much as I can too
you could/should invest in a cast-iron grill press (google it).
Does not happen to me. How are you cooking them? What size and weight?
Strange. Could you post pictures of raw patty and the ball. I get some shrinkage but never ball up.
How hot is the grill? (or whatever you're cooking them on?). I suspect that you might be cooking them over a really high heat, which can cause the outside to contract quickly but not the middle -- and a ball is the best surface to mass ratio. (and this is how my dad's burgers always turned out).
Actually i do them over a medium high heat when really busy, otherwise over medium heat. Usually cover them so the heat penetrates the inside as well.
please don't edit your question to add another question. Instead you can accept the answer that helped you the most, and ask a different question about the breaking.
Sorry, didnt know thats what I was supposed to do. Im new to this site and new to the blogging thing. Thanks for the advice.
@Elcubanitoese506 Welcome to Seasoned Advice. We do have a bit of a learning curve as we are a strict Q & A site, rather than a typical blog or forum found on the Internet. We readily welcome new users and hope that you (and others) will hang around long enough to get used to our format. You may want to take our Tour and visit our Help pages to learn more about how the site works. Both can be found under the question mark (?) dropdown at the top of the page. Again, welcome!
Thanks @Cindy I'll make sure to go over the help section when I get some more free time
Many chefs in the USA recommend pressing a large dimple in one side of the meat patty before cooking it on the nondimpled side first, to prevent the problem you are experiencing
Tried doing that still inflated
That and make the patties thinner and wider than you want them to end up.
I put a dimple the size of my thumbs which is what i was thought, tried putting no salt and the outcome was a lot better.
You shouldn't salt burgers before shaping; it tends to give them a sausage-like texture instead of a burger texture. (See, for example, this note from Cook's Illustrated). Salt the burgers, outside only, just before you put them on the grill.
I suspect that firmer texture probably makes the balling up problem worse, and that's why normal approaches like a thinner area in the middle aren't able to overcome it.
If you want the texture you get from salting them before forming, then you'll have to get a press (or re-purpose something as a press, small cast iron pan for example) or cook them with less heat (you could, for example, bake in a low oven or bag and sous vide them, then just brown over high heat).
I see thanks for the tip. How about pepper would it do the same?
@ArmandoMejide Pepper is fine, as far as I know.
Try a burger press, such a this one Burger and Meat Press with Wooden Handle available online at Home Depot.
To use, place on your grill to get warm, and then place on top of your patty while it cooks. They're made of cast iron, and have some weight to them, which makes keeping your patties flat pretty easy.
I would have to buy minimum a dozen of those lol, but thanks for the answer. I'll think about it.
@Elcubanitoese506 things like these and similar are failry standard issue at restaurants...
Not at the one I work at lol...
I make patties every few weeks and have resorted to freezing them before frying them on my outdoor flattop. I don't find that a dimple is needed if you're making smash-style patties.
My current method:
form 140g/5oz balls out of lean (11-17% fat) ground beef, ideally chuck, rib, etc.
press each ball between cut squares of parchment paper using a cast iron pan to get a .75cm or ⅓ inch thick patty (about 12-15cm / 5-6inches across)
freeze (30 minutes - 3 weeks)
I season the patties once I flip them the first time, and I cook them at 230C/450F on a oiled flat top.
The freezing is optional, but it produces a patty that doesn't fall apart when using leaner meat. The frozen patty takes 1-2 minutes longer on a hot flattop to cook, and the texture/flavour are not significantly changed. Using "regular" ground (18-25% fat) doesn't require the freezing step.
The chemistry of your "burger recipe" is affecting the physical 'cupping' action of the patty; as you explained here:
I'm only adding salt and pepper before i shape them
My question to add quality to my answer though, is, are you adding more salt to one side of the patty over the other? That could explain the cupping action. It is precisely like two dissimilar metals forged together and then heated again and then you notice the arching of the 'unified' piece of metal.
So, consider how you are seasoning the meat before cooking. Perhaps consider seasoning while you are cooking.
The only other option is the dead-weight/press that you see posted above; which does work well, but you are only countering the forces of the edge cupping upward (before being flipped).
I stopped salting it and turned out a little better than it was before, also im salting both sides the same
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.975803
| 2018-06-22T14:20:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90499",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Elcubanitoese506",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Max",
"Satanicpuppy",
"SnakeDoc",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67739",
"mrog",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99676
|
Problems with frying chicken...coating doesnt stick, and coating doesnt get crispy
Ive been trying to fry chicken in oil, but im running into issues with the coating.
Ive tried using a pre-made coating mix and flour. I coat the chicken in egg (which is supposed to help the coating to stick) then coat the chicken in the coating. But the coating struggles to stick to the chicken and falls off when i flip the chicken over. It also hardens and turns into solid pieces that stick to the bowl and which i cant use, which is a waste of the coating.
The coating doesnt get really crispy when I fry the chicken in oil either. It only gets mildly crispy, not like the crunchy type you get in restaurants or KFC's hot n spicy chicken.
The flour does get somewhat crunchier when fried though, compared to using the coating mix only.
Does anyone know why the coating mix/flour is struggling to stick to the chicken (even when I coat the chicken in egg first) and why its not getting really crispy?
Edit : Just tried to fry chicken again, didnt use egg this time. The coating didnt turn into hard pieces, but the coating didnt stick to the chicken. The flour/coating also mostly dissolved upon contact with the oil. Not sure what im doing wrong.
oh the trick is to first dip the chicken in flour, then egg, then coating mix. If you have some time, give the coating 10-15 seconds to settle while it's in your hand.
You also need to double fry the piece of chicken, start at a lower time until the chicken cooks, around 300, cool for 2-3 minutes, then turn it up to 375-425 depending on the batter until it's brown.
Just tried to fry chicken again, didnt use egg this time. The coating didnt turn into hard pieces, but the coating didnt stick to the chicken. The flour/coating also mostly dissolved upon contact with the oil. Think the egg making the chicken wet is causing the coating to turn into hard pieces and stick to the bowl.
try the flour -> egg -> flour, it really makes a difference, I have no idea why
One thing that worked for me is, using egg wash instead of egg (aka thinning the egg with a few tbs of liquid). The egg by itself was too thick, it clung to itself instead of sticking to the food so there wasn't enough remaining on the surface to keep the breading on.
I don't know if this will help crispiness - it might, having a better breading coat to begin with, and being able to fry it longer without everything falling off, or it might not depending on what the problem is.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.976429
| 2019-06-22T02:21:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99676",
"authors": [
"Kasumi",
"Question",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67778"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126490
|
How do I efficiently measure viscous ingredients?
I often find myself preparing certain foods that contain viscous ingredients like honey and tahini sauce. For instance, one of my dressings contains both of these, which I currently measure out in a large measuring cup before blending everything together.
The first difficulty arises once I have painstakingly measured out one item, say the tahini, and I then need to measure the honey. I could either estimate the amount of honey and pour it into the same measuring cup, or I could try to scoop out the tahini from the measuring cup, likely leaving a considerable amount of the stuff behind, wash the cup, and reuse it for the next item. Both options are less than optimal.
The next problem I encounter is with ingredients of which I need to add so little, that the lowest marking on my measuring cup isn't low enough to tell me how much of it I have added. Granted, it wouldn't be too big of a problem to estimate the amount of, say, olive oil I need to add to something. However, if I'm dealing with a spicy or otherwise particularly potent ingredient, then this would also be an important consideration.
Therefore, my question is whether there is a better technique or piece of equipment I could use to make working with viscous ingredients a little easier. My first thought was to search for 'cooking syringes' online, which I couldn't find. (Meat syringes came the closest, but this obviously isn't their intended purpose)
Per Sneftel’s link, you were very close with your search, what you may have wanted is “plunger measuring cup” instead of “cooking syringe”
I use some small spatulas that I got on Amazon. I have one that is a couple of inches long and about a half inch wide. That one works well for tablespoon/teaspoon sizes. Others a little bigger work well for measuring cups.
Agreed on duplicate. The answers to the other question answer this one.
Yes, there is a piece of equipment, it's called a "push out measuring cup". These are designed for gooey substances, like yogurt, peanut butter, honey, or caramel. There's also a mini one for smaller quantities.
A scale is the better (best) tool for the job. That way, you just need to place the bowl, pot, or pan directly on the sale. Zero it, and add your viscous ingredient. It is fairly easy to find gram or ounce equivalents for most items online, or by asking an Alexa, Siri, or Google. Bonus: no clean up of measuring cups or spoons!
+1. For dry, powdery substances like sugar or flour, the spoon/cup system might be slightly more convenient, but for pretty much everything else, weighing is far easier and more consistent.
@MaxD disagree. The amount of flour in a measuring cup can vary depending on how one scoops or pours....humidity can impact volume. Weighing, especially in baking, is always superior, both for convenience and accuracy. No spoons to find or wash. My scale is always on the countertop.
You can put the ingredient container on the scale and take out the required amount - that way, whatever is stuck to the spatula/spoon is accounted for. No waste. If the scale allows for it, zero the scale and the amount removed will be shown, albeit with a negative sign.
Measuring by weighing is an interesting approach that I would certainly prefer, given that I can find a reliable conversion factor for each ingredient online. For common items like olive oil or vinegar this isn't too difficult. The problem would come up when I'm dealing with a very specific item, or worse, if this factor is inconsistent between batches / types / sorts. A simple wikipedia search for honey reveals a range of densities that depends, among other things, on temperature.
@AndrewJackson it appears that the range of densities for honey is smaller than the actual measurement error from using measuring spoons. In the case of honey, measuring one with a density of 1.38 kg/L as if it was 1.45 would give you 1.05x as much honey. 5% more honey isn't usually significant, and it's very easy to measure 5% more just by overfilling your measuring spoon/cup by a tiny amount. The same applies to most substances you'd be measuring for cooking.
Moscafj's answer is the right one IMO.
However, an additional technique that works reasonably well for viscous sticky substances is to apply a fine coating of oil to the measurement implement before trying to scoop out the viscous/sticky substance. I usually use a drop of a neutral oil, such as canola, or even a tiny amount of butter. You do need to be careful to coat all surfaces (including the rim) that will come into contact with the substance to ensure that it won't stick anywhere.
You just then need patience to allow the substance to flow out of the measuring implement. Having things like honey or molasses warm helps with the viscosity.
Be warned that it'll only work for a couple of repeated measurements before you need to re-coat.
I appreciate the comment, but I'm skeptical for three reasons. Firstly, it would definitely have to be a neutral oil that won't noticeably affect the recipe you're following. But more importantly, I don't imagine that everything will freely separate itself from oil (and I'm not just talking about dry ingredients here). Moreover, I'm not sure that it'd help if I need the cup to get rid of 'lumps' in a mixture, as is often the case with tahini that has settled. I think it'll just make more of a mess.
@AndrewJackson It's literally a smear of oil. A small drop on a tablespoon, maybe 2-3 drops in a cup is enough. It works for most things in my experience; but I've not tried tahini. I'd presume that it won't work for things that contain a lot of oil already because they'll absorb the oil off the implement. Certainly works well for molasses, golden syrup, honey, glycerin.
A bit of a frame-challenge: Just measure by eye/feel.
Of course, this is context-dependent. In some settings (e.g. commercial or other large-scale kitchens, or for a few kinds of home baking) high-accuracy or high-consistency measurement really is important, which is much easier with a scale than by eye; in such settings, moscafj’s advice of measuring by weight is spot on.
But for most ingredients in most home cooking, high-precision measurements are a red herring — recipes are robust to small changes in proportions, and the imprecision in the measurement is small compared to the difference between different sources/brands/batches of an ingredient. For tahini, for instance, the difference between 100g from two different brands can be much more than the difference between 90g and 110g from the same jar, and measuring by eye can be at least that accurate, with just a bit of practice. And certainly, none of these will be the difference between a good and a ruined dressing.
So much of the time, in most home cooking, measuring by eye is just as good — don’t worry about the exact weight or volume, but measure as something like “three tablespoons of tahini”, saving the need for any kind of separate measuring receptacle.
You are absolutely correct here - given a decent recipe, small errors really shouldn't matter. I have two problems though: First and foremost, I'm a perfectionist . (I hope to get over it someday) Secondly, my recipes are not set - I have made them to evolve continuously. Each batch of something can be seen as an experiment and experiments only really mean something if you change as few factors as possible between them.
On that note, I’d be glad to share my recipes as they currently are - there are a few in which I would actually argue in favor of greater precision!
I find that slightly heating honey in the microwave lowers its viscosity. Same for refrigerated sauces.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.976654
| 2024-01-27T20:18:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126490",
"authors": [
"Andrew Jackson",
"Andrew Morton",
"Esther",
"FuzzyChef",
"MaxD",
"Steve Chambers",
"bob1",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128116
|
What is the way of drinking chimarrao correctly and easily?
I love yerba and tried to taste a new one for me - chimarrao (Brazilian yerba, very fine, nearly flour). Having looked at some videos, I tried teabags on bombilla, preparing it properly and tapping on it slightly before I pour hot water. But.. nothing helps. Very difficult to sip.
From soil physics, I understand that the cause isn't that the straw (bombilla) gets clogged with yerba fine particles, but probably because drinking yerba is a process of seeping through the wet environment. The finer the particles are, the more difficult it is to seep.
So the only way is stirring it, but if you stir it, particles come to your mouth with water. That's not good. Also stirring and disrupting the continuity of the yerba environment is prohibited.
Who knows the truth and the way? Any Brazilians here maybe?
Welcome to the Site. Just to be clear, since you never mention it directly: Your issue is, that the yerba particles get into the water, creating some kind of sludge, I assume?
Yes, they mix with water and create a kind of sludge, so it's normally that seeping is difficult. Not so with common types of yerba, as particles are much coarser. But somehow they drink it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.977567
| 2024-04-18T09:09:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128116",
"authors": [
"Nikolay Yasinskiy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81327",
"npst"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91827
|
Pros and Cons of Sourdough
What are the pros and cons of making bread at home using sourdough starter vs. commercial yeast other than cost?
I am NOT at all interested in the answers a Google search yields which all appear to center on health and digestive benefits of whole grains vs. refined grains. I am not asking that! Leave whole grains out of the discussion
Please also omit your perception/opinion that sourdough bread tastes 'better'? Taste is a matter of personal perception
Taste is a matter of opinion. Texture is a matter of opinion. Potential health issues are opinion, and many of us would not touch that subject anyway. You want answers, but in your question you say you do not want any of the answers you are likely to get which makes it fairly difficult to give feedback.
There are many bread recipes that use both sourdough starter and yeast. In addition to leavening, the starter provides additional flavor.
You've made it very clear what you don't want to know. Can you please clarify what you do want to know. Otherwise, as is, I will VTC as unclear what you're asking.
@Cindy What are the reasons to make sourdough vs commercial yeast? Any cost saving is minescule. The 1st 5 pages of a Google search only address the benifits of whole grains that can also be achieved with commerial yeast. Taste is too subjective. I've had breads stated to be sourdough that tasted good and others that were mediocre; the other ingredients count. So it comes back to, why go through all the effort? What are the reasons why one should bother?
I would suppose it's a matter of personal preference, what one likes and enjoys. E.g, it's like asking why should you go to the trouble of making a pasta sauce from scratch when you can just open a can or jar. For me, I enjoy creating my own sauces and I think they taste better than a jarred sauce. Others are quite happy not going to all the trouble and may be quite happy with sauce from a jar, or may even like it better.
I am sorry, but I continue to agree. The basic reasons are taste, texture, potential health/nutritional in favor of sourdough, convenience, time, effort, consistency in favor commercial yeasts. Maybe a few other thoughts that would also be opinions. You ask for pros/cons which will always be opinion based, and then said you do not want opinion answers and specifically not the ones that will likely apply. Some of these are things that better is opinion, but different is simply factual. Sourdough looking, tasting, feeling different is observable, which is better is opinion.
@dlb I’m bemused by the notion that commercial yeast is more convenient or less effort than sourdough. For me the only advantage of commercial yeast is speed. My sourdough takes a day, yes, but hands-on time is much less as I don’t knead the s/d. So you could have yeast bread more quickly, but it requires greater attention and is unforgiving if you aren’t able to tend to it at just the right stage.
If you leave out considerations for how things taste, I'd be at a loss to give you a reason why I'd have any kind of food, in particular. That's the only reason why I have sourdough.
Two pros: the ability for the baker to vary the taste, from imperceptibly sour to very sour (through the amount of starter and length of fermentation time). Also, whether made with whole grain or not, sourdough bread is healthier due to its low glycemic index.
Leaving out cost, how it tastes, and health/digestive benefits, I will contribute the obvious: that it is a whole lot more convenient to open up a packet of yeast and dump it in, than it is to coddle and maintain a finicky and needy sourdough starter continuously (especially if you end up making bread infrequently).
True, but sourdough has the advantage of not spoiling as quickly.
Yes? Well, I think this is the kind of input Cynetta wants to get: pros & cons.
My starter isn’t finicky and doesn’t need coddling.
@Spagirl - Are you claiming that you are a better sourdough parent than Lorel? Step back folks, it's ON!!
No, I’m just saying Loren is mistaken if they think all starters are finicky and require coddling.
@PoloHoleSet, Ha ha no, it is not "on". I don't have any sourdough starter at all, but from the questions people are constantly asking here: "Sourdough starter - Have I been doing it wrong?"; "Sourdough starter stopped growing, is it normal?"; "My overnight sour dough went slack, could my 'starter' have eaten too much gluten?"; "Question about new sourdough starter, specifically smell"; "Sourdough starter bubbling but not rising after months of feeding"; "Blue/green mold on sourdough starter"... and on and on, I really get the idea that sourdough starter is finicky and does need coddling.
Interestingly enough, the ones that are well maintained (consistently divided and fed when not being used) are the ones that will have the most consistent and reliable results. So, yeah, needy, but less fickle, in that case. :D
Sorry, I guess I should have said, "finicky or needy."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.977734
| 2018-08-21T17:21:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91827",
"authors": [
"Arlo",
"Cindy",
"Cynetta",
"Joe",
"Lorel C.",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Spagirl",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91820
|
Rack vs Baking Pan vs Roasting Pan and Position
What are the differences in cooking in the oven between putting the food directly on the rack, putting it on a baking pan, and putting it in a roasting pan?
How does the existence of metal under the food affect the food vs rack? Do the higher sides of the roasting pan make a difference over a baking pan? Do different types of surface/material make a difference?
While we're at it, do these vary with position in the oven (top, middle, bottom rack)?
I'm recovering from a surgery and we ordered some freshly prepared meals. Directions for Eggplant Parm said to place in 350F oven for 15-20 minutes. We placed in a roasting pan in case it bubbled over and it took a good 40 minutes. I'm wondering if the pan was the cause or just that the directions were terrible. The oven was properly preheated and while I've never checked the temperature of it, we use it regularly and have never had the same issues with time variation.
A higher-sided pan can end up holding more moisture in near the food, and prevent it from cooking up quite as quickly than in a sheet pan. This won't be as noticeable in a convection oven.
If something calls for placing it directly on the rack, it likely won't crisp up if you put it in a pan for this reason, as well as reflecting (shiny) or absorbing (dark metal) the radiant heat before it gets to the food. Glass dishes will let the radiant heat through, so the bottom will brown a bit better, but there's still the moisture issue.
If by 'roasting pan' you mean a rack suspended above a pan, then it'll be a little between the two -- you won't have the food necessarily steam underneath as much, but you still have a pan there to deflect radiant heat.
As for location in the oven, it'll often affect how quickly the top of the food cooks vs. the bottom. (closer to the top element means the top will cook more quickly)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.978178
| 2018-08-21T14:24:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91820",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104478
|
What can I add to lactoferments?
I love fermenting my own hot sauce and kimchi (sauerkraut). I’ve safely added all sorts of vegetables (carrots, garlic, onion, etc) but want to experiment with new flavors.
Can I put some fresh or dry mushrooms in a batch of kimchi? What about anchovies (not fresh, the salty kind packed in oil)
We ask that you limit your posts to one question. Perhaps edit? As for the last question, maybe leave the cabbage out...make garum. Plenty of advice on the internets.
@moscafj, removed the one about the limit of anchovies. Should I create a new question about anchovies and keep this one about mushrooms only?
I don't think we have any questions on the preparation of garum, if that is what you are interested in, and can formulate a specific question, it could be a helpful addition.
In The Art of Fermentation, Sandor Katz notes that he has fermented shiitake and some other mushrooms, but does not specify fresh or dried.
Christopher and Kristen Shockey, authors, owners of Mellonia Farm and the website Ferment Works, include a recipe for Pickled Shiitake in their book Fermented Vegetables that calls for dried shiitake. In the recipe notes they also suggest adding dried mushroom slices to sauerkraut.
Fish is often added to vegetables for kimchi, depending on the style of kimchi being made. Maangchi, cookbook author and blogger, has several recipes for kimchi, like Easy Kimchi with fish sauce and fresh squid and Traditional Napa Cabbage Kimchi with fish sauce and salted, fermented shrimp.
I have not seen recipes for oil-packed fish, but fresh, salt-packed, or dried anchovies would all be worth experimenting with.
I have heard of oil being used in certain applications in lacto-fermented vegetables, but I am not sure how an oil-packed ingredient would interact with the rest of the ferment. For example, I have read blog posts of people use a layer of oil on the top of their fermentation vessel as a type of airlock--the CO2 passes through the olive oil but oxygen cannot penetrate it. I have not used this method, though.
There are also traditional Indian pickles made in mustard oil in sunlight (whereas most lacto-ferments are kept out of direct light or even in darkness).
There have been cases of botulism forming in olive oils flavored with fresh garlic and herbs; botulism bacteria are introduced to the oil from the fresh produce and then thrive in the anaerobic environment of the oil. Acidification is required to treat the produce to prevent botulism. Lacto-ferments create an acidic environment unfriendly to botulism, so the situations are not identical, but caution should be used when introducing oil to lacto-ferments.
There are many recipes on the internet for lacto-fermented products. There are saurkrauts fermented with caraway and kim-chi and countless others.
I would avoid the oil containing products as I have never seen that in a recipe and think it would form a layer that cuts off exchange of gas, producing a potentially anaerobic environment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.978373
| 2020-01-01T20:00:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104478",
"authors": [
"Mohammad Athar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68844",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92160
|
Whisk that's made in china
I have a whisk that is probably made of metal, and it's made from China. I'm not sure if I should use it since it's red, and I don't know if it could be paint. Is there a way I could tell if it's safe to use? Because I'm afraid if it's paint it might fall of, which could be unsanitary.
Do you a picture...a point of purchase...a label? Many, many items are safely made in China and imported into the US.
...and Canada...
... and Europe! Actually all over the world except China! ;-) @moscafj
A whisk is cheap kitchen tool.
If unsure, just throw/recycle it away and get yourself a new one made from stainless steel wire.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.978629
| 2018-09-08T23:20:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92160",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91215
|
Comparing store-bought chopped garlic
When shopping for chopped garlic at my local grocery store, I noticed that although there were several brands there were basically two price points. Looking more closely, I saw that the less-expensive brands were all packed in olive oil while the more-expensive brands were not.
Does the fact that the garlic is packed in oil somehow relate to its quality and therefore price, or is the olive oil just an inexpensive filler that brings down the price per weight?
Edit
Brands and ingredients:
Botticelli and Badia:
Garlic, water, extra virgin olive oil, citric acid, sodium benzoate
Victoria:
Garlic, filtered water, phosphoric acid, xanthan gum, natural flavor
Bellino:
Natural garlic, water, phosphoric acid
I didn't see Joe's comment in time to check whether some are imported.
In my experience, for pure convenient garlic, frozen is best and cheapest, if you can find it... unless you actually want the oil.. ( that's why this is a comment, not an answer)
what were the other forms packed in? Perhaps you could link to brands
More likely, the price is based on where it's packaged, and the non-fresh garlic comes from somewhere other than the country you're living in
My question is why use preserved garlic when fresh garlic is so easy to get and store in the fridge? It's simple to peel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc7w_PGSt9Y and then you can smash the cloves with a large knife, then minced the smashed garlic. It's so much better when it's fresh.
Olive oil isn't cheap enough to be an inexpensive filler, and the garlic has to be in something -- either another (cheaper) oil or vinegar. Garlic and olive oil is a common combination.
The sort packed in vinegar also has its uses and keeps well. It's the only chopped option I can easily find without added salt. But when the proportion of garlic in the dish is high the vinegar flavour isn't always desirable (so I use fresh then).
In the US I've only seen garlic packed in water (most common) and olive oil. I've never seen it packed in vinegar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.978717
| 2018-07-22T21:34:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91215",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"Joe",
"Julie Sigwart",
"Robin Betts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68832"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92437
|
Polymerized Oil or Burned Oil?
I bought a carbon steel frying pan. Now I need to season it.
I think i messed up the first time. So I scrubbed it clean again.
Now how do I now if my oil is polymerized or actually burned?
I heated a thin layer of flaxseed oil until it reached its smoking point and then let it cool and repeat. The coating was really black in the center of the pan and not so smooth. The edges around the center were smooth and golden brown and had a glossy finish.
Did I burn oil in the center and polymerized the edges?
Is it flaking in the center at all? That would show that you burned it. Polymerized oil can be pretty dark.
well I grilled a steak and the center part lost a bit of its coating when I flipped it. Is burned oil always flaking?
Hmmm ... sounds more like you didn't get a solid enough coating of polymerized oil, and the steak stuck. I'd scrub it down with kosher salt & oil, and try re-finishing it.
how do I get a solid polymerized coating? The thin layer of oil already reached its smoking point and I was afraid that raising the temperature above could burn the oil.
You did the right method, it's just that a steak may been a bit too much for your pan's first dish after seasoning. I usually start with something easier/lighter.
Also, it may be that your stove has too concentrated of a flame in the center for this pan. Try using a flame spreader of some kind?
There is no clear cut border between polymerized and burnt, it is a continuum. The center went clearly farther than the sides, which is common enough in stovetop seasoning.
If the coating in the middle of the pan doesn't work well for you, you can strip and reseason to a lighter state, preferably in an oven. If food cooks well on it, you can keep it as it is.
thanks. Does that mean if it flakes in the future I need to reseason it everytime the whole pan? Or could i just reseason the burned area?
If it flakes, strip and reseason all. You want a nice even coat everywhere, not a patchwork.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.978932
| 2018-09-24T04:24:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92437",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"cris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94945
|
Can't find frozen cranberries anywhere. Can I use fresh instead in my cake recipe?
I can't find frozen cranberries anywhere. How can I substitute fresh cranberries for frozen? Do I chop them up and add sugar? Do frozen cranberries have added sugar in them? My cake recipe asks for frozen cranberries.
Does the recipe specify anything else about the cranberries? Are you supposed to use them still frozen, or are you supposed to defrost them? My usual avenue to frozen cranberries is step 1: buy a bag of cranberries step 2: throw in fridge step 3: realize that they're gonna rot before I get a chance to use them, so throw in freezer step 4: find them a year later, defrost and use.
Frozen cranberries usually do not have added sugar, and are usually frozen whole. So the sneaky solution would be to buy fresh cranberries, freeze them, and then use them however the recipe calls for :)
Since you're not worried about long-term storage, a few hours in the freezer on a baking tray should get them to the correct consistency.
The KISS principle +1
You can substitute fresh cranberries, but wash and freeze them first.
Freezing fruits breaks down the cellular walls changing the fruit's consistency and the way it interacts with other the ingredients. If a recipe calls for frozen fruit, chances are the results will be quite different if you don't freeze your fresh fruit before using it.
Very good point! I think it won't matter for many other berries, which tend to be already very tender when raw. But cranberries have a leathery skin and are also rather firm inside, so I think that being softened by freezing will be important for getting the texture right.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.979237
| 2018-12-17T22:46:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94945",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73665
|
Can chicken stock be used as the basis of a savoury loaf?
I have a surplus of jelly like chicken stock. I hope to mix it with flour, baking soda and eggs, with some herbs and spices, to make a savoury loaf.
So more like soda bread than yeast bread?
It should be fine, but I would suggest warming it slightly so that it is more liquid, so that volume doesn't exceed the liquid amount in recipe, such as soda bread as @Stephie asks. It could work well in a sourdough recipe, or in a savory bread pudding.
I'm very curious to hear how this turns out. The stock is going to add quite a bit of protein, so I'm not sure you need to further enrich it with eggs.
I did go ahead and attempt the savory loaf. It needed much less stock than I wanted to use up so from that standpoint it was not a great success. Nor was it all that enjoyable, though I ate it. I may have used more stock than needed and the texture was not so nice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.979391
| 2016-09-03T06:27:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73665",
"authors": [
"Giorgio",
"K. Joyce",
"Stephie",
"Tuorg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69966"
],
"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
}
|
95227
|
Can fresh citrus juice be reduced to concentrate flavor?
Does reducing fresh citrus juice increase its flavor and will the flavor be damaged if it is reduced too far?
I have lemon & lime trees; want to make variations of a Key Lime pie, or just a citrusy pie. Fresh citrus has lots of water- feel like I should reduce- but, will it turn bitter?
Hi, and welcome to the site. I am trying to figure out what your problem might be. As far as I can see, no other question has been asked from your account. I also don't see other questions matching your description having been posted in the last 3 months from other accounts. Are you sure you posted your earlier question? Maybe you typed it and then left the browser tab without posting?
Heating citrus does not increase flavor, it changes it, quite significantly. Cooked/heated citrus tastes much different than freshly squeezed. What is it that you are looking to achieve?
Hi @FoodE. I took the liberty of rewording your question to hopefully make it clearer. My apologies if I have misunderstood your original question or otherwise messed it up.
Heating citrus changes its flavor quite dramatically. When and how much to heat and reduce citrus depends on the outcome you are looking to achieve. If you want to preserve the fresh squeezed flavor, heating is not advisable. If you are looking for a more reduced, cooked down flavor, heating can be good. Certainly, the flavor will be concentrated, but it will be different from the fresh juice. Ultimately, it is the application that matters.
Wow, all good perspectives; making me think more on what my ultimate goal really is; with that said, and based on this feed back.
What are you looking to make here?
If you want something super intense, you can try adding a natural citrus oil (i.e lemon oil to lemon juice) for a more intense fragrance. If you're hoping to up the acidity you can add powdered citric acid.
Heating the juice will change the flavour quite dramatically. But you can also try dehydrating the liquid on a low temperature, or a freeze reduction.
I'd add zest rather than citrus oil, since if you have fresh citrus juice you've got the peel right there waiting to be zested anyway.
true! But if you want something totally homogeneous...another workaround I can think of is making olio saccharum.
Thank you-great site-truly pro's hanging out giving solid advise: I am going to make an olio saccharum, >because it's sticking with the citrus from my property< and sounds like I will get some citrus punch out of it. But, also, I am not a baker at heart, and the citric acid approach sounds as though it will get me that snappy-citrus I want, and neutralize the sweetness....I do"not want a sweet, sweet, pie"! Also, will definitely add the zest as well - it's so pure, right from the fruit tree. Note: I grow many herbs, fruits, vegetables; we call it "Walk the menu". The Pie is important. Thk you
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.979501
| 2018-12-30T16:09:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95227",
"authors": [
"Silenced Temporarily",
"Tuorg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71797",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"user71200",
"weets"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94846
|
Washing vegetables that I accidentally threw moldy tomato sauce on safe?
So I was frying some mushrooms and was gonna put tomato sauce/passata on it but I didn't realize it was moldy until I squeezed it out of the box and onto the mushrooms. I immediately put everything in a strainer and washed the mushrooms with hot water and then continued to cook them and put fresh sauce on them but I'm not sure it's safe to eat?
Thanks a lot
Washing the vegetables properly after getting the moldy sauce on them, and cooking them properly after should be fine. Your body is pretty well equipped to fight off small traces of most molds, you will only get sick if you ingest a substantial amount of mold.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.979740
| 2018-12-15T12:31:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94846",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94929
|
How to pound chicken breasts without a meat tenderizer?
I do not have a meat tenderizor. I want to fry my chicken breasts but need to pound out the meat. What can I use instead?
some more tips on pounding the meat: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/81/69382
I've heard of covering it with plastic wrap and using an unopened food can, e.g. a can of soup or beans...
Possible duplicate of How do I pound chicken (or other meat) without making a mess?
Just about anything can be used as a hammer.
Am... am I allowed to make lewd jokes in the comments? ;D
This might seem silly but, . . . I use my fist. I always cover my chicken with plastic wrap to contain the mess before I pound it. You can also glove up instead/as well.
I have found that punching it is just the right amount of force for the job. And the uneven surface of my knuckles acts as a meat tenderizer and breaks up the tissue just a little. (But not too much.)
This is my favorite technique when it's been a rough day at work, too.
i literally call my hands "meat tenderizers"
I do this, too. I put the chicken on a dishwasher-safe cutting board, cover with plastic wrap and pound away.
This answer amused me and seemes legit and useful. That is a good combination, well done. Followup question, is that hammer blows w/ back of the hand or or straight up punching w/ closed fist?
@StianYttervik straight blows closed fist (hit with knuckles)
You really should add a picture of your meat tenderizers.
I have done this, but with a gallon freezer bag. I was careful not to pop the bag open but otherwise it was very clean.
Anything flat, non-breakable, and reasonably heavy would work: rubber mallet, rolling pin, flat-bottomed wooden bowl, etc. I would suggest protecting the meat and implement from one another with plastic wrap.
... small skillet or frying pan... the list goes on and on.
A can of food (e.g. soup or beans), that you plan to open soon anyway since it may become dented during the process.
I find that placing the chicken under saran wrap (clingfilm) and whacking it with a rolling pin does the trick just fine
I've used bottles for similar purposes, in the past. Grab at the neck and strike with the bottom. I also always use some sort of plastic wrap or a nylon bag to protect the meat. For bonus points, put some seasoning inside it (e.g., salt and pepper).
Put breast between baking paper, roll like dough with a rolling pin. If you have any spices/herbs/salt/pepper to add you can sprinkle then mid rolling as this will push them inside meat.
We designed ourselves a wooden block (remains from a 2" laminate floor joist) about 8" by 8", drilled a hole in one side, and screwed in a handle. When we use it, we wrap it around and around with plastic wrap to keep the meat clean.
We would then use this as an intermediate, placing the chicken breasts underneath it, and pound it with a 3 lb sledge hammer. Though it sounds a bit extreme, it is actually quite effective, works quickly, and does not damage the meat.
I've been known to cover with plastic wrap, lay my chef's knife flat along a piece of chicken, and then hit the flat of the blade with the heel of my hand. Obviously, stay away from the sharp / pointy parts; but that is easy to do with a big chef's knife. I typically only do this when I have one or two pieces of meat that need tenderizing (as anymore will tenderize you back!)
I've seen my mother use a Corningware plate or saucer in place of a meat tenderizer. She would just hold the plate sideways and pound out the meat with the edge of the plate.
Iron Skillet (or another heavy pot/pan)
Cutting board
Rolling pin - really easy if you have the French tapered kind
Big can of tomatoes...
An empty wine bottle
A pool ball (the kind you use on a table...not in the water!)
Bon Appetit!
you forgot to list rock (run it through the dishwasher first)
First off, you'll definitely want your chicken between two sheets of plastic. You can either do this with two sheets of plastic wrap, or by putting it in a gallon ziplock bag (don't seal it though). The best alternative tool to use is a rolling pin as it's got no sharp edges (will break your plastic and can cut the chicken in half) and has weight and length to aid in leverage when whacking. Not everyone has a rolling pin, so if you don't just grab the largest heaviest can of food you have and slam it into the chicken. I wouldn't use any beverage cans, and especially not anything carbonated like soda or beer. I actually have a purpose built meat tenderizer and prefer using my rolling pin.
I have used a cast iron skillet against a cutting board. Plastic wrap or parchment paper to protect the surfaces...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.979844
| 2018-12-17T15:16:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94929",
"authors": [
"Alex Reinking",
"AmagicalFishy",
"Ess Kay",
"Mast",
"Richard",
"Rob",
"SnakeDoc",
"Stephie",
"Stian",
"Summer",
"USER_8675309",
"VLAZ",
"adfaklsdjf",
"ceejayoz",
"hildred",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71495",
"le3th4x0rbot",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95147
|
Leaving raw chicken uncovered for a day
I sometimes leave some chicken unwrapped in the fridge inside the container, if I buy a two piece, and only want one. A girl who lives at my dorm told me it was a life threatening harm, to everybody’s food inside the fridge, since deadly bacteria’s spread, to all the food. I read a similar post, where there was split descisions. Is there any danger to it, and if yes, how dangerous?
Elcome to [cooking.se]! :-) What do you mean by "inside the container"? In the vegetable compartment? In a sealed-off Tupperware? Please leave a note @Fabby after you've [edit]ed your question so that it becomes clearer. ;-)
If not for food safety reasons, why not wrap it up to keep it from drying out?
Food kept at refrigeration temperatures is relatively safe. Any potential pathogens can not jump or fly about without something to propel them. Dripping can potentially contaminate. Cooking can render many things safe (if initially stored properly). Keeping meats in closed containers is more sanitary (and respectful of others). However, to suggest that refrigerated unwrapped chicken, in a container, is "life threatening" sounds a bit extreme to me.
Food safety guidelines suggest that raw meats are not kept above other foods. The theory is that if the raw veggies are on top, the "juice" from raw chicken will not spill into the veggies and contaminate them. While I have never heard of airborne issues, if you are sharing a refrigeration unit with others, then you should properly seal and store raw chicken out of respect for their concerns.
5 Simple Habits for Raw Chicken Safety
USDA Refrigeration and Food Safety
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.980237
| 2018-12-26T19:15:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95147",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Summer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92509
|
Over proofed dough still good?
I decided to make a 2.5kg sourdough to make bread and pizza out of it. I used the following formula: 76% hydration, 2% salt, 20% of starter (100%).
I mixed the flour and water and let it autolyse for about 2 hours. After that, I purred in the starter and salt dissolved in water. I mixed by hand until the gluten was formed.
After that I left it to bulk ferment over night. I left it covered in the oven with the oven light on.
In the morning it grew a lot, I think it doubled. However when I took it out on the bench it seemed liquidy. It was very very hard to handle. I left it outside in the cold for about 30 min then I tried to shape it. It was still pretty liquidy, it lost structure.
Can I still bake with this dough? I put it in the fridge because I had to go to work.
Should I simply bake and see what happens?
Kind thanks!
Update:
So the pizzas were a disaster and the bread didn't spring too much but the taste was good.
Just go for it. From what I understand, 76% hydration is quite a lot.
My hunch is that you have not formed enough gluten. It could be from the flour you used, or from not working the dough long enough.
You have no structure to the dough. There is not a strong enough network to support the weight and, from your description, it sounds like you only gave it one "turn". All the food for the yeast has been eaten up. If you bake it, you might get some minor spring but I wouldn't count on it.
I don't know how it would work for a loaf of bread, but there's a good chance that it could be used to make flat breads.
If the dough is too difficult to work with, you can chill it down (and you said it's already in the fridge, so this is just for anyone else), and then sprinkle some flour across the top. Reach in, grab a handful of dough, get it well coated in the flour, and then shape it. Griddle on both sides, and you're good.
If you have a lot of dough to use up, I'll often griddle it over higher heat to get both sides set (and maybe a touch of char), then slide them into the oven to finish cooking through.
No. Your dough is dead. Timing is very important in bread making, but don't just use a clock. The way to tell when bread dough is ready is to feel it. Wet a finger and press in slightly every so often while proofing. In the beginning the finger indentation will pop back out. When it stops doing that, its time to form loaves/pizza.
I recommend any book by Jeffrey Hamelman to help understand the complex web of life you are trying to create.
I disagree. First, it is clear from the OPs description, and the answers, that not enough gluten was formed. So, I would first recommend stretch and folds, and/or further refinement of gluten development. Even then, if the dough was over proofed, it can certainly be rescued and used. See: https://modernistcuisine.com/2018/11/dough-cpr/
Yes, well that was just my opinion after 40 years of baking bread.To really evaluate dough, one need to see, touch, smell and taste it. I just don't think its work the time or energy to 'rescue' dough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.980395
| 2018-09-28T07:47:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92509",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"BlueMax",
"Pubby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78814",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91355
|
Sourdough starter stopped growing, is it normal?
I posted a question a few days ago. This was my first sourdough starter: My sourdough starter split in 2 on the 3rd day. What should I do?
and I decided to only keep the foamy part and throw the other half away. After another day that sourdough stopped growing and became kinda liquidy and I threw it away and started another batch.
2 days after and I am in the same situation. My sourdough starter split in two, exactly the same as in the above link. But this time I decided to simply stir it and feed it as usual.
After the 2nd feed, the starter kept splitting in two and the foamy part started to get smaller and smaller. The bottom part stopped making bubbles and simply stayed the same way.
6-7 hours before the 3rd feed the starter looks like the below picture. It stopped growing and it seems that only the top layer has bubbles. Is this normal?
It is also weird that two different starters have the same exact evolution, maybe there's something wrong with the flour?
EDIT:
So after 7 more days of feeding and three attempts here is my latest result:
Thank you for your advice!
Can you add some info about the method you are using? Are you using weight or volume? What hydration level are you using?
I started with 200 gr of 550 flour and 200 ml of water. After 24h I removed 50% of the content (Until I reached jar weight + 200 grams). Then I fed it with 100 grams of fresh flour and 100 ml of water. The same after 24h and again after 24h
Your container shows traces of something up to the top - is that from a few days ago, or how did this get up there?
Hmm, I think the lid got a bit dirty when I fed it and I didn't cleaned it. And as I opened and closed the lid some of the material got smeared
Nothing that happens in a starter in the first few days is normal, in the sense that it doesn't behave like a mature starter. During this time, the bacterial flora in the starter is in constant flux, and you need to wait until the desired bacteria have prevailed, which will take some time.
It is not impossible to do something wrong, but you will only know it when the starter has stabilized, or rather failed to. Until then, just keep the regime exactly as prescribed, no matter what visible changes happen.
I have a starter in the fridge which I have been feeding on and off for half a year now. Every time I take it out of the fridge, it has split. Just mix the water back in before you feed. Don't worry about throwing it out, they always come back to life. The first few days of your starter, unless you have added yeast, it won't look like it's doing much. The first day I make a starter I leave it out 24 hours, feed it again (without throwing any away), leave it for 12 hours and then put it in the fridge. From then on whenever I decide to feed it I pull it out of the fridge, mix in the water, feed, leave on the counter for 4-6 hours (until I see lots of bubbles) then I throw it back in the fridge until next time I remember or decide to feed it.
Once you have it started everything will be fine! It's much less a complicated science than it seems.
As mentioned by rumtscho nothing that happens in the first few days will be normal! Just keep feeding it and give it time with the lid off to ferment nicely. Otherwise I'd recommend chucking a bit of live bakers yeast (small chunk, which is difficult because the stuff comes in bricks) or a packet of active dry yeast. Otherwise my chefs always recommended putting a piece of rotting fruit in it, but I've always felt that to be the least attractive option - what happens to the fruit bits?!
Good luck!
Looks to me like you just have too much water. What is your feed ratio of flour to water to starter? I'm usually doing 2:1:1
I started with 200 gr flour, 200 ml water. And on every feeding, I took out 50% of the content and added 100gr flour and 100ml water
I would try 50ml water next feed. Always best if you can use filtered/boiled water that has come to room temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.980663
| 2018-07-31T12:30:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91355",
"authors": [
"Andrei CACIO",
"Spagirl",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68407",
"user4922"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91743
|
Adding raw chicken to a meal that is being reheated
So, a friend of mine told me they frequently add raw chicken to their (already cooked) leftovers when reheating (in a pan) to top them up. Though they stress that the chicken is completely cooked by the end of the reheating.
I feel like this is extremely unsafe in terms of food hygiene and food contamination, but apparently my friend and most of their family members have done this quite frequently without issue.
Other than the reheated food being overcooked and degraded in quality, I am not sure how I could explain that this isn't a safe practice. Or am I completely wrong in this matter?
Thanks for clarifying your question, and I'm sorry for the unfriendly way in which that clarification was requested.
If a dish, any dish, leftovers or otherwise, has raw chicken added to it, then is cooked until said chicken is fully cooked, it is then safe to eat. There is nothing from what you describe that justifies assuming that the way the dish is handled would be unsafe.
I guess my assumption incorrectly stemmed from how one would store raw and cooked foods.
@Gary : the problem comes when you have raw chicken touching other food, and then that other food isn't brought up to sufficient temperature. So long as the chicken is sufficiently cooked, and the rest of the food is also brought up to a sufficient temperature, it's fine. It's basically what you'd do for making fried rice -- cook the chicken, then add the previously cooked rice, and heat it all up together.
@Joe - I think the idea is that if the chicken is added to the rest of the food, then in order for the chicken to fully cook in the midst of all that leftover food, the leftover food must also reach that temperature.
I would like to think that adding raw chicken on the bottom of the container would allow it to cook done quicker than mixing it into the leftover dish while reheating. However, I have not tested this at all. I am questioning whether to reheat the Stuffing with raw chicken or pre-cook it. I have cubed it and will probably pre-cook it to be safe. I would like the convenience of not pre-cooking it but do not feel confident about it.
You need to fully cook the chicken. It’s often easier to cook the chicken first, then add everything else, as you may overlook/dry out/otherwise affect whatever’s being reheated if you try to mix it into the raw chicken.
It seems you're unsure of all that you say, so this is not an answer. If you would edit for more assertive language, please indicate what justifies it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.980975
| 2018-08-16T17:09:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91743",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Gary",
"Joe",
"PoloHoleSet",
"ariola",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68741"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95864
|
Air Gaps In Molds Creating White Patches On De-molded Chocolate
After melting the chocolate compound, I am pouring chocolate in the molds.
After pouring the chocolate, I am tapping and vibrating the molds manually. This is getting rid of most of the small air bubbles. So far, so good.
Now comes the main issue. The issue is that air gaps (from what it looks like) are being introduced in the molds, even after tapping and vibrating the molds manually. This is creating white patches on the de-molded chocolate, in the shape of the air bubble.
Here are some pics that showcase the air gaps issue:
PATCHES:
DIMENSIONS OF MOLD USED FOR PATCH 1:
DIMENSIONS OF MOLD USED FOR PATCHES 2 & 3:
From what it looks like, I am assuming that the air gaps are really air gaps and nothing else. Please correct me if I am wrong.
How to get rid of these air gaps so that the de-molded chocolate pieces are simple plain chocolate pieces without any patches on them?
NOTE 1:
The Air gaps shown in the images do behave like an air bubble. When I manually press on the exact position where I see the air gap, and I keep doing it for few times (4-10) and apply varying pressure, I am able to get the air released from the mold, but that leaves a patch on the actual chocolate, as can be seen in 2nd Patch image.
NOTE 2:
Adding one more image of the patch to illustrate the issue.
Please look at the following image:
From the above image, it looks like the white oval patch in the middle of the chocolate resembles the white mist on the rearview mirror of a car. Not only that, but it also behaves the same, in the sense that I can see the mist in the mold cavity. If I wipe the mist (I think that is what this issue is) in the cavity with a cloth, it just disappears, similar to what would happen if you wipe the mist off of a mirror.
If my analysis is right and if the white patch is indeed the result of the formation of mist in the mold cavity, how can it be prevented to ensure clean chocolate pops out when de-molded?
Can you add an image with the chocolates outside the mold? Currently the objects you show look like what happens when you get a thin film of water or oil trapped between two surfaces.
@bob1 Done. Thank you for your suggestion. I added the images in the Description. Yes, it does behave like an air bubble. When I manually press on the exact position where I see the air gap, and I keep doing it for few times (4-10) and apply varying pressure, I am able to get release the air, but that leaves a patch on the actual chocolate, as can be seen in 2nd Patch image. Hope this makes sense.
How did you treat the molds beforehand? There are many opinions on this, and few facts. One school claims that one should rub the molds with cocoa butter. This is supposed to improve the shine, but also helps the chocolate to fill in smaller nooks and crannies.
What is the chocolate? Is it maybe too viscous? (I often add a couple of percent cocoa butter to the chocolate to improve fluidity.)
@Popup Tried adding the cocoa butter, yet the result is same. The patches appear as indicated in the photos & the chocolate melts fast. Before pouring the chocolate in the mold, I made sure that the mold is clean. Any dirt is already wiped out with a new soft cloth. There is no residue of water. Just before pouring the chocolate in the mold, I use a hair dryer to blow some hot air on the molds so that the molds turn a bit warm and ready to accept the warm chocolate. Please note that I have tried this by using the hair-dryer and even without it. Both of these methods do not solve the issue.
@Popup The chocolate is a regular compound slab. The surprising part is that the chocolate is ready in a couple of hours but the air bubble part is killing us.
Are you tempering the chocolate at all, or just melting and pouring it into the molds?
@RonBeyer Just melting and pouring it into molds. The chocolate compound that I am using, does not need tempering. FYI, I tried other experiments wherein I tempered the chocolate by mixing some cocoa butter with it, but still the de-molded chocolate still had patches on it :(
These are not air gaps. When chocolate sets, it will shrink a little bit and bend the mold, thus creating these gaps as it sets (they are effectively vacuum gaps). This can be avoided by using a more rigid mold, that wouldn’t bend as it sets.
Thank you for your response. The molds are already prepared and delivered to us, so its a bit tough to imagine we can get it changed at this point in time. And of course, even if we do talk to the manufacturer about this, I am imagining they would deny any problem with the mold as accepting it would mean they need to redo the complete set of molds at their expense. So how can we effectively approach them saying that there is an issue with the molds? Can we take any proof of the claim we make? Meanwhile, an alternate solution would be immensely helpful & appreciated.
Also, the manufacturer used food grade (at least he claimed so) to make the molds. So if I ask him for a new type of material which does not bend, I have a strong feeling that he is going to claim that there is no such material or they simply don't deal with anything else other than the food grade material that they supplied. So it becomes even tougher to convnice him about the issue and get him to agree with it. Do you have any suggestions on this?
If it helps you, the manufacturer said the mold is made of food-grade Poly Carbonite (PC) material. Does that make any difference?
@Devner PC is the right material for any sort of molds. However the thickness is the main issue. What are the thickness of the molds?
I wonder if you could fill the back of the mold with a resin/epoxy substance to strengthen the mold as a whole. The back of the mold doesn't need to be food safe I believe.
@Sarumanatee that might work, yet another solution is where the cavities of the molds are being supported by a grid system, which makes it less flexible.
I am trying to get the values of the molds from the manufacturer. Will post back once I get the values.
@zetaprime I have added the dimensions of the molds that were used in the process, in the Description. Request you to kindly check it out & let me know your views when you get some time. Thank you.
@Devner I’ve seen the designs, however If I’m not missing anything, the unit are not noted. I’ll assume they are in mm. And 2+ mm thickness should be ok I think. I wonder how flexible the molds are, can you easily bend them with your hands?
@zetaprime Sorry, I missed the units. You are correct, they are in mm. I am not sure how to measure the easiness of bending the molds, but I will try to clarify. If the cooling time is met, then the chocolate can be de-molded in about 5-10 seconds time just by twisting the diagonal sides of the molds. If it takes too longer than that, that's when it starts leaving a patch on the inner side of the chocolate. Does that make sense?
I believe you need to test some reinforcements on your molds. you can try to contact the manufacturer on advice for reinforcing the molds.
Sorry, I am new to this, so I don't understand what "reinforcements" means in this context. Can you please elaborate?
I meant, creating support on the back side of the molds so that they don't bend and become more rigid. @Sarumanatee's suggestion is a good starting point.
@zetaprime I added "Note 2" in the description with the latest photo of new experiments that I carried out and some of my observations. Can you please review and let me know your thoughts when you get a chance? Thank you.
@Devner I don’t think it’s possible to have water condensation (mist) on the chocolate at all.
@zetaprime So in your view, what else could be the reason for the mist on the mold? What can I try on my end to fix the issue?
That’s a very well known issue, that you might have patches if your molds are not rigid enough. I believe you should try to rule this out first.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.981232
| 2019-01-22T14:20:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95864",
"authors": [
"Devner",
"Popup",
"Ron Beyer",
"Sarumanatee",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70315",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95665
|
What is the ideal temperature to cool the melted chocolate in a freezer?
I have temperated chocolate that is now in a liquid state. I have chocolate molds that I use and I fill up these molds with the chocolate. Now I need to set these chocolate-filled molds in a freezer so that the chocolate can solidify and after solidification, I should be able to remove chocolate without much effort by the process of de-molding so that they become consumable solid chocolate bars. So my questions are:
What should be the temperature of the freezer so that the chocolate hardens in the molds?
How long should I leave the molds in the freezer, before I remove them?
After removing the molds from the freezer (with the solid chocolate in them), do I need to set it in another freezer at another temperature so that the chocolate can solidify even more i.e. at a temperature higher than the freezing temperature but lesser than room temperature?
After de-molding the chocolates, when should I wrap them and for how long, before I can consume them?
I am hoping that the temperature and time suggested will help avoid problems such as fat bloom, sugar bloom and melting.
Thank you.
Do not use a freezer, that's way too harsh on the chocolate and will almost certainly introduce terrible condensation, and possibly off tastes, if there is other food stored in the freezer.
If you have a way to create a temperature-controlled "box", you should cool it at 20 degrees Celsius. If not, keep it in a room which is as close to 20 C as you can get, and on the dry side - most normal rooms will do, unless you live in a tropical or equatorian climate without air conditioning, you just won't get the most perfect shine if you keep your room much colder or warmer than that.
"How long" cannot be answered, you just have to wait until it is solid through and through, which will depend on the thickness of your shapes. Just way overnight before trying the first one.
Also see a diagram with best temperatures, which is slightly more complicated because it considers chocolate poured over a solid core, in this old answer of mine.
Thank you so much for your response. I do have a temperature controlled Stainless steel box with copper wiring that is responsible for cooling. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. I can set any temperature that you want me to. As you recommend 20C, I will use that. Coming to the thickness of the bars, they are of the thickness: 7.5 mm OR 0.75 cm OR 0.29 inches. It would be great if you could please give me an idea of how long to leave it at 20C overnight. Will 8 hours suffice or should I go for more time? I tried temperatures like 10C, 0C and even -8C but failed :(
What do you mean, "failed"? The chocolate should get hard at these temperatures, especially +10, probably with an ugly surface. What symptoms did you have? I don't have an exact time suggestion, just make an example batch and start trying breaking up a piece after a measured time period to see when it is ready through and through. You probably don't even need it overnight if it is only 0.75 cm.
What I mean by "failed" is that, after the bars are de-molded, we can see white oval shapes at the middle of the bars that cover about 50% of the chocolate in both up and down directions. The bars are easily de-molded but these patches make the bars look like "old". I have tried experimenting with cooling for time period of 15 minutes, 30 min, 45 min, 60 min, 90 min, 120 min, and at different temperatures such as -8C, 0C, 5C, 8C, 12C, but they all left some sort of patch in the middle of the chocolate bars. I don't have a clue as to how much time I should leave them inside for cooling :(
It doesn't matter how long you leave them, unless you take them out so early that they are still soft and droop in your hands. The white patches were caused either because you used too low a temperature for cooling, or because you heated the chocolate so much that it distempered, or both. Try using proper temperatures for both processes and you should get shiny chocolate.
Yes, I always used temperatures below 14C to cool the chocolates and at max, I put them in the freezer for somewhere from 30 min to 2 hours. And immediately after removing them from the freezer, I de-molded them and they were easy to de-mold. But those white patches appeared on them. So would you still advise me to go for 20C as the temperature, or would you like me to try something else?
I have posted an issue that I am facing with the chocolate, after de-molding. I am also adding few pics to it for review. If you know the answer and could please spare some time to answer my question, your help would be greatly appreciated. Here is the direct link: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95864/air-gaps-in-molds-creating-white-patches-on-de-molded-chocolate Thank you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.981996
| 2019-01-15T06:54:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95665",
"authors": [
"Devner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70315",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122636
|
Pavlova trypophobia
I just finished baking my third pavlova and it seems fine except that there's a strange circular pattern covering the exterior which is triggering my trypophobia!
Does anyone have any tips on how to avoid?
I was trypophobic too until I tried it Korean style. Delicious!
Use a flat metal object to smooth the edges before it fully sets. Wet the metal object with water first.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.982363
| 2022-12-11T23:38:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122636",
"authors": [
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124680
|
Dairy suddenly has an odd taste (Grass fed hay taste)
Over the past year, more and more brands of dairy product — and some other products containing milk as an ingredient — have suddenly begun tasting odd to me. I can't quite describe the flavor; it's unlike anything I have tasted before. It's vaguely "green," not chemical-y, but quite gross and ruins the flavor of many things that used to be delicious. The things most affected are sour cream, yogurt, cottage cheese; mozzarella, Monterey jack, cream and Neufchatel cheeses and, oddly, ranch dressing. Milk, cream, hard and aged cheeses taste totally normal. Not all brands have this odd taste, but the list is growing.
I first noticed it in the Walmart store brand products about 8 or 9 months ago. Hiland, Daisy, Philadephia, Yoplait, Chobani, etc. were unaffected. I thought the cheap brands must be adding some new ingredient, but there's nothing new. In the past 2 or 3 months, Hiland cottage cheese and Philadelphia cream cheese have also begun to have this odd, unpalatable taste, as has Daisy sour cream. What on earth is going on?
And before anyone puts it down to just my taste changing — I reiterate that not all brands have this strange taste, even though the ingredients may be the same. And it's not something that's changed with the milk itself, I don't think, because milk, half-and-half, and whipping cream don't taste this way, nor do cheddar, Swiss, parmesan, etc. Whatever is going on, it tastes revolting.
Any ideas?
From the Walmast mention I assume you are in the US?
During the past 5 years, I've noticed a slow transition of dairy products causing kidney, bladder and prostate issues. Urinating 6 times a day is normal. Do take notice of whether your urination increases to 11 or 12 times in a day or there is double voiding or a lower flow rate or bladder pains or slight leaking of urine after urinating. If it does, stop dairy and meat consumption and you should recover in 2 weeks. As of now I can only suspect that some problem with dairy might be the cause of a spike in some cancers.
The flavor of milk actually does change through the year.
I suspect that it’s more significant in some breeds of cows than others, or maybe it’s just that some cows are fed so much grain through the year that it’s not noticeable.
In major cheese producing areas (like the Netherlands), they make a distinction between summer and winter cheeses, as one is made from grass fed cows while the other from hay (hooikaas, hay cheese). Graskaas (grass cheese) is specifically the cheese made from the first milkings after the cows have started back on fresh grass.
Right. I know what the animal eats affects the milk (hello, goats grazing wild garlic, lol). This is different. And milk and cream never, ever have the weird flavor. Only milk products. It's very odd.
@lemonpiewriter there’s also been a crackdown on kids being used to clean factory equipment. If their hands could get into smaller places to do a more thorough cleaning, maybe you’re sensitive to the cleaning products residue? That might explain why it’s only milk derived products and not milk itself
Now that is definitely a possibility, and something that hadn't occurred to me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.982438
| 2023-07-08T21:48:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124680",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Nav",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"lemonpiewriter",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95543
|
How can one make a reasonable curry with limited spices and poor quality equipment?
When travelling one has to make do with whatever cooking equipment is available. Typical deficiencies I've encountered are: thin saucepans and frying pans that have lost any non-stick coating (maybe only one of each), a hob with just one or two rings, unreliable ovens, a toaster but no grill, blunt knives, limiting working space, ....
My original question was overly broad, and asked for cooking techniques (rather than recipes) that are reliable even with poor equipment. In this edit, I'll ask just one specific question that's troubling me at the moment. Please assume that I can buy all the usual spices etc, but not cheaply. I don't want to buy very many, because they will all be duplicates of better quality ingredients I have back home.
How, if at all, given the constraints above, can one make a reasonable vegetarian curry using only one saucepan, and a small frying pan that's lost its non-stick coating?
I'm voting to close this as it is both broad and opinion based. Everyone has their favorite strategies and there is no right or wrong answer.
I think there are a few good questions you could ask about this topic. But you might want to limit these to more specific situations to make them more answerable. The questions could have a form like: "How do you do [cooking technique] when your [piece of equipment] has [problem]". Like "How do you make crème brûlée when you can not trust your oven's thermostate" or "how do you make pancakes in a pan which lost almost all non-stick coating".
I've been in that situation a few times -- even had an electric stove once that wouldn't heat up unless you turned it all the way to high first (a trick I knew because of when my mom's went flaky). My best advice -- don't plan your food until you know what gear is available.
I am still finding your edited question too broad. A reasonable curry could mean different things to different people for different curries. vegetable? chicken? meat? lentils? limited spices as in what exactly is available? you could take your own in small disposable packs. Coming from a south asian background i often cook my curries in only one pot/pan. If travelling to a reasonable distance, we pre-make, freeze, transport in an cooler box and then refrigerate at the holiday house.
If you knew what you were planning on making when you got there, why wouldn't you bring spices with you? Even if you're flying, they're small, lightweight, and don't require refrigeration. (how you're traveling starts to figure into things -- a 2 hr drive vs. a 6 hr flight vs. 6hr train; domestic (and what country) vs. international; etc). As it stands right now a can of coconut milk (no refrigeration needed), spices and some veg are all you need to transport.
And I should say -- I've done the air bnb thing (3 hr drive from a friend's place after a 6hr flight), extended stay america (9+hr flight, but I had a rental car ... and bought a knife at the farmer's market in Anchorage), time shares (3-5hr drive), cooking at friend's houses (I keep a kit in my car w/ knives and a few other things), international trips (I bought a set of knives)
Maybe the answer is to bring spices. But no-one can remember everything or plan perfectly. I am making a long stay in a foreign country, so taking more ingredients would not have been practical. Similarly taking a knife or other cooking equipment is problematic.
The one thing that makes a big difference is the knife (and I say that as someone who doesn't look after mine very well). You may be able to take a small sharp knife with you (you can buy paring knifes with plastic sheaths, for example) though this depends how you're traveling and on thy knife laws where you are.
Then generally the idea is to cook simply. Simple doesn't have to mean boring, but dishes that don't use lots simultaneous cooking steps. Space can often make prepping everything in advance a challenge, but you can use cups, plates, and cereal bowls for anything you do prep (and put them on the dining table). Prepping at the dining table can also be a way to gain space, especially if you're sharing the kitchen facilities. Cutting up veg before meat to make better use of the only knife and chopping board is one simple way that does require prepping in a particular order.
Lack of non stick means using a bit more oil to fry, and keeping things moving. This may not be the time to try or your new recipe for homemade burgers, or other things that are prone to falling apart if handled roughly.
Most ovens should be up to most things, including baking cakes, but do you really need to? If you're only using the oven to roast, or make stews or jacket potatoes, you don't need precision, just too cook until done. This makes synchronising something cooked in the oven with something cooked on the hob a little tricky, but that's where simplicity comes in.
I go away with friends quite a bit, in holiday cottages, bunkhouses etc. and also have a campervan in which I like to cook proper if simple dishes, so face this quite often. Making a risotto in the van, for example, I kept the stock hot by putting it in a casserole dish on top of the pan in which I was cooking the rice, then used the pan from heating the stock to cook green beans. The beans were stored in the cold oven after trimming because I wanted to do that before cutting the onion and garlic with the same tools so as not to transfer flavour. My total food preparation surface there is about 40x50cm.
To take one aspect of that – the knife...
Carrying knives is somewhat frowned upon in the UK, so I'd avoid anything larger than a pocket penknife; leaving you with a holiday rental full of cheap rubbish last sharpened at the factory... in 1982.
I wouldn't suggest this for anything other than an 'emergency' situation, but if you find 2 knives, one harder steel than the other, you can get a rough but sharp enough edge on one by dragging the blade of the softer one hard over the squared back of the harder one, at 30–45°... like a poor-man's pull-through sharpener. Because the steel is cheap & soft, it works remarkably well. It probably wouldn't work with a good knife.
It won't do either implement much good, but it will rip an edge onto the soft one, whilst leaving creases & dents in the back of the harder one. I've even done this when cooking at relatives' - though I tell them what I'm about to do & give them pick of the one I'm going to crease the back of ;)
You're right about UK knife law, but I often drive around with a full kitchen (my campervan is my only car) so can use the knife from that. Carrying a full picnic set (perhaps with the knife substituted for a better but still small one) is another good reason the have a sharp knife packed away in your vehicle if you're driving. Or you could carry a small diamond file - even a small piece of fine wet/dry paper will put an edge on a blunt knife
How does this answer the question?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.982759
| 2019-01-11T03:55:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95543",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"Ess Kay",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Mark Wildon",
"Philipp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107640
|
What is the food chemistry of aquafaba?
Aquafaba is the water that chickpeas are cooked in. It can be made from dried chickpeas or obtained by draining a can of cooked chickpeas. Aquafaba is widely recommended as a substitute for eggs in vegan baking. It can also be used to thicken sauces.
What is the food science of aquafaba's remarkable properties?
Start with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquafaba
Aquafaba in cooking generally refers to chickpea aquafaba, but the term generally applies to the liquid in which any legume seeds have been cooked. It contains starches and proteins which allow it to foam when whipped. I have seen aquafaba mostly used for foams in cooking, but it can serve as a replacement for egg whites in many recipes. Adding cream of tartar will greatly stabilize the foam.
Here is a scientific description of aquafaba from wikipedia.
Legume seeds, or pulses, are primarily composed of carbohydrates (starch, sugars, and fiber), proteins (albumins and globulins), and water. The carbohydrates are found in greater quantities than the proteins, while the starches consist mostly of amylose and amylopectin. A typical nutritional composition of chickpeas, is listed as 19% protein, 61% carbohydrate, 6% lipids, and 14% water. However, these amounts are approximate and can vary by variety.[22] During the process of cooking legume seeds, the starches in the seed are gelatinized, allowing the soluble parts of the seed to leach out into the cooking water. More material can be extracted from the seeds, if both the cooking temperature and pressure are increased, as well as extending the cooking period.
Whipped aquafaba
Once the legumes are cooked and filtered out, the water-soluble part left is aquafaba. Comparing the final composition of a cooked seed with a raw seed shows that under normal cooking conditions, approximately 5% of the initial dry weight has been transferred to the cooking water. The dry matter consisted mainly of carbohydrates (sugars, soluble and insoluble fibre) and protein. That ratio of soluble material is approximately the same ratio as found in the raw seed, However, fat and starch were not detected. A concentration of 5% dry weight to water is typical for aquafaba, but the solution can also be reduced to increase the concentration to 10% or more, depending on the application. This can be especially useful for applications where emulsification and viscosity are more important than foaming capabilities. The concentration can also be tailored to produce a more stable foam using less aquafaba by carefully filtering non-soluble material from the solution and adjusting the concentration to the application.
The first peer-reviewed publication using the term "aquafaba" was recently published by Martin Reaney's group at the University of Saskatchewan (Canada). In this research, they have found that chickpea aquafaba from different commercial sources produces foams that vary in both properties (volume and stability of foam) and chemical composition. 1H-NMR was used to analyze the composition of aquafaba. NMR analysis revealed that the foam contained mainly polysaccharides, sucrose and protein. Protein separations by membrane filtration followed by SDS-PAGE and peptide mass fingerprinting were used to identify aquafaba proteins contributing to foaming properties. Reaney's group research showed that most of aquafaba proteins belonged to known heat soluble proteins such as late embryogenesis abundant proteins and dehydrins. Identified proteins also included heat shock protein, defensin, histone, nonspecific lipid transfer protein and superoxide dismutase. Major storage proteins provicillin and leguminin were also present. In 2015, it was theorized that the most likely agent that caused the liquid to foam was saponins. However, the group's research has shown that aquafaba foaming property is a result of the presence of saponins, carbohydrates and protein fractions.[citation needed]
In general, the composition of aquafaba depend on: 1. processing methods (soaking, cooking and industrial dehydration), 2. conditions (pH, temperature, pressure and treatment duration), 3. genotype (Kabuli or Desi chickpeas), 4. additives, 5. protein concentration, and 6. carbohydrate type and concentration.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.983331
| 2020-04-16T12:06:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107640",
"authors": [
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93841
|
How to cook rice with fish without overcooking the fish
How can I cook rice with fish so that the fish is not over cooked or breaks into smaller pieces? Fish meat cooks quickly, in much less time than rice. Would anyone like to share tricks or tips for this?
This problem can be solved with a bit of kitchen maths:
You noticed already that
your rice takes X minutes unti fully cooked and
your fish takes Y minutes.
You also noted correctly that usually X > Y.
The best time to add the fish to the rice would therefore be after (X-Y) minutes.
But I guess you want a slightly more practical answer?
Well, X will depend on the type of rice you are using - white rice will need somewhere around 20-25 minutes, perhaps 30 if you like it very soft, while whole grain may need up to 45 minutes.
The cooking time of the fish will depend on the kind of fish and the thickness of the fish pieces, a few minutes will be enough for a thin fillet.
Assuming that you have used both ingredients before, you should have at least a rough idea on the timing already.
Additional hints:
Cooked fish will break apart easily when done, so ideally you simply put the fish on top of the rice and serve it like that or, if your dish needs stirring, stir once, briefly and carefully when adding the fish, then leave the pot alone.
Of your two ingredients, the fish is by far the more critical one. A bit too long, and you have exactly the over cooked state you wanted to avoid. So if you are unsure about when to add the fish, pick the later time and cook the rice longer.
While boiling/cooking rice and fish is safe for consumption, the cooking method gives the rice an extremely fishy taste. If you crave that flavour, go ahead with cooking the two things together.
However, if you wish to retain the individual flavours of the food, par boil the rice while you can pan fry the fish pieces in a separate utensil (to get rid of the excessive sweet/salty fishy flavour). Add the fish to the rice at a later stage. By doing this, not only will the fish pieces retain their shape and form after frying, but your rice would remain fragrant on its own as well.
I feel like you haven't really addressed the question, which was about preventing overcooking, not taste.
As stated by Stephie, cooking time of fish varies due to the type of fish and its cut. A simple test would be to use a fork to check it the fish is flaky. A time period would be misleading to stated in this case. Basically, rice takes longer to cook than fish. Thus, the fish can be introduced to the rice at a much later point, depending on the texture of fish one wants. Besides, frying the fish would be a good way of controlling the overcooking - again depending on whether one is shallow frying or deep frying.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.983669
| 2018-11-12T18:46:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93841",
"authors": [
"CookiePie52",
"SuperWild1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70536"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95268
|
How to minimise exposure to systemic pesticides while eating non-organic fruits and vegetables?
For those who cannot afford organic produce, what foods would you suggest limiting the consumption of in order to minimise the amount of systemic pesticides being consumed?
I ask this specifically about systemic pesticides, as non-systemic pesticides can be avoided by washing the exteriors of fruits and vegetables.
You reduce your chances of consuming pesticides by looking at the country of origin. For example, EU countries frequently have tighter standards than Asian countries, and even within the EU, there are differences in which pesticides are allowed, and at which levels. You would have to find out whose regulation you trust most, and then follow the relevant magazines about potential contamination/limit excess reveals.
This is usually in direct contradiction to your desire to spend less on produce, since the norms tend to be better in countries with higher labor costs, conformity is better in countries with low corruption, which also have a correlation with labor costs, and in general, it is impossible to keep low produce production costs without generous amounts of strong pesticides, because the farmer then has to absorb the losses from ruined crops. So if you can only afford the cheapest tier of produce, such as Spanish strawberries, there may be nothing you can do but eat it with whatever pesticides it contains.
What can also help is eating seasonal produce. Out-of-season produce is frequently delivered by mass producing, purely profit-oriented corporations who trim their production to efficiency. Smaller, traditional, more idealistic farmers tend to grow in-season, and even if they don't get an organic certification, some of them would reduce their pesticide use based on personal beliefs what farming is about. So on average, you will have a somewhat lower pesticide exposure, even though the actual levels will vary wildly per batch.
I agree that country of origin, just as who actually raised it is a great point. In the US for instance, many chemicals are outlawed for high environmental and residual effects. But our companies then dump them into other areas that not only use them, but use them well above label levels and then ship the products back to the US. Thus, I raise as much of my own produce as I can. Most cannot do that though.
Thanks for the reply rumtscho. Very useful information.
Devils advocate comment: Certified Organic foods give zero guarantee of being pesticide or herbicide free. Organic certification limits which chemicals can be used, not if any can be, and commercially produced produce marketed as organic will use those materials systematically just as non-organically grown will use theirs. The basic rule is that for organic, the pesticide, herbicide, fungicide or fertilizer has to be from an grown or mined source, not a refined source and some of the approved sources are not that nice or harmless.
To directly answer your question, well, it really is hard to say. I have never seen a reason to use a chemical on things like squash or pumpkins, and yet I know commercially they do. I for years though citrus was relatively chemical free, but was told recently this is not true, than many have insect issues and use systemic pesticides. I personally would recommend trying for local grown farmers markets or small farmers and freezing/canning but that is also not cheap and still might be iffy unless you get to know and trust the growers because if a small grower does use the chemicals, they may actually not stay down to recommended levels.
However, this list comes from a Dr. Mercola. I make no claims to his accuracy, but he quotes an "Environmental Working Group" using USDA data to claim the most contaminated 12 are Strawberries, Apples, Nectarines, Peaches, Celery, Grapes, Cherries, Spinach, Tomatoes, Sweet bell peppers, Cherry tomatoes, Cucumbers in that order. The 15 "cleanest" were Avocados, Sweet corn, Pineapples, Cabbage, Sweet peas (frozen), Onions, Asparagus, Mangos, Papayas, Kiwifruit, Eggplant, Honeydew melon, Grapefruit, Cantaloupe, Cauliflower. You can see more here but that was also a limited study with their own criteria.
The Environmental Working Group is funded by the organic industry; their statements are designed to promote “chemical phobia” and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Mercola is a noted (and very rich) pusher of supplements and he too has a distinctly anti-science leaning. Neither he nor the Environmental Working Group have any credibility.
@dlb Thank you very much for your response. I did not know that pesticides can be used on organic food too. Do you know whether the 'naturally' produced organic pesticides are less harmful than the 'refined' non-organic pesticides however?
@JamesMcLeod that is useful to know. Do you not believe that the non-organic food industry would also have an interest in claiming that pesticides are less harmful than they actually are?
@AlexMichael the point is, science doesn’t lie about things like the lethal dose of a substance; these things can be determined independently whenever needed. It may be that the traditional agricultural industries put a spin on what they say, but peer-reviewed and published science backs modern artificial pesticides like glyphosate being both safer for the end consumer and better for the environment than many pesticides that can be used in n organic farming. These are scientific facts, not marketing or opinion.
Thanks @JamesMcLeod. Good points. Where have you obtained your opinions on how the organic movement is a non-evidence based money making scam? I would be interested to read further myself
You could do worse than starting here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Organic_food.
-1 for citing Mercola, who is a well known quack. Find a proper source and I'll remove my downvote.
@Richard Mercola is not the source, however the actual source is likely just as biased as I implied. I simply gave the list they had, and the actual numbers are from the USDA. The criteria they used was their own formula and they simply rated from 48 surveyed products so the bias is minimal for what the OP asked. Note that even under their evaluations they stated they considered those 15 safest to buy under commercial conditions, the other 12 they would not. I personally have a major bias as I stated in my answer against organic rules because they are not organic.
@AlexMichael getting legitimate answers to this one is very difficult, because even watchdog groups like the USDA have a stake in the arguments. But to understand a little of the rule in the US on "organic" understand the rules were written by those with their hands out for profit. Even some of the groups that promote Organic methods make most of their profits from alternative controls. Some, but not all of those alternatives are potentially as bad as what they replace, and some controls are often necessary. Even under the best conditions any measure is highly variable as rumtscho points out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.984035
| 2019-01-02T02:20:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95268",
"authors": [
"Alex Michael",
"James McLeod",
"Richard",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70483"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94128
|
Buttermilk Fudge not setting
My grandma used to make buttermilk fudge for us every year for Christmas. I have tried and tried to make it and it never sets up. It tastes great if you want to eat it with a spoon.
The recipe is
2 c sugar
2 c buttermilk
1/4 c butter
1/3 c dark karo
1 tsp soda
1 tsp vanilla
1 c nuts
Cook till forms a medium soft ball. First cool a while and add vanilla and nuts. Beat by hand.
I remember grandma always saying something about the shine. Oh why didn't I pay more attention?! What am I doing wrong?
Are you using a candy thermometer to tell you when you have reached the "medium soft ball" stage?
I would bet that the "something" your grandma said about shine was "beat it until it's not shiny anymore." The likely reasons that your fudge isn't setting are that you're either not heating it hot enough to begin with, not waiting long enough before you start beating, or you're not beating it until it loses its shine.
Here's how I'd re-write your recipe's instructions to make them a bit more detailed.
Version 1 (you don't own a candy thermometer):
Heat the first 5 ingredients until medium soft ball stage.
Remove from heat and cool without disturbance for about 10-15 minutes.
Add vanilla and nuts beat until the candy begins to lose its shine.
When it is beginning to thicken and becomes opaque, pour/scrape it into a prepared pan.
Version 2 (you own a candy thermometer):
Heat the first 5 ingredients until 240 F.
Remove from heat and cool without disturbance until candy reaches 140 F.
Add vanilla and nuts beat until the candy begins to lose its shine.
When it is beginning to thicken and becomes opaque, pour/scrape it into a prepared pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.984916
| 2018-11-21T13:05:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94128",
"authors": [
"GloriaZ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70830"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95885
|
Are kidney beans that split and wrinkle during soaking process safe to consume?
After 5 hours of soaking I find my dried kidney beans' skin wrinkled and some split in two, however my main concern is phytohaemagglutinin and the fact now that some beans are split open and lost their skin (shell) microbes have access to inside.
Safe as in not causing any illnesses, upset stomach and life threatening situations.
Phytohaemagglutinin is found in the highest concentrations in uncooked red kidney beans and white kidney beans (also known as cannellini), and it is also found in lower quantities in many other types of green beans and other common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), as well as broad beans (Vicia faba) such as fava beans. Poisoning can be induced from as few as five raw beans. The amount of phytohaemagglutinin can be reduced to safe levels by correct cooking (boiling for at least 30 minutes at 100 °C/ 212 °F). Insufficient cooking, such as in a slow cooker at 80 °C/ 176 °F can increase this danger and raise the available haemagglutinating units (hau) up to fivefold.
Most microorganism, or microbes, can be greatly reduced by proper cooking.
Low acid foods, such as beans that have been stored incorrectly, can be a source of botulism.
The above information is sourced from Wikipedia. The blog article: "Crockpots, Slow Cooking Dried Beans & Phytohaemagglutinin" suggests:
Soak the dried beans in water for at least five hours (some recommend soaking the beans for at least twelve hours)
Discard the soaking water which will contain leached out toxins
Rinse the beans and cover them with fresh water
Boil the beans (rapid boil) for at least ten minutes
It is then safe to add the beans to the slow cooker and proceed with the recipe
It is important to do your own research and not rely on any single source of advice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.985061
| 2019-01-23T15:15:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95885",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94730
|
What is the name and preparation style of this type of tofu?
I am looking for the name of and the preparation style of a type of "shredded tofu" found in Vietnamese vegetarian style garden/spring rolls.
This is the style of roll I am talking about.
Shredded tofu vegetarian garden/ spring roll
This tofu has a rich meaty texture and deep umami flavor I enjoy. I have not been able to find it at "traditional" Vietnamese restaurants and have only seen this style at vegetarian / Buddist style restaurants.
Can anyone tell me if this stuff is available for purchase (I have not been able to find it at my local Asian market) and if not what the preparation and recipe is?
This is Bì Cuốn Chay (bì = skin , cuốn = roll , chay = vegetarian). The meat version is Bì Cuốn, using pork + pork skin + roasted rice powder (thính) as the main ingredients.
To make the vegetarian dish, you can either use gluten meal (mì căn) widely available in all East Asian groceries, or use tofu as you mentioned. The gluten meal is sold either uncooked or seasoned & cooked. I'd rather use the uncooked version & season it to taste as most cooked versions have heavy Chinese five spice seasoning & oil that don't go well with the Viet flavors on this roll.
The tofu is actually very simple and is nothing special. You can get a couple blocks of semi- firm or firm tofu, slice them to about 1 inch thick or slightly less, leave them to dry for a couple hours, then fry them brown. You can season them with a bit of soy sauce if desired or season after frying. Cut them to the desired pieces as in the pictures, coat them with thính and use the other ingredient to make your roll.
You can buy thính in a bag or small jar at the store, or simply roast some rice on a pan until brown, then use a grinder like a good pepper grinder ( be sure to wash all the pepper smell out first) and grind the roasted rice to a powder. I like to roast my own because the freshly roasted rice smell way better than store bought. Once done with the rolls, you can use nước mắm chay (vegetarian "fish" sauce) to make a dip sauce.
Here is a YouTube video for the tofu version (in Vietnamese)
Wish you success & Enjoy!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.985216
| 2018-12-11T22:36:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94730",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96436
|
What's the name of this dish (or name of fish) in these pictures?
the following dish calls for Roasted Tomato and Saffron Vinaigrette (also called bouillabaisse?). My cookbook says they're excellent for fish dishes. Do you know what's the name of the fish (or dish) in the following pictures? I'm trying to recreate what's in my cookbook. Thank you for your help!
the Roasted Tomato and Saffron Vinaigrette has: mustard, shallot(minced), garlic(minced), red wine vinegar, thyme (chopped), orange juice, orange zest, red pepper flakes, saffron, tomatoes (chopped and roasted), mild French olive oil, salt, patis
Bouillabaisse is a traditional fish stew originating in the French port city of Marseille. While the sauce in your recipe might have some ingredients in common with that dish, it is not a bouillabaisse. Pictured is a firm, white fish. I'm not sure I can identify the exact species, but it might be halibut or cod. Given the sauce and the plating, I would say any firm, white fish would work in the recipe.
moscafj, thank you for your answer. It's helpful! Do you know how should I cook the white fish? I'm thinking of sprinkling it with salt then bake it in the oven. When the fish is cooked, I'm pour the Roasted Tomato and Saffron Vinaigrette on top of it.
That would work.
The use of saffron makes me think the recipe author has taken inspiration from a Rouille which is a sauce typically served with bouillabaisse.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.985408
| 2019-02-19T20:51:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96436",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72963",
"jeffrey",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99717
|
Is it safe to eat hard boiled eggs after washing with peroxide and cold water?
I read that washing eggs with cold water will draw bacteria from the outer shell inward the egg.
Are hard boiled eggs made with eggs washed with peroxide and rinsed with cold water before cooking safe to eat? I am concerned about the cold water I used to clean the porous shell.
Where are you located? In the US, commercially produced eggs are required to be washed before being sold.
And you may remember that boiling destroys bacteria as well.
It's hard to tell whether this is a valid concern about farm eggs & non-pottable water, or paranoia over supermarket eggs.
Another question: by "peroxide", do you mean hydrogen peroxide or a different peroxide-based bleach?
Additional note: the FDA does advise against washing other foods when it is deemed to be unsafe; see the "1. Clean:" section of this article. However, if you are not cooking in the US, you may give more weight to the advice of your local food safety authority.
While not an exact match for this question, this answer includes a link to FDA guidelines for cooking eggs and explains some of the reasoning behind them. The link in the answer is broken; this new article from the FDA appears to contain the same advice.
Until the 70s we even boiled (5 minutes I guess) syringes for injections Given that a sold egg should be ok and to make a hard egg takes about 10 minutes, I would feel mindless.
@Alchimista „mindless“? May be because I‘m not a native speaker, but I don’t really get it?
@Stephie - I am an English native & I'm not sure what point it's trying to make either;) Additionally, I've vtc'd this as 'too broad' because we need too many additional details before it's answerable at all.
Sorry forgot the real meaning of mindless. I feel the entire story about a hard egg is mindless. But I know others have different views and show an epidemiological approach corroborated by big number effect. The only question that would make sense here, and suitable for Biology SE, is "is it true that washing eggs with (cold) water facilitates bacteria to diffuse inwards? ".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.985555
| 2019-06-24T12:50:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99717",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Cindy",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72906",
"user95442"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99767
|
Help identifying squash
Hi, everyone – – I’m wondering if I could get some help identifying this type of squash. I grew it in my garden, and the plant seedling was marked as a pattypan squash, which it’s obviously not! The flesh inside is green, and I had to scoop out the innards and seeds before cooking it. The skin seems to be quite thick, like a butternut. I removed it before cooking as well. The flesh is firmer than a zucchini. I included the Sharpie for size comparison.
Thank you!!
More examples
Are you willing to cut one in half and add it to the photo? Then we can see what color the insides are, what kind of seeds it has, etc.? Also, put the subject of your photo in the light, not in a shadow and it will be easier to see it.
Done! I sliced it as well as included a photo after I cut it up.
My best guess based on your photo is that it's kabocha (aka Japanese pumpkin)
(image source).
But squashes also hybridize pretty easily, so far as I know, so it could be a random hybrid rather than an established variety. Possibly one derived from kabocha or acorn squash.
If you grew this from seed saved from last year's garden squash, it could be that your squashes were hybrids that can't be grown from their own seeds.
Now I noticed you said the flesh is green. That makes kabocha less likely. Maybe a hybrid of kabocha and zucchini, that happened to get the skin and shape of the kabocha and the flesh of the zucchini?
Edit
I've researched further and learned that kabocha is a variety of the cucurbita maxima while zucchini is a variety of cucurbita pepo, two different species, and therefore these two could not hybridize.
However, C. pepo does include both summer and winter squash varieties, so it would be possible to get a hybrid of the two if both parents were varieties of C. pepo. C. pepo includes acorn squash and (some) pumpkins among winter squash varieties, and pattypans, zucchini, crooknecks and many other summer squash varieties.
C. maxima includes kabocha, hubbard squash, and many others. I'm not familiar enough with other maxima varieties to say if there are varieties that are likely parents of your example.
I actually bought these as seedlings in the local nursery, and its neighbors in the bed are zucchini, so maybe I ended up with a pattypan zucchini hybrid? The leaf shape on these particular plants is different than the zucchini, though. There aren’t any kabocha in the area that I know of... unless the pollinator brought it in from where it had just been!
@KatherineBoster They would only hybridize if you replant the seeds. That is when you would notice the crossing, would be next generation. Corn we see the effect on this generation because we consume the seeds rather than a fruit/vegetable. Which variety is hard to be certain though ThePhoton's guess is a good one, but from the description and picture it is most likely some variety of winter squash/pumpkin. Those typically would need to grown all or most of the year and not really be ripe until fall. Hard skin and needing inner seed cavity are tell-tales.
PS, likely had a tag moved or misplaced at the nursery.
@dlb, From the new photos, I wonder if it's a summer squash crossed with a winter squash. It has the hard skin of a winter squash, but the seed cavity is nearly filled and somewhat fleshy, somewhat like a summer squash. Green flesh also is more common in summer squash than winter squash, AFAIK.
@ThePhoton That looks fairly normal for a pumpkin type to me, especially one that is not yet ripe. The stringy semi flesh tends to reduce with more maturity.
@dlb - I also wondered if it was underripe, that might account for some of the qualities
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.985754
| 2019-06-26T22:14:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99767",
"authors": [
"Katherine Boster",
"Megha",
"The Photon",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76220"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99625
|
How long can chocolate be held at temper?
I just got a chocolate melter and have held some tempered pure chocolate (Lindt Excellence 90%) for a day at 33C.
I intend to make up 3 or 4 truffles, a few times a week.
What’s occurred to me is I can just keep this chocolate at temper indefinitely, adding 50g at a time as the level gets low.
The question is, how long will the chocolate last like this? Will the cocoa fat oxidize quickly or will there be some other problem?
I wonder if this were a chocolate factory, whether the chocolate would be kept at temper 24/7 or whether the machine would be periodically emptied and cleaned for some reason.
Potential leads for possible food safety issues:
Salmonella has been observed in chocolate. This survey may be a good place to look for sources.
A draft FDA document states that Salmonella can continue growing at up to 46C, well above tempering temperatures. (Earlier steps in chocolate processing may maintain temperatures high enough and long enough for pasteurization.) ...
I am not an expert in tempering, but I think the long standing time at 33˚C can contribute to V crystals reforming as VI (after all, they do this at room temperature over time). If this happened then it would cause the tempered chocolate to thicken and require melting and tempering again.
Will look forward to more answers on this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.986062
| 2019-06-20T06:10:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99625",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72906",
"user95442"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96987
|
bread dough rising without airing cupboard
I did live in a house with an airing cupboard which did work. However, I have a breadmaker and make the dough ready to shape into pitta bread pieces but how do I make it rise as I don’t have an airing cupboard.
Welcome to the site! What is your question? At the moment it isn't clear, and is likely to be closed.
Welcome! You may want to take the [tour] and browse through our [help], especially [ask], then [edit] your post to have a clear question. It may also be a good idea to search the existing questions, we do have some on raising dough.
Anne, could you check: does this Q/A answer your question?
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/10310/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/2276/67
Use your oven. If you wish, turn the oven on at its lowest temperature for about 10 minutes before you want to rise your dough. Then turn it off and place your dough inside.
Another trick is to add a pan of warm water to the bottom of your oven while the dough rises -- this increases the humidity which may help with rising.
Or turn the oven light on and close the door.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.986194
| 2019-03-19T12:23:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96987",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Rob",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"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
}
|
41406
|
What causes a cake to sink in the center?
I just pulled an Italian specialty cake out of the oven and was disappointed to see that it has sunk badly in the middle. It's not to be frosted or layered, so it might still be quite good, but what could have caused the sinking? Here's the recipe, but I deviated considerably in the making of the puree. Orange Olive Oil Cake
EDIT: It wasn't pretty, but it was awesomely good! Maybe the best tasting cake I've ever made. My guest loved it too. It was very orangey, but not too sweet. Moist and dense, but not heavy. It was sublime.
EDIT #2: Here's a picture of a slice that shows just how badly the cake sank. I can't complain too much since the flavor and texture was so spot-on great, but I'd still like the final evolution to be pretty and tasty.
Was the middle fully cooked?
@Mien It appears to be, I did the toothpick test. The sinking started long before I declared the cake done and took it out of the oven.
What things did you change in this run?
@SAJ14SAJ I made a VERY flavorful puree using just the zest from 6 small oranges (cut with a vegetable peeler) and the supremed segments from those oranges. I used about the same volume of puree as last time, and I drained it from most of the syrup, so I'm fairly confident that my changes in the puree are not what caused the sinking. The cake sank a little bit last time too, but not as badly.
Did you open the oven during baking?
Could you have overleavened? This is a common cause, if you use too much leavening and it fills up with more gases than the cake structure can support.
@ElendilTheTall Yes, I did open the oven, at the very earliest it could have been done. I rotated it then.
@rumtscho I suppose it's possible, but the recipe is pretty highly rated and I followed it except for making the puree more flavorful. Plus, it was worse this time than last. I weigh the flour (140g per cup for Gold Medal brand) so I can't imagine that I had different measurements.
A possibility would be that your cake ended up being too moist with liquid. Note that @rumtscho reduced most of the water out in her attempt.
If I recall correctly (it's been years) Bakery Master, Joanne Chang said something to the effect of:
It's not that cake collapses in the middle, it's that the cake
holds on to the form better on the outside.
This the same reason that some cakes go the other way and dome up in the centre and why the bunt form has a hole in the centre.
What possibly happened to your cake was that the cake had a nice chance to 'cure' around the outside since heat was more accessible. In the centre, however, being the most buffered part, the cake remained mushy long enough to let gases escape before the protein structure formed strong enough to hold it up.
I made the cake from the recipe, and had no problems with leavening. I first cooked a marmalade of the whole oranges (including the pith) and all the sugar and then followed the recipe as given.
But during the marmalade cooking step, the whole thing cooked down a lot. I started with 950 ml of water and 225 g of sugar, and cooked to 107 Celsius, which means that maybe close to 800 ml of the water evaporated. The rest was very saturated. I don't know how exactly you made your puree, but you mention draining it, so I can imagine it will have been quite dry.
Now, if you look at a classic pound cake, the ratio is 1:1:1:1 for flour, fat, eggs and sugar. We have 225 g of sugar here and a similar amount of eggs. But we are using much less fat. It is common to use a fruit puree to partly replace fat, but if we are staying with the original recipe, even after 30 min of cooking, we will have much more added water and fruit pulp than the missing 160 ml of fat. So the authors seemed to have adjusted the recipe for the additional moisture by increasing the flour to 325 g.
What I did was to add only half of the flour I had measured out, and then a bit more baking powder as I had already mixed the leavening agents under the flour. If you didn't adjust the flour but cooked down the puree a lot, you might have ended up with a very heavy, floury cake, which couldn't leaven and collapsed under its own weight. My advice would be to try reducing the flour next time and go by feel until you have reached a proper batter consistency.
Awesome that you made the cake! I have just enough puree left to make one more cake, so I'll try tweaking with your recommendations. Thanks!
The recipe interested me since the first time you mentioned it, and now I had an occasion to bake. But I haven't tasted it yet, will bring it to work tomorrow and cut it there, so we'll see if I like it enough for a second baking. I'll also tell you if the pith makes it overly bitter (but be aware that I have a higher bitterness tolerance/affinity than most people). BTW, for the marmalade cooking, I used Alton Brown's method from the video linked in the answer to your previous question about the cake.
I'll be interested to find out. I very much liked the tweaking I did with the puree even though it was a lot of work. The flavor was fabulous but the sinking disturbed me a bit. I still have a slice left, so I'll post a picture with my question. I'll wait to "accept" your answer after I make cake #3. :)
Sure, bake it and report the results. I am not sure that this was your problem, just something I noticed during baking and thought it might be related to your case. I cannot promise that it will help (but hope that it will).
As others have said it can be because it is too liquid rich and therefore the liquid/flour ratio is not right. The other reason can be that the oven was opened too early. The rush of cold air can cause a good cake to collapse. Try leaving the cake for a bit longer before opening the oven and the structure should stay.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.986331
| 2014-01-23T23:04:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41406",
"authors": [
"Appalappa",
"Cathy",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Goldiloxtoo",
"Hayme",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97268",
"khadakhada",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38079
|
Substitue for paneer? Have low fat milk, plain youghurt, cream cheese and butter
I have a recipie for Skewered Pumpkin (from India Cookbook by Pushpesh Pant). Basically it's grated pumpkin, paneer, onion, breadcrumbs and spices moulded into a sausage shape around a skewer and cooked over a grill or in a tandoor.
This calls for 300g of paneer. I do not have paneer but I do have low fat milk, plain yoghurt, cream cheese and also butter. Can I substitute the paneer with some combination of these?
Alternatively, will paneer work with if I try to make it from low-fat milk? Or does it rely on the milk fats? How much milk would I need to start with to finish with 300g of paneer?
I'm aware of How do you make paneer? so there is no need to repeat answers given there.
No, you can't substitute any of those for paneer. This should be pretty obvious given that you're trying to skewer and grill the paneer. It's a firm cheese that doesn't melt, while any combination of milk, yogurt, cream cheese, and butter will melt, if it's not liquid already. The best substitutes would be other cheeses like halloumi that don't melt, or else tofu. A firm cottage cheese would probably also do okay.
You also can't really use a cheese that melts in something like this. First of all, it just could never be the same texture, and the flavor would be a bit different too. But it could be worse than that. You didn't say exactly how much pumpkin, onion, and breadcrumbs you have in there, but generally, if you put a melting cheese in there, it's at best going to make the whole thing less solid and at worst it'll drip out as you grill it or conceivably even let it fall apart.
But you can indeed make paneer with the low fat milk, though. The texture just won't be quite as good - a little tougher, more dry and maybe even crumbly - since there's less fat and relatively more protein. With whole milk, 2L of milk makes ~350 grams of paneer, though that can of course vary depending on how well you drain/press it. Low fat milk won't have quite as high a yield, but you can probably still just start with 2L. The texture is probably the bigger problem. (And it'll of course be worse if your milk is 1% than if it's 2%.)
So cheddar might work then?
@WW. No, cheddar, and most other cheeses you might have, will also melt. If you have halloumi, that'd work, and tofu is not that bad a substitute either. But you asked about substitutes from a restricted list. (I guess if the cheese is a really small fraction mixed into other stuff, it'd be okay - but still not anything like using paneer - but assuming it's substantial, anything that melts is just going to drip out. And you said 300g, so it sounds like it's substantial.)
I thought the paneer was to provide fat. But I take it from the answers it's to hold it together. In the end I put an egg in and they were crumbly but still edible. I'll try again when I have all the ingredients and see what that's like.
@WW. I think it's more just to provide bulk and flavor (some of which is fat, yes). I wouldn't actually expect it to make it hold together that much - it really doesn't melt much at all. Maybe this is a copy of the recipe? It does say the breadcrumbs are for binding. I'm surprised it was still crumbly with an egg; that suggests it'll always be crumbly.
Yes, that is the recipie. I think I also left too much moisture in the pumpkin after cooking it. I ended up having to put extra breadcrumbs in because it was not holding together. They held together enough to cook, but only just.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.986946
| 2013-11-02T02:29:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38079",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Tdayturkey",
"WW.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89690",
"linkfun88id7 spam",
"w88sport4 spam",
"عائشة ناسف"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8798
|
Can I boil eggs in the same pot I'm boiling something else?
I know cooking the eggs kills the salmonella and that the risk is small even for raw eggs. However, I stopped boiling the eggs in the same pot I'm boiling something else, like potatoes, when I learnt the salmonella is in the shell.
Obviously, I'm not eating the shell and the eggs are washed. I wonder if I can boil everything in the same pot or not.
If you are not grossed out by the fact that eggs are/were smeared in hen excrement then why not (after washing).
@Mischa- if hens have enough space they avoid defecating in their nesting area. The eggs I gather are usually clean (sometimes muddy if it has been raining).
@Sobachatina but for folks buying supermarket eggs, they were likely from industrial farms where hens have no such luxury
I personally reckon it's fine.
Couple of points I like to make here are:
Hygiene of eggs: Make sure you wash your eggs before you cook as surface of egg can be very dirty
Maybe put the eggs in with cold water, otherwise, put the eggs when the water is hot may crack the eggs
I'd think it's too rapid a boil that cracks eggs, not so much the rapid temperature change. I've never washed eggs before boiling, myself.
If you put them in cold water it would be very hard to measure the boil time
Salmonella can't survive boiling water, it would get killed at that temperature. It should be fine to boil everything in the same pot.
As soon as one of the eggs gets cracked you might get a true mess, so it is safer to boil them separated from the rest of your meal. Otherwise there's no problem with it (taken the eggs are clean).
If you are cooking the eggs hot enough to kill Salmonella (above 160 F), then you are also cooking the egg shell hot enough. Egg white becomes solid and firm at 170 F, so that is a good gauge. Of course, observing your water at a rolling boil is also a good gauge (212 F). Keep in mind the average consumer will encounter one contaminated egg in a lifetime. Unless you are in the habit of cracking your eggs open and letting them sit raw for hours at favorable temperatures, you will probably not encounter this issue.
There may be confusion with instructions for sterilizing drinking water. To prepare outdoor water for drinking, it is recommended a full rolling boil for 10 minutes. This addresses a wide potential range of bacteria, spores, parasites, etc. Although there may be the odd pond water parasite that needs ten minutes of boiling, these are not creatures found in your egg carton.
Yes. We've made potato salad with the eggs and the potatoes boiling together for generations.
I've had no problems boiling eggs in the same pot as my rice or pasta.
I usually place them very gently into the boiling water. Haven't had any crack so far, but I'm guessing that's more good luck than good planning.
The most important thing for me is that it saves on pan usage. I don't have very many, and using an entire pan/burner for an egg is a little overkill, compared to this alternative. The less washing up is nice too.
Yes I would have thought this would be fine. Though I've never done it myself.
The only issues i can see are getting it soft boiled (for which my technique requires the eggs starting in cold water).
I have recipes from cookbooks that combine-cook eggs (with green beans, for example). I'd therefore imagine it'd not be a problem.
(Although my cookbooks can be wrong as well, of course).
If the concern's salmonella, older ookbooks wouldn't have had to deal with the issue, as the problem's been amplified with larger farms, which is how we get most of our eggs today.
They're not older cookbooks, but sure, that's true. Luckily the more authoratative answers say the same. :)
Boiling eggs along with noodles, water for tea, and many other things has taken place for years. Its only people's recent phobia of germs that causes one to be apprehensive. There is no harm in it.
It's not just a simple issue with phobias -- the problem is that chickens are raised differently than they were generations ago, and the close quarters have lead to increased problems. (and I'm not saying that it's not safe, I'm just saying that there are reasons for the increased concerns of salmonella)
There's a story that Einstein often ate lunch comprised of hard-boiled eggs & chicken noodle soup, where he cooked them together in the pot to save time. Doesn't seem like he had any problems with it! Boiling water is hot enough to kill germs, and techniques can be altered since the only requirement is to heat the egg to the appropriate temperature. Too bad you have to guess what that temp is.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.987283
| 2010-11-03T09:24:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8798",
"authors": [
"Andrew Goacher",
"Ben Tam",
"Clive R.",
"Janice",
"Joe",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"OrangePeel52",
"Polly",
"Sobachatina",
"T.D.",
"Tara",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"die_troller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85791",
"jwbdecker",
"nights",
"seigando",
"user2307487",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28760
|
Understanding the steps to prepare sushi rice
I'm looking for the equivalent of Peter Reinhart's twelve steps for making bread applied to sushi. Basically, a detailed list of steps and the explanation of why are they important.
For example, most recipes mention that soaking the rice is essential to remove starch and avoid rice getting too sticky. That's good advice, but later, they give the exact time the pot must be on high heat and then on low heat, regardless of the type of kitchen. Even Serious Eats. Like it didn't matter if you use gas or an electric stove...
I want to understand the role of the vinegar so I can use a different vinegar. Can I boil it or just heat it enough to dissolve the sugar and salt? Why? Why do I need a lid that fits? And so on.
I've tried to google and search in this site, where I found a good stove top method. I'd like to know the whys, so I know what to look for in a cooked rice (like the 205F temperature in bread).
There are recipes for rice cookers, but that's like saying you need a bread machine to get decent bread.
In short, I want to understand how to make sushi rice.
Rolling back the edit because I'm not looking for answers to any of the details, I want the same thing Peter Reinhart did for bread: a list of steps that all recipes follow using different techniques. I'll adapt to my circumstances once I understand what and why I have to do in each step
I'm voting to close your question as "not a real question" because I believe, based on your clarifications, that it is overly broad. See the [faq] for more. (I also believe that it's extremely poor form to roll back that edit, saying that you're not looking for that information, when you explicitly asked for it in a comment on an answer.) All this said, I believe my answer already in fact gave you essentially what you asked for, and I'm editing it to make that a little more clear in case your question is not closed.
With respect to the "too broad" issue - if my answer is still not complete and detailed enough for you, then your question is definitely too broad. As the [faq] say, "Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much." If there are actual things about the process that you don't understand, or actual steps of the process that you have trouble with, focus your question on them.
I didn't expect you would take the rollback of the edit personally, I did it so other people will read what I wrote and not focus on that specific part. In fact, after the reorganization of your last edit it looks much better, except for the specifics, which I wasn't looking for and just gave as an specific example. I'd suggest to remove that part. Then, if you address the resting period(s), I read they matter in http://www.beyondsalmon.com/2006/02/technique-of-week-how-to-make-sushi.html I will have nothing else to ask for
About closing the question: help me make it more specific. Should I ask "does somethink like the canonical steps of Peter Reinhart for bread exists for rice?"
My answer already addresses the resting periods - immediately after cooking, the rice finishes absorbing water, and during the fanning/drying the rice, well, gets dried. The fact that you have seen many different methods for making sushi rice suggests that canonical steps do not exist, but insofar as they do, they are the ones that are in common between everything you've linked to, as well as my answer. (And I did not take your rollback personally, I said it's poor form to ask for specific information, then say it's not actually what you're looking for.)
I think it would be better to pull the "what's the role of vinegar in sushi" question off into its very own question.
Rinsing rice
Simple - rinse off the extra starch so it's not too sticky. This isn't magic. You're just getting rid of some starch before you go on to the next step. Some people advocate soaking the rice here as well. It's perfectly possible to make sushi rice without doing that, though, just rinsing. The soaking just helps make it easier to get the layer of starch off. If the rice is well-rinsed without it (not sticky, translucent, not white on the surface), don't worry about it.
Steaming rice
This is really pretty simple - you want to bring the water to a simmer (not a rolling boil) in order to fill the closed vessel with steam, keep it there until the rice is cooked, then let it rest in order to take up any remaining water.
The Serious Eats article you linked to is really perfectly fine here - it does not give a time for high heat, but rather says to bring to a simmer over high heat (i.e. as fast as possible) then simmer for 15 minutes on low heat (i.e. only enough to make it simmer). It doesn't matter at all whether the heat is coming from electricity or gas, and it doesn't matter that much how powerful your stove is - it might make a difference of a minute or two in how long it takes for it to come to a simmer, but that's not a huge deal. If the total cooking time is a little longer, it just means it'll have absorbed all the water a bit sooner.
Of course if your stove is very far from normal, like say a backpacking stove that takes 30 minutes to heat the water to a simmer, that'd be different. And if your stove is so powerful that even on its lowest setting it cooks the rice dry on the bottom and it sticks to the pot, that's obviously a problem. But I doubt that's the case. It will pretty definitely work. If it's a little off, you can adjust the cooking time a little bit. But no author can tell you exactly how powerful your stove is, and I doubt anyone has a table that says "if your stove puts out X BTU, reduce cooking time by 30 seconds." If you've tried many times and had trouble, or are really this worried about it, just get a rice cooker.
You need a lid that fits well because if it's loose, steam will escape, preventing you from actually steaming the rice. There also won't be as much water left for the rice to take up.
What to look for? Immediately after cooking and resting, like Serious Eats says, the water should be all absorbed. If it's not, you didn't let it sit long enough, or maybe you even need to increase the cooking time a minute or two. (If it's way off, make sure your initial measurement of water was right.) The rice should also, well, look like cooked rice. If you try some it shouldn't still be hard in the middle. It should also not be mushy after absorbing way too much water. It should be, well, like sushi rice, except with a bit of extra moisture that you'll remove later.
Vinegar
Using a different vinegar would appear to be addressed by the question you linked to - as they say, it's just a matter of getting the same sweetness and acidity. Being off by a tiny bit will not hurt you, though. Taste it and see what you like. There's room for considerable variation in sushi rice anyway. I've had it with a very light touch of vinegar and sugar, and I've had it with more obvious flavor. So what to look for? It should taste right. "Right" is subjective, so no one can tell you exactly what it means for you, but it's something in the realm of slightly but noticeably sweet and tart.
Heating the vinegar is just in order to make it easy to dissolve the sugar and salt. There's no reason to bother bringing it to a boil - and if you do, it'll have a really intense (unpleasant to most people) smell from the vapors and you'll end up reducing and concentrating it.
Fanning/drying the rice
This is really pretty simple - you're just getting rid of excess moisture while gently mixing in the vinegar. If you destroy all the grains, you're mixing too vigorously. For the final product, again, look back at the Serious Eats article:
If all goes well, your sumeshi should come out slightly sweet and tart, full of distinct grains, and have a texture that holds together when compressed, but is not overly sticky.
The fanning/drying is what helps bring it the rest of the way to that texture. The amount of drying it takes to get there will depend a lot on the conditions in your kitchen, and how much extra moisture was left in the rice, so just check on it now and then. Don't use it while it's still way too wet, and don't leave it for days and let it turn into hard little grains again.
Specifics for electric stoves
If your stove is strong and tends to retain heat, you do have to use a little more care when cooking. Electric stoves (including glass-ceramic ones) do this, but it should really be the same kind of thing you routinely deal with. So we're trying to steam rice, which means bringing the water in the pot up to a simmering/steaming temperature, and holding it there for a bit with the lid on. This is something which is quite possible on an electric stove (including a glass-ceramic one); you just have to know what you're doing. It's also not really at all specific to making sushi rice, but I'll go ahead and explain.
First, remember that you want to bring it to a simmer, not a rolling boil. This means there should be a few bubbles at the bottom of the pot, not a constant stream of large bubbles coming up everywhere, and the pot should be filling with steam with maybe a little leaking out, not spraying it everywhere and forcing it past the lid. If you're getting to a rolling boil, you've gone too far.
If your stove is absurdly powerful, you can start out by just not using it at full power. That'll make it easier to adjust down to low power later.
You should also be aware of roughly long it takes to come to a simmer (a little less than the time to come to a rolling boil), and reduce the heat to low before you get there. You should really be able to manage fine like this. If you still overshoot by a little, you can simply pull the pot off the burner then put it back on once it and the burner have cooled down a little. You can even repeat that a few times - just be careful not to leave it off so long that it's not at a simmer anymore. If you still can't manage to avoid boiling over, then you can just move the pot to another burner that's already on low.
These are the kinds of routine adjustments you should expect to have to make when using an electric stove, no matter what you're making. Rice is just one example. Your stove doesn't change temperatures instantly, so you have to help it out by changing the power early, so that when you want it at the lower temperature, it's there. To put it another way, when a recipe asks for low heat, it means low heat coming from the burner, not a low number on the control knob. So you turn the knob early, so that when you want low heat coming from the burner, that's what's happening.
This is a a good answer addressing some techniques, but not what I'm looking for. My current kitchen is glass ceramic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-ceramic#Cooktops which holds a lot of heat and I can't keep the lid on. So I'm looking for ways to keep it simmering on low heat (oven, different burner, hot water from a kettle and have the low heat ready, etc). It would help knowing why the low heat is necessary. If the problem with the lid is that water escapes, I could put more water, couldn't I? But that's talking about techniques. I'm looking about what I want to accomplish in each step.
@Julio So the question you're having isn't "How do I make sushi rice" but "Why is low heat necessary to keep something at a simmer and how can I accomplish this on a glass-ceramic cooktop"? Usually recipes have you put the heat to low to prevent the simmer from becoming a boil.
@Julio I'm baffled why you asked so many things in your original question and neglected to mention the one actual problem you have. But I'll edit my answer and your question to help you out. Note that I have no idea if you're still unclear on "what to accomplish" in each step. I thought that trying to accomplish simmering and thus steaming was fairly clear, but was obviously wrong there; maybe you're still unclear on other things too?
@Yamikuronue My question is not "how do I make sushi rice", my question is "understanding the steps to prepare sushi rice". I think I should change it to something else because it's not clear what I want. I don't want a recipe or the techniques Jefromi is detailing
@Jefromi I appreciate your help, but please don't take the specific example of my stove as my general problem. Sometimes, I just use the oven. When I had gas, I had no problem in that step. In any case, for me, those are different techniques for the step of getting the rice to absorb the water. Acidifying the rice is another step, you want the rice to be safe and tasting, each vinegar combination gets you something in each direction. There are more steps: a resting period after the inital soaking, a resting period after steaming... I'm looking for that list detailed. Is it a bit clearer now?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.987731
| 2012-11-29T19:23:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28760",
"authors": [
"Ana Debaker",
"Betsy Weber",
"Cascabel",
"Jeremy Myers",
"Julio",
"KatieK",
"Ken",
"Rebecca Elizabeth Norris",
"Wendy",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66613",
"katsos",
"missingtx78",
"notthehoff",
"user27560"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91285
|
Does "build up" on the bottom of copper-bottom stainless sauce and frying pans matter?
I am not the most fastidious pot washer: over the years, my copper-bottomed fry pans have developed a layer of (I guess) burned oil residue.
Aside from any "ick" factor, does this affect the the performance of the pan? I've been trying to scrub a little bit off every time I wash them but when I have seen cooking shows, etc. I see pans that look like mine.
Does it matter? And if it does, is there a way to get this off aside from brute force with a ScotchBrite pad?
It will have no effect on the pan on most cooking surfaces, but cleaning will allow copper conductivity to work properly.
Cleaning is a bit of work, but I have the exact same pan and had the same problem. First, to handle the real hard burnt on grease and crud, I purchased a copper wire scrub pad and a stainless steel scrub pad. You can find these in most houseware stores, or houseware section in a supermarket or drugstores. The copper is used only on the copper part and will not cause it to be rubbed off or scratched, the steel for the steel part with same effect. As a scrubbing agent I used Bar Keepers Friend. This will require elbow grease and may need multiple applications, but take your time, be firm but gentle and keep going while rinsing in between with very hot water. Also, make sure scrubbers are wet with hot water while scrubbing. It sounds tedious, but I just got into a zen mode and relaxed into it and enjoyed the results. It got it all off for me, and mine was 10 years of accumulation.
After you've scrub off the hard stuff, take some kosher salt and pour in bowl, then dip half a lemon into salt and scrub the copper with the salted lemon. You can also just pour salt on pot and scrub with lemon, this will give it some additional scouring and will bring back that store bought copper shine. To keep it clean going forward, clean it immediately after each use, using pads if necessary, and a lemon scrubbing when dull.
Thanks. I've been seeing references to that "Bar Keepers Friend" product but have never encountered it in anyone's home, etc. I wonder if it is a regional thing (I live in NE USA).
I think it depends on your cooking surface.
If you're using gaz, induction or coil, then it should be ok.
If you are using a glass top, then the contact between the pan and the glass will not be efficient, and you will loose some of the heat.
I would spend some time cleaning it up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.988697
| 2018-07-26T22:58:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91285",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63982",
"spring"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104387
|
Making gravy without drippings or butter?
Long story short: I made a bunch of meatloaf and I forgot to buy butter. I need to make gravy.
The way I usually make gravy is to melt some butter, to supplement whatever drippings I have, make a roux and add some broth – chicken or beef, depending on what the gravy is to be served with – to get to the desired viscosity.
But I forgot to buy enough butter. Can I use olive oil? Is there another way to make gravy from scratch without drippings?
Coconut oil/milk can serve as a good substitute
You can make a roux with any fat. Olive oil will certainly work. There are also other methods for thickening a gravy, such as the addition of cornstarch or arrowroot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.988934
| 2019-12-27T01:33:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104387",
"authors": [
"One Face",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31468"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86770
|
Why orange carrots turn black while peeled?
Freshly bought carrots turn black (like coal) on peeled surfaces in minutes if not seconds. I wonder why and why are these special.
Obviously it is not black rot. The carrots taste normal, albeit not too sweet. Too much fertilizer nitrates? Or just contain lots of starch like in potatoes?
The carrots were clean to begin with and I washed my hands too :-)
Update: I live in Denmark and these carrots are from Spain, perhaps Canary Islands, fresh veges seem like a bit of a struggle here, hence I am surprised.
Anything notable about the tool used to peel the carrots?
@PoloHoleSet just ordinary knife
What type? Stainless steel? Carbon steel? Ceramic?
@Catija stainless steel
I must admit that my answer contains a bit of speculation.
Let me start with beta carotene which is the pigment responsible for the orange colour of common carrots. It is easily and quickly oxidised by exposure to air and enzymes already present that get activated upon cutting and exposure to light. As such it looses its orange colour very quickly.
Now, browning of fruits and vegetables happens for oxidative processes when they are exposed to air. It is a common an unpleasant occurrence.
Where I do speculate a bit is on why the browning is so pronounced in the case of carrots to be even described as "blacking".
I have few possible reasons that make sense to me (consider I have to deal with "colours" at work, if this gives a bit of credibility).
Carrots are deep orange. The dark layer of oxidised surface on the underlying orange gives us a almost black colour.
Carrots contains other deeply coloured pigments. Some are darker than beta carotene (indeed carrots originally came in purple, and some are indeed black!) and more resistant to oxidation. As such oxidation of beta carotene can reveal darker pigments (anthocyanines) otherwise unnoticed.
This is somehow similar to what happens with leaves. At first they are green due to their content of chlorophyll. Once they fall, chlorophyll has been degraded and other red and yellow pigments become visible.
A mix of the above, depending on the type and amount of pigment present in that particular carrot.
Extra: if cooking with carrots they get a green tint, this is due to a too high (alkaline) pH. For instance too much baking soda in the batter. Pigments can be sensitive to pH, too.
Based on the comment of Lorel C.
Indeed the level of tissue damaged as well as porosity are know to exacerbate the browing process.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10971842/
This is evident when instead of sharply peeling the carrots we clean them by scratching with a blade hold perpendicular to the surface. This is likely to be the case depicted in the photograph by OP.
Many recipes indeed recommend the use of soft brushes to clean carrots.
Carrots are purple. In the S.Pacific. Medical plant. In west China carrots are yellow. A medical plant. A cross breed of the 2 gives you today the eating carrot at the store. Orange.
@J Bergen. Right. Yellow and purple are the original ones. Some are so dark purple to be referred to as bkack.
Oxidation of carotenoids does seem most likely. Haven't seen it here in the States, but we've probably all been eating clones of the same carrot for 25 years. Spanish carrots, who knows?
This looks to me like simple oxidation. It is just that your batch shows it more than others.
It is completely normal for plants of the same species to have very different amounts of the same chemical compound. Think of capsaicin in peppers, which vary from sweet to your-intestines-will-be-on-fire-for-days, anthocyanins in tulips (or carrots) which can have none (whitish) to be chock full of them (dark purple), or the aroma compounds which are concentrated in oil roses and absent in the roses bred for the grocery store shelves.
Oxidation browning occurs when oxygen from the air activates an enzyme in the fruit (or vegetable) which then reacts with phenolic compounds in the plant tissue. You must have happened upon a batch of carrots which has high amounts of phenolics, or an unusually efficient enzyme, or large amounts of the enzyme.
From your picture,it looks like you scraped the outer surface off the carrots rather than peeling them (with a sharp blade). Mine do that too when I scrape them - not so extremely dark as yours, more a grayish brown. But I just figure since they get so rough from the scraping, there is a lot of exposed surface area for oxidation, more than the smooth surface from a knife or peeler.
Not sure phenols are involved in carrots. Otherwise good answer too.
@Lorel C. I will add few lines to my answer based on your comment.
To me it looks like black fungus. If these carrots were picked right after the typhoon. Washed in a bleach solution. Then stored. They would look good at the store. Once peeled the fungus could be there. Then show very fast. This is just a guess may not be.
As I understand fungus grow within days, but in my case the first carrots turn black while I peel the second, it's like my hands were in soil without soil :-)
You do not live in the tropics. After a long rain or typhoon. Black mold can set in. On root crops very fast. So you wash them to remove. Store cool & dry. Once removed from storage peeled the fungus root is still there below the skin. Warm & moist. It can spout very fast. Or root crops after a storm can be washed in vinegar. To kill the surface mold or fungus. Leaving a light acid coat on the skin. But this is a guess. I would need a microscope to know for sure.
This is such a common discoloration. Bringing in fungus, typhoons and bleach is an amazing stretch that would leave Occam baffled.
@WillemvanRumpt - since OP did not specify a geography, I prefer to think of it as just being especially thorough and open to possibilities. I would be surprised if this were the cause, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.989135
| 2017-12-28T20:19:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86770",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Catija",
"J Bergen",
"Lorel C.",
"MariusM",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64050"
],
"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
}
|
86992
|
Skillet rust (?) and next steps with regard to seasoning
Yesterday, I got a cast-iron skillet, and the first thing I did was try to season it. I washed it vigorously with soap and water, then rinsed it for several minutes.
After drying it with a paper towel, I put it on the stove and started up flame on the medium setting. Then I took a brush, which I used to cover the entire (hot) cookware surface with oil. By this time, my oven had been preheated to 350 degrees Fahrenheit, and I put the skillet in for 30 minutes.
After taking it out and letting it cool, I found that the patina looked terribly sticky, and I could still see and feel the coarse original cast-iron finish.
A bit of research revealed that this is because (i) because I used too much oil and (ii) because olive oil isn't good for seasoning. Oh well. I washed it out (soap and water), dried it, and placed it on medium heat for 10 minutes so that it wouldn't rust. I turned the heat off after 10 minutes, and went to bed to try it again with canola oil today.
To my shock, I found the following on my skillet (two pictures of the same skillet). Look at the edges of the dark spots to see what I mean:
Is this rust? Or is it some strange transition material between the seasoning patina and the cast-iron? How did this get there, and what can I do about this (in the present to fix and in the future to prevent)?
Additional questions (I'm a beginner, so I have a few):
Do I need to remove what looks like a partial olive oil seasoning layer from the skillet?
What oil should I use for the new seasoning? At what temperature should I heat it?
Should my skillet be room temperature when I apply the oil?
Should my skillet be in the oven when the oven is preheating?
Does heating the skillet after washing and applying a bit of oil to it before storage promote rancidity?
You should visit the canonical seasoning thread and first clean the pan throughly (this looks partly cleaned, mostly retaining crud) and then season properly. Iron without oil will rust in a heartbeat, but it's easy to clean off if it's just minor flash rust, not decades of sitting the creek. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/641/whats-the-best-way-to-season-a-cast-iron-skillet/647#647
@Ecnerwal Should my skillet be in the oven when the oven is preheating?
Does not matter. Either way is fine.
The marks look like bare iron, as though the seasoning has actually been fully removed there. How hard did you scrub?
I use vegetable oil and use only about a teaspoon for the inside cooking surface and sides. Another teaspoon for the outside and underside and handle. You really don't want too much oil or it will become sticky because it hasn't broken down fully, which is probably what happened with your first attempt. I imagine your skillet was already pre-seasoned anyway.
To fix it, heat the pan on the cooker for a bit, then reapply the oil in a thin layer with a piece of kitchen towel, and use another clean kitchen towel to wipe away any excess. The pan should be hot but not searing, the heat apparently helps open the pores of the metal. The surface shouldn't look wet or have wet spots. It should have a sheen to it.
Put it in the oven, upside down, on the maximum temperate (around 240c or 450f) for an hour or longer. When you pull it out, it should be seasoned nicely. The surface won't have a sheen anymore, and it shouldn't be sticky to the touch once it's cool.
You can repeat the process a few times if you think it needs it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.989618
| 2018-01-09T23:28:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86992",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"actinidia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64314"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44847
|
Why would a rice seem "non-absorbent"?
I wanted to make a mushroom risotto with some very nice mushrooms I had acquired. I have made risotto countless times, using traditional methods and "cheater" methods. I didn't expect to have difficulty, but I did.
I always use Arborio rice for risotto; generally I buy it in bulk by mail order or any brand that they might have at the grocery store. I've never paid any attention to brand name or where it comes from. Arborio rice has always behaved as I expect Arborio rice to behave. I bought this last time just because it's what my grocery store had: Amazon
The first time I used this product I just set out to make standard Parmesan risotto. I sauteed the rice until vaguely translucent, deglazed the pan with wine and added simmering broth bit by bit while stirring. It was taking forever and I suddenly decided to scrap it and go with plan B. I really didn't give it that much thought at the time, but it should have been moving towards done well before I gave up on it.
So today I had these mushrooms and wanted to use them in a risotto. I proceeded in my usual way; I sauteed the mushrooms, added the rice and sauteed it, deglazed, and proceeded to add the simmering broth and then,...and then, nothing. It was as if I was simmering pebbles. After 10 minutes the first ladleful of broth was gone (apparently due to evaporation), but the rice was still hard. I kept it up for the better part of an hour and used more broth than the dish should have required, but the rice was still hard. This rice doesn't seem to want to absorb water.
I'm still 2 years out from the "best by" date and I'm using tried and true technique.
Do you have any idea what could be going on? BTW, the Amazon reviews are fine, no clue there.
UPDATE I used the same rice again, this time following the new recommendation on Serious Eats. I soaked the rice for a few minutes in the broth, agitating a bit to loosen exterior starch. Then I strained the rice for several minutes, reserving the starchy broth. I used that broth to make the risotto. By golly it worked. This doesn't answer the question, it still doesn't make any sense that that it didn't work without soaking, but at least I know a way to deal with it now. Serious Eats recommends that method for the creamiest risotto, and it doesn't really add much effort, so I'll probably continue to do it that way - even with my next batch of rice.
I'd still like to figure out what was going on.
Are you using a different wine than normal? Something particularly acidic, or that's maybe been sitting around for a while? I'm wondering if there's something there that's gelatinizing the starch on the outside of the rice grains and inhibiting further starch extraction. But I'm really fishing, this is definitely quite odd. Have you tried this same rice with other applications like steaming?
@logophobe I use Gallo Vermouth for just about everything, I've never had a problem. I have not yet tried to steam this rice, but I'll try that later today just to see what happens.
Dry vermouth? Please tell me you keep that in the fridge or the bartender in me will let out a howl of indignation. To be fair, I don't think that would be at all related to your rice.
@logophobe Yes, I keep my vermouth in the fridge, but I haven't always. I used to keep it in a cupboard for months. Honestly, I don't perceive a difference. I guess I'm just not much of a connoisseur. The dry sherry and dry vermouth in my fridge pretty much covers my need for wine.
Dry vermouth just doesn't have enough sugar to stabilize it, so it will go off quickly like any other white wine if unchilled or exposed to oxygen. I thought that might have contributed to your rice issue in some bizarre chemical way, but that's unlikely if you've kept this bottle in the fridge. Let us know how the steaming experiment goes, that's likely to be more informative.
This particular bottle of vermouth isn't even old, I bought it a week or 10 days ago. I will update later about steaming the rice in water.
For what it's worth, I've used the same brand of rice, and certainly never seen anything like you saw, so I think we can probably assume that somehow you got a bad batch. No idea how that'd happen, though.
Based on your edit, my best guess is that this particular rice has a really high amount of surface starch, which gelatinized when you first tried to cook it (liquid from the mushrooms might have been enough to get this result). That would have created a moisture-resistant layer around the grains that inhibited moisture from soaking in further. Your soak would have washed that away and allowed the rice to properly absorb the broth.
That's definitely weird - probably a byproduct of how this particular brand gets processed. A further experiment worth trying would be to briefly rinse off the grains in a colander for your next batch. That would also get rid of surface starch without quite the same effect as a soak. If they work after even a brief rinse, I'd consider that pretty good evidence for this theory.
Another thing you could try might be sauteeing the rice in a completely separate pan from the mushrooms, so that they're exposed only to oil and the surface starch gets toasted instead of gelatinized. Maybe not quite as desirable from a flavor perspective, and of course you'd have to clean another pan, but it's worth testing if you really want to figure out the root of the problem.
Ultra heat treated. Some governments require some foods (pulses, beans, grains etc.) from some countries without suitable pest control certificates to undergo a short blast in a very hot oven (Ultra heat treated)
This has no effect other than doubling or more the time taken to soften. Annoying as the food isn't often labelled as such
That sounds very plausible, but is it ever done in the USA to be sold in the USA? This stuff is clearly labeled "Grown in the USA"
@Jolenealaska Unlikely, unless each state has import/export controls? Or it could have been an export batch that didn't get exported, and was dumped back into local market? Does it have crazy foreign languages on label?
Nope. It's all "Proud to be American" and it's based in Texas.
@TFD If that were the case, I'd be very surprised if none of the reviewers commented on it.
@logophobe it's a little known, and not well publisied "feature" of the modern food industry
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.989907
| 2014-06-13T13:51:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44847",
"authors": [
"Alina Tahir",
"Carol Burnett",
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"K Y",
"Leaf2Leaf Landscapes",
"SITUWUMU",
"Susanne D Tewes",
"TFD",
"Xe spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"ksimplex",
"logophobe",
"user175933"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87134
|
Pressure Cooker suitable for traditional Indian dishes, available in Europe
I would like to try recipes from Urvashi Pitre's Indian Instant Pot Cookbook: Traditional Indian Dishes Made Easy and Fast. However, buying the original Instant Pot pressure cooker does not seem to be straightforward or convenient for customers in Europe (outside Britain).
Has anybody tried these recipes with a pressure cooker that is more readily available in Europe (Germany)? I'm still used to old-fashioned models without any electronic controls, so I am wondering what could be a good alternative option to acquire.
UPDATE Here is a sample recipe from the book (linked from this article in The New Yorker).
Do you already have the book? A sample recipe might help us work out the difference between cooking using the instant pot and using a normal pressure cooker. It shouldn't be hard to adapt. Failing that, I'm sure there are other, more generic, Indian recipe books for pressure cookers.
@ChrisH I've added a link to a sample recipe.
Look for products described as programmable pressure cooker
I think amazon UK has a selection of Hawkins cookers?
I'm not an expert in pressure cooking, not by a long way, but there's nothing special about that recipe that couldn't be adapted by someone who is.
@ChrisH This OP also is not such an expert.
No, but with the information you've added, the question is now answerable by one
I don't see anything "special" about that recipe that depends on the particular pressure cooker. I don't think you need anything fancier than an old-fashioned pressure cooker and a timer, assuming you know how to use an old-fashioned pressure cooker. If you already own one, why buy another?
Figure time on "high" to be time on 15 PSI (or 1 bar) steam, and cook away.
A brief glance at the link shows a thing that seeks to be everything (pressure cooker, rice cooker, yogurt maker, really should have Ron Popeil do ads for it on late night TV...) some of which would be more difficult in a regular pressure cooker, though (for instance) we had a spot on the stove over a pilot light that could make any pot into a yogurt-maker if you set it there full of milk and culture. And you can certainly make rice in a pressure cooker under pressure, rather than trying to mimic a "rice cooker" at atmospheric pressure.
+1 I do not yet own a pressure cooker but know how to use old-fashioned models from way back. I will probably acquire such a model, because I don't like (am not yet used to) the idea of a pot that sits on the stove and requires a power cable. A WMF Perfect Pro may be a good quality choice.
The specialty about indian pressure cooked recipes is that they measure time by whistles not by wall time .....
@Drux, pot that sits on the stove and requires a power cable I think most people place it on their counter.
@ShannonSeverance Thx for that clarification.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.990456
| 2018-01-16T17:21:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87134",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Drux",
"Shannon Severance",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/949",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121719
|
What is the function of this tool of my scissors?
What is the function of this part of my scizors.
This feature is described as a bottle/jar opener on a product page for shears that look like yours from the photo:
Source: Royal Norfolk via DollarTree: "Also, has bottle/jar opener inset on the handle for added convenience."
Looking at other available scissors with this type of feature, the manufacturers describe it in various ways:
Williams-Sonoma: "Handle has a built-in bottle opener"
Victorinox: "The Shears feature a cavity designed to crack nuts or to help twist open stubborn jar lids"
OXO: "Built-in herb stripper removes fresh herbs from tough stems" (this looks different from your picture, but I wonder if it would still work)
Image gallery of all products with description: https://i.sstatic.net/UzZVO.jpg
I'm not sure why they say "jar" - those jaws are far too small for anything but the tiniest jars.
@ChrisH yeah, I tried to find videos of people actually using the "jar opener" feature but couldn't find anything useful after a quick search
My guess is that it is used in jars to make a small opening for air to come through the lid. I always do it with tomato jars but prefer using a specific bottle opener @ChrisH
@M.K I can't imagine it doing that as well as a teaspoon handle or butter knife. One pair I have (or had) with these jaws also had a bottle opener in the back of one of the blades. Maybe I'll look for them in my camping cooking stuff tonight
You have to realize that at one time, a reputable company decided to make scissors with this feature for a certain purpose (probably a nut cracker), but then everyone has copied it and possibly mistranslated the purpose along the way. There is no way this would work as a "jar opener" and would probably just bend up the lid on a bottle and not work well.
This page shows how you'd use it to open jars. I will say, I have these scissors and trying to open a stubborn jar like this seems pretty unsafe.
Works great for opening tight soda bottle caps. Source: I do that.
I only know this part as a bottle opener.
I would not try to open nuts with it, if the nut is hard, the scissor could be ruined.
Yep. I have broken a pair of scissors exactly the same as OP's. The handle parts end up breaking due to the force to open nuts! but opening bottles is fine
There are kitchen shears that will not break if you use them to crack nuts, and maybe ones that are less durable have the same "features" even if they can’t handle the forces.
Hmmm. What type of bottle is this supposed to open?
@EricDuminil: A jar with a screw top. The teeth dig into the metal, giving you a handle to push on, instead of just smooth round metal. Other ways to open a tough jar might involve a grippy material like rubberized that won't leave teeth marks on the metal, but the idea is to amplify the squeezing force of a hand to get a better grip on the metal that won't slip as easily when you try to turn.
I also find this useful for loosening and tightening the nut (the hardware, not the food) that secures the handle on my pepper grinder.
@Fattie Every nutcracker I've ever seen that wasn't the kind that looks like a solider has teeth. The teeth grip the nut and prevent it from shooting out of the nutcracker when you squeeze it. The teeth also increase the pressure by decreasing the contact area to crack and penetrate the nut's shell with less force. Regardless of the purpose for this part of the shears, having teeth actually supports the idea that it's a nutcracker, it doesn't contradict it.
At least according to the KitchenSeer blog the middle part of the shears is for cracking nuts (although it can also be used as a bottle or jar opener).
Comparing to a dedicated nutcracker pictured as below, the similarity is notable.
Yep, definitely supposed to be a nutcracker, though actually using it as one is generally a bad idea, as most scissors do not have a hinge that’s anywhere near as robust as the one you will find on a good dedicated nutcracker.
It's OK for hazelnuts (@AustinHemmelgarn) but not walnuts - not strong enough and too small. That said I've been using a hammer even for hazelnuts after unexpectedly finding a good wild source. I did have a pair of scissors identical to those in the picture. They broke somehow, but not cracking nuts
It's definitely not. It's just for opening bottle tops or similar things that need to be grabbed. You could never in a million years crack nuts with it!
@ChrisH I broke one like that while cracking nuts. They were decent scissors before that but not top tier quality. Why the designers thought it'd be a good idea to crack nuts with that is beyond me
@Hobbamok I don't normally need nutcrackers but I went back to the toolbox last night for pliers which work very well. I think I've got a pair of scissor like that in the van. Maybe I'll try them against hazelnuts later
@AustinHemmelgarn Walnuts aren't even particularly hard to crack other than their size. Of commercially available ones Brazil nuts I find much harder to crack. They're still easy compared to the hickory nuts from my parents tree. Trying to use a handheld lever cracker like that was a frequently failed grip strength test, a framing or baby sledge hammer worked much better.
" You could never in a million years crack nuts with it! " @Fattie It's possible to crack nuts with bare hands, so surely adding the scissors inbetween the hand and the nut shouldn't make it impossible.
(Macadamia nuts are the absolute hardest to crack. Basically, only a vise works.) Kitchen shears can probably be used to crack walnuts, but I wouldn't suggest them for hazelnuts or anything harder.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.990706
| 2022-09-20T01:54:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121719",
"authors": [
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"BruceWayne",
"Chris H",
"Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight",
"Eric Duminil",
"Fattie",
"Hobbamok",
"JPhi1618",
"M.K",
"Marti",
"Mike Mertsock",
"Peter Cordes",
"Stef",
"Todd Wilcox",
"TylerW",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95765"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87557
|
Can you deep fry chicken in a 6.75qt dutch oven?
I wanna fry up some chicken and I'm wondering if my 6.75 Le Creuset will be large enough. Assuming it's half to two-thirds of the way full (3-4 QTs of oil). Does anyone have experience with this?
Edit: Clarifying my question a little, I'm asking about frying chicken pieces, not an entire chicken. Also, I understand that I can simply find a small pot with several cups of oil and fry up an entire chicken 1 piece at a time. I was hoping that my dutch oven would be large enough to at least get through a whole chicken in 2-3 batches (3-4 pieces at a time).
From a safety standpoint, you should never fill a pan over a third to just under half full of oil for frying. This helps to prevent boil-overs which can be extremely dangerous.
It depends on the size of the chicken, and how much you want to cook at one time.
Place the bird (or pieces) in your pot and fill the pot to about 3/4 full with water.
Remove the chicken and measure the water...this is how much oil to use.
If the chicken isn't covered in the water at 3/4 full (this will probably be the case) remove pieces and work backwards till the water and chicken are at a safe level). After replacing the water with oil you will need to work in batches (which is probably what you will need to do, you will probably be well served to do about a 1/2 chicken at a time.).
For what it is worth I recently purchased an infra-red propane 'fryer' that does an excellent job on a whole chicken (or turkey).
Yeah, I thought "a chicken" but the question seems to be about pieces... I hope. :D
@Catija Sorry about that, looking back over my question I can see where the confusion was. Edited my question for clarity!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.991437
| 2018-02-05T20:37:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87557",
"authors": [
"BenW301",
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64950"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87609
|
Why does the broccoli at Chinese take-out restaurants have a crunchier texture than those bought at supermarket and grocery store salad bars?
I've been eating at Chinese take-out restaurants lately, mostly to save money and still get a big portion of food. When I get the beef and broccoli and lo mein, I notice that the broccoli is a lot harder and crunchier, compared to the broccoli that I get from salad bars at the grocery stores and supermarkets (which is considerably softer and more crumbly in texture). Does this indicate that the broccoli served at Chinese take-out places is of lower quality? For example, could the crunchy texture indicate that I'm eating genetically-modified broccoli?
(If it matters, I live in New York City.)
For comparison, how would you describe the texture of supermarket broccoli when a) raw, b) stir fried in a hot wok for a few minutes? Have you checked whether what these restaurants use as "broccoli" might be Gai Lan (it would be the authentic thing to use actually!)?
Can you clarify in your question whether the broccoli you are talking about in supermarket salad bars is cooked rather than raw?
@rackandboneman good questions - nope, it's definitely not Gai Lan, and is the normal, scary-looking broccoli that we all are familiar with. I think the salad bars at the supermarkets and grocery stores near me serve up raw broccoli, yet it's nice and soft -- and crumbly. I've never actually stir fried the broccoli I bought, since I create a salad there, so that it's ready to eat, when I take it home.
@Spagirl I would guess that at the salad bars, the broccoli is raw -- these are cold salad bars that I am referring to. So, nothing is hot, e.g. no hot pastas, stews, etc.
@D.Hutchinson Why are you guessing? It's your question, are you saying you are not sure if it is cooked or not? Im asking for clarification because 'soft' and 'crumbly' are not words I would ever associate with raw broccoli. broccoli can be both cold and cooked. You have compared broccoli in two situations, how does the Chinese take-out broccoli compare to broccoli you have eaten in other situations? This site has a handy picture of cooked and raw broccoli which may help. http://dish.allrecipes.com/all-about-broccoli/
@Spagirl yeah, I'm not sure; and on that note, I think I'm going to hit up my usual go-to salad bar today and pick up some broccoli, carrots and boiled eggs, and then ask one of the staff members / store owner whether the broccoli is raw or cooked. I'll let you know in a few hours :)
@D.Hutchinson It might be easier to go to the produce section of your nearest broccoli vendor and look to see if the broccoli there looks like the stuff in salad. but honestly, if broccoli is soft and crumbly it's either cooked (over cooked by many people's standards) or rotting!
You can typically tell if the brocolli is cooked by the color -- raw is much more pale. But it's also possible that they're from different species of brocolli plant. (I love the one the farmer's market near me has ... it's smooth on the stalk, not wrinkly, so it peels very easily)
@Joe You peel broccoli?
Ah OK, I was reading (salad bars at the grocery stores) and (supermarkets), and assumed you were comparing with a) salad bar broccoli and b) broccoli from a whole head as sold at supermarkets.
@Spagirl I got a small thing of broccoli and boiled eggs tonight and asked them -- the broccoli is indeed cooked :(
Raw broccoli is crunchy, and cooking softens it. Usually it's cooked until somewhat softer but still with a bit of crunchiness or at least firmness. Most likely the very soft broccoli you describe is just more cooked, probably overcooked by a lot of people's standards.
You can't easily tell that much about the quality of the broccoli at that point; the cooking is going to affect the texture and flavor a lot more than anything else. There's certainly nothing here that suggests anything specific about the broccoli (like GMO).
Also, while it's possible that the crunchy broccoli is actually undercooked, many people do like it relatively crunchy. Your soft "crumbly" broccoli sounds much worse to me, so even in terms of the end result, we can't really say anything about quality, just personal preferences.
I see that you've speculated that the soft, crumbly broccoli is raw. First off, it's extremely easy to tell: the color changes as it's cooked, becoming slightly translucent and shifting to a deeper green, probably slightly less blue and slightly more yellow. Raw broccoli should never be soft, and if it's actually soft and limp then it's very far from fresh. It's also only crumbly in the sense that the teeny darker bits on the top can crumble off. So given that you haven't said it's horrible, it seems more likely that it's (over)cooked and chilled, similar to how you might see chilled roasted peppers or cooked meat in a salad bar.
Like most vegetables, broccoli starts off very firm and crunchy and softens as you cook it. Boiling, stewing and steaming tend to decrease crunchiness linearly, and more direct heats like stir-frying tend to cook the outside more.
The only real thing we can suggest here is that these two places are cooking the broccoli in different ways or for different lengths of time.
It's no indication of ingredient quality. They're both almost certainly using the cheapest they can.
And organic broccoli is also crunch by default and able to be cooked down to a sponge. No indication of GMO.
eating at Chinese take-out restaurants to save money and still get a big portion of food
Dude... It might be cheaper than a pre-prepared salad bar. It might be cheaper than buying all the one-off ingredients (which make vastly more than one portion), but take-out is way more expensive than the ingredient cost.
If you really want to save money, learn to cook for yourself.
It's not the question, but yes, never seen a question here where I thought more that the OP should really consider spending some time in the kitchen. +1
... there's kitchen drama between my roommates. Doing take-out is kind of a basic need for me, in order to avoid their mess ... until I find a better living situation ...
For what you're describing, looks like to me that they apply thermal shock to keep the "Crunchiness". i've heard about it some time ago with other vegetables.
for what i've heard: they cook the vegetable on boiling water until it's 'aldente' (kinda still hard) and after 1-2 mins of cooking they dump'em in an ice cold bath.
Around here (brazil) they to this to some vegetables.
Sounds like reasonable to me.
cheers.
Classically, this is known as blanching, usually a process for mise en place to par-cook ingredients. This likely happens in a stir fry restaurant to lower the time required at the wok. It's also a fairly common process for adding green vegetables to salads. Both the restaurant and salad bar may be blanching the broccoli here (though it sounds like the salad bar are just boiling theirs for way too long).
blanching probably, easy way to find out is blanch some broccoli at home and taste it. If it crunches the same you got your answer. Let us know!
Take it from someone who is a lifetime user of salad bars and Asian takeout. Salad bars use fresh broccoli which has not been cooked. They tend to use the top florets more than the stems, as this is prettier and more appealing on the salad, and easier to chew than stems.
The stems at salad bars are very truncated, on purpose. They remove them. At Asian restaurants, they have little respect for the vegetable, and it is not natural in Chinese mainland. It is an American addition. They also use the stems. It saves money. I don't eat the stems, only the florets, so I don't usually get broccoli at Asian restaurants.
It is always hard crunchy, due to the stems, and I don't wish to take the time to cut off the florets, which are often chewy and cause me to think "Frozen!" But go to REAL Asian restaurants which don't depend on cheap buffet gargantuan supplies of lesser quality ingredients, and you will be amazed at the difference in quality. I eat broccoli at those Asian restaurants :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.991713
| 2018-02-08T02:25:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87609",
"authors": [
"D.Hutchinson",
"Joe",
"Oli",
"Raditz_35",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87655
|
Difference between demi-glace and beef stock. Can I use a demi-glace instead of a beef stock?
Making of demi-glace is well defined for me as a product of veal bones and vegetables reduced to gelly concentrate in temperature 5-10C.
Here is my demi-glace which I refer to:
Beef stock, on the other hand, has ingredient similar to demi-glace but some recipes refer to only veal bones and some to bones and meat. The final product is less reduced than demi-glace like this:
So my question is:
If some recipes refer to use beef stock as an ingredient (for example onion soup) can I use my demiglace instead? If yes, what proportion I should dissolve my demi-glace with water to achieve beef stock substitute? Also if this recipe involves reduction after adding beef stock is a point of dissolving my demi-glace with water?
If you know the reduction then use that. Add them much water back.
That demi is BEAUTIFUL !!
demi glace is beef stock seriously reduced. So yes you can use it just need to add a lil extra water. What proportion no idea depends on how strong a flavor your wanting really. Just put some demi glace in a sauce pan (low heat) let it melt, add water till you get the right consistency/flavor your looking for.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.992357
| 2018-02-10T13:29:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87655",
"authors": [
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43103
|
Butterscotch Pudding Clumps
Excellent butterscotch pudding has been a Holy Grail of mine for forever. I have an idea of exactly what I want, but I've never accomplished it. Either the flavor isn't rich enough, or it's clumpy. This season America's Test Kitchen tackled butterscotch pudding, so I tried it yet again. I really loved the flavor of this recipe, but I had to strain out tiny clumps of egg yolks. ATK promised me that I wouldn't have to do that! ATK's Butterscotch Pudding
This is what they did differently:
Smoother Route to Pudding?
Pudding recipes almost always have you temper the yolks and cornstarch (i.e., add some hot dairy to the mixture to gradually raise its temperature), add everything to the remaining dairy in the pot, and stir constantly as the mixture slowly comes to a boil and thickens. Inevitably, bits of egg still overcook and need to be strained. We wondered if there was a better way.
EXPERIMENT:
We made one batch of pudding the conventional way and a second batch in which the yolks never saw the heat of the stove: We added a little warm milk to the yolks and cornstarch, brought the remaining “dairy” (in our recipe, the butterscotch mixture) to a boil, and then dumped this hot liquid over the egg mixture and whisked briefly as the pudding thickened almost instantly.
RESULTS:
The conventional pudding needed straining, while the “no-cook” custard was utterly smooth and perfectly thickened.
EXPLANATION:
Boiling pudding is overkill. When cornstarch is combined with liquid, it thickens between 144 and 180 degrees, while yolks diluted by liquid coagulate between 180 and 185 degrees—significantly lower temperatures than the boiling point of 212 degrees. Whisking the hot butterscotch mixture into the yolk mixture heated the pudding to about 185 degrees—plenty hot to properly thicken it but not so hot that the yolks overcooked.
DUMP AND STIR
The only thing I can see that that might have been the problem is that I looked away at a critical moment and the base was nearly boiling over when I removed it from the heat to dump it into the egg yolks. So it was a couple of seconds past "climbing the sides of the pan". Could that tiny temperature difference be the problem? Do you have any idea of the temperature difference between "climbing the sides of the pan" and "nearly boiling over" of a dairy/sugar mixture?
If I ever do get it perfect without straining, SAJ can laugh at me all he wants, but the chalazae have to go! http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39567/when-carefully-separating-eggs-what-to-do-with-the-chalazae
Well, no one else has answered, so I will. I made the pudding again, this time I did the "dump" just as the milk and syrup started climbing the sides of the pan. Apparently the tiny temperature difference between that and "almost boiling over" was the difference. The second pudding was completely smooth. The recipe is great and it works just like ATK promises. Now I need to find that chalazae removal tool SAJ showed me!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.992483
| 2014-03-27T20:47:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43103",
"authors": [
"32user32",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lelia Hood",
"William Jens",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"willille"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
48858
|
Can I prepare wasabi powder in advance?
I've got this little 30 gram container of "wasabi" powder. I'm on a little kick of trying to perfect my sushi rolling technique, so I'm likely to use it up within a month or so. It's just the typical Japanese export to the USA, mostly horseradish with a tiny bit of actual wasabi root.
It's a pain to mix up every time. Will it lose its flavor if I make it all up at once, and keep it in a tiny air-free (as close as I can get it) Ziploc for a month in the fridge?
They say that 'real' wasabi loses its flavor in under an hour, at least when grated fresh ... so if there is any kick from the real stuff, that part (if it was even noticable in the first place) would likely be gone.
This is actually quite a good question, and I think one you can only answer it properly if you have actually tried it yourself, so it would be nice if you can post your findings in a months time :-).
Here is my take on this, and also some considerations:
I would actually try to vacuum pack it rather than using an airtight container. There are always some air in an airtight container which can spoil food.
Also, I would rather make enough for a week, a month is quite a long time to store something like this. I believe it will last for a month if properly vacuum sealed and stored correctly, and if it does not get openend regulary. The only concern would be if it will keep its spicyness for so long. Vacuum sealed or not, frozen or not, food still breaks down at a certain rate. You can't stop it, but you can slow the rate of deterioration down.
Another issue that I see here is that it would also become another hassle of continueing opening and re-sealing your stock. This might and will most probably lead to that by the end of week 2 or 3 that your wasabi has lost its spicyness or even have spoiled to some degree. My advice would be to split your paste in say maybe 4 portions, a portion per week, and sealing them separately. You can even decide to split them up into smaller portions. I really do think that the key here will be to not open, seal, re-open and resealing your stock.
It wouldn't be 100% airtight, but you could reduce air contact by making a paper piping bag (leaving the tip intact), taping it to keep the top from unfurling, and then storing that (or those, if portioned out) in a zip-top bag w/ the air squeezed out.
@Joe That is exactly what I've done :) The paste fits perfectly in this little zippy that I bought for continued avocado experimentation. I cut off a bit of corner and have it taped up! One day down, still good!
I had completely forgotten that I had used the wasabi and taken a photo of it a month after I posted the question!
The answer is yes. It's not quite as green as it was when fresh, but the taste was virtually identical. So it's OK if you're not picky. I wouldn't try it with "real" wasabi, but with the fake stuff, it was fine.
Oct 12, 2014
Nov 15, 2014
I've made a bunch of wasabi for sushi and kept leftover wasabi in the fridge, and I can say: your wasabi will definitely lose some of its pungency as time goes on, and will even develop some off bitter flavours. The question is, how important is it to you to have pungent, fresh wasabi? If you're just looking for a kick in your sushi rolls, I don't think it's too much of a problem if you leave it in a fridge for a couple of weeks. If you're looking for the more nuanced wasabi flavour...then you probably would have bought real wasabi and not the powdered stuff in the first place :)
Funny thing, I actually prefer the nasal kick of the fake powdered stuff! I ordered real wasabi a while back and I longed for the kick in the nose that I was used to :)
Ah, I see. In that case, have you ever considered buying the tube wasabi? I find that much spicier than the powder stuff and it keeps for longer (since it's in a tube)
@DanielChui : Real wasabi is very rare outside of Japan. It wasn't until recently that someone figured out how to reliably farm it. (which was significant enough that BBC News had an article about it last month)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.992761
| 2014-10-12T02:32:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/48858",
"authors": [
"Daniel Chui",
"Flood Damage Restoration Ltd",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kyle Booth",
"Linda Bauer",
"Metinee Pitikaensai",
"Steve Bartlett",
"Susan Lewis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960",
"sandra mitchell",
"shiva koolivand"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46923
|
How can I make the most of this stewing hen?
For the longest time, I've been keeping my eyes open for a stewing hen. I make very good Chicken and Dumplings, and I've always heard that I could make it really great if I could just get my hands on a stewing hen.
See: Where do all the tough old birds go?
When I finally saw stewing hens in our local "if you can't find it elsewhere, look here" store, they were not at all what I had imagined.
Scrawny, frozen for God knows how long, no dates on the package, poorly wrapped, iceberg things.
I bought two.
Now what??
Surely the meat from this thing can't be worth anything...or can it?
My standard way to make special chicken broth is here: Why does the fat on my chicken broth sometimes solidify, sometimes not? Should I do anything differently with this thing? Can I expect the meat to be worth anything, or should I just simmer it to death to flavor the broth? Any other advice?
The name of this classic tango is "hen stew" http://www.todotango.com/english/music/song/2239/Pucherito-de-gallina/
I'm from the company you got your hens from.
Water cooking is the traditional method, the size of this bird is representative of the breed, which is leghorn fowl. This is the breed used both in commercial and backyard egg layers.
The stock made from the stewing hen is far more flavorful then any other chicken you will find anywhere. The meat is also rich in flavor, however as the age of these hens is significantly older than that of a broiler, (8-10 weeks vs 90-130 weeks for a stewer), the meat is tougher.
Our inventory is very current, in fact none of our inventory is beyond 15-30 days at this time, and our distributors are also working with very current inventory.
The color of the skin returns immediately, even running a little tap water over it will bring the white/yellow color back. The skin tends to be fairly lean, leaner than a meat chicken, so once frozen it becomes almost translucent.
Thank you for trying our product, and I hope your chicken soup was as delicious as we have come to know in our own kitchens over the past 70 years.
Thank you very much for answering. It means a lot that you took the time.
I so love that you asked this question. A baking/stewing hen is the ticket to the best chicken and dumplings you will ever have. That said, finding a good stewing hen today is not as easy as it was years ago.
Let me give you a little info on this. I've referred to my mother many times in my questions and answers. She was born in 1913 and would be 101 years old if she were here today. She would never consider making chicken and dumplings except with a stewing hen. So, that was the taste I grew up with.
Back years ago chickens were not bred like they are today. You could tell a baking or stewing hen by its weight which correlated to it being an older chicken. You would always look for a chicken that was 5 pounds or more. (Back then fryers weighed in a 2-1/2 to 3 pound max.)
Nowadays chickens that are sold to consumers like you and me are bred and raised to grow at a faster rate so they are much larger at a younger age. (Less time, less cost.) So, it's not uncommon to find a fryer that weighs over 4 pounds. (Note that foodservice still seems to distribute the smaller birds. Think about the prepared rotisserie chickens sold in grocery stores. They are usually barely over two pounds!)
Another thing to consider is chicken parts. Back years ago, chicken thighs weighed approximately 3 ounces each. Today, what you buy typically averages 6 to 8 ounces per piece. Let's upsize! They are capitalizing on the number of pieces rather than the weight. It's not that hard to figure out.
As I grew older I thought that a larger chicken related to a good result. Not so. The results from a large, quickly raised fryer will not give you the same taste as an older chicken.
If you really have a baking/stewing hen, regardless of the weight, you will have a lot of grease cooking out. Ladle it off. The flavor is definitely worth it. I don't think the weight matters as much today as it used to because of how it is raised to be sold to us. I have still found good frozen baking/stewing hens in the 5-6 pound range.
I can't speak to the specific birds you have, but definitely give them a go. If you really have baking/stewing hens you will be pleasantly delighted.
Just a note - My husband didn't think it made a lot of difference until I actually found a stewing chicken and made chicken and dumplings with it. He's definitely a believer now!
You've got me excited :) Should I stew it longer than I would a fryer? Look at the second link in the question, would that same approach be the way to handle these birds?
I don't see why the same approach wouldn't work. That said, I have used a very similar approach with fryers when making different dishes, but I haven't ever tried it when making chicken and dumplings. I'm probably missing out on extra flavor!
By the way, I looked at your pics again and that bird does look pretty scrawny. Doesn't mean it still can't taste good, though. Hope it turns out great!
Pressure cook or slow cook. Don't pressure cook too long or the meat you get will become dry and stringy. I prefer very slow cooking, often in the oven at about 190-220° for HOURS!!! Brining helps. I made one recently, cooked in a soy-based sauce. Cooked for about 7 hours. When finished, best to take the meat off the bone as soon as it's cool enough to handle. I always save the bones to make stock. Serve the pulled hen meat with the braising sauce on top of hot rice, garnished with green onion, cilantro, etc. Btw, the bird I used weighed about 1.5 lbs. Very scrawny but tasty! Hope this is helpful! If making a more traditional soup, simmer slow in the oven like above with water and aromatics. No need for chicken stock since the hen will provide the flavor! After removing meat, return bones to liquid and simmer more. You can roast the bones before adding back to liquid. This will give you a nice stock rich in collagen. Afterwards, strain and proceed with your recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.993146
| 2014-09-06T20:14:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46923",
"authors": [
"Alexa Rangel",
"Bob Bisignani",
"Cindy",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Georgie Raman",
"Indria Hollis",
"John Paterson",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mikej",
"Shantel Oosthuizen",
"Top Notch Pizza Wings",
"Tracy Bunovsky",
"Vanessa Roets",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"sharon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117184
|
What is the code for the rings stamped on the top of canned food?
Canned food has rings stamped on the lids. What (or who) has the code?
Here is a photo with crab and tuna tops. Maybe the better word would be "indentations"?
Does this answer your question? Expiration dates vs. "Best before" dates?
Was this accidentally posted here, instead of Puzzling SE?
@moscafj not the stamped letter, the actually stamping of the metal....
There’s no hidden code in the rings, they are just there to stabilize the thin metal.
A flat sheet is weaker and more flexible than one with ridges - the same reason why roof and wall metal is usually corrugated. On taller cans you will often also find corrugated areas on the sides of the can, hidden by the paper label.
For cans which are sealed before being cooked or sterlilized by heating, the rings also give better resistance to the internal pressure generated. A flat top can only bend a small amount before the seam joining to the side of the can will break. A corrugated top can bulge upwards without breaking.
"... same reason why roof and wall metal is usually corrugated" and why perforated paper sometimes tears everywhere except the perforation.
I don't think the roof/wall comparison holds. The ridges would have to be along the radius, not the circumference, to provide any use against bulking out. I think the main reason could be that the lids are cut out of rolled material, and the ridges are to get rid of the bend from rolling and make sure the lids are completely flat so they can be sealed without problems.
@MaxD Not necessarily against bulking (see alephzero’s comment and note that I didn’t write “during storage” or something like that), but as you wrote, increase overall stability in the lid part. Can lids sold for home canning (random example) come with the ridges already. It not only makes them flat, but prevents warping during transport, storage and running them through the machinery.
Concentric rings would allow the lids to expand in diameter, to accommodate the can expanding, reducing the risk of the sides pulling away from the lid.
To prove definitely that there is no code, it would be best to find an image with cans of completely different products with the same size and the same ring pattern.
@FedericoPoloni I linked to a seller that offers empty cans (e.g. for home butchers and small-scale producers). They can be filled with whatever suits the user…
@FedericoPoloni: Not that I suspect there to be any encoded information, but that's not a proof at all, as long as we don't know what the code is for. Rather than related to the contents, the ring pattern might just as well indicate the type of production machinery used to create the can (and, for what it's worth, it's well possible it does, albeit unintentionally so).
@O.R.Mapper These rings are clearly messages from Q to the pillow guy. Just keep staring at the cans and you might crack it.
@Stephie & Alephzero are correct. The beads/steps/panels are on the ends to add strength and rigidity. An engineer who specializes in such could explain the configuration and arrangement better than I, but the configuration has to do with the thickness of the metal, the can diameter, and the processing requirements for the foods that end up in the cans. Some foods require higher temperatures during processing which generates higher pressure/vacuum, etc. OTOH, it has very little to do with "flatness". They're stamped out at tremendous pressure and even the ones without features are plenty flat.
While it is absolutely correct that the beads and panels in a can end add strength and rigidity, there can be encoded information stamped into the can ends, but it's probably not what you're thinking it is.
The presses which stamp the ends from sheets or coils of pre-coated metal contain multiple dies. Each time the press cycles, the dies stamp out a number individual can ends. End presses can contain 6, 8, 10, 12 or more individual dies and each cycle produces that number of individual can ends.
In some cases the individual dies are identified by a small ID mark in the pattern of beads (rings) and panels that are stamped into the ends. The pattern of beads and panels themselves don't mean anything, but the ID marks found in the beads can convey meaning. The pattern of ID marks varies from press to press, and manufacturer to manufacturer. Many ends don't even have these marks, but many do.
The ID marks tell the people who run the end presses which die, and which machine, the end came off of. They can also identify which sets of dies are installed in the machine as that can vary depending on metal thickness, maintenance requirements, etc. and for keeping sets together appropriately and so on.
Here's a disappointingly poor picture from the Canadian government which almost shows the ID marks on a can end:
The first "bead" of the gold-colored end in the bottom right portion of the graphic shows a couple ID marks a the end of the arrow.
Here's another picture from the same source that shows an ID mark on a can end:
The ID mark is the one at roughly the 10-o'clock position. The "feature" at the 12-o'clock position is a defect.
For anyone who is interested, more information from the Canadian government regarding the inspection of food cans can be found here... (I used to be a food can inspector in a previous life and this is an excellent summary of can defects, their causes, and the manufacturing process in general. I encourage all "foodies" to check it out! Guaranteed to slow up your next visit to the grocery by at least 30 minutes....)
Apart from keeping track of the manufacturing processes, machine conditions, etc. there's no "code" which translates to the contents of the can or the filling operations.
The same end presses are potentially used to make a variety of can ends, for a variety of foods, so any ends made on a particular press could end up on anything in the grocery provided the thickness of the metal and the coating substance meets the requirements for the food inside.
Love it when I learn something new!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.993709
| 2021-09-14T17:27:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117184",
"authors": [
"BruceWayne",
"CCTO",
"CGCampbell",
"Federico Poloni",
"JimmyJames",
"MaxD",
"O. R. Mapper",
"Stephie",
"alephzero",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69605",
"mcalex",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90726
|
What are these two vegetables called?
For bonus points how do I cook the one on the top?
The bottom one I already cooked but here it is now:
The top one is definitely Kohlrabi and there are lots of fun recipes for that one. Can you cut open the bottom one as it looks like a round zucchini but the colour is a bit off, so I'd like to see the inside as well.
wonder if it is a Thai eggplant?
@steve chambers Looks very similar. The geographic region is mexico.
I'd think twice about eating the bottom one, from the pictures it looks like it may have gone off.
The top is a kohlrabi. Two approaches I like a lot:
treat it like a potato. Peel it, cut into chunks, and boil it (and optionally sliced the boiled pieces and fry them in a little butter)
treat it like cabbage or jicama. Peel it, julienne it raw and toss with grated carrot and whatever you dress coleslaw with (mayo and lemon juice for me)
The bottom could be a very small squash or a round zucchini. You can roast, sautee, or braise (think ratatouille). If it's a zucchini you can also eat it raw.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.994405
| 2018-07-01T21:27:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90726",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"GdD",
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"user5389726598465"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88245
|
How to cook and eat unidentified woody banana species
I bought these bananas and they taste like wood. I'm not sure if I was supposed to fry them in something or how to prepare them. Also what is the species? I don't think it's platano macho because those had some sweetness to them and had black peels. These are yellow/green.
Update: I microwaved one for four minutes and now it's edible so the preliminary answer is you have to cook them similar to potatos. I'm deleting now that I have a working solution with the microwave. (I'm not really a cook).
Like bananas, plantains (platano macho in Spanish) start out green and ripen from there. When ripe, they indeed have black peels, and are softer and sweeter. But when not very ripe, the peel is green to yellow-green, and they're harder and just starchy, not sweet.
So, they require some amount of cooking to soften enough to eat, but they don't require a special cooking technique or anything - roast them, fry them, stew them, whatever you like. Thinking of them as vaguely similar to potatoes isn't a bad approach. You can find plenty of recipes online.
As for why I think it's specifically a plantain, not just a green banana of some other kind:
you implied it was like a plantain, except with green skin and not sweet
the shape, in particular the thick elongated bit on the bottom, looks like a plantain; other bananas usually come to a shorter end
you don't mention any sourness
I moved to this geographic area a year ago and have never seen them before. Cooking in the microwave 4 minutes worked and it tastes pretty good, but not sweet. One minute too long and the banana turns into a freeze dried like substance like space ice cream. I'll try grilling tomorrow.
Plantains have a lot of uses, from vegetable and savory dishes to deserts and change character as they ripen. They are always to my knowledge cooked be it grilled, fried or boiled. I suggest searching culinary plantain to avoid results for the weed/herb of the same name.
There are so many Caribbean dishes a platano is used in. I deeply recommend to Google and watch YouTubers cook with platanos. If you are a food adventurer and are good at "acquiring tastes," you will love a platano mash (like mashed potatoes), fried plantains, Puerto Rican pasteles, and using them in soups and stews.
Be adventurous and try. As you can see in the image below, there is a tremendous difference between a regular eating banana, an unripened regular eating banana, an ungassed green banana (also called a "cooking green banana"), and a plantain ("platano" in Spanish).
A plantain is a plantain, a regular eating banana is what it is, and a "cooking, ungassed green banana" is what it is.
That appears to be a ungassed banana. They are picked very green & shipped. Once near market they are gassed to turn them yellow. Set them on top of the fridge for a few days. See if they start to ripen there. I base this on when we cut a bunch of bananas down a few are yellow the rest green. We eat the yellow ones. Set the green ones on top of the fridge. Let them ripen & have our bananas for the week. We set the rest of the bunch outside the gate for the neighbors to steal. When we don't have we steal bananas set out front of the neighbors gates.
Wrong answer. This are" plátanos macho" or plantains and are usually for cooking, not to eat raw.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.994544
| 2018-03-10T02:50:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88245",
"authors": [
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65118",
"roetnig",
"user5389726598465"
],
"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
}
|
96298
|
Is cooking a chicken pot pie with a low power microwave safe to eat?
The package says do not use with microwaves less than 1100 watts because it won't cook thoroughly. If I cook on a 700 watt microwave for 6 recommended minutes*(1+(1100-700)/700=8 minutes 10 seconds do I risk food poisoning or do I risk it tasting cold in the middle? I don't really know how these pies are made but the brand is banquet.
What matters most is the internal temperature of the pot pie. I cook all sorts of frozen stuff at 30% power (30% on, 70% off) so that I don't have to stir.
@MaxW The back states it has to reach 165 degrees. I think that means it's not fully pre-cooked, otherwise it would say till hot. I ate fish last year that gave me food poisoning and lost a full day of work to vomiting. I wonder if it's worth the risk.
It doesn't matter for food safety how you reach the required temperature, as long as the food doesn't spend too long in the danger zone. Since you've looking at possibly minutes longer this is not a problem for you. Just make sure you know that the internal temperature is high enough when you finish cooking. I would recommend a thermometer.
Microwaves are notorious for cold spots. What is likely the issue is that a low watt microwave will not heat the food to safe temperature without affecting taste. i.e.Uniform cooking. For the entire food product > 165, some parts may have hit far far > 165. i.e. burnt.
In my experience, high power is more likely to cause hot spots. Warming slightly slower gives the heat the chance to distribute better. (As stirring isn’t an option here.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.994839
| 2019-02-12T01:12:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96298",
"authors": [
"MaxW",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65118",
"user5389726598465"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86068
|
Is it safe to eat white rice that turned blue/purple in the fridge?
I left the rice overnight in the fridge and it smells fine, and a sample tasted fine but the color looks unappetizing. Is it safe to eat?
In response to the comments, it was warm and white when I put it in the fridge. Here is a photo that appears less colored than it was. At the bottom underneath it was all purple and blue:
Was it still warm when you put it in there?
Rice? Rice is so cheap that I'd just throw it out. A interesting question is why it would turn blue/purple.
If you are still wondering if it is edible, it sounds like you still have it. Could we see a photo??? pretty please?
Was the rice cooked with anything, was it part of a dish?
Seriously: overnight?
If it was really in a fridge overnight, with only a little cooling time before that, I'd be very surprised if it was mould. Is it a coating of colour, or does the colour go right through? Is there anything at all mixed with it or in the same container?
'Unappetizing' is your body warning you not to eat it. It's probably better if you don't try to train yourself to work against it
I see you edited from a different account than you originally posted from. You should be able to merge the two and make things easier by following the instructions here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts
@Cascabel ok. thanks. I have the same question about corn with white substance around the kernels that I'm saving for the next time it happens so I'll have a photo.
@user5389726598465 just remember to ask a separate question ;-)
What are the greenish disks? Lentils? Anything else in the dish?
Stephie has a good question: in addition to the lentils, are there black beans, or any other so called "black" foods, in that dish along with the rice? Black beans would stain the rice and make it look kind of purple, sort of like in your picture.
Well there is no way it is mold as it is only left overnight in the fridge and it was freshly made. It almost looks like the coloring from your cookware is coming off
Why would it not have come off while cooking? ... I would definitely not eat it, given that some bugs that love cooked rice are nasty (bacillus cereus).
@LorelC. There was nothing else but the lentils but doubt it was from the lentils.
From a bit of research, there is a bacteria called Chromobacterium suttsuga that is put on some types of rice to provide pest-control:
The bacterium’s toxins can be combined with chemical compounds and then applied to soil, plants or seeds. To control soil-dwelling pests, rice grains can be treated with the toxins and applied to the soil, where pests will feed on the treated grains.
This source seems to be referenced in a lot of other scientific papers for agriculture for talking about Chromobacterium suttsuga and pest-control. Some people claim seeing the discoloration on rice after a few days of being left in the fridge in a dark humid environment (like the bottom of a storage container where the discoloration appeared). There are a few forums about this you can find by Googling "white rice turns purple".
For the question on whether or not it is safe to eat, since we don't have the tools to do any biological analysis to be certain it is Chromobacterium suttsuga in the rice I would recommend against eating it. Even though the papers claim this strain of bacteria is safe to consume.
Source: https://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/extension/newsletters/vpmnews/mar04/mar04newdefense.html
How does this strain of bacteria form?
Any bacteria on the raw rice would likely be killed by the cooking process. I suspect the discoloration in this case is caused by a different bacteria. But, even if it's the same one, it also indicates that conditions were favorable for other types of bacteria to grow, too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.995018
| 2017-12-02T03:19:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86068",
"authors": [
"Aaron Franke",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Huangism",
"Joe",
"Lorel C.",
"MaxW",
"Nothingismagick",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73590",
"mrog",
"rackandboneman",
"user5389726598465"
],
"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
}
|
87880
|
Black spots in the kitchen sink
I just moved into a new flat and there seems to be some black spots in the kitchen sink(image attached).Is this black mold?How can I get rid of them safely?
PS: There is some black mold lining on the wall in the outer edge of the sink.And I am allergic to bleach
Update : I tried scrubbing it with dish soap and it washed away very easily. I am now more worried if that could be mold or just dirt/buildup :(
This Q might be better addressed over at the DIY/Home-Improvement SE.
Looks to me more like soot marks left from scrubbing a burnt bottom pan. Steel wool should take it out.
I would try a Magic Eraser first, then Barkeepers Friend, which is a powdered cleaner that's great on SS sinks.
Use a journal to document when and how ofter you have to clean this? Consider: Professional kitchens/hospitals have constant moisture and running water in their stainless steel sinks and DO NOT have black mold build up every three days or so after cleaning with bleach? If you rent your flat why on earth do you have to incur the expense of bleaching every day? the water should be safe. If you "clean" your sink and every couple of days this persists 1. take pictures and share with your landlord in writing a detail of your issue(s). 2. Call a plumber/mold expert share your story. 3. have a professional )not the "maintenance man" come out and take a look. 4. Contact your doctor and ask him/her how mold can affect your health. Remember there are MILLIONS of people who do NOT have any black splotches recurring on their stainless steel sink and whose water does not spew this mold. Take off the aerator ( they are cheap like $2.00) and clean it in fact leave it off for a couple of days and see if the "mold looking stuff" returns. If it does you may have a mold issue in your plumbing and that your landlord must address:). Take care and good luck. Do't believe yourlandlord believe your gut!
I’m not sure how this answers the question when the asker has reported that the substance was easily removed and we have no indication of a recurrent phenomenon. I am sure you just want to help, but it’s probably not a good approach in this case.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.995374
| 2018-02-19T22:01:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87880",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"brhans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"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
}
|
88709
|
Black spotting/dust in stainless steel utensils.Is this mildew?
I moved into this house a couple of months ago and bought some high quality stainless steel utensils with me from my house. I am noticing some black spots that don't go away with scratching or washing or baking soda. All my stainless steel kitchen utensils have this and some plastic containers have black dust which could be wiped with a dry paper towel.
My mum has been using the same set of utensils for years and has never observed anything like this. The only difference is that I wash my utensils with warm to hot water(and fairy dish soap).These spots also seem to increase in number(not in thickness) day by day. Have any of you heard or seen anything like this in stainless steel utensils ? What could this possibly be?
(There is a lining of black mold in the sealant lining the wall near the sink and also some in the shower which was scraped away when I moved in)
I don't know what it is, but there is no way it could be mildew infecting a polished stainless steel surface. Mildew would simply wipe away as you passed a finger over it. Looks to me like small pits in the S.S. surface, but I'm no expert on metallurgy.
Are you on well water in the new house? Normally you see this with people who salt the water for pasta before it's come to a boil ... but if you have hard water, you may want to consider a water softener to keep this from happening again.
The specks are corrosion pits. Austenitic stainless (aka- 18-8 , 304 , and several other numbers) are notorious for pitting in salt (halides). The 316 and 317 with molybdenum are more resistant but I doubt any cookware producer would go to the extra expense to use these alloys. However, I expect sitting for a couple days with salted water would be needed for pitting to develop. Out of curiosity, check it with a magnet; If strongly magnetic it is likely 13 Cr (410 SS) which would be likely to pit.
Thank you very much for your opinion.Are the utensils still usable?or should I discard?
U can use these utensils still
Thank you. How do get rid of it? or how do I prevent it from occurring in future. I use them for cooking and yes, I add salt while cooking but not any other time. Though I wash it within an hour or two after cooking.
You can't reasonably remove them. Just wash and dry after use . It is unusual, I have stainless that I have not taken care of and had no pitting; I even have a 2qt pot with no handle that I have used 20 years in the garden for fertilizer, etc , and it has no significant pitting.
Well, the username pretty much makes this answer canonical.
This type of black dot corrosion is seen from deposits of osmium dioxide and/or ruthenium dioxide, rare but far too common polluting metals that are often confused as mold. Precious metals, (gold, platinum, etc) after melting, will sometimes show black dot deposits on the bottom if they contain this rare impurity. Osmium contamination will oxidize in air when wetted with a basic solution, such as soap, forming volatile oily crystals of osmium tetroxide which smells of chlorine and very slowly attacks all type of metals leaving black dots. The dots usually form on metal after cleaning with bleach and tends to crystallize into golden (or bright red with amines) square crystals on ceramic/tile surfaces and into metallic flakes on organic/wood/plastic surfaces. black is very non-characteristic and can be due to many other possibilities so try spotting these other signs and pay attention to any chlorine-like odors coming from your homes heater although I realize you will likely never see this post, alas!
Where would the Osmium and/or Ruthenium come from to deposit in a pan?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.995584
| 2018-03-28T17:25:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88709",
"authors": [
"Captain Giraffe",
"Joe",
"Lorel C.",
"Me-si",
"Sahoo",
"Tinuviel",
"blacksmith37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46693
|
Could cheese "halt" the tenderness of cooking lentils?
I was cooking some lentils in chicken broth. When the lentils seemed almost done (they had been simmering for 30 minutes or so), on a whim, I added a fair amount of Gouda cheese. There was still plenty of broth left, the cheese barely thickened the liquid and the taste was nice. I was looking forward to the lentils being done so I could enjoy them.
It's been over an hour since I added the cheese. I've kept it at a simmer ever since but the lentils are still not done. If anything, they are tougher now than when I added the cheese.
Is there a reason cheese would have this effect? There is still plenty of liquid, I started with at least 4:1, and there is still at least a good half inch of liquid above the level of the lentils.
What's going on?
EDIT From this question: Can Calcium Chloride be Used to Prevent Lentils from Bursting? I gather that the calcium in the cheese may be the issue, but it seems that it shouldn't have that much of an effect.
I have always been told that high acid-yielding foods can cause dried legumes to stay hard. I can't say that I have ever added Gouda (although it sounds delectable) but I have had dried beans stay hard when adding tomatoes too early in the cooking process. Wondering about this, I looked up Gouda and was quite surprised to find that it is a high acid-yielding food.
Could be other reasons such as legumes that are old or a hard water situation but I suspect you have already considered and eliminated those as you are very thorough. :)
Good point about the acid, I had no idea that Gouda was high acid. I just edited the question to cover the calcium, which can also have an effect. Perhaps combined the two issues were too much for my poor lentils (which are still tough :(
I think salt can also prevent lentils from softening.
@GdD I can't swear concerning lentils specifically, but beans in general do fine with salt. ATK has even taken to brining beans. Again, lentils may be an exception, but the "salt is bad for cooking beans" idea has been debunked.
Beans and lentils are 2 different things, what works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other, but I'm happy to be proved wrong on this one.
@GdD I don't know that you are wrong, as you say, beans and lentils are different. I've actually only cooked lentils a few times. Perhaps some Googling is in order. :)
I can say that my last batch of lentils was heavily salted the same way I do beans and they softened just fine. Also- gouda is a high acid food, like most cheeses, but it is a low acid semi-firm cheese. It is a "washed" curd cheese which is characterized by having a lot of the lactose washed out of the curd before it is aged. This results is less lactic acid than a similarly firm, aged cheese.
@Jolenealaska You are indeed correct about the calcium. After following the link you provided I took a look to see what I could find. Didn't have time to delve in too deep but I did read that calcium ions cause a reaction that prevents lentils from absorbing liquid. Also found that calcium chloride is often used in modern day canning as it keeps vegetables from absorbing so much canning liquid, thus helping to retain firmness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.995890
| 2014-08-27T14:13:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46693",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Dan Waters",
"Diane Ross",
"GdD",
"Jennifer Ciarlo",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kathy H",
"Sobachatina",
"emilie cadiou",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.