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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
129862
|
Which is the default butter in the US? salted or unsalted?
Whenever I watch culinary videos, every time butter is involved, it is referred as unsalted butter.
This is such a rule that I came to wonder wheather salted butter is the norm (or "default") in the US?
We do have salted butter in France (it however comes from abroad - from Brittany :)) but it is very explicitly stated when you need to use it, which is far, far, faaaar less common than normal butter.
Most people who don't cook probably don't even realize there's a difference. The big issue is that every brand uses a different amount of salt, so for recipes that you actually care about consistency (like baking, where you can't sample as you go), it's safer to standardize on unsalted butter and then add salt.
Most people who don't cook probably don't even realize there's a difference I am not sure I understand. Here in France it is difficult to miss the fact that one is eating salted butter (because it is very salted - it is even called demi-sel in France, which means "half salt", but that thankfully does not reflect the real amount :) It is 0.5 to 3% salt. And I just learned reading Wikipedia that we also have "salted butter" (beurre salé) which I never seen in my life (it seems to exist in Brittany)
there are a LOT of people in the US who are completely clueless when it comes to cooking, as they never learned. Looking at comments on recipe sites makes it pretty obvious (complaining about a recipe, while mentioning the changes they made). I know adults who think a "clove" of garlic is the full bulb or that scallions and shallots are the same thing. You have to make sure you are VERY specific when giving recipes. Even a term like 'shelled nuts' can be confusing because people think it means 'nuts in the shell' instead of 'nuts that have been de-shelled'
Side remark: you don't have to go that far away, "normal" butter is salted in Scandinavian countries already, and you have to look for the specific unsalted one if you want to eat it with jam, marmalade, and co. Or just don't care: Norwegians often eat sweet rice porridge with a spoonful of salted butter.
@WoJ it's "demi-sel" as in half the salt of buerre salé. Are you perhaps in a part of France that uses olive oil rather than butter traditionally? Because I've mostly visited northern France and both salé and demi-sel are common in multiple brands in most supermarkets
I think the 'english' equivilent of demi sel would be 'slightly salted'
Here (Germany) the default is unsalted butter (though one can buy salted butter like garlic/spiced butter), and the more usual distinction is cultured or not. I long ago went to Canada for a research stay and made a German-style crumble cake for the "first day" coffee break and didn't realize that the butter I bought was salted until I tasted the mixture... However, my landlady recommended to proceed since North Americans are accustomed to much salt. In the end I explained to the colleagues, who tried and liked the taste. (That may be: I know I'm on the low salt side for Germans)
@ChrisH I am from around Paris, so butter is the fat of choice (at least traditionally). When you go to a typical supermarket, you will hardly find beurre salé: https://www.auchan.fr/oeufs-produits-laitiers/cremerie-oeufs-laits/beurres/ca-n010105?page=1 I have never seen any (but I have never looked for any either - though I would have at least noticed after 50 years :)) Wherever I search for beurre salé it gives me demi-sel (just tried at Carrefour as well)
@tevemadar Scandinavians don’t generally buy different butter to use with jam or marmelade – salted butter still works fine for that. Note, however, that Scandinavian butter is almost always cultured, with a salt content of around 1%, whereas North American butter is most frequently uncultured, with a salt content of 2–4%, so it tends to be significantly more salty than Scandinavian butter.
@WoJ I'm surprised, because without refrigeration you'd need to use unsalted butter the day you make it or throw it away. Even in the fridge, it spoils in 1-2 weeks. Salted butter will survive a week out of the fridge, and can easily last a month or two in the fridge. In a warmer country like France, this seems strange. But maybe it's just about the flavour, and not about how long it can survive. Or possibly it's a change since fridges became available?
@Graham as far back as I can remember (the 80's), butter was always kept in the fridge. We have these nice glass containers for it, but they also went to the fridge. In contrast, when I visited friends in Poland, they would often keep the butter (unslated as well) outside, covered with water.
@WoJ I keep my butter in the fridge, but mostly because I live in a desert where it is hot all summer, and I don't want to pay for the AC more than I have to---if I were to keep butter on the counter, it would make a sloppy mess.
@Graham: unsalted butter keeps just fine in the fridge for months. Unrefrigerated (in a butter dish on the counter), it would last at least two weeks, except that it tends to get consumed way before then. "Use unsalted butter the day you make it or throw it away" is utter and complete nonsense.
@Marti I use half salted and half unsalted butter for most recipes. Refrigerated, it is rancid and entirely unusable within 2 weeks. Perhaps you are freezing yours? Normally I'd eat salted butter; but when I have accidentally left a pat of unsalted butter out of the fridge, it was rancid after 2 days. You'll understand it's not an experiment I do repeatedly, for that reason.
@WoJ perhaps salted butter is more of a Breton/Normand thing then; that's where I've been the most. While I've been in and near Paris often enough only one of those trips could have involved a supermarket
@Graham I have kept unsalted butter in the fridge for a few weeks and it never went bad. I usually keep it at least 2 weeks if not more. I just checked the butter I bought last week - it is good until 2025-02-08. This is the "best before date", you can add three weeks or so to this.
@ChrisH yes, for sure (I mentioned this in my question when mentioning provenance)
@Graham Unsalted, uncultured butter will generally not last nearly as long as unsalted, cultured butter. French butter is generally unsalted but cultured, while at least the salted butter sold in the UK and North America tends to be uncultured, and I suspect the unsalted variants sold there may also be, like industry-used butter (for things like baking and confectionery at least) often is. So your experience may reflect uncultured butter, while WoJ’s reflects cultured butter.
If a US or Canadian recipe just says "butter" they mean salted butter. It keeps much longer than unsalted butter. That's why the recipe people say "unsalted butter" - because it's not the cultural default, even if it may be the butter they happen to prefer in all their recipes.
You can add salt to unsalted butter (about 1/4 tsp of salt per half cup of butter) if your recipe calls for salted and you don't have it. If the recipe calls for unsalted and you only have salted, there may be some salt elsewhere in the recipe that you can reduce by that amount.
The comments here are interesting, but they have gotten unwieldy. I have moved the conversation to chat.
@Jolenealaska: is there a link to said chat?
Because I am a math guy, and this question seems to admit a data-driven answer, a bit of Googling reveals the following:
According to a 2018 article in the Washington Post,
...since 2012, 77 percent of the butter sold in America has been salted and 23 percent unsalted. Tom Balmer, executive director of the American Butter Institute, quoted similar figures, but said that when it comes to bulk sales, unsalted butter sells more.
Ken Research (an organization I have never heard of before, but poking around their site makes them seem trustworthy on this issue) displays a chart showing that salted butter sales make up a near majority of the butter market in the US, with unsalted, whipped, and clarified butter filling out the rest of the market. It appears that these numbers are in dollars spent (rather than amount bought), and more processed products (like whipped and clarified butter) are likely more expensive, but salted and unsalted butter are similar in cost, so the relative sales of the two likely represent similar quantities of butter. From the article, it looks like salted butter outsells unsalted butter by a factor of two or three to one (this is consistent with the Washington Post article).
Quoting the article:
The USA Butter Market is segmented by product type into salted butter, unsalted butter, whipped butter, and clarified butter. Among these, salted butter dominates the market due to its long-standing popularity among consumers and its extended shelf life, which makes it a preferred choice in household kitchens. Additionally, salted butter is widely used in foodservice industries for cooking and baking purposes, further driving its dominance.
There are a number of other market research sites which seem to give a similar impression: salted butter is more popular in the US, by a factor of (perhaps) three to one (i.e. 75%ish of the market is salted, 25%ish is unsalted).
Beyond that, I am finding it surprisingly difficult to find reliable or trustworthy information about this---kind of makes me with that I knew a grad student or two at Iowa State or Texas A&M. :)
The conclusion I would draw from the above is that, while salted butter probably outsells unsalted butter by a fair margin, the margin is not enough to conclude that salted butter is the "default", particularly in light of confounding factors like the use of salted butter in food production. Because both salted and unsalted are commonly available, and because it can make a difference in a recipe, most authors will specify.
That makes sense. People shopping at grocery stores favor salted butter, while the people buying the bulk stuff (likely restaurants and bakeries) are more likely to go for unsalted. So professionals are more likely to be using unsalted, which is it the main type being purchased by households and needs to be specifically called out
@Joe I'm not sure that the data are fine grained enough to make that conclusion. My interpretation is that both quantities are sold in the US, in numbers which are close enough to each other that recipes feel the need to specify. Anecdotally, my grocery store devotes about the same amount of shelf space to salted and unsalted butter (this representing the "household" market).
Salted and unsalted butter are side by side on the shelves, and different people have different preferences. A lot of people like the extra flavor salt provides, and so prefer salted butter for spreading on bread. If you want to control just how much salt is in a recipe, unsalted butter is better so you can add just the amount you want. But if someone just asks for butter, you should probably ask if they care which kind. They may even want spreadable "butter" in a tub.
I agree, it's really about context. If someone asks for butter so that they can make bread, they want unsalted. If someone asks for butter so that they can eat bread, they want salted.
They may even want spreadable "butter" in a tub OK, we went too far here :)
@WoJ Just wait until you send someone to the store to get butter, and they come back with a tub of I Can't Belive It's Not Butter™.
My neighbors referred to Country Crock as "tub butter". Growing up and first starting out on my own, margarine in tubs was not only convenient it meant that you also had a reusable container
@XanderHenderson TBH we also have margarine. I tried it once during COVID when the "thing to look of the day" was butter (before it was pasta and like in other countries - toilet paper...) and there was no butter left for a few days. It is an unholy abomination.
@WoJ If you go to Scandinavia and ask for butter in a random household, I’d say there’s about a 60% chance what you’ll get is a spreadable ‘butter’ made from a mixture of butter and oil. Many people (myself included) actually prefer them to real butter, not only for spreadability, but also for flavour. I can’t find any proper statistics, but some articles online indicate that in Denmark, margarine accounts for about 15% of fat-on-bread spreads, real butter about 34% and spreadable ‘butter’ about 51% – and no one would give you margarine if you ask for butter.
Whereas in Hungary, almost all baking is done with margarine (which is unsalted, same as butter), and if you ask for butter for your bread, you have even odds of getting butter or margarine.
@XanderHenderson I think you have a right to be annoyed if you ask for butter and someone brings you 'not butter' (and you can be sure that I can believe it is not butter.)
@JimmyJames: To be fair, "spreadable butter" is in fact butter, it just has canola oil (or possibly some other neutral vegetable oil) mixed in. Obviously not a great choice for baking, or in any circumstances where you really care what ingredients you're using, but it's entirely fine on toast.
@Kevin Oh, I know about spreadable butter but "I can't believe it's not butter" is not butter, as the name implies.
Typically, restaurants in the US that serve butter instead of margarine (a vanishing minority, it must be sadly said) serve salted butter. I suppose that might mean that salted butter is "normal." I personally prefer unsalted butter.
I grew up in a margarine family (horrible stuff) so I don't have any family precedent to draw on. Except, perhaps that my best friend's family used salted butter. I didn't realize that butter was ever salted until I tried unsalted butter when I was older.
I have this with breads: when I go to the US they taste really sweet to me.
@WoJ Probably because we put extra sugar in bread to hide the taste of the preservatives. Off-the-shelf bread in the US can sit for a couple of weeks before it will get mouldy. If it even does then. So it's probably full of chemicals.
The reason that culinary videos specify unsalted butter is that salt should be added to taste. Using salted butter may cause a cook to use too much salt since some salt is already present. Many people cannot have salt because they have blood pressure or heart disease issues. Unsalted butter allows the cook to omit salt entirely, or add only as much as necessary. Either unsalted butter is the "default" or there isn't one.
Thanks but this really does not answer my question at all. I am not asking about the differences or reasons for salter or unslated butter, but which one is the "normal" one in the US.
@WoJ I've edited the answer to address that directly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.996204
| 2024-12-27T19:19:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129862",
"authors": [
"BobRodes",
"Chris H",
"Graham",
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"JimmyJames",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Kevin",
"Marti",
"Wastrel",
"WoJ",
"Xander Henderson",
"aherocalledFrog",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95101",
"tevemadar"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128450
|
Why does Member's Mark Frozen cod have 340mg of sodium while other frozen cod is 75-110mg per serving?
I've compared other brands and even some others from Sam's that have nowhere near the sodium.
Welcome new user. Greg, can you please give a link to oe of the "OTHER" examples you mean?
Read the ingredients:
INGREDIENTS: COD, WATER, SALT
The added salt is the source of the extra sodium. Most frozen fish does not have added salt.
Source: https://www.samsclub.com/p/members-mark-pacific-cod-3-lb/prod21001020
Responding to comments, here is an example of frozen cod without added salt. It has only 60mg of salt per 4oz serving, which must come from the fish itself. This is consistent with the USDA nutritional facts for cod fillets.
Does anyone have an example of a frozen cod that does not have salt added? Surprisingly I could not find one!
It seems to be the case that one serving (115 grams on that label) of natural cod has only about 60 mg of sodium, not the "75-110" mg you mention.
(I had no idea this was the case!)
https://www.calorieking.com/us/en/foods/f/calories-in-fish-atlantic-cod-raw/V2bxhYJtRfacMQb82XQwEw
(select "grams .. 115")
If you're seeing "75-110" on other brands, it is perhaps likely those other brands also add salt.
(You can possibly, but maybe not, learn this from the ingredients labels, depending on the legalities of what they have to reveal.)
If so, the answer to your question would just seem to be that this product simply adds more salt than the others - ?
I've thought of two theories why this could be, ie, answering your actual question "why" does this have more salt than others.
product link:
https://www.samsclub.com/p/members-mark-pacific-cod-3-lb/prod21001020
(1) Note that it happens to be from China. As is commonly known, cuisines in China, Japan and Asia generally use much more salt than in the West. Conceivably, Chinese processors tend to use more salt?
(2) I had a quick review of the prices of similar products at various retailers; this one seems to be basically the cheapest. Is it possible that (in answer to your question) they just add more salt to beef-up the taste since it is (perhaps) lesser quality fish? (Or, just in general, "cheaper food" from processors and fast food joints tends to have more salt added.)
I'm assuming that you figured out that the product mentioned is from China by looking it up? Making that explicit would improve the answer, since as-is, it reads like you're just speculating that it's Chinese, which is not a good look, to put it mildly. If not, then your answer doesn't really have any basis. Beyond that, I'm going ahead and editing out some unsupported generalization and digression - the OP asked about one cod product, not the tendencies of Chinese food processors, and certainly not drugs.
Upon editing, it became apparent that nothing about the country of origin is actually germane here - I assume salt is a listed ingredient on the label (again, making that explicit would improve the answer). If you want to try to generalize about countries of origin, I'd suggest (1) having actual evidence, and (2) doing it somewhere where it's clearly relevant (i.e. probably not this question, unless you do an awful lot of research about frozen cod).
I didn't say anything about photos, and I knew the product was from China. The issue was that you just assumed someone would click through and discover that it said that; the rest of the answer just takes it as a given that the reader knows it's from China. But again: nothing about where it's from is relevant. Please don't undo my edits; I already explained why I made them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.997366
| 2024-05-31T22:57:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128450",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Fattie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
127779
|
What do PY, L, and E mean on the label of this olive oil product?
On the back of Filippo Berio extra virgin olive oil,
PY20/21
L2022.03.28
E2024.03.28
What do the first two mean?
How do the three tell the quality of the oil?
I read these as
PY20/21
Production year 2020/2021 - or harvest season, which is typically between October and February, but may vary.
L2022.03.28
Label date, probably also when the oil was bottled.
E2024.03.28
“Expiry” date, two years after the label date. Note that you should interpret this rather as a best-before date and a quality degradation indicator, not a food safety indicator.
The numbers don’t tell you anything about the quality of the oil per se (considering you previous questions), but after two years, or rather three, considering the first date, there may be some degradation, which may or may not be noticeable, depending on different factors (e.g. storage conditions).
Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
Because the comments on other answers have been moved, I am supplying a supplementary answer which addresses the "quality" portion of the question.
Elsewhere on the label you will see:
Packed in Italy with oils from Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain
This is what's called a "blended" olive oil, which is usually an indicator of lower quality. This is because, while sometimes oil distributors blend to maintain a taste profile, most of the time they do it to lower costs, using whatever are the cheapest available oils. Industry-wide, that includes adding things that aren't olive oil at all. Filippo Berio in particular is known for doing this.
Thanks! What brands of evoo would you recommend which are also not expensive? Sam club's member Mark, la espanola, MUELOLIVA, betis, and more are also available in PDD
So, real virgin olive oil is going to be expensive right now, period. There's a global shortage due to the failure of the olive crop in Spain. If you find anything that's less than $12USD/liter it's certainly fake; expect to pay more like $20/L. Member's Mark is another blended olive oil, made mostly from olive pomace oil. Sam's Club's Ommagio (glass bottle) has a much better reputation. I am not familiar with the other brands.
But ... all the other brands you mention are Spanish. Even if, in a normal year, they're trustworthy, I'd be extra-skeptical of anything reasonably priced from Spain this year.
For taste, favorites are Colavita (Italy) and Terra Delyssa (Tunisia - square bottle, yellow label with horse).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.997915
| 2024-02-29T05:27:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127779",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Stephie",
"Tim",
"Yosef Baskin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83237"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90852
|
What is this paste I got from boiling down coconut "whey"?
I have been fascinated with taking byproducts of a fresh coconut, and this time I got this sweet and very sour paste from boiling down coconut "whey"
First, let me explain what is this coconut whey :
Took the meat out a fresh coconut, did not remove the outer darker skin (Mistake!)
Put the meat with some water on the blender, strained it in a nut milk bag, repeated the process until milk was achieved
Set the milk in the refrigerator for 24h for it to separate
Used the top cream to make butter and buttermilk
The bottom leftover part after the cream was removed is what I call the coconut "whey"
Now, I thought this whey would be mostly water and sugar, so take the water of you have... sugar!
After boiling it down, I stopped when it began to stick in the pan, the end result was a very sticky gooey paste, that at first taste is sweet but then comes a very unpleasant sour, maybe acidic aftertaste, might be due to not having removed the darker outer skin, or maybe due to the lauric acid?
So, any idea what is this? What can I do with it? Did I do something wrong that it became so sour?
I know this isn't the same as coconut sugar you see in stores as that one is taken from the tree not the coconut itself.
Picture (trying to dry it in the oven because its too sticky) :
From the process you described it sounds like you have refined down more of the heavier nutrients contained into coconuts into a really concentrated paste.
Using the nutrition facts I've found on wikipedia for what exact molecules are found in a coconut (I've linked below), there are significant amounts of zinc, iron, potassium, and magnesium. These all commonly give a metallic taste to food. These metallic tastes when you eat raw coconut are normally masked by the sugars and water in the meat of the fruit to balance the flavor. There is also a considerable amount of glutamic and aspartic acids in coconuts that are dense molecules and would sink to the bottom of your mixture overnight and add a relatively sour taste.
When you went through your separation in step 3 and removed some things from step 4, you took away a considerable amount of the simple sugars and water from the coconut matter. What was left in the bottom part was the heavier molecules like the metallic tasting ones, heavy acids (glutamic and aspartic), and bits of calcium and some more complex sugars that would give the immediate-but-fleeting sweeter taste. As soon as you started cooking away the water and breaking down the sugars, the concentration of these metals and acids will get stronger and cause that odd sour taste. The stickiness will come from the sugars and acids that are left in the coconut with the bits of moisture.
Imagine cooking highly concentrated sugar with some water and citric acid on a stove (used in tons of hard candy recipes) and you will get a similar result for stickiness. The reason this sticky substance doesn't harden like hard candy is because of all the other bigger molecules keeping it from cooling and forming a crystalline structure, therefore it just stays a goopy mess. Even though citric acid isn't really in coconuts, it has enough of an organic structure to be comparable to glutamic/aspartic acid in this instance.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.998158
| 2018-07-07T03:16:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90852",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91097
|
Do grains sold as animal feed meet the safety standards for human food?
I don't know if the safety standards for human and animal food crops are different or equivalent. Also, if they are different, by what magnitude do the limits for toxins and the like differ?
As for laws, this is for Germany/Europe
There is no universal standard for "safe", food safety is defined by what the relevant agency declares safe. Of course there is an intuitive understanding of "safe" which means whether the speaker would choose to eat it, but that is a subjective discussion not suitable for the site. The best we could do instead of closing is to edit it to ask whether the criteria for animal feed are equal to or tighter than the criteria for human food, so I reworded. Also, removed the reference to "other food" because that made the question too broad, which is a close reason.
@rumtscho Thank you for fitting it. While it is unlikely that animal feed meets higher standards than the one declared as ment for human consumption, there may be some different values for the maximum allowed amount of toxins. And if for example the concentration in animal feed is allowed to be twice as high that should be no issue for a healthy human. But if there are amounts allowed that are exceeding the human standards by more than one magnitude regular consumption may be harmful.
What is animal feed in one country is human food in another (E.g. "Polenta") but that's just one example, so:
Is all animal feed safe to eat raw? Definitely not!
Is all animal feed safe to eat cooked? Definitely not!
Is some animal feed safe to eat raw? Probably not!
Is most animal feed safe to eat cooked? Probably yes.
Is it legal to serve this food to other people? No in most countries, including Germany
However, that is just some and most and probably and the quality control between maize for animal consumption and maize used for human consumption is different, so the quality of the food you'll be cooking out of chicken feed will be much lower than the one rated for human consumption.
I mean: I once made a stew out of dog food by adding pepper, allspice, nutmeg and some nice dark monk beer, but that was a drunken bet and the two other drunks absolutely loved it the night itself until we realised the next day it was mostly horse meat...
Nothing wrong with horse meat, it's a common meat in other countries. The problem in the US is (1) horse enthusiasts (and the culture, where horses were once very important) and (2) medications are allowed for use on horses that aren't allowed on animals raised for human consumption. The real question is why dog food isn't made from cats that shelters have to kill, as dogs seem to like to chase them.
I agree with both horse and cat meat...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.998438
| 2018-07-17T06:50:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91097",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Gimli",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90730
|
Can I make milk hot chocolate out of dark chocolate and sugar?
Would it taste the same if I made a hot chocolate out of couverture milk chocolate + milk and a hot chocolate made out of couverture dark chocolate + more milk + more sugar?
Your premise appears to be that the difference between milk chocolate and dark chocolate is merely milk and sugar content, such that if one blends all three together, in any order or manner, the results would be 'the same' (or at least, taste the same). This is not the case. Not only would the ultimate ratios of cocoa-sugar-milk end up being 'off' dark chocolate contains ingredients that are not used in milk chocolate, lecithin (from soy or milk) to emulsify the chocolate liquer and sweetener in order to create a smooth product. This is a different process than simply melting solid chocolate into milk.
While you could ultimately end up with two similar products they would not taste 'the same'...at least to a discerning palate.
For some additional information see: What is the difference between Milk Chocolate and Dark Chocolate? and Milk vs. Dark vs. Semi-sweet vs. Bitter-sweet chocolate?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.998678
| 2018-07-02T00:46:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90730",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88206
|
blood in poultry farm white egg
I brought four-five eggs day before yesterday and today when I cracked one I saw blood in it, rest others were fine.
It doesn't look like a drop of blood fall upon it, it looks like I can't separate it like someone pierced yellow part and blood burst out of it.
Question: What is it, chicken and I killed it? Is it safe to eat it, scrambled egg?
I regularly see these (although, not usually as big), and they are considered safe to cook and eat as usual.
The American Egg Board (which is, just to be clear, a US government-backed lobby and marketing group, not a scientific body), states that
blood spots are caused by ruptured blood vessels (which can happen for different reasons) of the hen (mother) at the time of ovulation (before the hard outer shell of the egg has formed)
they are not an indicator of fertilised eggs
they are safe to eat.
We don't see them (or don't see very large ones) regularly because they are normally detected by candling, and such eggs are removed (this is why blood spots are more common in eggs from local farms that might not be using such mass-production techniques).
Many other sites say things along the same lines, including the USDA. However, notice the other USDA comments on egg freshness and safety. Definitely make sure the eggs are cooked thoroughly (as always!), especially if they're from local farms and may have not gone through pasteurisation or other post-collection disinfection methods.
@BaffledCook might be right on the freshness comment (independent of the blood spot), although the photo you took is very bright and makes it a bit hard for me to tell how clear the egg white is or whether the yolk just broke when you cracked the egg.
The "err on the safe side" is usually a good rule to follow if you're concerned (it's just an egg!).
Was there once life which got killed?
@paul, if you're asking whether the egg was fertilised, the AEB link I provided states that blood spots "do not indicate a fertilized egg" (nor do they indicate it was not fertilised; i.e., blood spots are irrelevant to this).
But the fact that egg-layers are raised absent the presence of any males is a pretty strong indication that it's not fertilized. If this egg came from a small farm it might be different, but if this purchased in a grocery store it's certainly not fertilized (barring a literal miracle).
The thing that I am not getting is "What is the source of blood?" White portion can't have blood, yolk also can't have blood. Blood is liquid which requires a wrapper/some-container, like skin which prevents it from flowing out. If we pierce skin blood would come out.
@paul, the blood comes from ruptured blood vessels (which can happen for different reasons) of the hen (mother) at the time of ovulation (before the hard outer shell of the egg has formed). See http://articles.extension.org/pages/65372/avian-reproductive-systemfemale (particularly images) to get a better idea.
I'd say it is not a fresh egg because there's very little yolk there.
In this case, it's would be better to err on the safe side and ditch the egg.
About killing the fetus: you didn't kill it as you didn't take it out of the incubator/from under the chicken. It was already dead when you bought it.
It seems like the egg is in a cylindrical container, not spread out on a plate, so it would be hard to judge the amount of yolk, wouldn't it, since we can't see any other angles. In my experience, fresh yolks stand up higher so would seem smaller from above.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.998793
| 2018-03-08T08:54:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88206",
"authors": [
"Aster",
"Joshua Engel",
"Ratler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65618",
"paul"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88236
|
Italian Meringue Help - Sticking to Mixer
I am trying to make Italian Meringue and I using a candy thermometer and following a recipe very closely. However, whenever I pour my sugar into my egg whites the sugar instantly sticks to the side of mixing bowl and then I have little pieces of rock candy floating around my egg whites. What am I doing wrong? Everything I see makes it look so simple and I can't find anyone else encountering this issue. Thanks!
115g aged egg whites
3g cream of tartar
150g granulated sugar
Beat egg whites and cream of tartar on medium until soft peaks for (~2 min) and reduce speed to low
Add granulated sugar and 57g water to saucepan and heat over medium high. If sugar sticks to side use a wet pastry brush to remove sugar crystals
Cook sugar until it reaches 235 degrees Fahrenheit.
When sugar is 235 degrees quickly and steadily pour it down the side of the mixer bowl while the mixer is on medium speed
Whip for about 4 minutes until glossy
I added the recipe :)
So, when you say 'sugar" you're talking about the sugar syrup, right? And it's still hot? Your recipe says to pour it down the side of the mixer bowl but most of the other recipes I see say to pour it into the whites (avoiding the beaters). Is it possible your bowl is too cold?
Yes - The simple sugar syrup. Not sure how I should heat up the bowl but that might prevent the issue.
Well, the egg whites shouldn't be cold,... are you taking them straight from the fridge?
I am getting the egg whites to room temp before I whip them - maybe its just cold in my house. The mixing bowl is stainless steel and I see lots of people using glass bowls.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.999188
| 2018-03-09T18:56:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88236",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Drew Fleming",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65653"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117382
|
What is this brown mass on this egg?
I boiled an egg and while eating it I found this brown mass. It's not gooey - I tested whether I could squeeze it out, but it just ripped with the rest of the egg white.
Update: another egg in this batch of 24 had a similar spot. Here are some more pictures:
As you can see in this picture, this time I was able to squeeze out the brown mass:
That could be what's known as a meat spot.
When a hen is laying an egg, sometimes pieces are sloughed off on the process down the ovary.
Although this is unusually large for a meat spot, it could be something like a blood clot that was sloughed off during the process.
It is usually safe to eat, but I wouldn't recommend it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.999343
| 2021-10-02T16:56:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117382",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59906
|
Is eating olive pits a problem?
I have been eating fresh and brined olives for years. I like the olives with the pits and usually consume the whole pit without removing it. It was recently pointed out to me that this is not a healthy practice, and even though I have been doing this for some time, I began to wonder whether it is 1)abnormal to eat the whole olive, pit and all, and 2) will the pits have a long term adverse effect? I have never met anyone who ate olive pits, and I find the with-pit olives to be the best, so I thought I would ask. Note that I do not grind up and chew the pits, as I am sure that my teeth would not like that!
I've never heard of anyone eating the pits until now. I don't know if it's healthy for you or not but some of them are certainly sharp and I'm not sure I'd want that going through my small intestine.
I think you're confusing the terminology. From your question, "...I find the pitted olives to be the best...". Pitted olives have the pits removed.
Ok, so what would one call olives with pits if they are not "pitted?" "pit-free? pit-less?" Pit olives?
@ychirea1 Unpitted olives, or olives with pits.
Also... fresh? Fresh olives are bitter and basically inedible.
Everyone knows, if you eat olive pits, an olive tree will grow in your tummy!
In our culture we eat olive pits (especially Kalamata) for generations and no one has ever had a problem with eating them in small quantities (3-4 max).
They seem to be digestible (never noticed any of them coming out! :)
Just because they did not come out does not mean you digested them. Just saying.
I'd avoid this practice.
The olive pit husk is very hard and should not be eaten, however, as it is indigestible and might injure the intestinal wall if sharp edges are present. Also, do not chew the husk, as it is so hard it could break a tooth. Swallowing the husk is also a bad idea, as it has sharp ends that could be dangerous. It is also quite indigestible and will come out just as it went in. (source)
I will accept this answer. Although the article that you referenced suggests that the seeds inside of the pit are beneficial for eating, and possibly healthy, one still has to crack the pit to get to the seed. I will not chew the pit, it is too much trouble to crack it with a nutcracker.
yes, seeds are tasty nutty-olive, close to cedar seeds, but too small to bother with opening the thick husk.
I swallow olive pits occasionally,not more than 2 if they are not too big. Heard for some old folks in Greece they have done it for whole life(in their 80s still kicking and olive pits eating:)) and they believe that pits protect their intestines as they are digestible
I used to eat the meat in the olive pit. It is white and oblong shape, and it is very tasty. I have not had it since when I was a child. I will ask the herb store in Chinatown next time. this delicacy is very expensive probably because it is hard to break the pit and extract the meat.
Apparently US and Bulgarian research proved that olive stones melt in the digestive tract before reaching the intestines. I just received the information from a friend who is a medical researcher and I will also start eating them.
Yes, citation needed. I've removed the health claims as they're off-topic here regardless of whether there's a source.
I have been eaten for years(40+). Nothing wrong with it and most probably it is healthy too. Sometimes you need to be careful because of sharpness of top side of pit. Stomach, I read it in somewhere don't remember where but, just digestive it within seconds, before it goes to intestine...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.999442
| 2015-08-14T14:54:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59906",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Cameron Stache",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cherry O'Brien",
"Cindy",
"Elaine Wagnon",
"Eugene Petrov",
"Hailey Tucker",
"Jami Nicotera",
"John Phillips",
"Phyllis Ryan",
"Steven House",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"roetnig",
"ychirea1"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46349
|
Sous-Vide Chicken Thighs - Effect of temperature swings?
Perfect fried chicken is the Great White Whale in my kitchen. It seems I've tried everything, well almost everything, I have not tried sous-vide.
I'm still on the fence as to whether I'm going to invest in a immersion circulator, and this experiment could put me over the edge, one way or another.
I can reasonably approximate sous-vide in my rice maker by switching it on and off and using my digital thermometer. It actually works pretty well, I can stay within about 5-7 degrees F my target temperature without too much trouble as long as it's not for an obscenely long time. 4-5 Hours is probably my upper limit.
I'm planning on doing roughly this: ChefSteps (thanks @moscafj for the link).
I'm using thighs, and they're big suckers. I prefer thighs cooked quite bit more than other pieces. Should I up the temperature? How much?
Secondly, I have historically found thighs to be extremely forgiving. How much of a temperature range can I allow? Say I'm aiming for 155F (68C). Can I let my rice cooker go until it reaches 160F, turn it off, and then turn it back on at 150F? Over and over again?
I have about 3kg of on-the-bone belly pork, and 1kg of pork cheek confit (fat rendered from the skin of the belly after making crackling) in my circulator at the moment. Conclusion: get a circulator :P https://www.dropbox.com/s/tcdpvslh61gjn49/4kg-of-pork.jpg
I say resist the temptation to up the temperature. Some other questions here suggest no higher than 60ºC (140ºF) for sous vide chicken in order to best preserve the texture. Granted, that's for breast meat, and thighs will be more forgiving, but you've also conservatively got about 10ºF variance around your target temp. I'd say stick with the recommended 65ºC (149ºF, call it 150ºF) given in your linked resource. If you're confident that you can maintain a variance of less than 10ºF, this will juuust keep you out of the danger zone, and will keep you from accidentally getting too high above the target.
You don't want the sous vide too high because you'll be frying these immediately afterward; by the time you get a nice crust, the internal temp will easily make it up to the USDA's safe minimum if not several degrees higher. If you prefer them more well-done, it's much easier to adjust your fry technique than it is the sous vide. Undercook them, and you can fry them a little longer to compensate; go too long, and you're screwed if you want to get a nice crispy crust with a juicy interior.
That all said, I quite like @moscafj's suggestion of skipping the sous vide if you don't have a proper circulator, and using another recipe instead (Keller does it well, although I think I've used a slightly different version, out of the Ad Hoc book). Switching a rice cooker on and off manually for 4 hours sounds like a real chore. If so inclined, you could hack together a DIY immersion circulator, and/or use the PID controller to turn the rice cooker on and off for you.
I think your temperature range is good. 155 to 160 is a good place for thighs. You will need an hour to an hour and a half. As long as you don't drop into the danger zone you will be fine. You could just check a thigh with a probe thermometer at the end of an on-off session to see where the temp is. Sounds like a bit of a pain, but certainly doable. One caution...that looks like a small pot. If you are doing more than one or two thighs, you will crowd the bag and might not achieve even cooking...this could create a danger if the center of the package did not reach 140. Advice: Get a circulator! If you enjoy eggs, for example, the price is worth egg cookery alone, in my opinion. :-)
By the way, while many people prefer this route toward fried chicken, I actually have had the best success with, and prefer Keller's Ad Hoc recipe.
Thanks for your response! I actually plan to do six thighs, all individually wrapped, and to stir each time I hit 160F. I had expected that to take at least 4 hours. Are you saying I can complete it in 1.5? Can you provide a link to Keller's recipe?
4 hrs seems long. Check temp after 1.5, you might degrade texture after 2 hrs. http://www.foodandwine.com/recipes/lemon-brined-fried-chicken
4 hours is an entirely reasonable time for sous vide cooking. Since you're cooking and holding only up to a relatively low temperature in a sealed environment, the risk of overcooking is minimal. Checking their internal temperature is impossible without breaching the bag so it's generally best to over-shoot on time.
Technically true, but texture of proteins changes with time. One may not enjoy the texture of chicken after 4 hours, but it is perfectly safe
I'm not talking about safety, though that is a factor. If properly held at that temperature the meat should be nicely done and very tender. I personally would enjoy it very much.
It is insufficient to say "x hours is reasonable for sous vide cooking", as different proteins react differently to the length of time in a low temperature environment. For example, I have cooked oxtail for 100 hours, it is delicious and results in a texture that you could not produce any other way. However, I would never cook chicken for more than 2 hours, as the texture doesn't work for most people. Part personal preference...but also low temperature cooking is more nuanced than @logophobe suggests. Over cooking is never the issue in low temp, water bath cooking, but textural change is.
I cook chicken thighs sous vide at 65°C for 90-120 minutes and they come out entirely suitable to my taste. I could probably go a little cooler, actually. I don't think you want to go super long because the meat becomes very mushy and unpleasant when you overcook it - remember, this kind of cookery doesn't overcook with temperature but with time, although usually quite substantial amounts of it. Four hours might be too long though - I've never done thighs for longer than two.
So you should be fine with two hours with your setup, maybe three, provided you don't let the temperature get too low at any point. Going over risks drying out the meat more than your target temperature would usually do it, but I don't see that a 10°F range is likely to be much of a problem. The reason sous vide is so popular now is not so much because you couldn't do it before as because doing it precisely enough is a real pain in the whatsit.
Dark meat should be cooked to at least 165°F to break down the connective tissues. I usually shoot for 170°F. White meat is marvelous at a considerably lower temperature as already mentioned. That is why cooking them separately is highly recommended. Finish off your meat under the broiler or on a grill to give it a better flavor, but use a high heat and a short cook time so you do not raise the inside temp much. If it was sous vide cooked to perfection, then you can shock cool the meat a few minutes in ice water before finishing it off on the grill or under the broiler to prevent overcooking the interior.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.999786
| 2014-08-13T03:03:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46349",
"authors": [
"Aaron Michael",
"Andrea Welch",
"Benji Hollis",
"Joan G.",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lizzie Haycocks",
"Ming",
"Park Chenaur Injury Lawyers",
"Susan Gustafson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45167
|
Can an all wheat flour be high in protein, yet low in gluten?
I know that wheat protein isn't all gliadin and glutenin (the proteins that give dough its stickiness and elasticity and together create gluten), but high protein wheat flours are also generally considered "high gluten".
Except when they're not, apparently. I am in possession of a flour that makes the extraordinary claim on the nutrition facts label of 4g of protein in 25g of flour (so 16% protein), yet this particular type of flour is not supposed to produce much gluten. Wheat is the only ingredient.
Is that even possible?
How can I go about testing the gluten strength of a particular flour relative to known quantities? (I have bread flour, AP flour and cake flour to play with)
Do you have a link to the product?
@Didgeridrew No I don't, I looked for one though. I hate to say it, as matter of fact it galls me no end (long story), but the product in question is a particular brand of maida, an Indian export.
@Didgeridrew I sent an email to the company that imports the product. No response yet.
You could likely make a flour like that by heat treating it to denature the proteins enough to make them bad at creating a functional gluten structure.
Regarding testing the gluten properties: try making seitan from the various flours, you will literally get to take a look at what gluten structure and how much of it you get.
@rackandboneman Great idea! I still haven't opened the flour, and I've never made seitan. That sounds like a great experiment. (I love those :)
I can't say that this is the answer with 100% definitiveness, but I do have a theory that seems valid. Usually, flours are milled and ground with the endosperm, which contains most of the starch and protein. The germ contains proteins, fats, and vitamins and the bran is primarily fiber. The fats, vitamins, and fibers at a molecular level would contribute some interference to gluten formation.
In addition, whole wheat flours cannot be ground as finely as endosperm-only flours. Because the size of the flour granules/clusters are larger in whole wheat flours, the proteins within the flour granules are shielded from added water. This means that less flour proteins come into contact with water, which means less gluten formation.
Proteins in flour can be denatured (by heat and slowly by aging) to be no longer capable of combining into gluten strands - this is evident in preparations like hot-water shortcrust or mandarin pancakes, where heat is used to limit gluten formation. Such methods could also be conceivably be used in making a commercially produced flour with such properties.
The gluten structure in a developed dough can be discovered by repeatedly rinsing and rekneading the dough in flowing water or several changes of water. Almost only the gluten strands will be left in the end since the starch is orders of magnitude more water soluble than developed gluten strands; this method is also used to make seitan the old-school way.
This question was asked very long ago, but perhaps visitors now might still find it useful. Indian maida is made from wheat but it is not whole-wheat. We use it like an AP flour in India. I don't know why the buyer thinks its is low-gluten because it is a reasonably gluteny flour, used by home bakers here for making white breads, cakes etc. Hope this helps!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.000362
| 2014-06-27T18:19:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45167",
"authors": [
"BEST TAXIS spam",
"Denise",
"Didgeridrew",
"Foodbiotech",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kimbi",
"Morrison E",
"NinJenn",
"Onlyfire Outdoor",
"Tricia Wahr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"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
}
|
45024
|
I want to duplicate my bread mistake!
I make all of my own bread. For just everyday use my go-to recipe is as follows:
Honey-Oat Pain de Mie
255g lukewarm water
361g AP Flour
85g old-fashioned rolled oats (not quick oats)
1 1/2 teaspoons salt
64g honey
57g melted butter
2 1/4 teaspoons instant yeast
I use a Pain de Mie pan like this:
Typically a loaf loaf looks like this, I made this loaf a few weeks ago:
Over half the times I have made this recipe (including yesterday), I've used my bread maker to knead the dough. I always use my (spookily accurate) digital scale to measure the ingredients; I put the bread maker insert or bowl on the scale and tare between ingredients. I always bake in the same Pain de Mie pan. Up until yesterday it has always taken 1 hour for the first rise and a half an hour for the second. I preheat the oven during the second rise, I bake for 25 minutes (per digital timer), covered, then 5 more minutes uncovered. It's as routine as brushing my teeth.
Yesterday I noticed the dough was a bit sticky when I put it into the pan after the first rise, and the first rise was done a bit quicker than usual, maybe 45-50 minutes instead of an hour. The second rise took 25 minutes instead of the usual 30.
But this is where it got really weird. The dough just went nuts in the oven. It oozed into the lips of the pan lid and onto the oven floor. You can see the shape of the loaf is odd because the dough was squeezing into the crannies.
I would just blow it off, chalk it up to human error, and assume that my next loaf will be normal. But, this bread was the best loaf of this type that I've ever made, so I want to figure out what I did wrong so I can do it again :)
I have not shopped since my last loaf, just a few days ago, and I haven't opened any new packages. So it can't be different oats, salt, butter, yeast or honey.
It is possible that I grabbed the 00 flour instead of AP (but not terribly likely, the canisters are different).
The measurements listed in the recipe by grams could have been measured incorrectly, but in this case weight errors seem less likely than spoon errors.
The least likely measurement error would be the water because I measure the water in a Pyrex measuring cup, heat it in the microwave, stick a thermometer in it until it comes down to 110F, and then pour and weigh it. So the measurement of water is redundant, and that's a pretty solid habit. I specifically remember that my water temp was normal as well.
The mistakes that I can most easily imagine are for the salt or yeast. I could have accidentally grabbed either a tsp measure or a TBS measure for the salt. I usually use a 1/2 TBS measure.
For the yeast I usually use 2 tsp measures and a 1/4 tsp measure. So 3.25 tsp would probably be the most likely error of that type.
So. With that info, what would you say is the most likely reason for this great loaf?
EDIT: It's such a good and (usually) foolproof recipe, I thought I'd share the rest of the recipe details. Use a 9" Pullman Pan, this one is great. Mix dough ingredients and then give it a 20-30 minute rest to hydrate the oats. If using a breadmaker, just run it through mixing, unplug it for 20 minutes after mixing, before kneading. After 20 minutes plug it back in, starting over, and let it run through the dough cycle. If hand kneading just knead as normal after the rest, let it rise in a warm place until doubled, about 1 hour.
Preheat oven to 350F (175C).
Give the pan and lid a bit of Pam or butter (not much, the pan is very non-stick, I do it mostly just for crust texture), shape, and place the dough in the pan. I poke across the top until it looks pretty even. Cover with plastic wrap, proof in a warm place until the dough averages just shy of an inch or 2.5cm from the top of the pan. Put the lid on and bake covered in a preheated oven for 25 minutes. Uncover and bake for another 5 minutes or until it registers about 195F (90C).
Remove loaf from pan and cool on a rack.
Judging by the extreme expansion I'd investigate the yeast. A flimsy theory but maybe helps your experimentation?
@MickLH I know the yeast is good, but I certainly could have used too much. I've been using the same 1lb pack for months. I keep it in the freezer.
Salt does inhibit the yeast, but it wouldn't make it more gooey. Also, I can't imagine bread with 1/3 the expected salt being described as good... Also, normally upping the amount of yeast hurts flavor. So I doubt it was mismeasuring the salt or yeast. Honestly, despite protests, I'd go with you added more butter or honey.
Now you guys know why I am puzzled! :)
Due to the rising time difference, I wonder if perhaps the yeast was a bit too high and perhaps the dough was a bit warmer than usual? The combination could lead to the dough being softer and stickier
The temp difference doesn't seem likely. My kitchen is pretty consistent unless I've been doing extra baking. I wasn't that day. I specifically remember that I hit 110F water temp exactly just as I poured the water.
Any weather abnormalities, such as that might've affected humidity?
@Joe Nope, weather has been dry and sunny all summer.
could you have missed a tare, and thus added too little of the ingredient after?
@Joe That's an easy error to make, but the only way I really could have made that error is to miss the tare after the salt (I always go in order) giving me less honey. That can't be it.
Can you elaborate on what about this particular loaf you preferred? Texture? Crumb? Flavor? Taste? Seasoning?
@ESultanik I wish I could describe what's different about the flavor, that would make this easier. It's obviously lighter, but it still has a good chew. I like the little crunchy corners at the top, but that doesn't help much.
I'd normally guess temp or humidity, but since you say no, I'd have to agree with the yeast hypothesis. A lot of extra yeast will alter flavor (usually undesirably), but a little more often can add lightness which itself can produce a more desirable flavor/texture combo. I also think a significant clue is that you didn't notice anything different during the initial mix, but only the stickiness after the first rise. Any other big measuring errors would likely have been noticeable during mixing (except maybe too little salt, but flavor difference should be more noticeable).
The stickiness suggests to me 1) too much water, 2) too little flour, or 3) higher humidity. Could you have misjudged the humidity of the day?
There are three factors that will make dough rise more quickly:
1- More water
2- More yeast
3- More heat from any source
More yeast will make the bread rise more quickly but won't create the sticky texture and better flavor that you describe.
More heat will be the same, not just from your heated water but also the temperature of the room- it would accelerate rising but not change the final texture. I have noticed that when my water is too warm that the dough is stickier- but not after rising.
More water will make your yeast able to act more quickly. It will also create steam that will make the crust a little chewier. It would also, obviously, make your dough stickier.
Even though your process makes the water content the least suspect variable- In my opinion, it is the only one that matches your symptoms. Perhaps the day was slightly more humid than you thought? Perhaps you mismeasured a little?
It's easy enough to experiment with your next batch and add a little bit more liquid.
Artisan bread just gets better with more liquid. Sandwich bread doesn't so don't bump the water content up too far. My standard sandwich bread recipe is 65% hydration by weight.
I think adding the butter twice could maybe account for it. extra hydration, then collapse.
That seems like quite a bit of fat already. (just based on what I've done myself)
If the dough is normally close to being over hydrated, when it gets too close to the stage where it collapses, a tiny bit more liquid can tip it over the edge. Maybe even an unusually humid day.
I have a funny feeling that butter doesn't interact with gluten the same way as water, but I still think it's the butter.
Whatever it is, I've made that loaf myself more than once :)
Maybe you were distracted while mixing the ingredients and ended up proofing the yeast.
To proof your yeast, you'd mix the warmed water with the yeast and sugar (honey in your case), then let it sit for up to ten minutes or so before mixing it with the other ingredients. The yeast should begin forming a head of foam on top of the water.
Historically, this was done to test that the yeast was still alive, hence the name "proofing". With modern yeast, that's not much of a concern. But I've found that the proofing step helps quite a bit with the rise. That may be what happened to you.
That's possible!
Our last 3 pullman loaves were like this as well, oozing out of the pan. I think it was a combo of a warmer day, letting it rise too long in the pan before closing the lid. I suggest less rise time and a tad less water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.000688
| 2014-06-20T20:42:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45024",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"DrRandy",
"ESultanik",
"HumanAlien",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marc Wilson",
"MickLH",
"SAIDINA MUKHSIN",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Susan",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user107078"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46026
|
Effect of potato water on bread (early experiment results)
Inspired by another question here, I am going to make potato bread. I am using the King Arthur Flour recipe.
(For 2 loaves)
1 tablespoon instant yeast
99g sugar
283g to 340g lukewarm water or potato water (water in which potatoes have been boiled)
170g softened butter
2 1/2 teaspoons salt
2 large eggs
198g mashed potatoes (from about 1/2 pound potatoes)
780g King Arthur Unbleached All-Purpose Flour
My question concerns the water. What effect should I expect from using the water used to boil the potato? I assume that the major difference between potato water and tap water is starch. I further assume that the less water I use to boil my potato, the greater the concentration of starch.
What differences am I likely to see in loaves made with tap water, low-concentration potato water and high-concentration potato water?
I ask because I haven't started yet. Answers to this question will influence how I boil my slightly aged and should be used soon potato.
I really wouldn't expect that much starch to end up in the potato water, especially without going to the lengths you mention in your answer. I wonder if they just added it as an option because it would already be conveniently warm from cooking the potatoes, not because it's actually any different.
I dunno. Maybe after 10 more loaves I'll have a clue. The difference in browning between the first two loaves is remarkable in the absence of another explanation, but..well,
not an answer, but see a recent article in Lucky Peach about Martin's (a Pennsylvania maker of potato bread) : http://luckypeach.com/bun-nation-under-god/
There is enough starch in potato water that it CAN boil over, and soups with potatoes in them always thicken a bit...
I found this, it's Ask.com so even though I'm posting it as an answer, I don't consider it the answer. I'd still love to hear what some of the expert bakers here have to say.
(emphasis mine)
As you begin to bake different types of breads, you will come across some older bread recipes that call for potato water. Potato water is the water that potatoes have been boiled in. The potatoes release their starchy goodness into the water as they are cooked. The potato water can then be used as a substitute for milk and it makes your bread deliciously moist.
To make potato water, wash and peel 2 to 3 potatoes. Cube the potatoes and add to pot. Cover potato cubes with water and boil for about 20 minutes or until potatoes are soft. Remove from heat and drain potato water into a liquid measuring cup. Let cool to warm before using in your recipe. The potatoes can be mashed with a forked and added to potato bread recipes.
Potato water can be refrigerated for up to 24 hours. After this time, the potato water sweetens and can spoil the taste of your bread.
What that article doesn't cover at all is concentration. I'll try it, just adding water to barely cover the potato (it's a big one, it'll be more than enough). I'll update this with the results of that bread and the same recipe made with tap water.
EDIT and 1st experiment
I made two loaves per the recipe in the original question, one with highly concentrated potato water, one with filtered tap water. To make the "highly concentrated" potato water, I boiled 4X the amount of potato ultimately called for in the recipe, barely covering the cut up potatoes with water. After it settled (the starch settles to the bottom of the cup), I poured off half of the water, leaving just more than I needed to accurately weigh. I'd consider that the highest possible concentration without getting "extreme" about it.
With potato water:
With filtered tap water:
I carefully weighed all of the ingredients, the weather is unchanged and I started with the water at exactly 110F (43C). I used the first loaf to guide exactly how long I rested, proofed and baked the second loaf. Guided by a digital timer, I tented the second loaf at exactly the same point (and even using the same tent) as the first loaf. The final internal temperatures of both loaves were just shy of 200F. I mixed and kneaded with a bread machine, so there is as little human variance as possible between the two loaves.
Tentative conclusions:
The color is better on the first (with potato water) loaf. Is that because of the potato water? It's too soon to tell. I can say that I could not discern any difference in the flavor or texture between the loaves.
Browning aside, the loaves seemed identical.
Next I'm going to try my often repeated, go to recipe for plain white sandwich bread. That one calls for milk. I'll try replacing the milk with high-concentration potato water.
BTW - That is an OUTSTANDING recipe. The bread is great. Just don't even try it without a stand mixer or bread maker. That is some of the stickiest dough I have ever encountered (I was warned by the website, and YOWZA they weren't kidding).
A direct substitution for milk seems odd - what about the missing proteins and fat?
@logophobe It does seem a bit odd. My first potato loaf is proofing now, and I've learned a little something. The starch from the potato water settles very effectively as it cools. If what it does is nice (more on that later after a few loaves), I don't see any reason the starch couldn't be mixed with milk. The potato bread recipe that I'm using doesn't contain milk. For my first loaf I'm using very concentrated potato water, for my second loaf I'm using tap water. I find this interesting and I make all of my own bread anyway, so if I like this recipe I'll try it with potato starchy milk too.
Using the liquid in which a russet, also known as Idaho potato has been cooked to proof yeast and also incorporating the cooked mashed potato into the dough, is a time honored almost ancient method from a time when milk and sugar may not have been steadily available commodities. This method was very prevalent in Eastern European baking. My mother, sister, grandmothers- all from the eastern Appenine region of southern Italy used this method. Sugar and milk were available, but not used for this. The potato method adds a unique elasticity, body, texture and flavor to the dough even before the addition of eggs, lard, grain spirits (only for dough to be fried) spices, rinds, dried fruits, and extracts. None of them used a mixer because the touch of the hand on the dough indicated its quality. See Paula Peck in The Art of Fine Baking for her reasoning on this in pastry making.
In 1997 I was seeking to make a good biscuit recipe while living in Albuquerque NM. In my research I found an article from 1905 in a local newspaper which stated to use potato-water to extend the shelf-life of baked goods.
I used it in my extra large biscuits, and they lasted 4 days of eating. As I stored them in the cupboard, and they remained soft throughout, I was impressed. I'm not sure how much longer they last, as they usually get eaten within 2 days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.001502
| 2014-07-31T17:37:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46026",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"David Berger",
"Etacinrof Siht",
"Geetha",
"Hendrika van den Berg",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kvanz43",
"Mustafa S.",
"Nominis",
"Prisonrzero",
"Sugar Dulce",
"Walter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"joshua M",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94287
|
Can Splenda be substituted for regular sugar when making your own sweetened condensed milk?
Can you substitute Splenda for the regular sugar in making your own sweetened condensed milk
The answer is yes. I found this link for you from Genius Kitchen
https://www.geniuskitchen.com/recipe/sweetened-condensed-milk-with-splenda-412496
There are many recipes for both low carb and diabetic friendly Sweetened condensed milk.
Also the following: https://www.yummly.com/recipes/sweetened-condensed-milk-with-splenda
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.002057
| 2018-11-27T14:31:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94287",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128323
|
How can I determine whether a food or ingredient is "ultraprocessed"?
I often read articles talking about the risks of "ultraprocessed" food. Here is an example article from NPR.
On the one hand, there are foods which are obviously not ultraprocessed: plain fruits and vegetables. And there are other things which are obviously ultraprocessed, such as a box of instant pudding.
What about everything in between? The above article uses "highly refined breads" as an example of ultraprocessed foods which are "abundant in our food supply." Where is the threshold? Here are examples:
Wonder bread ("obviously" ultraprocessed)
Whole wheat wonder bread (does the wheat fix it?)
Home-made white bread (is white flour ultraprocessed?)
Home-made wheat bread (is flour itself ultraprocessed?)
Home-made foccacia (does olive oil make bread ultraprocessed?)
Home-made brioche (does sugar and butter make it ultraprocessed?)
I could go on: my butcher making and selling sausage; a frozen breakfast sausage link; a can of vienna sausage; a pre-made spice blend for making sausage. How would I reason about this? Olive oil, vegetable oil. Fast food fried chicken vs a farm-to-table restaurant's fried chicken? The list goes on.
Given a food item or ingredient, how can I reason about its processed-ness?
The book "The very boring diet" noted the ambiguity a long time ago and introduced a better term: Industrialised food that does not indicate the amount of processing, but the amount of additives and all the efforts with chemistry and refining to extend the shelf life and marketability in a complex distribution chain.
As mentioned, this is hard to answer without a common definition of "processed-ness". Maybe you could add the reasoning behind your question - is this about health-issues of said foods? Is it about deciding what to eat yourself? Is it a more scientific question of how a society should handle this to protect the population?
"Ultra-processed" is as well defined a term as "super food". Only one is the villain, one is the hero. Effectively there is no such thing as either, so there's not much point trying to nail the definition down.
Sure - the reason for my question is that, if there is evidence that certain kinds of foods are are to be avoided or moderated, then I'd like to make changes to the way I shop and eat while I'm young :) However, the fact that there isn't a consensus on the definition of ultra-processed, or one that is relatable to a layman, makes this challenging. Thus my question: what might I look for when I'm shopping? What might I shift to home-made vs store-bought, or where should I invest in different products (bakery bread vs grocery store bread.)
Gentle reminder before this drifts off: health discussions and nutritional advice are off topic here.
You can't, for the simple reason that "ultraprocessed" is not a technical term with a scientific definition. It is, instead, a hyperbolic term used to make articles sound more frightening and authoritative. In each instance, the working definition is entirely the opinion of the article author.
This may change in the future. The NOVA group has proposed a medical defintion for ultra-processed foods. If their definition becomes fully developed and is then generally adopted by organizations and dietitians, then you would have a testable definition. However, they are still a long ways from having a useful definition, per the discussion about their classifications of bread:
It is important to note that the developers of NOVA specifically addressed the inclusion of bread as an ultra-processed food, concluding thus: “Bread by itself is fairly energy-dense and almost all bread now produced and consumed is grossly degraded and palatable only as a vehicle for what are usually fatty or sugary and also salted spreads, fillings and toppings” (14). No objective data are presented to support these views. Bread has a defined nutritional composition based on whether it is white, wholemeal, wheaten meal, rye, and the like. No objective evidence exists to suggest that processing changes the nutritional composition of these individual categories of bread; nor do data exist on how different production methods might influence any satiating properties of specific bread types.
As such, I do not suggest basing your own diet on labels of "ultra-processed", as such labelling right now seems to be wholly arbitrary.
@poundifdef while we understand your personal goal, this site is extremely hesitant about any kind of health or nutrition related advice, and for good reason - the “established” advice has changed so often in the past with new research and all that. The community has decided to limit the scope to a) food safety topics and those follow the guidelines of established authorities and b) safely measurable and quantifiable facts. While there seems to be emerging scientific evidence re. “ultra processed food” (yes, I follow the debate as well), it’s still very much unclear.
Ironically, table 1 of the paper FuzzyChef referenced provides a list of definitions. The definitions from 2014 onward do contain actionable information you can use to try and determine whether a particular food or ingredient is "ultraprocessed" at least according to those definitions.
While those definitions (or other proposed definitions) may not be bulletproof, I don't think it's reasonable to say that the category is totally arbitrary unless and until there's a single broadly accepted definition, particularly for someone who's just looking to make dietary choices.
Imprecise definitions should be the target of appropriate scrutiny, but so should attempts to run the clock on public action with hand-wringing about the policy implications of a proposed definition's imprecision, particularly when those papers contain cartoonish disclosures like the one in FuzzyChef's link:
"Author disclosures: MJG does ad hoc consultancy work with Nestlé, chairs the International Breakfast Research Consortium funded by Cereal Partners Worldwide, leads a project on the developing food serving sizes for use in the EU funded by Mondelez, PepsiCo, Unilever, Nestlé, and Coca-Cola, and is on the board of directors of ILSI Europe."
Welcome to SA, @ammkrn! What would make your answer a lot better would be if, instead of just referring to/debating my answer, you provided links/examples of definitions that the OP could work with, since that seems to be what they're actually seeking. That might cause them to choose your answer instead of mine.
The term "ultra-processed" does not have a precise definition (as mentioned in the other answers). Because of that, when doing groceries it is not very helpful to use this term just to decide whether you should buy it. It might be more helpful to understand why processed foods are criticized. Processed foods often:
Remove fibre and add sugar (=higher glycemic index)
Add loads of salt
Add conservatives and flavorants which, some consider unhealthy
Do not contain a significant amount of other nutrients (healthy fats, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, etc. )
Are very calorie dense
According to these 5 items, the wonder bread, self-made white bread and self-made brioche clearly fall under processed, while the other ones are debatable.
This post is based on my personal opinion and is not backed by research.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.002135
| 2024-05-11T23:52:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128323",
"authors": [
"AJFaraday",
"AnoE",
"FluidCode",
"FuzzyChef",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98106",
"poundifdef"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85494
|
Looking for a pliers-like tool for making crushed tomatoes
I need a tool for crushing or mashing fresh tomatoes. I know I can use a grater but that takes too much table space for me to use and it's not comfortable enough - if you want to crush a tomato after you start eating, you need space for another plate to grate the tomato on top of it. You also have to stand up.
I am looking for a tool similar with an egg slicer, where you can simply push one side on top of the other to crush the tomato. Or like a nut cracker, so I can crush the tomato while holding it on top of my plate. And I can sit down when doing it.
Is there any instrument like that?
What kind of result are you aiming for? And what kind of tomatoes? Fresh? Skinned? Cooked?
A ricer with a plate w/ large holes?
Could you also clarify what your restrictions are? I'm having a little trouble understanding how a grater is too much table space, when it's smaller than the plate/bowl you'd be putting the tomatoes into anyways, so I'm not really sure what other kinds of tool recommendations might be too large as well.
I go with the ricer. A good quality one.
Sorry, forgot to mention that it's for fresh tomatoes. Yes, ricer is probably exactly what I'm looking for - I have to try one. As for the space, to use the grater after you start eating, you need extra space for another plate. with the ricer, you can do it above your plate, without even having to stand up. I'll make the question more clear
Just stand well back!
@Strawberry - I'll put you in my ricer, to add some sweet flavor to my food. Sorry, I couldn't resist :)
I'm crushed. :-(
I don't think there is any good way to crush raw tomatoes over the plate during serving. There is always a chance of splattering your guests.
Nobody enters my house without a deflector shield :)
What dish are you crushing raw tomato over at service? Sounds like my kind of meal but I’ve never heard of the practice.
Why not a lemon squeezer?
I think a lemon squeezer might work:
You would want to buy one in person so you can see the size of the holes, which vary a lot. I think some of the tomato would come out through the holes and some would be left behind mushed up in the squeezer, which you could shake out onto the plate.
Because there are so few holes in a lemon squeezer I think there's a big chance the tomato will just overflow through the top and splatter around. It works with lemons because the fruit itself doesn't fall apart and you can efficiently squeeze all the liquid out of it.
I'd enlarge the holes with a drill, having chosen one with plenty of holes to start with
The ability to do this while seated makes most tools unsuitable.
If you're only going to be using relatively small tomatoes (heirloom plum tomatoes), I would use a nut chopper. Not the grinder style, but the 'slap chop' style.
You could also try a food mill. They are a little bigger then a ricer but if you use a larger plate in it you'll get slightly bigger chunks of tomato.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.002716
| 2017-11-07T14:41:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85494",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Fructibus",
"J Bergen",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Preston",
"Stephie",
"Strawberry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"insidesin",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103625
|
What does "Massage with salt" mean in a recipe?
I want to try this recipe for Vegan Lox by Tasty.
Step 5 is
Use a vegetable peeler to shave the carrots lengthwise into ribbons.
Massage with salt.
I don't understand what "Massage with salt" means and I don't see anything happening in the video. Do they just mean "rub in with salt"?
arguably "massage" is more common in use when preparing dishes with meat, I have never heart / seen it in relation to vegetable dishes - but the meaning is pretty much your "rub in with salt"
the link is dead
Thank you, I have updated it, but Tasty keeps changing it. It's already the second time it's changed since I found the recipe
I have tried the recipe and I didn't like it. The "selmon" doesn't taste like selmon at all, it just tastes like carrots in a souce, and not the best one. The carrots are even still crunchy. Then again, I'm not vegan.
I'd argue that 'massage' is the right word in this case.
I've this technique a lot in japanese cooking -- you cut up the vegetables, sprinkling with salt as you go (so there's layers of salt in between layers of vegetables), then you really get in there and basically massage (knead?) the pile of vegetables with the salt, so that the salt not only is spread through the pile of vegetables, but that there's some mechanical abrasion happening, too. You then typically let the vegetables sit for a while, and then you rinse them off.
When people talk about 'rubs', it's often just a coating that's at most patted onto things (like for ribs), but there isn't the extended period of mechanical manipulation that you'd expect for 'massage' or 'knead'.
If you ever make sushi, I highly recommend trying it with carrots. The carrots will lose some of their crispness, so that you can have large sticks of carrots without it being too crunchy compared to the rest of the fillings. It's also useful for other firm vegetables that you're going to use raw in a salad.
This also works well to pre-wilt your cabbage before you make cole slaw -- the cabbage will give up much of its moisture that would otherwise end up in the final dish. (I think this was the first time I saw it -- on an episode of Good Eats)
You make a very good point there, I've borrowed from you to add to my answer - hope that's okay.
Wished I could give you an extra upvote for the sushi recommendation
"This also works well to pre-wilt your cabbage before you make cole slaw -- the cabbage will give up much of its moisture" -- and is also the mechanism used in preparing it for fermentation (sauerkraut), massaging it with salt (I've actually used a stand mixer to do it) draws out enough water to entirely cover the chopped cabbage, no added water, for anaerobic fermentation to take place.
Yes, this is mostly same as rub in with salt, but with a bit more intensity and physical contact with the food. While rubbing can be taken as applying one coating, massage warrants ensuring that the salt is mixed well with the food.
It's done so that the sprinkled salt is spread uniformly.
Be sure to get the vegetables' consent first, though! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
@Jasper Ahhh, you nasty people... :P
yes. In that case, the word massage (IMO) is used wrongly, rub would be more appropriate.
It does not make sense in the case of vegetables, but it sure does with meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.002991
| 2019-11-21T12:32:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103625",
"authors": [
"Jasper",
"Lavandysh",
"OJFord",
"Sourav Ghosh",
"candied_orange",
"eagle275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79735"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90192
|
Chicken Pasta Left on Counter 2+ hours...safe?
I took a Cajun Chicken Pasta casserole out of the oven, and after eating, divided the leftovers up and put them in tupperware containers and left them on the counter to cool. Unfortunately, I got distracted and forgot to put the containers in the freezer. From the time they were taken out of the oven to the time I finally stuck them in the freezer was probably 2 1/2 or 3 hours. I keep my house between 70-75 degrees. Should I be concerned about eating them?
EDIT: As stated, I don't feel this is a duplicate question as I'm so close to the "danger zone" in regard to length of time left on the counter.
I think this edge case is more interesting than the many duplicates discussing much longer times.
Robert, I saw your edit. The point is, we on the site can only deal with food safety as defined by rules. You can either prove that your food was not in the danger zone for 2 hours, or you can't. "Close" does not matter. People of course also have a subjective understanding of food safety, but we cannot deal with that definition on our site. If you are looking for factual risk estimations, those are impossible. If you just want to know the personal, subjective opinion of other people, this is something we cannot provide.
There are reasons for times and temperatures being specified in food safety situations. Whether or not a situation places you "close to the edge" is irrelevant. Bacterial growth is logarithmic, it doesn't suddenly begin when you exceed the time specified. The higher the temperature and longer the time, the greater the risk. No one should tell you that a food product is fine because it is "on the edge" or close to the defined parameters. There are too many unknown variables to provide advice that deviates from the guidelines.
Food kept at warm or ambient temperature for over 2 hours is supposed to be discarded.
However in this case the food was too warm for the danger zone for the beginning of this time, in fact for quite a bit of it, and you were only a little over the 2 hours, so it's highly unlikely that you actually exceeded the 2 hour limit. That wouldn't be good enough in the restaurant business but at home you don't have to prove it.
I do this routinely, as I've measured in my (rather cool) kitchen that the things I freeze stay out of the danger zone for over an hour on the surface, the coolest part, and I don't want to add lots of heat to my freezer and spoil the quality of the nearby food.
It's still a judgement call, and remember that time in the danger zone is cumulative, so defrost in the fridge and reheat quickly and thoroughly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.003292
| 2018-06-06T04:08:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90192",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89779
|
About ripe bananas for banana bread
I put mashed bananas in the fridge in a bowl for a couple days and they turned dark brown on the top. Are they still good after that?
Cut or mashed bananas, like many fruit, will turn brown after a very short time, a few minutes should show first discoloration and after a few hours, the surface will be brown. This is primarily a matter of aesthetics, because the fruit looks less appealing.
As far as food safety is concerned, it depends on your definition of “a couple of days”. The rule of thumb for storing whole bananas in the fridge is 2-3 days, but you are dealing with mashed fruit, which means a much larger surface area and some broken cell walls. So one or two days should be ok. But if you notice any signs of spoilage like discoloration apart from the aforementioned browning, visible mold or a strange smell (acidic, boozy, or just “off”), discard them regardless. The general rule is always:
When in doubt, throw it out.
No I'd think not. That brown-ing is a sign of rot and the skin is supposed to help prevent this. Now that the bananas have rot outside of their skin I don't feel there's much that can be done at this point. Not only will these mashed bananas taste funny, they may also give you a stomachache or more. Normally I'd say that you could just cut off a portion of the banana that wasn't brown, but that would be with the skin on.
Browning in bananas can be perfectly ok or a sign of spoilage. But you are right that “in case of doubt, throw it out” is the first rule when it comes to food safety.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.003525
| 2018-05-13T02:16:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89779",
"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
}
|
53400
|
What does a Thai Scented Candle impart?
Amazon Link
There is a traditional cookie that is pretty much just a thick sugar cookie that is baked and then put in a covered bowl with the candle overnight. I ran into it because I was looking at candy recipes, and some of the Thai candies called for sugar smoked like this.
Other than smoke, what flavors come from one if these? Are they ever used for savory applications?
Out of curiosity, have you tried tasting the cookie pre-candle to see what kind of flavor it has prior?
@Phrancis, Nope, I just came across the recipe. There is nothing to it (just flour, oil, egg and sugar) until it is smoked. The candy I was looking at was just tamarind, rolled in this smoked sugar.
I have learned from SheSimmers that the primary ingredient and scent of these candles is frankincense. It "imparts the scent of frankincense, ylang ylang, patchouli, and mace oil to the food." I will expand upon this answer after my candle arrives from Amazon within a few days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.003774
| 2015-01-08T15:19:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53400",
"authors": [
"Devin Donovan",
"George Warren",
"Janine Shapley",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kathleen Dawson",
"Phrancis",
"Vanessa Berkich",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30873",
"vance rogers"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54718
|
Can I flavor powdered sugar with vanilla beans or citrus zest?
I'm asking specifically for macarons (the fussiest cookie in the known universe),
so I wouldn't be interested in trying if it would negatively affect the way the sugar behaves in a macaron recipe, but a subtle flavoring could be pretty cool. I would try just burying the zest (in big easy to remove pieces) or the vanilla bean in the sugar and letting it sit, covered, for a couple of weeks.
I wouldn't mind if it required a bit of a whir in the food processor, as long as the sugar sifted and otherwise acted like it should in the recipe.
Advice? Caveats?
Try it and let us know in your own answer :)
I wouldn't do it. Macarons are not about subtle flavoring, you are supposed to give them a flavor as strong as their color. Even if you'd do it, you'd be moving away from the paragon, and macarons are all about moving towards the paragon. It's a philosophical thing, I know, but such a thing would hurt my expectations.
@rumtscho: So you'd use dried and powdered lemon zest instead, going for a "fuller" flavour? Just curious...
@rumtscho I'm curious too because I don't understand. I've looked at dozens of recipes, and degree of flavoring (of the meringue portion) is all over the map, including none. A lot of recipes (and some advice I've received) say to color the cookie, but only flavor the filling.
Disclaimer: I never made real macarons, but we have a very similar christmas cookie here in Germany (Swabia). Same ingredients, same method, just unfilled.
Reading your recipe, I can't see where you might run into a problem. What you are potentially adding is a trace amount of liquid and fat. That could affect the stiffening your egg whites if added in the beginning (so if using your recipe flavoring the sugar - which I would usually do - is out).
But when adding together with the almonds, that shouldn't matter at all. Almonds contain so much fat, that a hypothetical drop of essential oil extracted from the lemon zest is virtually unmeassurable and the water content of almonds can be so different from one batch to another that the flavoured sugar wouldn't matter either.
Just make sure that your powdered sugar is dry and lump-free again when using.
Btw.: Rose petals in sugar work great, too (but you'd have to wait a few months to give it a try...).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.003915
| 2015-02-14T03:16:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54718",
"authors": [
"Bill Rosenberg",
"Cameron Sewell",
"Jane Foster",
"Jolenealaska",
"Outdoor Playground Ideas Ltd",
"Pieter Olivier",
"Stephie",
"fluffy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jamie larocque",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55744
|
Macarons...Why not color the syrup?
Much to the amusement of @ElendilTheTall, I'm working on French macarons. I'm using the method that makes an Italian meringue, so I pour hot sugar syrup into the partially whipped egg whites.
The final result is supposed to look like this:
I'm not there yet :/. The recipes that I have consulted add powdered color to the unwhipped egg white and almond flour mixture (I don't have powdered color), or they add gel to the final mixture before folding. One of the recipes warns against that, that the liquid in the color will affect the consistency of the batter.
So why not add the color (and for that matter, any liquid flavoring you might be using) to the syrup? Just before it reaches soft ball stage (the stage at which it is added to the meringue)? The syrup has water in it anyway. It seems that you could even use ordinary liquid food coloring, three drops isn't going to affect the water measurement, kitchen scales are not accurate to fractions of a gram.
If, at the final stage, the color looks a bit too timid, I still can a drop of gel color (less than I would use otherwise) to the final mix.
Why would this be a bad idea?
My actual recipe is paywalled, but this method is close.
I wouldn't do it. One of the hardest things about macarons is to stop just when everything is perfectly mixed together, not a stroke earlier or later.
When you have a small blob of gel color just before you start the macaronage, you will know when everything is mixed well: at the point at which your color is dispersed evenly, you are ready. It is a good indicator, helping you make better macarons.
If you color your syrup (and thus your meringue) evenly, you will lose the important indicator function. I guess you could pull it off once you are a macaron master who can sense the moment to stop, but especially at the beginning, why give the benefits up?
I would try it out imo. Your logic seems well thought out. Since you should be using a thermometer, you wouldn't have to rely on the color of the boiling sugar for indicator of softball stage. However, adding the gel at the end if the color is too timid, I might think about that a bit more. Once the sugar has hit the softball stage, do you really want to stir it up? Since this recipe does not have corn syrup in the sugar syrup, sugar crystals may be a possibility when trying to stir in the new addition of coloring. I'd say plan ahead, and add the coloring to your water to taste of color brightness. So what you see, is what you are stuck with. Best of luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.004392
| 2015-03-16T06:33:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55744",
"authors": [
"Andrew Brunt",
"John Smyth",
"Keith Murray",
"S M",
"Susan Fowler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134083"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102698
|
What types of cured meat are ethically sourced?
I am looking for cured meat, especially ham, which I can buy in Germany and eat with a good conscience. There are two aspects that I am concerned about:
Animal maltreatment: I particularly wish to avoid products from intensive animal husbandry or any maltreatment.
Environmental efficiency: I see this less as a reason to avoid a product, than to moderate one’s consumption of it, in particular to reduce one’s CO2 emissions.
I enquired about Parma ham in German Wikipedia and was told of secret filming of maltreatment by the Italian animal rights organisation Lega Anti Vivisezione (see also 1, 2, 3, 4). Jamón ibérico sounds better, as they apparently prescribe extensive or free-range animal husbandry, but on German Wikipedia I read that Spanish TV had reported that extensive manipulation lead to 80% of co-called ibérico being factory farmed.
In his comment below J Crosby suggests trying local farmers, which may well be the best course, but I am also interested in what one can buy in supermarkets and/or on holiday and/or if time is short, so general guidelines are welcome.
Without knowing where in the world you are this may not be a great answer so I am writing it as a comment. Check with local farmers - this would be your best bet. Where I am there are lots of farmers who (with notice or a standing agreement) will more than happily sell you goods (bacon, sausage, pickled products or breads). I buy most of my meats (cured and raw) and honey from local producers often at the same cost or marginally more than what the supermarket would sell it for. The added bonus is that in going to them to see if you can make a purchase, you can see the farm and see if it's good
@JCrosby: Thanks. I did say “which I can buy in Germany” in the first sentence, but good point anyway. To be a little more specific I live in a village in farming country near Venlo, so your suggestion is applicable.
sorry I missed that. I must be more tired than I thought, that is the second reading error I have made in the past hour. I will leave it as a comment, because I don't know how that would work in Germany (I am in Canada - and I know things are different).
Unfortunately, this is a bad question for SA. The problems with it are that the answers are going to be both highly geographically specific, and very temporally specific. I'm not sure that it's necessarily off topic, but don't be surprised if you get close votes.
I'm voting to close this as too broad. I sympathize with your dilemma, it's just there's too many possibilities to give a good answer.
@FuzzyChef: I would really have liked to ask this on “EthicalLiving.StackExchange”, as it is more about how to conform to ethical constraints than about taste or cooking technique, but unfortunately that site does not exist or never made it out of Area 51, so I came here in hope. But I do not think the answers would have to be geographically specific, if they (a) gave general principles on how to choose products and (b) if they did specify particular types of product, specified those widely available not just in Germany but, say, the whole of Europe (e.g. Parma or Ibérico ham).
@GdD: I feel, as I my reply to FuzzyChef starts to suggest, that it should be possible to give answers that are broad enough to be useful to a wide range of people but general enough to cover most issues in one or two answers. Perhaps I have formulated my question wrongly? A link to a site or page covering this issue (comparable to this German site but for ethics rather than environment) would also help. But as I also replied, I realise ethics is a poor fit here.
It's not so much that ethics are a poor fit; you actually made your criteria pretty clear. Its that it's not going to generate a referenceable answer, assuming you get an answer at all. Packaged food quality issues (whether its contamination or cruelty) are a ever-changing fog where facts are few and rumors are many, as you've already discovered. There are specific areas where there are trustworthy authorities, but those are the exception rather than the rule.
BTW, just to add to your problems with Jamon Iberico: most of what's sold is fake.
@FuzzyChef: That is the implication of the Spanish report I mentioned, though I did not spell out that it could not be genuine Ibérico if it was factory farmed.
Some people might claim that there is no such thing as ethically sourced meat, because animal husbandry is inherently unethical. But if you are looking for meat from animals which were treated better than usual, then you can look for certified organic products. The EU regulation on organic products mandates standards for animal welfare which go beyond what's requested by national animal protection laws alone. A product is certified organic if:
The product has the protected word "Bio" in the name (as in "Bio Schinken" for "Organic Ham").
The product has either the official German organic label or the official EU organic label on its packaging:
But perhaps the most ethical form of meat you can get is if you buy meat from a hunter ("Wildbret"). Hunted animals lived their whole life in nature. You won't get any more organic than that. But hunted meat is usually hard to find in a supermarket. Most game meat you can buy there is actually factory-farmed. So you might have to either get to know one or buy from a specialized store. Also, game meat is not necessarily as healthy for you as factory farmed meat. Factory farmed animals are fed with controlled food, wild animals ate whatever they found. They might also have parasites, which can infect you if you don't cook the meat properly.
In general, most cured meat found in supermarket come from industrial producers.
Some are very good and use good produces (more expensive, but not always); you need to look at the labels (ingredients and provenance).
For better products, go to a smaller butcher/Feinkost/delicatessen and ask about the provenance of their produces; ask about local products.
Better product will rarely be available outside of their area of production; but they could be found, again, at smaller stores.
Do you have any advise on what labels to look for specifically? For example, does the "Bio" label ensure that animals were treated well? Are there any competing certifications which have higher or lower standards on animal welfare?
@Philipp : odds are good that the smaller, local farms are going to be less likely to have the various certifications, just because they cost money and they might not do enough business to justify the increased cost. Ask around, as there might be a local farmer who's willing to let you tour their farm (which is a good sign they're not trying to hide anything). You can even get some odd situations, like pork being raised at a dairy or other type of farm to help them eat what would otherwise be waste products)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.004638
| 2019-10-03T15:17:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102698",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"J Crosby",
"Joe",
"PJTraill",
"Philipp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84520
|
How do green jackfruit and hearts of palm compare for vegan pulled pork/carnitas/barbecue?
I have been reading a lot about the latest vegan meat substitute choices, but I'm having trouble deciding between green jackfruit and hearts of palm. I am wondering what the advantages and disadvantages of each are. Why I might prefer each?
Welcome! While what's "best" just invites opinions, something we're not big on here, comparing two options is perfectly fine, so I've edited your question a bit to focus on that.
As a veg/vegan for 24 years, I've used both and prefer jackfruit. Hearts of palm typically come canned and quickly turn to mush if you do anything but slice them up. Whereas jackfruit has a much better, meatier consistency. I've done BBQ pulled "pork" sliders with jackfruit and they were awesome. You can buy it canned at Trader Joe's and elsewhere. Some places, like Whole Foods, sell it pre-marinated in BBQ sauce and other flavors. DELISH.
The palm hearts I am used to (in Brazil we use Euterpe edulis or Bactris gasipaes) are generally very soft and used raw or blanched in salads. It seems too watery, and don't think that it will hold its texture as the green jackfruit does. I suggest jackfruit.
There's a vegan place near me that makes this incredible "pulled pork sandwich" made with jackfruit and it's honestly mind-blowing. do the jack fruit.
i love all the meats, and i can say (the way they prepare it) it's just as good as pork without the greasy mouthfeel.
The immature jack fruit is easier to get. The hearts of palm are much harder to get, hence one of the names "millionaires salad". When we cut a coconut palm down we have two parts to the heart. The crunchy small part of about 4 kilo which is best sliced and eaten raw. The other part of the palm growing tip which is where the heart came from is made up of white leaves and these are nice to eat raw. The palm heart deteriorates fast and best used in 3 days. I have never heard of the immature/green jack fruit being eaten raw. They keep well, at least 3 days at our 28C room temperature. When peeled, chopped into lumps and cooked with meats it takes on the flavour of that meat. Here in Bali that meat is normally pork.
This is interesting information about hearts of palm, but does not answer the original question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.005174
| 2017-09-20T16:16:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84520",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"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
}
|
95564
|
My homemade sourdough bread tastes bitter after letting it stay for one day
I do sourdough bread at home, and through the process, I've tasted lots of not-yet-baked breads. Also, tasted someone else's sourdough bread, which was quite good.
Now, I'm in the stage where I can properly prepare the dough, knead it, and baked it enough so that at the end, I get a good baked bread with a lovely crust, see my latest bread in here, and its inside
However, after cutting the bread, and waiting it for a day or so, the inner side of it tastes like as if it unbaked; it has a bitter taste like half baked dough. What is the reason for that ? After cutting it, I wrap a towel around it so that is doesn't lose it moisture, which in general does not help much for some reason.
I'm using mostly - around %90 - strong white flour, and corn flour with whole wheat sourdough starter.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.005367
| 2019-01-11T17:30:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95564",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85061
|
How to add paprika flavor to mayonnaise without paprika color
My homemade mayonnaise is always a little "flat" tasting compared to commercial. Most commercial mayo includes paprika, which I do not. How does one add paprika flavor to homemade mayo without imparting an unappetizing red/orange color to the finished product?
The ingredients used in my mayonnaise are as follows:
2 large egg yolks
1.25 cup soybean oil
1.66 tbsp white vinegar
1.5 tsp yellow mustard
0.25 tsp powdered sugar
0.5 tsp table salt
1 tbsp lemon juice
Have you tried it? Do you know for sure that will be the result? I am guessing that the labels you are reading also include many other ingredients that heighten the flavor. Can you provide a list of ingredients? That way we can help you lift the taste of your mayo without altering the color.
Yes, I have tried adding paprika to my mayonnaise. It definitely changes the color.
Added my ingredient list
Not all commercial mayonnaise lists paprika as an ingredient, though they do tend to say natural flavors. Of the two I found that do, one said "oleoresin paprika" (paprika extract), not paprika. Note that it's still a color, not just a flavor, but in the quantities it's used in, it's likely more about deepening the yellow-orange you expect from egg yolks than turning things red. (It's also used to color cheese and orange juice.) So I'm not actually sure it's your missing flavor.
Oleoresins from chili plants have flavor for sure @Jefromi
@GdD I know, but if the quantity is only enough to provide a little hint of yellow, I'm not sure if the amount of flavor is enough that missing it would leave the mayo tasting flat, especially since not all recipes/brands seem to use it.
A sensible thing for the OP to do would be to add some paprika to the mayo and see if that's the missing flavor, then if that tastes good could try some oleoresin paprika @Jefromi
@Isaac16 What I meant was to list the ingredients of the commercial mayo that you are aiming for.
My personal method for adding flavor to homemade mayonnaise is to include some flavored oil in addition to the vegetable oil. I like just a touch of chili oil (a teaspoon or so -- too much, and it gets too spicy and/or weirdly red).
Paprika-infused oil can be purchased or made at home (Google search) -- this may meet your needs, or inspire you to try other flavors. (You can also try infused vinegars!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.005468
| 2017-10-17T23:16:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85061",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Isaac16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62264",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85062
|
Cooking pasta: when to salt?
So, I have always been salting the water first when cooking pasta. Another amateur cook friend insists on salt after boil because it raises boil temperature elsewise. I keep telling him I don't care since it only raises it about one Fahrenheit for an ounce (damn imperial system...) so not a big deal. Just now I heard Gordon Ramsay say "What's the number one rule when cooking pasta? Salt in first" to his son and I wanna know if I can substantiate my claim to salt in first. Does anyone have a clue why he might have said this? Is there some chemistry going on there that can help?
Edit: Not why but when. Stop flagging duplicate please.
This seems like pretty much a duplicate of https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2574/why-add-salt-to-the-water-when-cooking-pasta?rq=1 - all the reasons why we add salt at all pretty much require it to be in there the whole time with the pasta, but it doesn't matter whether it's in there while the water's cold or only when it reaches a boil.
It's close, but not a duplicate to me @Jefromi as it's asking when the salt is added, which is not addressed in that question.
Related, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30253/is-there-evidence-that-adding-salt-to-water-prior-to-boiling-can-damage-a-stainl
If a saline solution boils at a higher temperature than water, making the water a saline solution after it boils will still raise the boiling point. There's no magic about the boiling water that will alter that.
Salt is in contact with the pasta longer?
@Paparazzi - I don't believe the question is about before or after adding pasta, it's about at the start, before heating the water or after it boils, but both before adding pasta.
There's only one reason that I can think of where it matters -- when cooking in stainless steel.
As I understand it, the problem is when you have both oxygen and dissolved salt in the water, as there will be a chemical reaction that will pit the metal. If you heat the water first, it can't hold oxygen (which is why factories pumping hot water into streams causes fish kills), and you won't have the problems.
So, for stainless -- heat first, then salt.
(This came up a few years back, when it was revealed that Olive Garden didn't salt their pasta so they could get a longer warranty on their pots)
This is such an important point that it should be the accepted answer. It makes a big difference for the lifetime of pots.
@KonradRudolph it’s a common thing, unfortunately. Someone gives a ‘no’ answer, then someone else answers with examples where it’s true, but ithe first one was already accepted as the answer. And then most people don’t look at all the answers, so the wrong answer keeps getting voted up. Once in a while, the ‘correct’ answer will get voted past ‘accepted’ but it’ll still show up second
From a chemistry perspective there's no difference between the approaches, either way you're ending up with the same amount of water and salt with the same boiling point.
Ramsey is saying salt in first because he's adding the salt to the water before the pasta, not before heating the water. It makes sense to add the salt to the water before heating it because:
It's one less thing to do later: by the time you're ready to add the pasta to the water you might be busy, adding the salt to the water first saves you the step later
You're less likely to forget to add it: again, if you're busy later you might skip the step
In your first bullet point did you mean 'adding salt to the water first...'?
I think @GdD has the main points, get in it early and it will not be forgotten, but I would contend there is a chemistry difference, though minor. Salt does lower the Specific heat of the water, so it does take less energy to heat the water and it will transfer to the pasta easier. The second part does not matter on timing, but putting salt in earlier will allow the water to heat faster and with less total energy. The amount though it trivial and I doubt if more cooks would even notice.
Actually really does not matter. Yes, salted water boils at 101°C, but it does not matter if you put in in first (say 20°C) and heat it up to 101°C or if you are adding it to the boiling water (100°C) and need to bring it up to 101°C to keep it boiling.
Salting your water before you heat it appears to be an old wives tale.
Rusting
From what I have read, using a stainless steel pot can result in some pitting over time. This is basically a form of rust, caused by the chloride in salt, oxygen in water, and chromium in stainless steel. Salting your pot after the water boils is better for these pans.
I'm sorry, what portion of salting water is "an old wives tale?" I'm not seeing any kind of claim, other than making the water salty with the side effect of a slightly higher boiling temperature. Also it appears that salting when cold resulting in pitting is, actually, a bit of an "old wives tale." - https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30253/is-there-evidence-that-adding-salt-to-water-prior-to-boiling-can-damage-a-stainl
Pulled the information from below.
" Is there a scientific reason we should be salting our water?
No. There's an old wives' tale that says salted water will make the pasta cook faster, and while it's not entirely untrue, it doesn't make enough of a difference to matter. An ounce of salt only raises the boiling point of water by 1 degree Fahrenheit, so you'd need a whole lot of salt to make a significant difference in the cooking time -- a whole disgusting lot. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/olive-garden-salt-pasta-water_n_5823820
okay, then, as said before, it's an old wives tale that you must hear more than me. I didn't see that claim being made in this question or with the answers, which is why I was asking. Thanks for clarifying for me.
When your pan is very clean, and you add the salt around boiling point, it may be that your water is overheated somewhat and you get some explosive bubling. The bubbles will subside quickly to regular boiling.
I used to do this sometimes with a stainless steel pan for my own amusement, but its safer not to and add the salt earlier.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.005689
| 2017-10-17T23:42:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85062",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"GdD",
"Jason",
"Joe",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"PoloHoleSet",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85200
|
Heat diffuser for ceramic cooktop
I have seen similar questions on here, but not directly answering my question. I recently purchased a tagine, which is a ceramic slow cooker. It comes with, and says to use a diffuser when cooking on the cooktop. But the diffuser that came with it says not to use it on ceramic tops, as it may scratch.
Does anyone have any idea what type is best? I did some research online (which is actually how I found this site), but could not find any explicit answers about it, except that the cast iron diffuser I found also said not to use it on a ceramic top.
Edit: Thank you, Joe. I had already seen those posts before I posted the question. They agree that you should use a diffuser, but no explicit information on what material diffuser to use. I am hoping someone would be able to say: "use a brass diffuser" (or some material that actually would work on my ceramic cook top).
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you!
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/21254/67 . and for the cast iron diffuser : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/4734/67
I'm not saying that they answer the question, just that they're related. I'd personally look for a diffuser that's coated in some way, so it's less likely to scratch the cooktop. Based on the cast iron on a glass range question, (and experience), I'd probably go for the cast iron, but make sure it was well seasoned.
Ceramic is brittle and will scratch. I doubt you are going to find one. But good luck.
Use a aluminum plate or disc that your tagine can sit on. The plate needs a minimum thickness of 0.25 inch, any thinner and it may badly warp. The aluminum will heat very evenly, conduct heat better than cast iron, is much softer than glass or ceramic, and is much lighter than brass or cast iron.
Just don't leave it by itself on the stove, it can be damaged by overheating, similar to overheating other aluminum based cookware.
You can buy 6061 aluminum plates at metal suppliers, and even online at places like amazon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.006254
| 2017-10-24T02:08:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85200",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104099
|
How to not make my macarons rip?
I just made a batch of macarons. This is my third total batch of them, and they become increasingly better - alas compared to my previous batch, these don't show much if any improvement even though I've changed how much I mix the macaron mass and how I pipe them.
Recipe:
~150g egg-whites
~70g finest sugar (not powdered!)
Mix with an older Kenwood chef until stiff and glossy
1 very flat teaspoon of vanilla extract (so about half a deep spoon)
~3g of powdered green food coloring
More mixing with the Kenwood until well mixed, still stiff and glossy
~150g sifted almond meal
~250g sifted powdered sugar
pinch of salt
Mix well
Mix the almond/sugar stuff into the egg-whites using a rubber spatula until the consistence allows me to pour a figure-eight without globs breaking off
Pipe onto trays, let sit some 10-15min and rap every ~5min (rap 4 times, turning tray 90 deg after a few hits/raps)
Bake for 20min, middle height of oven1, at 150C
The first tray went into the oven as soon as the latter hit 150C:
The second tray had to wait for some ~20min while the other baked, during that time I rapped it a few times more but mostly let it sit:
What can I do to prevent my macarons cracking / how to change my recipe and/or process?
I see that there are positive results by letting them sit for more time, so I'm thinking about letting them sit ~1 hour next time I make a batch, and def rap them every 15min or so. What other changes/improvements should I make to my recipe?
1what's that called in english? I call it "Mittlere Backofenrille" in German
@moscafj as far as I can tell I'm already doing all of these things. So sadly no. I was hoping having the images + recipe someone would see an issue.
What type of almond flour do you use? The moisture level in the almond flour and its ability to be absorb water can affect your final product. So, you might need to add more sugar. You might have to use a recipe with a higher proportion of sugar. Try a different recipe.
@dot_Sp0T Seasoned Advice is not really a discussion board. We try pretty hard not to duplicate questions. You could certainly ask a question that is not duplicated by the earlier question, but I read them as the same question.
@moscafj I think I am aware of how the stackexchange works and what it tries to do. I also double checked the tour and searched (and found the question you linked) before posting this one. It's pretty hard if not impossible to compare the questions though as the other question only goes by text and gives no further indicator to the look; further the text describes macarons that seem to be pretty near perfect while my question here is about the issue of them ripping open no matter what.
Obviously this is a very specific question tailored to the specific issue I am experiencing. Though that's what the stackexchange network tries catering to, isn't it? Specific issues with specific answers?
This seems different to me, that other question was asking for help with bumpy, not cracking macaroons. This is a duplicate of a different question: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67094/why-are-my-macarons-cracking-on-top
While there is no standard, products marketed as Almond Meal typically have larger grains than products marketed as Almond Flour. I am not sure if this could be the cause of your problem, but I would recommend trying an Almond Flour, or grinding your Almond Meal in a food processor.
Also, I notice that while your second batch is much less cracked, it still is not well risen. I believe your problem may be oven temperature and heat circulation, and you can confirm this by watching your macarons in the oven. I don't know a silver bullet solution, but I am putting some more analysis below, which I hope is still helpful.
For comparison, a well risen macaron has a "belt":
This belt is essentially a crack of its own, and the difference between belted macarons and yours would be the stage of cooking when the crack forms.
In either case, the shape of your macarons is controlled by the release of moisture as steam.
First, the heat of the oven will crisp the outside shell of the macaron. As it cooks from the outside in, moisture in the batter will start to evaporate. The meringue traps air in little pockets, and the steam expands in these pockets, ideally so that the shell will nicely and uniformly rise until a belt opens up to release the steam. A similar process happens when baking bread, and this is why bread bakers will cut slits on top of their loaves.
When bringing the macarons back down to room temperature, the steam contracts again. Typically, cracks on the top of macarons (also choux pastries) occur when temperature changes too quickly. The pressure inside will suck in the outer shell and cause it to collapse.
Is it possible that you took your first batch directly out of the oven (possibly into chilly air)?
I believe that rapping the baking sheet helps break any especially large air pockets, to help keep the rise uniform. But you would want to do this as little as possible, to avoid deflating the smaller air pockets in the merengue.
Based on my understanding, I have the following recommendations:
Watch your macarons while baking. Does the belt form midway through baking, or never at all?
If the belt forms, but collapses later, and before you actually open the oven, then your oven may be circulating heat badly. This is unlikely, and it would only happen if your merengues somehow cool off while they're still in the oven.
If it forms, but collapses when you take your macarons out of the oven, try instead simply opening the oven door and turning the oven off. Leave the merengues on the middle rack. The air inside the oven will mix with outside air and cool down more gradually. You can also try baking your macarons longer, in case your [oven + bake time] happens to be leaving them underbaked, but I don't think this is happening.
If the belt never forms, your merengue is probably deflated. Try leaving them sitting for 10 minutes, and only rapping them once. Also try whipping stiffer peaks.
Lastly, I have an extra comment for the second bullet point – I noticed that the crusts of your merengue are a light brown, while the insides are a light green. Your outside is browning and your merengues are possibly overbaked. Try either reducing the bake time by a few minutes, or putting aluminum foil over the merengues to stop the browning of the outsides.
If you do the aluminum foil trick, be extremely careful to place your foil in the oven very quickly. Before they're finished baking, the macarons are especially sensitive to temperature drops, so you can't let in too much cold outside air.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.006434
| 2019-12-14T11:40:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104099",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"dot_Sp0T",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62396",
"moscafj",
"user29568"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85488
|
How are wasabi nuts made?
Background
Trying to replicate wasabi almonds using Penzeys wasabi powder. Cannot retain the kick from the wasabi no matter what. Tried half a dozen things. Even with zero heat exposure wasabi loses its bite after drying.
Found this answer and got excited, but apparently it's wrong. Wasabi is not activated by oil, at least not the stuff I have. To clarify, I have explored all answers to that question, none of them solve my problem, and I am asking a different question in an attempt to understand how the process works.
Question
What do the commercial guys do to lock in the kick?
What I found so far
I can't find anything about the manufacturing process online. Closest I found was one stray comment on a wasabi pea recipe mentioning that the wasabi itself is not exposed to heat, but obviously that alone isn't enough.
I think the real answer is in the question you linked, but not the accepted one: it's probably not real wasabi.
probably this one has a better answer as to what it is: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50329/how-much-of-wasabi-is-actually-wasabi-in-the-united-states?rq=1
@Luciano I followed the process suggested here https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/271633/question-marked-incorrectly-as-duplicate. I linked the question that was similar and explained a) why it does not answer my question and b) that my question is different (I asked specifically about the commercial process). I respectfully request that you withdraw the duplicate flag.
@Luciano The mix I am using is mostly horseradish as you can see from my link, so the answer is not as simple as "use horseradish." I have already explored all suggestions on stack exchange, as my question implies.
I've used wasabi powder before and it always gets activated with water, not oil.
Searching about the industrial process, the closest I got was a comment in this cooking blog (emphasis mine):
In the commercial world they add rice flour into the mix to make it all stick together, but before that they cook the peas and dry roast them or just dehydrate them. Once that is done then they use a "coating" machine which looks a bit like a cement mixer and slowly rotate the machine which contains the rice flour/wasabi mix.
So I think the key is: roast the nuts, use oil or arabic gum to make the surface of the nut sticky, cool it down to below 32ºC then add the wasabi powder mix. As long as it stays dry the wasabi powder won't get activated, which will happen only when you put them in your mouth.
I suppose the rice flour is to thin out the mix a bit, since pure wasabi powder might be too strong, to help coat the nuts uniformly and to keep moisture away which would kill the wasabi flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.006936
| 2017-11-07T04:28:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85488",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"dlsso",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62555"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89881
|
How do I cook frozen pastry
I bought it from a farm shop (meadow fresh) as pictured. I know it goes in the oven.
But what temperature or duration.
Unfortunately it came with no instructions and I forgot to look for some when I bought it.
Update:
I followed the instructions from the answer below, and these things expanded to 3 times their size overnight, and 5 times their original size when cooked. They were fantastic. Leaving out overnight, then 10 mins at 190c was just right.
(the clue was in the packaging, as the website did contain instructions as suggested.)
Trader Joe's sells frozen mini-croissants. The instructions for them are, as far as I remember: set them out overnight (or equivalent) on a lightly greased cookie sheet to "proof" (or "rise"). In the morning you may want to brush a thin coating of egg wash on them before cooking to make them shiny & beautiful (this is optional). Then cook in preheated - 350 degree F - oven for 15 to 20 minutes or until croissants are quite golden brown. (TJ's says that if they are just light brown they are not done on the inside.) Then they should cool for 10 minutes before serving.
The "mini-croissants" are actually fairly big in my opinion. Not sure exactly the size of the items you have, but if they are significantly bigger than those "mini"s, you might need to add a teeny bit of time, but 15 - 20 minutes is pretty vague anyway, so I would say just watch the color. Dark chocolate-brown is a little too done; and pale beige is not done enough.
Alternatively, have you checked the website listed on the plastic bag they came in? Maybe there are instructions there. I can't really read it in your photo, but it starts out "www...."!
OK, new UK info; in case these are "Field Fare" all-butter croissants,
https://field-fare.com/product/all-butter-croissant/ says:
"Cooking Instructions
Spread out on a baking tray and leave to prove overnight at room temperature. Egg wash and bake in a pre-heated oven at 190°C/375ºF/Gas Mark 5 for 8-10 minutes, until golden brown.
Important Information
These cooking instructions are a guide only. Your appliance may have a different power rating, so please adjust accordingly"
Thankyou. Did not occur to let it thaw overnight. I tried Google but it can up with nothing useful. Didn't even realise there was a web address on the bag lol. Great answers thanks.
The field fare ones work very well if you follow the instructions. Again though, they're better if you err on the side of over-done,at least for eating warm.
@ChrisH I did them for 10 minutes and it was great. updated my question with a picture of the results. Thanks :) Didnt realise the instructions were on the link on the packaging. They were field fare. And leaving them out overnight i would never have guessed. For some reason i thought you cooked them from frozen :)
My local farm shop does these (or used to) and for a while the till printed the instructions on the receipt - again, not where you'd think of looking. IMO these are the closest you'll get to a French bakery without living near one
@Doomsknight Nice follow up! Thanks for posting your results!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.007181
| 2018-05-18T21:39:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89881",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"IAmGroot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67222"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97124
|
Bottle of Cachaça 51 tasting like sour milk?
Whilst recently shopping, I grabbed a bottle of Cachaça 51 intended to use for some flambé. Upon opening it, I found it smelling (and tasting) like slightly sour milk.
Googling for it, I didn't come up with any hits about it at all, which makes me wonder what's going on.
Edit: I have had a straight Cachaça before, but it was a different brand, and it didn't have this sour milk taste.
Have you smelled and tasted this liquor before? The same brand?
Answered in text: only had different brand before, and it wasn't off like this
Further research on this revealed my own answer: Bagasse is the waste product from extracting juice of sugar cane, and if naturally fermented/decaying, smells like sour milk!
Depending on the grade of sugar cane juice (freshness of sugar cane itself, as well as heads vs tails of extraction), the juice can have some of the bad flavour from the bagasse, and it's sufficiently volatile to persist in the distillation process!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.007459
| 2019-03-27T04:56:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97124",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73727",
"robbat2"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120472
|
How to measure 4tbsp of coriander
I am following a recipe that mentions 4tbsp of coriander leaves and 5tbsp for Mint. How can one measure leaves in the weight of tbsp?
It’s worth mentioning for those with US cup measures, 4TB is also 1/4 cup. 5TB is 2.5 fluid ounces. (Which is a volume, not a weight). 5TB is also 1/8 of a British pint
And it’s doubtful that this is a US recipe, as we call coriander leaves ‘cilantro’ over here
@Joe u r right. It is an Indian recipe,
It’s possible that the recipe is intending for you to use dried herbs, which are easier to measure by volume than fresh herbs. If so, it’s an important distinction to make because dried herbs will be much more potent than fresh.
It’s also possible, and maybe more likely, that the recipe is calling for a volume measurement of chopped or minced herbs. Usually that would read something like:
X Tbsp. mint, minced
The real answer is that we can’t really know. The best way to resolve this ambiguity is to find a recipe that is more specific. Generally when cooking from a recipe, I survey 3 or 4 versions of the recipe to try to get a feel for what they have in common. It can give you an idea of what amount seems normal. Then go from there.
Ingredients like herbs are essentially just added “to taste” in most applications anyway. It’s unlikely to make or break your dish if you estimate and use your intuition. It can be easy to add too much dried herbs, though, so id suggest starting small if that’s the case.
Tablespoons are a volume measurement, rather than a weight. However, it's pretty easy to convert. You can get into the ballpark, and perhaps even closer than that by using a website like this to make the conversion. In a savory application, the degree of accuracy is probably close enough. I would use a scale if possible. So, in this case, a Tablespoon is about 1 gram of leaves. There are other ingredient conversion websites. This just happens to be the one I found quickly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.007568
| 2022-04-30T16:45:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120472",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"localhost"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76869
|
Lace cookies TOO thin?
I tried to make https://myjerusalemkitchen.com/2011/05/22/dark-chocolate-almond-orange-lace-cookies-florentines/ (I used bee honey not date honey) and they taste GREAT, but they did not come out right. They basically came out as a sheet of caramel, VERY thin.
I tried letting the "dough" cool longer before scooping out of pan and on to cookie sheet. I also tried decreasing the time in the oven. Using an actual teaspoon measure, 8 of these (3 rows: 3, 2, 3) with at least 3 inches between each blob, covered virtually the whole pan.
Anyone have a better recipe or suggestions?
Recipe
Ingredients
1/2 c brown sugar
2 tblsp butter
1 tsp vanilla extract
2 tblsp milk
1/4 c date honey (or regular honey)
1/3 c all-purpose flour
1/2 c almonds; coarsely ground
1/2 tsp cinnamon
1 heaping tsp orange, zested
1/2 c dark chocolate (for dipping)
Tips:
You must follow the order here. I have accidentally added the almond mixture at the wrong stage and the cookies will not spread.
Cool your tray with water each time you remove it from the oven (it will not warp your tray) or get three trays handy because if you drop your batter onto a heated tray the cookies will start to spread instantly and will be oddly-shaped.
If you end up with any oddly shaped ones, just take some scissors and cut the edges before the cookies have completely cooled down.
Directions:
Preheat your oven to 350 F
line two baking trays with parchment paper; set aside.
Bring the butter, sugar, milk, vanilla, and honey to a boil, stirring continuously.
Once it reaches a rolling boil, wait one minute and then remove from the heat.
Now, grab a bowl and mix the flour, almonds, cinnamon and orange zest together, slowly adding them to the wet mixture and making sure everything is incorporated well.
Let sit for about 20 minutes or until the mixture is cool enough to be handled, even though you won’t be handling it.
If the mixture is stiff when you return to it, warm it up over a low flame for a minute or two.
Drop teaspoon-sized balls onto your parchment paper, leaving about three inches space between each of the cookies because they will spread a lot.
Create a double-boiler to melt the chocolate or melt it in the microwave.
Leave them to cook for 6-8 minutes.
If you want them more like toffee brittle leave them in on the longer end.
I like mine slightly chewy in the center and crispy on the outside.
Once the centers are bubbling and they are a goldeny-brown color, remove them from the oven.
Immediately remove the parchment paper from the tray and let them cool on the counter.
After about three-five more minutes, you’ll be able to remove them from the parchment paper without a problem. Any sooner and they’ll still be soft and likely tear.
Hello, and welcome to Seasoned Advice. Rather than having a link to your recipe, it would be better to include it in the actual question.
@DanielGriscom edited to include the recipe
Do you have an oven thermometer? I used to make an oatmeal lace cookie (I think it was from the Fannie Farmer cookbook), and I remember if being very sensitive to temperature changes ... basically how quickly the butter melts and spreads before it's cooked to the point of setting up.
I'd think that adding a bit more flour to the mix would help them be thicker. The trouble is exactly how much. When I learned how to make creme brulee it took me at least a dozen attempts to get it perfect but once I figured it out it has stuck with me.
1/3 US cup is about 16tsp, so if it were me and the first batch came out too thin, I'd mix in another teaspoon or so of flour (less than 10% of the original amount) and then try another test ... but if I were to remake it from scratch, I'd reduce the amount of milk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.007748
| 2016-12-28T00:56:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76869",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"Joe",
"Michael",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102511
|
Can you make coffee by boiling it?
Google results have confused me so much. I learned to make a Nescafe Classic coffee a year ago.
All I would do is: Add some coffee and sugar in a mug/cup, add a few drops of water or milk and start shaking it with spoon. A few minutes later it changes it's color and becomes a paste. It releases the flavors. Now you can add hot water or milk according to your taste. Most YouTube videos also show similar results and believe in this theory. That's it.
Now Google results like this really confuse sometimes. Kindly don't write your answer based on just this link. If you search "should you boil coffee" you'll see tons of articles or answers that nowhere tells a method like shaking and making a paste before adding the milk or water to get the flavor. They will support your Google search and say like:
Boil water and then add coffee in it
Add coffee in water and boil it
Heat water and add coffee in it
And so on.
Why is it like this? If flavor can be accieved by the method I described above, why people use boil mothod?
Most hits you'll see on making coffee are likely to be about ground coffee rather than nescafe. If you're going to use instant coffee, just pour hot water on it, add milk to taste, and you're done.
Hi! Can you edit your question to include the information that you're using instant coffee? It is generating some confusion in the answer section.
Edited the details
2nd link is broken. First link appears to be a 5 minute video on how to make instant coffee. I didn't watch it.
Link you provided refers to brewing coffe. Making instant coffe is not brewing. It's just rehydrating dried coffe that was already brew.
Brew = Bring flavours to coffee?
You're putting far to much effort into instant coffee. Just mix coffee, water and sugar (if desired). add milk/creamer (if desired). Done. Attempting to 'brew' instant coffee serves no purpose.
@brhans most people and videos I have seen making this Nescafe Classic coffee, they first blend it till it changes color, then add other stuff. Why would they do it if it serves no purpose
Ok - I've just watched the video you linked to - and that has to be the strangest method of making instant coffee I've ever seen ... I'f you're going to spend that much time & ritual on a single cup of coffee then it would be better spent doing a pour-over using 'real' ground coffee. Nescafe is not at all uncommon in both the country I'm originally from and the country where I currently live and I've never seen or heard of the method shown in that video. I guess if you're aiming towards something resembling a cappuccino then this gets you somewhere close ...
Whoever shot that video either doesn't know the meaning of the word "instant" or thinks Nescafe is hot chocolate, with all the whisking business. I could make and drink a cup of instant coffee in the time they spend fiddling about
@vikas "brew" doesn't mean "bring out flavors", it means "make liquid coffee from coffee beans". Using the been "brew" in combination with instant coffee is very confusing, many people would argue that this verb does not apply at all when using instant coffee.
The thing about Nescafe is that no matter how much faff you put into the preparation, it's still going to taste more like gravy browning once you've finished ;) Of all the instant coffees I've ever tasted, it really is the least like coffee.
Just a quick note - OP was talking to me about this on chat... and.. Its Dalgona coffee, or a very similar preparation.
Coffee hates boiling water - or more specifically, water boiling at 100°C - it scalds it & kills the taste.
but read on...
There are basically two kinds of instant coffee, spray dried & freeze dried.
Both start by making up 'real' coffee.
Spray drying is achieved by then super-heating the mixture & spraying it out into an evaporator. The powder falls to the bottom where it is collected [Whether they leave it as powder or clump it is either a design choice or a method limitation, I've never found out which].
Freeze drying is achieved by reducing the atmospheric pressure then spraying in a similar way. This means they can work at much lower temperatures, as water boils at a lower temperature the lower the pressure.
The second method is more expensive than the first. It preserves the flavours a lot better, so tends to be reserved for blends & beans that were higher quality to start with. Pure arabicas will almost always be freeze dried.
So, your Nescafe is made by the first method - spray drying - & therefore has already been ruined/scalded by the process. This is one reason [amongst many] that spray dried coffees taste nothing at all like actual fresh coffee.
Pouring boiling water on this can now have no further effect. "It's already dead, Jim."
Pouring boiling water on freeze dried, however, will spoil it. Freeze dried has so far avoided the scalding.
You can test this by making 3 very simple black coffees.
One teaspoon of freeze dried coffee granules in each cup. To one, add half a cup of cold water, to the second add just half an inch. The third, leave with just granules. Pour absolutely boiling water [the second the kettle clicks off] onto all three to make a full cup. Stir, leave 1 minute & examine all 3. The first will be quite cloudy & mid-dark brown. the second will 'look like coffee'. The third will be almost black & very clear.
Taste them all. They will taste in order from, 'a bit grainy', just right, 'ooh, spoiled'.
You can try this test with spray dried, but the results are not as distinct.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
I'm not totally sure the answer to your question, but you should look into Turkish style coffee. The style is based on grinding the beans super fine and then boiling it with water. This is a decent primer. https://foolproofliving.com/how-to-make-turkish-coffee/
Specifically pay attention to the foam that forms after boiling. I think that's what you are looking for.
Careful: I am pretty sure that the asker is using instant coffee, not ground coffee beans.
Turkish coffee is also somewhat of a special case, as you pull the serving from it three times, before boil, at boil & after boil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.008096
| 2019-09-25T01:20:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102511",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Vikas",
"brhans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75413",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107582
|
Is it okay and safe to store pulses, grains, rice etc. in these containers?
During coronavirus lockdown, I can't buy containers. But I've some empty boxes of Protinex powder like these: https://www.amazon.in/Protinex-400-g-Tasty-Chocolate/dp/B01MS489AE I guess it is made from metal.
So is it safe to store these things in it? Or it will be harmful to these things?
EDIT: I bought that product a long time ago, and now it seems like packaging is changed in the link I provided. So I'm afraid it would be not ideal to expect new answers.
When storing nonperishable dry foods, such as pulses or grains or protein powder, you want the container to be reasonably airtight and impermeable, which that container appears to be. There aren't any other major considerations. Should be fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.008682
| 2020-04-14T16:56:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107582",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115102
|
Are these both ways okay to lower the flame in these types of gas stoves?
Before asking this question, I really tried to find an answer online, but I failed. Basically, we mostly have manual igniting gas stoves. If you press and turn the button on left (90 degree) and use a lighter/matchbox, it gets turned on. To lower the flame, you just turn it further a bit on left.
But my mom has always warned me to not to turn it so left that it becomes 180 degrees. I wonder what happens after that. Further, my mon never told me what happens when you keep the button between 0 degree and 90 degrees. I feel it should also lower the flame just like when the button is between 90 degree and 180 degree (i.e., turned to very left). Because I don't see any point in the design of a button that goes from 0 degree to straight 90 degree and between them you are not supposed to get anything. And you're not supposed to do this to lower the flame. I feel there can be a reason for it but I don't know if that's right or wrong.
I'm not sure of any these things and I can't even experiment as it's dangerous stuff.
I really felt frustrated when I googled this and I saw results like:
Fix your low/high frame
Your burners are malfunctioning. How to fix at home
Your gas stove buttons fix*
But I don't have any problem with my gas stove. I got really tired of all these. Neither I could find a video on YouTube.
I can't show you exact model of my gas stove as it is made by some not so known brands, but looks like most gas stoves in my neighborhood are like these. Otherwise my neighborhood people won't be able to know how to use our gas stoves (unless you know how to operate multiple types of stoves). Similarly, my mon also knows how to operate theirs. All are same and manual.
Even when I visited New Delhi, which is a big city than my hometown, I found same settings, but I didn't ask them how to operate, because everyone knew same things which I knew. So I felt they will also don't know what happens between the 0 degree and 90 degree.
Online example of similar product is here.
Here is a user guide, which exactly explains how to operate, except the problems and doubts I have:
Now, I don't know if you're familiar with these or not and there may be differences between western and Indian stoves, so that's why I've tried to provide enough details and images and links. Hope you'll understand my doubts.
So, are the following ways correct to adjust the flame?
(a) When button is between 0° and 90°
(b) When button is between 90° and 180°
(c) When button is horizontally full turned left (180°)
If yes, is it safe to keep the button between 0 degree and 90 degree (just the way you use to lower the flame by keeping the button between 90 degree and 180 degree)?
If no, what would be the reason for it? (Asking this because I really can't believe this fact. I feel it would be a bad design. A new user is very likely to keep the button between 0 degree and 90 degree because there's generally no warning/alarm for it unless someone tells you not to do it)
I give up. You've moved the goalposts so far that my answer just can't keep up.
Do you mean my question is off topic? If yes can you please help how to fix it?
I mean every time someone answers you, you ask another question. This is not a forum & is not threaded like one. It's not for discussion, it's for a question with several alternative answers, one of which the question asker can mark as accepted. When it becomes a chase to keep the answer matching the question, it's time for someone else to answer. I'm done.
I didn't know asking too many logical questions is bad here. I specifically asked this thing on GDSE and they said it's okay. So I had assumed it's okay: https://graphicdesign.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3733/is-asking-too-many-questions-in-comments-bad-thing-here
Your comment makes me feel: 1) You can't edit your question if it contradicts the answer which is correct so far 2) You can't keep asking relevant questions in comments.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Changing the essence of your question after it has been answered & then followed up by many comments requiring further help is considered bad form. It tires people. It makes them not want to help you any more. I'm done now. Stop chasing.
Right. But only you made me realize in the comments of your answer that I couldn't ask what I was looking for. So I edited it. Which I think you didn't like. I'm sorry.
I don't know exactly which type of valve they are using, but they all pretty much work the same.
You seem to be imagining the gas flow curve to look like this:
The difference between the two sides is that the 0° to 90° transition is designed to move from 0% gas flow to 100% gas flow very quickly and the 90° to 180° transition is designed to perform a slow, controlled transition from 100% to the minimum flow to maintain a flame (exact amount depends on the burner design).
I've seen them designed several ways, but this is a simplified visual representation of a valve:
Lighting the flame at 100% is necessary because it maximizes the area with the correct air/fuel mix to more easily initiate the flame. Once lit the flame will maintain a horizon where the air/fuel mix is correct automatically as you change the fuel pressure.
From the 90° position, turning the dial clockwise will cause the flame to abruptly turn off at some point, then the remaining rotation is used to tighten the valve so no gas leaks from the valve.
So yes, the gas flow will reduce the size of the flame as you close the valve, but it's very difficult to control the flame level on that side. The actual curve of gas flow looks more like this:
Thanks for the detailed answer. So, if you know, between 0 and 90 is dangerous or it is just designed like this and simply won't work if I try? I'm just worried it might not blast my home!
Or should I just ask the manufacturer brand itself?
It could be dangerous. If the flow is not high enough to maintain a flame, the flame will go out but the gas will continue to flow. This is likely why you mother warned you against using the lowest setting, the pressure in a gas line varies. The pressure regulator will deal with it when it is too high, but if for any of a dozen reasons the pressure is slightly lower than the rating of the range, you can lose the flame at low settings. Modern ranges are more stable because the minimum flow is higher.
It is unnecessary to contact the manufacturer, they have already provided you with the instructions for use of the unit, and those instructions take into consideration all your safety concerns (and many you haven't considered). For any device where misuse involves potentially blowing up the building it's used it, just follow the manufacturer's instructions.
Cool. One last query: So it might still turn on the flame even when the button is not at 90 and instead between 0 and 90, in case pressure is sufficient. But that's not advised. Right?
You should ALWAYS light the flame at the highest available gas flow. The only place on the dial you can guarantee you're at the highest gas flow is at the 90° position. Lighting it at another position will take longer and more gas will escape into the immediate area while you are lighting it. Once the flame catches, this can flare and injure someone.
Yeah that's what I meant. I could be dangerous.
But I would be surprised if the manufacturer don't warn about this thing specially, in user guide.
@Vikas product liability is a field with lots of pitfalls. Depending on local laws, listing potential abuse may have legal consequences in case someone is “inspired” by something absurd that’s mentioned in a manual and what the average user may have not thought about on their own.
@Stephie I quite didn't understand what you said. Would you please simplify it a bit? :)
@vikas, the legal reasons for disclaimers or lack thereof are not really within the scope of cooking. Every jurisdiction will be different, but generally speaking if you use the product in a way inconsistent with the manufacturer's instructions, you take on the liability for that misuse. We have already explained the engineering realities that the instructions reflect. If you're interested in the intricacies of Indian product liability law, I recommend you ask a followup question on law.stackexchange.com
@LightBender oh. By liability you mean I would be responsible (in general case like you said) for misuse even when they didn't warn in manufacturer's instructions?
@Vikas ...yes...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.008782
| 2021-04-04T09:25:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115102",
"authors": [
"LightBender",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Vikas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109484
|
Mild chili powder?
My mother and I are having trouble finding pure mild chili powder in our area (Superstore, Walmart, Your Independent Grocer, and an Indian grocery store or two. We don't got much else in the suburbs).
Every time we think we've found it, turns out to be a blend of spices. We have no use for that with a full spice cupboard. You guys got any tips?
'a blend of spices'… yeah, it's usially going to be that, even for 'pure' chilli poweder - that's how they achieve consistency. If you mean 'chilli con carne mix' then that's an unfortunate labelling issue. The UK definitely suffers from that, I didn't think the US did, where they seem to use different spellings for different variants, chilli, chili, chile etc [which as a Brit I've never got the hang of].
@Tetsujin Heh. I'm Canadian but I intend to use it (just a pure mild chili pepper powder) for stuff like shakshuka, potato hash, various soups, omelettes, roast veggies. I'm wondering what you mean by a blend of different spices being used to achieve consistency.
So they achieve the same flavour/heat profile each time, they will use several chilli cultivars from multiple sources to end up with their 'signature' flavour… same as they do with many things, wine, coffee… etc You could do your own, blend cayenne with paprika or kashmiri mirch… [of course, cayenne is rarely actually pure cayenne ;)
@Tetsujin you've probably seen Chilli powder in the UK but it may be of interest including to the OP. There's useful stuff in the migrated comments too.
I have indeed @ChrisH - I have to say, the UK's 'major brand' labelling on all those variants is a nightmare. I do as one of the commenters & either buy from the 'Indian aisle' in the supermarket or online by specific type, ancho, new mexican red, kashmiri mirch, aleppo, etc etc so I know what I'm getting.
Corty - please don't add 'thanks' or comments to the question. Stack Exchange just doesn't work that way & right now that's all anyone sees when they look at the question in a list of questions. Your thanks can be adequately demonstrated by upvoting &/or selecting an answer as 'accepted'. No more is required. You could drop it as a comment in this list of comments - however, comments are ephemeral & may be tidied up at any time by moderators, once any needed clarification is achieved, so are not a permanent structure. [some individual stacks are tougher on this, some are laissez faire]
“in our area” — it might help if you could add a tag or mention of which area this is, or at least which country.
@Tetsujin I grow my own, so use a lot of (often frozen) fresh chillies, but have dried home-grown Apache flakes, some also home-smoked. Aji Limon are good (home-grown, frozen). Apart from that hot Pimenton de la Vera and Cayenne are my staples, and I've recently got some green jalapeno powder, which is good if you don't want to add redness. One day I'll even use enough of it. The "Indian" (Bangladeshi) supermarket near work has pure powdered chillies, hot or mild, called chilli powder, but only in bags too big for me to use in a sensible time
@gidds Seems to be Canada (Superstore is a Canadian chain). Maybe Ontario or Alberta based on the stores they named.
@CortyMoto what are you trying to make with it? Tex-Mex American chili?
As you have found, often the generic chili powders that are sold in the US by the major brands like Schwarz aren't pure chili powder, they have other additives like oregano, salt and garlic. The best way to avoid this is to buy a specific variety of chili powder, which would usually be named after the chili used. A few widely available chili powders that you can find in many stores in the US are:
Paprika: usually very mild, often smoked
Ancho: these are dried poblanos, generally pretty mild
Cayenne: mild to medium, not smoked
As to where to find these the Hispanic/Spanish/Mexican sections of supermarkets often have a good selection, otherwise online sources can certainly fit the bill. I've seen chili powder sold in health food stores, sometime by weight, and often they have good variety. I keep a few types around and mix them depending on the effect I want.
There are a lot of varieties of paprika. Even in the US, you can generally find two or three varieties in many grocery stores (hot, smoked, mild (sometimes called 'sweet'), etc.) Fancier places might have multiple types of hungarian paprika, maybe a spanish one, half-sharp (between sweet & hot), etc.) But it's also worth noting that in the US, "chili powder" is usually a spice blend. "powdered chili" or "chile powder" are more likely to be from a single variety of dried capsicum.
@Joe I've been burned (literally) by getting paprika that was hotter than I expected. I wish the labeling was more consistent.
You could look for chili powders online. Alternatively, you can buy (mild) dried chillies and grind them to a powder yourself, using a spice grinder or mortar and pestle. This way, you can even control the heat levels somewhat by changing the amount of seeds you include.
The local Mexican grocery store here has dried red Hatch/Anaheim type peppers year round. At $4 a pound, minus seeds, you get about 3/4 pound excellent chili powder.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.009429
| 2020-07-06T09:37:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109484",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Corty Moto",
"Joe",
"Mark Ransom",
"Neil McGuigan",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75478",
"wjandrea"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100258
|
I bought multigrain bread from the store last week (panera brand) and it has white smelly patch
I bought multigrain bread from the store last week (panera brand) and it has white smelly patch.And saw some really big white patches. It smells bad as well. Manufacturing company said its white mold. But they looked different than mold. Any thought would be appreciated?
if the company said it's mold and you're not gonna eat it anyway why not just return it to the store? What do you need help with?
Sorry for not being clear. I had actually consumed 2 pieces before I saw it. I am 5 months pregnant and I am trying to identify what I ate. Requesting for any second opinion if that substance could be anything else because manufacturing company stop responding to me now when i asked for lab report.
Honestly, if you ate 2 pieces you're probably going to be fine (disclaimer: I'm not a doctor). Since you already ate, there's not much to do now, just don't eat any more of it. It looks like mold to me.
Thank You for your opinion. Little bit consumption of white mold isn't very bad, is what I have read so far. So as long as it is not any chemical contamination, I am trying to not panic but I am consulting with my doctor tomorrow. It didnt make me sick or anything either. SO I am hoping for everything to be ok. Thank You.
Mold comes in many different colors and textures. I have seen white, green, black and even orange hues on bread, long haired ones and others that look like dust. The only other possible explanation for white spots may be flour from dusting, but we can safely exclude that here, this bread doesn’t show a floury crust.
In short, if it grows on your bread and smells weird, you may safely assume it’s a kind of mold. Bread is a good, nutritious base for mold spores, especially if it’s slightly damp in the bag. Further id is not required, mold on bread should not be eaten. Discard the bread, wipe the counter or board, move on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.009851
| 2019-07-18T14:51:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100258",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"Sisi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76600"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107394
|
Why was my bread mix really dry and take ages to knead properly?
I have been unable to find bread flour in my local grocery store, but did find a bread mix that contained three ingredients (wheat flour, salt and raising agent). Judging by the instructions on the pack to leave the dough to rise, I figured the raising agent was yeast and that it would be a decent substitute for bread flour.
My usual recipe is 750g flour, 1pkt yeast, some salt, couple tb sugar, 100ml oil and 600ml water. I treated this flour in the same way and immediately ran into issues:
It was extremely dry. I usually like a higher hydration loaf and expect it to be quite sticky and it was behaving like a much lower hydration dough. I ended up having to add another 75ish ml to get it to be the way it should be.
It took ages to knead. I usually knead by hand 10-ish minutes, and it must have taken a good 25 minutes to knead, and even then it didn't pass a proper window pane test, but I'd given up by that point.
Apart from the above, the rest of the process went fine, I did a doubled-in-size rise, shaped into pans and then a 30 min rise, and then into the oven at 200C for 45ish minutes. The crumb was tighter than I'm used to but it was still a decent enough loaf.
So now I'm curious what exactly this bread mix is, and exactly why this behaved so differently. My current hypotheses:
Perhaps a lower gluten content bread.
Perhaps a quickbread mix that actually had a chemical leavened. (but then why do they instruct to leave the bread to rise?)
Would either of these cause my mix to be really dry and take ages to knead properly? Or something else?
The product:
Welcome! Could you please add the package size? Combined with the instructions, we can calculate hydration.
it was 100% hydration (500g flour, 500ml water).
Your best bet is to contact the producing company and ask them.
FLours differ in their ability to bind water. The reason why our recipes work with the AP flour in the supermarket is that the mills adjust the flour int he supermarket to behave in roughly the same way - and by "adjust", I mean they really measure several parameters of different grains and blend it until it performs in the usual way. (They have to change the actual blend frequently, because even with the same wheat cultivar, growing condition differences due to location and weather mean that each batch will behave differently).
I don't think there is some kind of deeper explanation here than just saying what you already observed - this flour is not formulated to behave like the typical AP flour, it produces a different amount/strength of gluten for the same amount of hydration. You might want to try baking the recipe from the package and see if you prefer it.
I'm not using AP flour, though? AP flour isn't sold here (south africa). It's either 'cake flour' or 'bread flour'. I will try the bread from the package and see anyway.
Nonetheless, I guess it is just a lower gluten content flour. I will probably contact them and ask.
@stan lower gluten content is likely to give you a wetter feeling dough for the same hydration, not drier dough. Even if the gluten content is lower, it is unlikely the full explanation for the symptoms you observed.
oh interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks. I figured lower gluten because it took so long to knead
My first impression was that the flour you found was self-rising flour, but with additional information provided (thank you), it does seem that your box contained yeast as the rising agent.
Ouma bread (a traditional South African bread) is made with yeast. I believe this means something like "Grandmother's bread." Flour does become rancid over time, and rising agents become inert over time, but it sounds like your yeast was just fine.
The flour was probably bread flour with a higher protein content. If you're used to using AP flour this could account for the differences you found when kneading.
To answer your question about determining gluten content, see my answer to this question.
If it is baking powder, why do the instructions say to leave the loaf to rise?
@stan, I'm not sure what recipe you're following. I'd need to see it to comment. But if your recipe calls for yeast and/or starter, then, depending on the recipe and type of yeast, you might bulk ferment and/or proof.
The break mix I bought, the instructions on the pack say to add water (so the "recipe" is flour, salt, raising agent and water") and leave the mix to rise. I don't know what the raising agent is. if it is baking powder, why do the instructions say to leave it to rise?
@stan, What is the product you bought and what kind of bread are you making from it?
I posted my recipe in the question. I will post the image of the product. From your questions I get the impression you didn't read the OP.
@Stan, re-reading your original question and the mods you made to it and the comments, I will change my answer. I do think your box had yeast in it.
I realised I was running into the x-y problem and edited the question to actually ask what I actually want to know (especially since the gluten question has already been answered elsewhere)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.010040
| 2020-04-08T18:04:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107394",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"myklbykl",
"rumtscho",
"stanri",
"user29568"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113163
|
Can I bake a christmas cake in a cardboard box?
So, usually christmas cake recipes call for wrapping paper/cardboard around the cake to insulate it a bit. (See this question: Why should I wrap a cake tin in newspaper?)
I find myself lacking in newspaper but with a plethora of shipping boxes due to all the online purchases I've found myself doing recently. I happen to have a box that would be the perfect size (small enough to fit in the oven, but big enough for the cake). And also this seems like a great lazy person solution that appeals to me.
To be clear, I mean to put the Christmas cake mix in the baking tin, and then put that in the box.
Given the box is devoid of plastic (paper tape and cardboard only), and isn't touching the element (obviously), would this be a viable method? Anything I need to keep in mind? My plan is to close the box entirely top and bottom and interleave the flaps so that nothing comes open.
Particular concerns:
The box catching fire
The printing on the box releasing chemicals into my food
The oven convection being impeded
Any reasons why this is a bad idea?
(My cake is currently in the oven, I jumped ahead a bit and then thought maybe I should check anyway. It hasn't caught fire yet).
(Also, I did also see the reduce-by-15C-forgo-the-box-entirely method, but my oven only goes down to 140C, the next step down is 100.)
Stick the box in the oven on its own for half an hour - see what the glue smells like when it's heated. I'm assuming the box is made of 'flute' aka corrugated cardboard. The glue they sometimes use is horrible. Same with brown sticky tape.
@Tetsujin yeah it's corrugated cardboard, I'll look and see. I did remove as much tape as I could.
don't think the box will catch fire Fahrenheit 451 was called that for a reason
Are we talking about a “cake tin in cardboard box” setup or a “pour batter directly into cardboard box” approach?
Putting the cake in a box isn't going to prevent scorching.
@Stephie, sorry it wasn't clear, putting the tin in the box. I edited the question to include this information.
@GdD why not, doesn't it achieve the same effect as the linked question (wrapping with cardboard/paper)?
Wrapping means the paper is in contact with the metal @stan.
@stan I have seen enough questions here that both were fathomable.
Since you're doing it anyway, please post an answer and let us know how it turned out.
What type of Christmas cake are you asking about? Japanese light sponge Christmas cake is very different to British dense Christmas fruit cake.
@nick012000 It's the British dense Christmas fruit cake, exact recipe: https://helgavan.com/easy-christmas-cake-recipe/
@csk I posted an answer with results.
Regarding your last remark (oven temp jumps down from 140 to 100) on most ovens with a simple dial, you can interpolate, i.e. guess a position in the middle. With something that cooks low and slow, timing provides your fine tuning. If it's set digitally and jumps like this, the designer was evil. Note that Xmas cakes can be cooked in a slow cooker, so even 100°C might be OK
@ChrisH yeah it is digital and evil. Interesting point on the slow cooker, I have one and that may definitely be something to try.
That's a shame. You also still have the option of starting at 140°C and dropping to 100, even if you have to reset it somehow
While there is some possibility it could work, I wouldn't even try it. There are things that can go wrong, and many proven solutions to the problem. Replacing a bad hack (newspaper) with a worse hack (cardboard box) is not something I would be keen to try.
A list of preferred solution includes:
use cake strips
bake the cake in a different pan (bundt or thick-walled ceramic pan)
go for a flatter and wider cake (bake it in a quiche pan or a large tawa)
make it a layered cake and bake the layers separately
reduce the temperature and bake for longer
partially bake in a waterbath, then continue without it
If you are absolutely sure that your cake needs a full enclosure (which is quite strange for me - it is actually one of the reasons why I would avoid the cardboard box) I would prefer putting the cake in a roasting dish (earthenware/ceramic or metal) rather than in a cardboard box.
I'm doing the 2nd cake today without the box, in a wider pan with just a foil hat on it to stop browning. It's already being baked at 140C so that's quite low, I'll keep an eye out and see how it does. I find it interesting that the newspaper is a 'hack', it seems to be relatively common for christmas cakes.
Most of the Christmas cake recipes I've made call for covering the cake. Some add the covering part way through. For that I use foil (weighted with wooden clothes pegs in a fan oven)
Although it's now clear that the question doesn't involve baking directly in the cardboard, but in using it as insulation, this answers the other interpretation of the title.
A cake cooked directly in cardboard should bake, as in cook through. It might take a little longer, which would
make the top likely to go a bit too dark, and there are a few things you could do to make it better.
A thick cake mix (Christmas cake) would work better than a runny batter (anything light with oil), as it will soak into the cardboard less, though you should take steps to avoid that as well - I would line the box carefully with foil first. That will stop the cake tasting like cardboard, which I reckon is the biggest worry. The box getting wet would also weaken it, leading to a chance of dropping the cake, and by absorbing moisture it could make the outer layer rather dry.
Most corrugated boxes would leak down the middle underneath - another reason to line it, and the box may be held together with glue that could melt and let the cake escape, or smell horrible when scorched.
Personally I'd just use the most compatible proper container I already had, but have in the past made one-off baking forms from cardboard wrapped in foil (for shorter bakes than the typical Christmas cake).
I answered the question as I understood it when I read it this morning - later edits made most of this not fit, so I may delete it
I think this would be a good answer if you edited it to specify baking with the batter directly inside the cardboard. Even though that's not what the OP wanted to know, it is an answer to the question title, so this page might get people who want to know exactly this.
I did a test where I split the cake batter in half, and put it into two identical tins. One was baked in the box and the other with no box and a foil hat on top.
It was this recipe: https://helgavan.com/easy-christmas-cake-recipe/
And both were baked at 140°C for 3 hours.
Firstly, the box didn't fare too badly. I removed as much of the paper tape as possible. The remaining bits seemed to be completely unchanged. According to my research cardboard only spontaneously ignites > 400C, so it catching fire in the oven isn't a concern. As far as I can tell the water-based flexographic ink isn't toxic and won't break down after being exposed to heat for such a short period of time. But nonetheless, I probably won't do this again because the box isn't technically considered food-safe.
The box cake came out well. It was slightly darker around the edges but not burnt. It came out pretty much as expected. I've made this recipe yearly for several years and this was pretty much par for the course.
The no-box cake was significantly darker, not exactly burnt but closer than I would like. I did keep an eye on it but the cake batter is dark already so it is difficult to judge. The tin was fairly large and wide, so the cake wasn't that thick (5cm or so, i'd guess). I also did check on it at the 2h and 2.5h mark to check it wasn't done early, and it did need to go to 3h.
I think next time I'll probably go the route of using a glass dish that has a larger thermal mass, and covering it with something more substantial than foil.
Staples or (metal) paper fasteners would be a good idea fold holding the box closed, or tie it up with cotton/sisal string. Watch for glued joins in the corners; the glue might stink
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.010451
| 2020-12-15T13:04:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113163",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89316",
"nick012000",
"stanri",
"thelawnet"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35397
|
How to evenly bake a daquoise disk?
I plan do make a Daquoise. I've seen people making them round, consisting of 2-3 disks, piped like so:
Once I tried to bake a Macaron this big and failed because while the outer area where done, the center was still pretty undercooked, I wasn't even able to lift the Macaron from the sheet.
In my oven, I used top & bottom heat.
As Macaron and Daquoise batter is pretty similar, I am afraid to fail again. Is there anything I can do to bake such a disk (about 18cm diameter) evenly? Or would you recommend to make it square shaped?
I believe the main issue is not so much the shape of the daquoise, but the time and temperature: you want to bake it very slowly, at a low temperature.
A dacquoise isn't so much baked as it is dried. Usually this is done for an hour or more at a temperature below 300F. If you have problems with the top drying too quickly and leaving the bottom unset, you can get a simple spray bottle and mist the top with water toward the beginning of the baking time to slow it down. Also, I notice that the picture is using a silpat, I don't know if that was just for illustration, but while silpats are wonderful, they do tend to slow the cooking on the underside of whatever is on them.
Sour, that is clearly an exopat, not a silpat! :-) Although I own both and don't see any difference in performance....
Thanks for that answer! The Exopat image (thanks SAJ14SAJ ;-) was just for illustration. Using a spray bottle seems a bit experimental for me, but actually it sounds like a good idea. But then again, how do I determine when the Daquoise is done when using this method? Probably just testing every few minutes?
Once it gets to a point where you think it should be done, you should be able to get away with gently lifting it with a spatula and touching the bottom to see if it's dry. The weight will also give you a feel for how dry it is. You can also crank the heat up for the last few minutes to brown it a smidge and be sure. Not strictly traditional, but I can't be the only one who prefers a bit of color on my meringues...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.011527
| 2013-07-19T19:05:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35397",
"authors": [
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Sven",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122401
|
How long will uncooked Christmas pudding mixture last?
Is it safe to keep uncooked Christmas pudding mixture for a week before cooking? This is for a Christmas pudding with stout and brandy.
I asked something similar a few years ago, but never got an answer beyond my own success using it within 24 hours (kept in the fridge).
Note that even in the richest recipes there's far too little alcohol to have much of a a preserving effect, no more than a few percent, (less than 2% in the one that's currently in my slow cooker)
Thanks Chris. I will now ditch the uncooked mixture. Not risking a bout of food poisoning over Christmas!
The sad thing is it's probably fine in the fridge for most if not all of that time. But it's one thing to chance it for yourself (I'd turn it into mini ones for me) and another for guests.
Nov 20th is the traditional day to make xmas pudding and many recipes call for the batter to 'rest' for up to a week anyway.
I've never seen a recipe that rests the complete uncooked mix, so it's far from common. Soaking the dried fruit is fairly common, and of course once cooked it keeps for weeks. But the surface of the raw mix is likely to have cut up fruit, damp flour/breadcrumbs, and other things known to spoil within a few days. So a recipe that does have a resting step might well have something special about it that needs to be taken into account.
As per Gary Rhodes, who knew a thing or two: "Allow pudding mix to chill for at least 24 hours, and preferably for 1 week"
He may well do (one recipe not "many"), but without the actual recipes, who knows whether it's remotely relevant to this question? At he very least we'd need to know the proportions and storage conditions/preparations
My mother said 5th November was the traditional day to make christmas puddings, while the menfolk where out celebrating catholic burning day.
@User65535 I looked it up and "Stir-up Sunday" is the last Sunday before the Advent. My family would have been the catholics being burnt but I couldnt tell you when the Advent actually is but I gather it changes every year so not necessarily Nov 20th as I originally said, but also probably not as early as 5th.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.011729
| 2022-11-20T15:03:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122401",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Liz",
"User65535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97169",
"user1765369"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109546
|
How Does a Hot Water Whipped Pie Crust Work?
First time poster here. I was wondering if someone could help me better understand the science behind a hot water whipped pie crust. I know if someone's never made one, and knew anything about the science of baking, they'd think it was a bad recipe.
However, my sister won a state pie bake off using the water whipped method, with homemade butter flavored shortening (we add 1-2 tablespoon butter flavor extract to the shortening).
We usually don't share this info with people, but when we do they can't comprehend how it was made with hot water and shortening because its so flakey and buttery.
How does this method work? Doesn't the fat need to stay a certain temperature to layer up, or does the shortening have such a high melting point that 214 degree boiling water doesn't break it down as much as it would butter? If thats the case, it makes sense that whipping it would create air pockets allowing layers to form.
Anyone one with more baking insight would be helpful!
How does this method work? In a hot water crust, when the high temperature of the water and fat emulsion is combined with flour the hot liquid causes some of the starch to gelatinize and swell with water which makes less liquid available to form gluten. This lack of gluten results in a tender pie crust that might be better described as "mealy" when compared to a "flaky" pie crust made with a dough using ice water and cold butter.
Here are some articles for further reading:
https://joepastry.com/2015/american-vs-british-hot-water-pie-crust/
https://foodcrumbles.com/hot-water-crust-pastry/
https://www.cooksillustrated.com/how_tos/5790-hot-water-crust
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.011939
| 2020-07-08T20:45:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109546",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108799
|
How to grow baker's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) at home without creating a sourdough starter?
I've got some commercial yeast (fresh and compressed, the one in cubes) at home, which, as I've understood, is mainly made of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. My question is, is it possible to feed it and let it grow at home.
I don't want to make sourdough, though. I suspect that if I let it feed on flour, I'll contaminate it with lactobacilli. Can I feed it with some sugar (sucrose, for example)? Or should I just give up?
Does this answer your question? Culturing Yeast in Dough
Also see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107887/baking-lots-of-bread-keeping-a-yeast-starter/107894#107894.
I don't think this is a duplicate question, because here the aim is specifically not to allow lactobacilli (or other bacteria I assume) to develop. I don't think feeding just on sugar will make any difference: the bacteria are all around us, not something brought in by the flour. Sterilisation will of course just kill the yeast, so I cannot see any solution short of using specialised biochemistry equipment (a clean air laminar flow cabinet would be useful).
@LSchoon, not really... The answer to that question explains how to make a less sour sourdough. Still helpful, but not what I was looking for.
@MarkWildon, I was thinking at something like making yoghurt: in that case there are some conditions (that are easy to create at home) that make the lactobacilli thrive while keeping the other bacteria at bay. I was looking for something similar for saccharomyces cerevisiae, but may they don't create such an hostile environment to the other microorganisms as lactobacilli do...
@Kyle the answser to the question I linked does suggest that culturing commercial yeast like you would a sourdough starter would probably unsuccessful. Whether or not this changes if you feed with things other than flour, I don't know.
You can try it on agar.
Or you could imitate the industrial method. The industry uses diluted molasses and aerates the solution - yeast needs oxygen to multiply, in anaerobic conditions it does not multiply but converts sugars into alcohol.
You could also try to sterilize the flour (pressure cooker / oven).
Note: air contains wild yeast cells and lactic acid bacteria. So the chances that they contaminate your culture is high.
Also note: if the culture is not well aerated, it produces alcohol, which in turn attracts acetobacter, which turn the alcohol into acetic acid.
When culturing mushrooms, the growers try to make sure that the selected mushroom strain is the one, that colonizes the substrate first, because it can then outcompete moulds and bacteria. I think if you have a high yeast ratio, it might be able to outcompete lactobacilli. This way you could probably use flour without having to worry that it turns sour.
Edit: lactic acid bacteria likes anaerobic conditions, in the presence of O2 it forms H2O2 which limits its growth. This could also be used to improve your LAB/yeast ratio.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.012095
| 2020-06-02T12:05:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108799",
"authors": [
"Kyle",
"LSchoon",
"Mark Wildon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84809"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93508
|
Help with hand tossed pizza dough (like domino's)
I keep fresh dough ball in the refrigerator for 6 days to slowly ferment. I bake pizza in conventional oven at 245C for 6 minutes. On the 1st and 2nd days they bake perfectly, but I start to have problems on the 3rd through 6th days. They rise well, and stretch well, but do not bake at all. I use CMC powder for preserving dough moisture. I work the dough well. How can I improve baking on days 3–6?
245c (475F) seems kind of low for pizza, what is cmc powder ?
Are you using the same dough over six days?
@Max not in a home oven, most pizza recipes I've seen call for 425F through 475F, although yes, it would taste better cooked at higher temp for shorter time... that's just not always possible in a home oven.
@Stephie I read it like that. Also, CMC powder I think OP means Cornmeal Powder, often used to lubricate the dough on a pizza board (although I've never heard of it being used to preserve moisture).
Sorry, what do you mean by "not bake at all"? Do you mean it didn't bake well, or stayed soft, or was doughy, or actually remained the same floppy dough you put in the oven? If I put dough in a hot oven, I'd expect it to firm up, brown, and eventually blacken - I can't think of any way a dough could just...not cook, though I can think of ways for the product to not be what was expected/wanted. More information on what specifically was going on that you didn't like in the dough would help us figure out the causes.
Um... Domino's does not hand-toss their dough. They use a roller.
SnakeDoc: CMC Powder is not cornmeal. It's Carboxymethyl cellulose, a gum additive.
the problem is that a dough made to last 6 days of refrigerated fermentation should be different that one made to be baked after 24 or 48 hours.
If you use a stronger flour (W=350) your dough will be great after 5-6 days, but not perfect before; to have a great dough after 24 hours you should use a medium flour.
If your flour does not indicate the W value (that can roughly be considered proportional to the protein level) try adding a bit (1/3) of Manitoba Flour to your next dough (but consider that it will be less good the first day)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.012355
| 2018-11-02T13:56:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93508",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Max",
"Megha",
"SnakeDoc",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100830
|
Is a sprouting carrot lower in sugar and does it lose nutritional value?
If carrots use their sugar reserves to start the sprouting process, does that mean that the sugar content is lower? Does the sprouted carrot lose any of its nutritional value? If a carrot is a root and it begins to sprout I wouldn't think it would.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Please don’t use all-caps. Remember it’s the Internet way of shouting and we strive to be friendly and cooperative here. (You can always [edit] your posts.) That said, I think you have an interesting question here and I am looking forward to the community’s answers. For all new users, the [tour] and a quick browse through the [help] are recommended to learn more about how the site works, for askers, [ask] can give valuable input as well.
The answer to this is sort-of. There are a range of different forms of sugars that are involved here.
Tap roots like those found in the carrot are a form of storage of energy for the plant. When growing the plant generates simple sugars such as glucose and fructose via a process known as photosynthesis. These sugars are readily transportable and metabolizable. Some of the sugars are used by the plant to run its metabolism, but photosynthesis is super efficient and generally out-weighs the metabolic needs of a plant so that excess sugars are generated. These sugars are transported to the root where they are converted in to the complex sugar storage form of polysaccharides, which are very stable and can be used as structural components in the plant (cellulose generally) and many other things. In plants the energy storage is usually a polysaccharide known as starch, which does not taste sweet, and is the major component in things like potatoes. This is also why young carrots, which have not had time to convert their sugars to starch taste sweet but old carrots, which have converted all their sugars to starch already do not taste sweet.
Once the carrot starts to sprout it produces an enzyme that converts the starches back into simple sugars, which can then be used in metabolism and transported to the regions of the plant that need them to grow. Growth in this case means production of leaves and new secondary roots. The leaves will, in the normal course of things, allow photosynthesis to take place, producing more sugars than the plant needs for its metabolic needs again.
In the absence of light and subsequent photosynthesis to produce more sugars, the growth process will eventually convert the stored starches back into sugars and deplete the sugar content through the metabolic process of respiration, which takes sugars and burns them (figuratively speaking) to provide energy, releasing carbon dioxide and water. This would result in a less sweet tasting carrot over time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.012556
| 2019-08-19T20:24:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100830",
"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
}
|
54013
|
Why does microwave popcorn burn?
I've been experimenting some with do it yourself microwave popcorn, and some trouble getting the 'burn time' right has led me to a question that I can't find a good, definitive answer to.
What is the scientific explanation for the mechanism for how popcorn burns? I'm not looking for "Because it gets too hot", but what gets too hot, how does it actually get that way? Microwaves don't just heat everything up (like a stove does), so it's not as straightforward as that. You can put many foods inside of a microwave and massively overcook them without burning. So what's special about popcorn that causes it to burn? I would prefer either a detailed chemistry/physics answer, or a reliable, science-based source. From looking around online, there are lots of semi-reliable opinions on this, none of which agree with each other.
For example, this very old Chicago Tribune article on Popcorn seems to say that it's a problem of "finding" the kernels. Really? Others claim it is the kernel overheating, or the bag overheating, or the oil overheating (yet no-oil still burns, though that may contain some oil from the corn itself I suppose), or gnomes lighting them on fire with matches (Well, no, but it's about as reliable as anything else I've found).
And related to this, what control do I have over this other than time. On a stove, I can reduce the heat; for example, if I'm cooking on the stove with butter, if I cook at '3' I can cook almost all day without burning my butter, while at '4' it browns pretty quickly; so I can choose whichever setting based on that. What in a microwave would be similar (in allowing me to cook the kernels more thoroughly - not just take longer - without risking burning). What ingredients or microwave settings can I control?
To the last question: if you can't control the watt output, there is something weird about your microwave. Maybe there are models without such a control, I don't know - if this is the case, you can't do anything.
@rumtscho Most microwaves don't truly control the watt output; they just modulate on/off (so 80% power = .8s on .2s off or whatever). Panasonic developed the 'inverter' which allows their microwaves to actually cook at lower wattages, but most do not have that technology. It's possible the modulated on/off would help - I have done some tests and find it unclear if it just delays the popping/burning or not.
Just a thought here regarding the last point -- if you're looking for more control, I'd personally suggest just cooking it on the stovetop in a heavy pot. From my perspective, microwaving popcorn is for when you just want to throw a pre-made bag of junk popcorn in. If I want to make "good" homemade popcorn, I always cook it in a pot (usually with a glass lid, to see what's going on better), and I've never burned it that way. I can also mix in a greater variety of things without making a mess and have a lot more control/subtlety in the way it cooks.
@Athanasius At home I agree (though I manage to burn it there too!). Unfortunately at work I don't think I'd be allowed to cook on a burner...
When designing microwave popcorn, your variables are bag size, quantity of popping corn, microwave timing. The popcorn cornels will heat up and pop from the steam produced inside. Then burn if having to wait to long for the remaining cornels to pop. If the bag volume is small, it will retain steam long enough for additional cornels to pop. If to large the popped cornels dry out and burn before the remaining cornels complete their popping. I used a short length of 1.25" diameter pipe to measure to a higher precision popcorn cornels, used a small number 10 bag, then calculated timing. Good Luck.
So your hypothesis is that the popped kernel is burning? I should test that (i'm getting some benefit from this question and rubber duck questions I guess). Pop some kernels, take out of microwave, dump some popped-only kernels into a separate bag, then see if that burns (and how quickly!). I wasn't entirely sure (as from my comments on the answer below) if it were the popped kernels burning, or the unpopped overheating.
Also @Optionparty If you have any evidence of the above (such as the details from your testing, which it sounds like you did!) please post as an answer!
I'm going to try to take a crack at this answer, from my perspective as a materials scientist, which is kind of a combination of solid state physics and solid state chemistry.
How popcorn pops is from superheating the water in the kernels until there's enough pressure to break through the outer hull. Then, the starch inside the kernel is able to rapidly expand, cool quickly, and the starch sets into a foam. (FYI: This means that the water actually gets much hotter than it's boiling point inside the kernel)
Microwaves are able to excite (heat) water molecules really well, and water absorbs most of the microwave energy that's entering the food, preventing other molecules present from overheating & burning.
So, once the popcorn has "popped," the water content in the kernel is very low and it's mostly just starch, arranged in a molecular structure that will not melt. (Since it won't melt, the next phase transition that it undergoes is burning - where the hydrocarbons (carbon & hydrogen) in the starch reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide/monoxide and "char" which is essentially just solid carbon.)
Now, the popped popcorn is in your microwave, absorbing energy, but it doesn't have a lot of water anymore. So the energy goes into the starch instead and heats it pretty quickly, burning the starch. Other foods that you can cook for a long time in the microwave probably have very high water content.
As to the oil, to me it seems like a way to more evenly dissipate energy among the kernels. Oil has a higher thermal conductivity than air, which means that it will more easily take high heat in one area in the microwave and transfer it to an area of low heat. So, if one kernel is getting much hotter than another, the oil will be able to take some of the heat from the hot kernel and "give" it to the cooler one. This makes it more likely that all the kernels will pop at the same time; reducing the likelihood that some kernels will pop and burn before some other have even popped. This also helps because microwaves are very directional. You may notice that there are "hot spots" in the microwave, and turn tables exist to try to minimize the influence these have on heating your food.
Let me know if anything doesn't make sense, I don't have detailed knowledge about popcorn but it's a little bit like the plastics I study in grad school!
Hmm. So similar to Optionparty in the comments to the question you posit that it's the popped kernels that burn. Seems testable! When I tested oil vs. no-oil popping, the oil popping both popped faster (presumably because the oil heated up more efficiently than the tiny amounts of water in the kernels of popcorn) and burned faster (but approximately in proportion to the difference in time). If you're right that the oil is distributing the heat more evenly - which makes sense to me - then that means that more oil is better, and that a high smokepoint oil may be a helpful solution.
Does this also mean that, if there were more oil in the bag, that the oil would help delay the burning of the starch (because it would 'soak up' the microwaves - I know it's technically different but the term seems to be used that way)?
@JoeM I'm not actually sure if a high smokepoint oil will that much more helpful. Obviously, microwaving butter is probably a bad idea, but the difference between something like olive oil and vegetable oil probably won't matter, since once the kernel has popped there's only a very thin layer on the outside of the foam. And microwaves heat up really quickly, so maybe 10C difference in smoke point might be the equivalent of a few seconds in the microwave.
@JoeM Yeah, I think using more oil would help more, although then you run the chance of the popcorn absorbing a lot of it and being super greasy. It's a trade off to me...
Sadly, I learned the hard way about using butter... though I did expect it to burn heading into it.
@JoeM I just realized I didn't answer the first part of your comment. I think that both popped and unpopped kernels can burn. More than likely, if a kernel burns before popping it was defective in some way, such as a puncture in the hull that allowed steam to escape without pressurizing inside the hull.
I think most of your confusion comes from the paradigm of water. Water (under kitchen conditions) will not get any hotter than its boiling point.
Oil has no such limitation. You microwave will heat oil well past water's boiling point and all the way up past the smoke point to the flash point of the oil. At the flash point, the oil will actually catch fire.
If you put a bag of popcorn in a microwave on high for an extended period of time you'll see this as actually burned corn.
Also, if a significant mass resting against the paper bag gets above paper's flash point (451 degrees F) it will also catch fire.
My little sister has proven this true time after time.
Where is this oil coming from? I've run the test without any added oil, and it still burns (ie, just kernels and a brown paper bag); further, it typically burns in one location (assuming you stop it within a reasonable time, I imagine 10 minutes later it might not be the case.)
Corn contains oil. You know... corn oil.
Also there is no reason a microwave can't heat the carbohydrates and protein in the kernels past the ignition point too.
@draksia That's part of why I'm asking the question, though. I'm not a physicist, and I don't know exactly to what extent the microwave actually can heat carbohydrates and protein. Which of these - the oil or the carbs/proteins/whatever - is (first) responsible for the burning? I would think one would happen first consistently (assuming you pull it out when you smell burnt popcorn, so within ~30 seconds of the initial burning).
@jbarker2160 I realized that (as my question indicated...). I did just look up how much, and it's somewhat more than I expected - about 5% fat by weight - but you can thank the FDA's idiotic rules about rounding numbers down to zero for that (most popcorn is shown in tiny 8g servings). Still, my question to Draksia stands: while it's certainly true that oil can burn (and again, I was aware of that), in the case of popcorn burning, is it definitely the oil burning, or is it something else? (It matters, since it affects the solutions that might prevent it.)
And in a related note: if we take as given it is the oil overheating, is it the unpopped kernels that are overheating (and burning kernels around them), or is it the popped kernels which have some oil that overheats (or both)? Popcorn usually burns in one apparent place; of course, once you've opened the bag it's very hard to tell where the unpopped kernels were precisely.
Based on my time managing to set potatoes on fire in a microwave (no fat), I suspect that either starches or sugars may be an issue, not just the fat.
Water does get hotter than it's boiling point when it's pressurized, as it does inside a popcorn kernel.
@AlexBruce, it will never get hotter than its boiling point in that situation either... it's simply that it's boiling point is elevated while under pressure.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.012824
| 2015-01-26T18:18:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54013",
"authors": [
"Alex Bruce",
"Angie Brown",
"Athanasius",
"BRIAN ARMSTRONG",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Monarch Lizard",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Optionparty",
"Sandy Gerhardt",
"charla thompson",
"draksia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87699
|
What is the place called where cheese is aged?
When cheddar cheese is made, it is kept on shelves in a climate controlled place and each wheel is turned over once per week. What is the place called where the cheese is kept during this aging process?
I don't think there's a specific name for it.
I found a book that simply refers to it as an "aging space/room".
The Aging Room: The "Big Three" Design Issues
When designing an aging space, there are three main factors to consider: temperature, humidity, and air (both air exchange and movement). Each of these factors will be influenced by the volume and type of cheese being aged; your area's native influences (weather and soil/earth stability and properties; also if your building is underground); and the building structure and size.
The Small-Scale Cheese Business: The Complete Guide to Running a Successful Farmstead Creamery p. 126
Around the web, I've seen it referred to as a "cheese cave", which refers to the historical habit of using caves for aging cheese.
How to Make a Cheese “Cave” - This is a guide on aging cheese in a refrigerator.
Crown Finish Caves - A cheese aging facility in Brooklyn, NY.
Wegman's Food Market opened a "cheese cave" in 2014.
For a similar reason, I've seen a smaller number of references to "cheese cellar".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.013810
| 2018-02-12T02:44:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87699",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69193
|
How to chop/mince meat?
How can I chop or mince meat more easily?
Currently I just use a knife and chop it up.
Meat grinders are no good. I am not trying to make sausage. I want to chop the meat up, not turn it into goo. Most meat grinders don't even have a hole big enough for a chicken breast or steak.
Is there any kind of device that you can just put a cooked chicken breast in it and it chops it up into small pieces? Just to make it clear what I am trying to do:
------INPUT--------------------------------------------------------------------------------OUTPUT--------
That output does not look like "minced" meat... it looks like "roughly chopped" or possibly "cubed". In the UK, for example, "minced" actually means "ground". If you google "minced meat" and look at the images, all of the images are of ground meat.
@Catija I considered using the word "chopped" rather than minced.
If that image is what you want, you do not want "minced" meat... you should change your terminology.
@Catija: just because Brits don't know what "minced" means doesn't mean we have to imitate them. :) ("Grated" is another word in that category: Brits will happily talk about grated mozzarella, even though grating mozzarella is not physically possible, because they're actually using "grated" to mean "shredded".) But you're correct in the sense that the Output picture is what I would call "chopped"; "minced" would be quite a bit smaller than that.
@Marti Every example image of "minced" I can find is what Americans call "ground"... Even in the US, we'd refer to it as a "rough ground"... not anything like what the image looks like.
Okay, maybe we need to get Klondike Kat to give his opinion.
@Catija I think that's more because we don't really use "minced" for meat in the US, so the UK English meaning dominates. But if you look at, say, minced garlic, it's clear that it means very finely chopped, not crushed/ground. Either way, the meat in the picture is just chopped; it's not that fine.
You could try using a vegetable dicer. This professional one specifically says it works for chicken breast. If you have a lot of chicken to dice it maybe worth it, but it won't be real quick to clean.
If this is too much machine for what you want to accomplish, smaller home versions are made, something like this home vegetable dicer might work for you.
A food processor on pulse setting should be able to do thing.
Most instructions I have seen require cutting the meat into cubes before putting it in the food processor. This is exactly what I do not want to spend time doing.
A very rough chop is all that's required before the food processor. With cooked chicken breasts you could probably tear them.
@ChrisH But if you look at the "output" image, a "rough chop" is what the OP wants. They don't actually want minced meat.
@Catija I think Chris H means a very large rough chop, which the food processor would then turn into an irregular but fairly fine chop.
@Catija, Jefromi is right. I was thinking of cutting each of the input pieces into 3-4 chunks so they'd go in the food processor more easily. It's hard to tell without scale (especially on a small screen) but the output looks quite find.
I think that you should put your cooked chicken breast into freezer for half an hour. You don't want/need it to turn into stone, half-frozen should be enough. After that just use a regular blender on pulse. Make sure not to overdo it. It would take literally 2-3 short (1-2s) pulses to chop it the way you want.
Also, I would cut the breast into 2-3 pieces before freezing to allow for easier and more consistent chopping in the blender.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.013964
| 2016-05-23T18:07:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69193",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Drisheen Colcannon",
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"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
}
|
124088
|
What can I use for a binding agent in salmon patties other than eggs?
I tried flour and flour and corn meal and they still fell apart? Different combinations. I read flax seed can be good. Does anyone have any ideas what might work?
Are you avoiding eggs entirely? Mayonnaise and cracker crumbs are sometimes the only binders in crab cakes, but that typically has eggs in it. My understanding is that part of the issue is developing a good crust and being careful when you flip it, as it only barely holds together. And then let it rest to firm back up before cooking
@ Joe .....If I can use mayonnaise that would be wonderful. I never actually thought of mayo.
@Sedumjoy Hi there. I notice that this is the second time you have posted this question today, the first being https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124083/what-can-be-used-as-a-binding-agent-in-salmon-patties-without-using-eggs. Please don't ask the same question more than once.
I just delted the first one. That was a mistake but I could not find it to delete it. Thank you for locating it. I followed your link and now its gone.
@Joe sounds like you should post that as an answer.
@Sedumjoy note that vegan mayonnaise may not perform the same as a binder as real mayonnaise does. You'd need to experiment.
I will use real mayo and post a comment on how it turns out.
@Sedumjoy are you aware that real mayo contains eggs? Are you actually trying to avoid eggs entirely (in which case mayo doesn't get you there) or do you just not have any eggs to hand and you're looking for alternatives?
I don't think this question is answerable (or should be answered) without the clarification requested multiple times: why no eggs? The answer is different, very much so, based on that detail. Without it, this should be closed.
...Sorry didn't see that. No allergy. I am going to use flour and pressure. Thank you
Natural gelling agents can actually do a remarkably good job as binders for stuff like meatballs or fish cakes.
One of my friends regularly makes meatballs using a blend of agar instead of eggs as a binder, and they are remarkably good (although distinctly different from the same recipes made using eggs). I’ve done similarly myself once before with gelatin and the results came out pretty well there too (though I made a point to experiment a bit ahead of time to get the consistency right).
Other options along this line might include konjac jelly, pectin, or carrageenan.
@Sedumjoy In case it helps, Konjac is mostly a Japanese thing, though it’s also used in parts of China and Vietnam. Carrageenan is mostly a Filipino and Indonesian thing. Both of them, as well as agar and pectin, have also been seeing a surge in popularity elsewhere as vegan alternatives to gelatin, so even if you can’t find them at a regular grocery store, you can probably find at least one of them at a specialty ‘health food’ store.
I think I am going to forget the agar. Google says it's possibly safe so that's out. . I am going to use flour and pressure. Thank you !
Carrageenan might be...shall we say "questionable". The mustard idea sounds excellent. Thank you.
I use a combination of mustard and bread crumb. However, first I take about 1/4 of the salmon and make a paste of it in the food processor. Then add mustard, breadcrumb, and seasonings, toss in the remaining cubed salmon, and pulse briefly so as to leave some texture. You may need to fully mix with a spoon or spatula. Form, then chill well before cooking.
The protein in meat can certainly act as a binder, assuming you properly treat it. See, for example, Chinese Fish Balls. Your food processor paste is probably doing what the stand mixer is doing in the video - working the protein until it comes apart and gets sticky. (But instead of using it directly for the texture, you're using it as a binder for the rest of the fish.)
@R.M. that is correct.
I haven't tried it with fish yet, but one common vegan alternative to egg as a binder is oatmeal. You have to soak the oats in a bit of hot water (or broth if you want to avoid diluting the umami flavor of the dish). Don't use too much liquid. Just enough so the oats get soggy and you get a thick, slimy mush. Mix it with the other ingredients of the patty, and then fry it in a pan.
Another common vegan alternative is flaxseed meal mixed with water. Although I also haven't tried for fish cakes.
Great althernatives thank you. careful with the flaxseed...I think there is a story behind that. You may want to google ..not sure...maybe trace amounts of cyanide if you use too much flaxseed. But I don't know you would have to research.
If the point is to be using a vegan binder why bother if you’re adding it to meatballs or fish cakes?
Is it because there is an allergy to eggs? Have a look at a product called egg replacer. Available in supermarkets most places.
Could be in the health section or with the gluten free etc type of products.
No allergy. I am going to try flour and pressure. Someone else suggested mayo. Souonds interesting. Thank you
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.014277
| 2023-05-04T18:16:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124088",
"authors": [
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"MJ713",
"Michael Mior",
"R.M.",
"Sedumjoy",
"brhans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84278",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105188
|
Thick layer of egg formed at the bottom of sponge cake
I've made several attempts on this recipe (the ingredients are on the video Description) and... I get the fluffiness of the cake and a great taste out of it once I throw in a bit of lemon or vanilla (whatever is available) to get rid of the egg smell but no matter what I do there's always a thin layer of eggs formed at the bottom.
I've added more flour (20 grams more to the 60 grams, a total of 80grams) but it didn't really do much to it.
I've whisked it the best I could, folded it as many times (10-15 folds)... I'm out of ideas sadly. I'm by no means experienced either so I just want to "perfect this" fluffy delight so I can finally make it properly.
The ingredients are: 5 egg yolks and one egg, 60g butter, 100ml milk, 60g plain flour, 20g corn flour and 5 egg whites, 1/4 tsp salt, 80g sugar.
The butter and milk are heated over a double boiler and mixed, the, off the heat, the flour stirred in, then the five eggs are stirred in. The eggs whites are whisked with the sugar and salt to stiff peaks and the batter folded in. The cake is then baked in a water bath at 150C for 90 minutes.
From the video, it looks like medium eggs (about 50g) were used. If like me you usually buy large eggs then the extra yolk could be as much as 50g. So I'd suggest cutting back on the yolks slightly. The water bath should help cook the base. Also definitely use a metal tin, as in the video: glass or ceramic containers do not conduct the oven's heat to the bottom of the cake so efficiently.
Finally you mention whisking: definitely whisk to stiff peaks for the egg whites. But for the batter, you don't want so much air. Instead the aim is to make a stable emulsion.
That makes sense, yep I'm using metal tin as well. I'll definitely apply the suggestions on my next attempt and use medium eggs instead and stabilize the batter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.014693
| 2020-02-08T01:03:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105188",
"authors": [
"allenskd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81002"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94187
|
how long to boil rice for Biryani?
Whenever I boil rice to cook biryani, I end up over-cooking it and rice break into pieces after the steaming stage 1. So I want to know how long to boil rice for biryani?
1 Biryani is a rice dish, very popular in indian subcontinent and surrounding regions, made with Indian spices, rice, meat (chicken, goat, beef, prawn, or fish), vegetables or eggs. For biryani, meat and rice are cooked separately before being layered and steamed together to finish off cooking.
Can you [edit] your answer to add more info? what rice are you using, for how long are you boiling it, what's the water-to-rice ratio?
Welcome! Please read [ask] carefully: This post is very vague. A good approach to writing a good question is: 1) Say what you want to achieve. 2) Describe what you tried so far. 3) Explain what were the results of your attempts and how this didn’t work out. In general: Ask about a specific problem and give as many details as you can
Different rice varieties have different cooking times. This is how I do it.
Wash and soak your rice according to the packet instructions (usually about 20-30 minutes).
Bring water to boil in a big pot (I use roughly 3 litres of water for about 1.5 cups of rice). Once it starts boiling, add the rice and the required amount of salt (I use about 1tsp for 1.5 cup of uncooked rice).
Boil the rice on a high heat until it is about 70-75% done. Check its doneness by holding a grain in your hand, it should be hard enough and only be mashed when you press on it firmly. Remember, it's going to be cooked again in the steaming stage when you layer it with the gravy, so you don't need to fully cook it. The grains should still have a slight bite to them.
Another way is to judge it visually. The uniform solid color of rice starts to change as they cook. Rice grains cook outside to inside, which means the outer part of the grain starts becoming translucent first as it cooks while the inner part of the grain still remains the solid color. You should be able to see a thin line in the centre of every rice grain. This is where you want to stop the rice from cooking further. It takes a bit of practive to be able to use this visual method but you can estimate the % of doneness this way.
Drain the rice immediately to prevent overcooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.014871
| 2018-11-23T11:23:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94187",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92841
|
Drying uncured fresh sausage
I make fresh sausage that I won't smoke. I don't add any cure. How do I dry them without the cure in them?
When you say 'didn't add any cure', is it safe to assume that you didn't add curing salt or some other food preservative to it?
This is going to be tricky.
The problem is the fat. Cured and/or smoked meat is filled with delicious flavors and preservatives. In particular, smoke has antioxidants that keep fat from going rancid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_%28cooking%29#Preservation
Jerky is generally made with as lean meat as possible because the quantity of air and time to dry meat is a perfect recipe for rancid fat. The salt in the jerky will not help prevent the fat going off.
Sausage, on the other hand, is designed to be cured- or to be refrigerated and eaten fresh. It is made with quite a lot of fat. Drying sausage like you would jerky will result in a lot of nasty, oxidized fat. Not tasty and not good for you either.
You could use very lean ground meat and sausage spices, shape into thin strips, and dry the meat like jerky. It would not be like sausage but would dry to a meat stick style jerky that can be quite tasty.
Additionally, the shape of the meat will be an issue. Jerky is sliced thinly so that it can dry before bacteria have an opportunity to take hold. Sausages are thicker and would take a long time to dry. The salt in the recipe might be enough to inhibit bacteria while it dries but the recipe isn't intended for this purpose and it might be risky.
If you want your sausage to be similar to actual sausage then you will need to use traditional recipes which add cure and/or smoke and dry and/or ferment. This is really the only option if you want normal, thick, high fat, sausage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.015079
| 2018-10-12T15:50:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92841",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
101183
|
Can you pop microwave popcorn on a stove?
I move quite a bit and suddenly I found myself with microwave popcorn but without any microwave. I'd like to pop them anyway.
I've seen in movies how people pop corn on stoves in various ways but I have never seen it IRL. A quick search on the Swedish web didn't yield any good results - people said it was impossible.
Can you pop microwave popcorn on a stove?
https://www.bonappetit.com/recipes/article/how-to-make-perfect-popcorn-without-a-microwave
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/21325/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/2613/67
People have been popping corn for at least 600 years without microwave ovens.
Microwave popcorn is just normal popcorn in a special bag.
@OrangeDog also most-likely mixed with fake butter.
Take it out of the paper bag first.
After I found the pack of microwave popcorn again I decided to do a quick search on the English web.
I found that the corn in the bag is just normal popcorn mixed with some fake butter and that there'd be no issues popping it on the stove.
Then I looked for good ways of popping corn on a stove and found an excellent video with step-by-step instructions.
Find a suitable pot with a good lid.
Transfer the corn to a bowl (because it can be tricky to get it out of the bag).
Pour some oil in the pot, covering the entire bottom.
Put 2 corns in the pot.
Put the pot on the burner and set it to medium-high (7/9).
Wait for the 2 corns to pop.
Put the rest of the corns in the pot and put on the lid.
Shake the pot and continue to shake it every 10 seconds.
When there's 1-2 seconds between pops you're done!
Then season with butter, salt, or whatever you want.
The result was perfect! Even better than if you'd have put it in the microwave!
I would mark this as correct then!
What do you mean by step 2? Besides, you can easily and much cheaper and with a better result tastewise, make normal popcorn in a microwave oven.
@d-b, step 2 shouldn't be confusing. The OP specifically said they've moved into a place with no microwave. The whole topic is how to cook microwave popcorn on a stove.
@GreyOrGray How do you put the corn in a bowl if they are tricky to get out of the bag? The sentence/step doesn't make sense.
Step 2 is so that step 7 can be completed quickly. Otherwise, you're spending time trying to get the last kernels out while the ones already in the pan burn.
After you discover this, you stop buying microwave popcorn.
@mattm, as a kid, we had an air popper as well as my mom doing the stove top popping. They tasted great, but I'd rather have microwave popcorn for the sheer ease. Pan popping was tricky and not easy, as well as cleaning the pan after a mistake being not fun.
Pan popping is easy; if it's not you're doing it wrong. For what it's worth, when I make popcorn I omit steps 4,5,6 entirely. Just put in oil, rotate the pot to make sure it covers the entire bottom, pour in kernels such that the bottom is covered entirely a single layer deep, cover and turn on medium heat. After the kernels start popping, periodically lift the pot to shake so that they don't burn. Easy peasy.
Stove-top popping makes great popcorn. You might want to buy popcorn in a jar. It's a lot cheaper — you're paying heavily for the microwave packaging.
Air poppers also work well. They don't require oil and there's no pot to wash. The only disadvantage is that they're quite noisy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.015243
| 2019-09-05T22:10:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101183",
"authors": [
"AndyB",
"GreyOrGray",
"J Crosby",
"Joe",
"Mikael Dúi Bolinder",
"OrangeDog",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"RonJohn",
"Xcali",
"computercarguy",
"d-b",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409",
"mattm"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103480
|
How much Saffron for Rice?
A common way of buying saffron in Sweden is to buy it pre-ground in bags of 0.5 grams.
Most saffron rice recipes use "threads" or "strands" which is pretty much useless for me.
What's a good saffron/rice ratio, in grams/deciliter?
For what recipe? I hate to say it, but the ground saffron I've run into isn't worth using, I hope you have a better experience!
what you're making would also affect how much you use. (and if you're using anything with a strong flavor, just leave out the saffron -- it's a waste if it's going to be buried under some other flavor). I don't know what the grams to strands conversion ratio is, but related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/17057/67
A quick search does not really give a good answer to your question
For example, one recipe calls for 2 pinch of saffron for 2 cups of (dry) rice; another 3/4 tea spoon of crumble saffron for 3 cups of rice.
Have a looksie at this wikihow page.
In any case, I would highly suggest you try to find either Spanish or Iranian saffron, and if possible not pre-grounded.
And skip whatever cheap substitute you will find.
I would be surprised if you find a precise enough scale to be useful in measuring saffron in a kitchen.
A half gram of unground saffron will contain dozens if not hundreds of threads, and while ground saffron is less potent, it should still not require very much, so a pinch is probably roughly equivalent to a few strands.
I'm actually considering getting a precision scale.
In my quick test, one thread of saffron weighed about half a microgram on average. When making one cup (4.5 dL) of dry rice I’d generally use about ten threads. So, approximately one microgram per deciliter. Obviously this is not a practical quantity to measure with standard kitchen equipment.
One could go from there and try to get a volume ratio. The thing is, though, pre-powdered saffron is likely to be of wildly varying (though never high) quality. So I’d say, you really need to experiment with your particular brand to find a ratio that gives you your preferred aroma and color.
FWIW I never weigh or even count my strands (well, other than just now). I just know what size pinch to use.
Max's answer of 2 pinches saffron to 2 cups dry rice is perfect AND precise IMO.
Perfect, because in my 40+ years of making risotto, I have settled on that same amount of saffron. Precise because the recipe calls for 2 pinches. A pinch is 1/16 tsp, (dash = 1/8 tsp), and we use a dash for two cups of arborro rice, therefore 2 pinch or 1 dash just like the recipe suggests.
(This pertains to ground saffron, of course, not threads)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.015568
| 2019-11-14T19:57:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103480",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Mikael Dúi Bolinder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77385"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102325
|
Do household ovens ventilate heat to the outdoors?
If I run my oven in the summer at 400F(~200°C) for an hour or two, this produces a great amount of heat.
Is this energy vented outdoors once the oven is turned off, or does it simply dissipate from inside the oven to the inside of my home? I suspect it is the latter since I've never seen ventilation going outdoors from an oven, but I'm wondering if this might be the case for other ovens/homes.
Running an oven in the summer while using air conditioning to counteract the heat seems like an extreme use of energy.
Some hot air comes out of the front of my household oven, and if I am baking with steam then steam comes out too. There is an extractor over the oven and if I switch it on it sucks in the hot air/steam and vents it outside. Does that count?
You've already got the correct answer: oven heat comes into the house, eventually, always. Another posted usefully suggests running your hood vent, assuming it exhausts to outside and you can open a window nearby, but if it's hot out, you might wind up drawing more heat in from outside than the oven would dump into the room. FWIW, our household solution to this is a capable toaster oven (e.g. Breville) which is sufficient for 70-80% of our oven needs. In the summer, we just put it outside and cook/bake there. :)
If you need AC largely for dehumidification, waste heat from the oven doesn't really hurt. It just allows you to set your thermostat higher without getting unbearably humid.
We frequently turn our AGA/Rayburn stove off over the (British) summer for this reason... plus it encourages you to BBQ!!!
Related: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/18397/3857
I haven't seen this with ovens, but it's quite common (in the US at least) for a clothes dryer to vent to the outside. Given that they generate considerably less heat than an oven, it's surprising this isn't done more often with cooking appliances.
If you vented the oven to the outside all your heat would be expelled and it wouldn't be much good for cooking....The whole idea of a modern kitchen oven is to have a box full of hot air to cook the food.
@GregNickoloff I was thinking only after you're done using it, to vent off the excess heat. If the heat is still being used to cook, it's not excess heat. Some valve which opens when you shut it off would do the trick. (Some dryers have that feature, to vent into the house in the winter and outside during the summer.)
I've never seen one that vents to outside, and I've used kitchens in several countries.
In many places we need to heat our houses for quite a few months each year, and the waste heat from cooking is very welcome. I try to avoid using my oven in summer, choosing other things to eat instead.
Note that modern ovens are designed to be well sealed and well insulated, but many have a fan to cool the space in which the oven is installed; that's the source of warm air into the room with the door shut.
You can minimise the heat produced (i.e. the electricity used by both the oven and the air conditioning) by opening the door as little as possible, and by only preheating if you really need to. A well-insulated oven can be turned off a few minutes early for many dishes as it will retain enough heat to carry on cooking. In other words - cook as efficiently as possible. The benefit of this is greater if you're using air conditioning.
Possibly also use the fan if you have a fan-assisted oven/convection oven for faster cooking (beware opening it if fan is running however).
Although this is an old answer, doesn't better oven insulation simply result in the heat from the oven being released into the home more slowly? During the cooking process, better oven insulation will be helpful, as less energy will be lost into the home, but after cooking is done, all that energy (heat) will have to go somewhere.
@RockPaperLz-MaskitorCasket yes. That comes out in the discussion under one of the other answers. Some of it I only imply here
Thanks Chris. I'll add all the other answers to my reading list!
So it's not directly fighting the air-con in summer, my usual trick is …
Oven on, kitchen window open, kitchen door shut.
If you have an extractor hood that vents outdoors, that's going to help the job the open window is doing too.
After cooking, oven off - mine has fans that vent into the room, separate from the ones circulating the heat internally. They keep going long after the oven is switched off. That's lovely in winter but not so much fun in summer.
No matter how it achieves this, or whether you open the oven door to get the heat out faster, the laws of physics say that sooner or later, all the 'extra' heat in the oven will make it into your kitchen. There's not a thing you can do about that.
Leave window open [& extractor on, if applicable] & kitchen door shut until equilibrium is reached between indoors & outdoors, when oven is almost cold.
Close window, open kitchen door, let the air-con do its job once more.
It's imperfect, but until someone designs a cooker that will vent directly to the outside, in summer only, then it's the best you can do.
Depending on your architecture, it wouldn't be impossible to mount an extractor directly behind the oven, vented to the outside - though as I've never seen this done anywhere, I'm guessing grease build-up would make it either unsafe or just require so frequent strip/clean procedures that no-one considers it worth the effort. Link to local UK supplier of kitchen vent systems. Commercial kitchens have massive extractor hoods over the range area [which get cleaned every few months] but they're really to vent steam & grease, not to cool the room. Temperatures near commercial ranges in kitchens reach two degrees short of "Why on earth would anyone want to do this for a living?" even in winter.
In order for the heat of the oven to be purposefully ventilated somewhere else, there would have to be not only a fan, but a back door in the oven and some way to trigger the opening of the door and turning the fan on and off.
There are no back doors in ovens.
Some ovens do have external cooling fans [mine does] - though they blow into the room, not to an extractor. It wouldn't be impossible to design them the other way… but no-one has, as far as I'm aware. A neat trick would be to have them vent out in summer & in in winter… but then we'd need your 'magic door' solution too ;)
@Tetsujin just a fan to more quickly bring the oven to room temperature (by raising the temperature of the room)?
I think the intention is to keep the housing & surrounding kitchen units cool, prevent hot-spots.
There are some ovens that vent outside, but these are the exception. Assuming we're talking a typical North American oven, check one of your rear burners; the oven is typically vented through there. For induction or radiant cooktops, there's usually a vent above the rear elements.
Obviously there's no easy way around this, but if you were feeling inventive you could probably rig up some insulated flexible metal tubing (i.e. dryer vent hose) to pipe the heat out a window or range hood vent while you're cooking something for an extended period.
I think the oven described in your first link has a built-in kitchen exhaust vent which sucks the air with kitchen fumes in from the cooking surface. It is an alternative to the more common exhaust hood. Its primary purpose is not to transport excess heat to the outside, at least not any more than an exhaust hood.
Yup looks like the oven vent is in the downdraft vent at the cooktop surface. But, while not directly venting to the outdoors, I expect if one had the downdraft fan on, it would at least remove some of the heat. Seems like a wasted opportunity.
I have a swanky Viking oven that, when it decides to light and do some work, does exhaust heat to the outside via some interior fan. It is not the same fan as it has over the cooktop where you can see it sucking up smoke and cat hair. You can hear the interior fan go on about 5 min after the oven has been shut off.
So it is possible.
So there is a ventilation pipe that goes directly outside?
the outside of the oven, yes. Not the outside of the house unless the oven is outside the house.
@jwenting it's not inconceivable that there are ovens which are connected to the same pipes as an extraction hood. If that's the case, it's certainly possible and it seems sensible to have in hot climates where you don't want excess heat inside the house.
I've never heard of an oven being vented to the outside. So, unless you have an exhaust fan that is vented to the outside, you're pretty much stuck with the heat.
Note, though, that the oven will gradually cool down after the energy source is cut off. The entire amount of residual heat will not dissipate nearly as quickly into your house as long as you keep the oven door closed.
The entire amount will eventually make it into the room, unless the back of the oven is against a very badly insulated outside wall. Heat has to go somewhere, it can't just vanish.
@ChrisH yeah exactly right.
While I agree with you guys, the heat cooling and gradually escaping has much less effect than just opening the door and letting the full heat go. Cooling does make a difference.
"The entire amount of residual heat will not dissipate into your house" sorry, but that's plain wrong.
@njzk2 we all know what they meant, so, since we're all being needlessly pedantic here: strictly speaking, they're right. uneven heat distribution asymptotically approaches equilibrium, but never reaches it. the residual heat will never completely dissipate into your house, as long as you keep the oven door closed (or otherwise). (note to OP: you can edit it to something along the lines of "will not dissipate nearly as quickly" to make us shut up)
@dn3s what does that even mean? Does the oven still contain a bit of residual heat when you heat up days later? If not, where did it go?
@dn3s point taken
@ChrisH: Unless the wall is perfectly insulated, some heat will escape through it. It's also possible for heat to escape the room through the floor, which is rarely directly insulated.
@MichaelSeifert walls of course can't be perfectly insulated, but they can get close enough that they might as well be. Round here, houses built in the last few decades do have underfloor insulation, and many of our ovens are installed off the floor, so heat loss downwards is minimal anyway.
No ovens are designed to ventilate outside. I actually tried making mini oven with vent connected to window but it not only failed to contain heat but also heated my room anyways.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.015805
| 2019-09-15T17:36:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102325",
"authors": [
"Amazon Dies In Darkness",
"Behacad",
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"DQdlM",
"Darrel Hoffman",
"JJJ",
"Michael Seifert",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Peter Duniho",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"RedSonja",
"RonJohn",
"Tetsujin",
"Viktor Mellgren",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"josh",
"jwenting",
"miken32",
"njzk2",
"user371366"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102688
|
How to distinguish between silicone and nylon spatula and judge their quality
I bought a few silicon spatulas from Amazon{The ones I bought}.These are most probably from China, and since those are not from very well known brands, I can't just blindly trust what it says on the packaging. I don't want these to be the nylon ones.
How can I distinguish a nylon spatula from a silicon one.
How can I judge the quality/ safety of these spatulas ??
Do you have the link for the exact product you bought? It may say something there about what it says - part of my job is selling things on Amazon and you have to be very clear about what materials make up your product. Either the link or the ASIN would work to help us find your information.
@JCrosby https://www.amazon.in/Baskety-Stainless-Kitchen-Utensils-Silicone/dp/B07VMFGGHB This is what I have bought. It clearly states in the description that it's silicone, but I'm skeptical about how trustworthy it is. I'm afraid that they might actually be selling nylon spatula (because it's cheap) under the name of silicone spatulas
Price isn't always a good indicator. I have 4 silicone spatulas bought at a dollar store, and have used them almost daily for nearly 20 years. They've long outlived the more expensive, name brand silicone spatulas I've had.
It does say in the link you've provided: Product description
The secret to perfect cooking is right here!
Your search for the best kitchen utensil set is over
100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEE
-Ultimate combination of stainless steel handles along with silicone cooking heads to cook like a professional
They look like nylon, but as you actually have them in your possession, the simplest test is to squeeze them. Silicone is soft & 'rubbery', nylon [or anything similar you can put in a pan] is hard & 'plasticky'.
The picture looks like nylon to me, but could also be a solid core with silicone layer. Not as long lasting potentially and all silicone, but better at holding shape for things like the ladle and lifting. There should at least be some surface give I would expect though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.016783
| 2019-10-02T18:25:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102688",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Gamora",
"J Crosby",
"Mr.HiggsBoson",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78821"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47749
|
Is it possible to make evaporated milk using powdered milk?
I have read a related question about how to make evaporated milk, but the answer specifies that homogenized milk must be used. I was wondering if its possible to speed up the process by using powdered milk with less water and simmering it to get the slight caramel taste. On a similar note, if I am to substitute sweetened condensed milk for evaporated milk in a recipe where sugar is also added, by how much should I cut back the sugar(~30-35%?).
One question at a time! ;-)
Making evaporated milk from powdered milk ("dry milk"): should be possible. Your suggestion is certainly reasonable, especially since powdered milk is basically just "really dry evaporated milk" but I've never tried it. Reading a bit on the above links describes subtle differences in the way that evaporated and powdered milk is produced, so of course your results might vary. You may even be able to get away with just mixing an extra powdered milk in water (i.e., without heating) but perhaps you'll need some heat to dissolve it fully (or get the "caramelization" you speak of, but I (personally) associate caramelization more with sweetened condensed). There are also different forumulations of powdered milk ("instant" versus "non-instant" for example), so your results may vary (e.g., how difficult it is to dissolve the powder in water) depending on the type you use. I think both powdered and evaporated milk are generally non-fat (skimmed) so you should be okay with (lack-of) fat content also. EDIT: turns out that there are varieties of both that have fat or not; be consistent or substitute further! Thanks to @Stephen for pointing this out in his answer.
Using sweetened condensed in place of evaporated milk and (reducing the...) sugar: should be possible. The opposite situation (making sweetened condensed from evaporated) is asked in this question. One answer says to add about 1.25 cups of sugar per cup of evaporated milk to yield sweetened condensed. Based on that, I'd say that if you have at least 1.25 cups of sugar to reduce from the recipe for every cup of evaporated milk, that's an option also. That seems like a lot of sugar! Even more so than powdered versus evaporated, I think you'll be able to tell more of a difference in evaporated versus sweetened condensed because of the caramelization of the sugar in the latter. Also, due to the sugar, sweetened condensed milk doesn't require as much processing (added sugar inhibits bacteria, according to Wikipedia). As far as reduction amount: I wouldn't think of it as a "reduce by X percent", but rather as a reduce by an absolute amount (volume or weight), factored by how much evaporated-to-sweetened is being exchanged. E.g., if you have 2 cups of sweetened condensed in place of 2 cups of evaporated, reduce sugar by 2.5 cups. Doesn't necessarily relate to 30% reduction or whatever.
Over in the Related section there are other questions about conversion to browse! Good luck!
Powdered milk is almost always nonfat; it's very hard to find full-fat powdered milk. Evaporated milk is just the opposite: it is almost always full-fat, and you have to look for the nonfat stuff (though it's much easier to find than full-fat powdered milk).
The primary difference between evaporated milk and a strong milk made from instant dried milk, aside from that great caramel-y taste, is the fat content. Most instant dried milk powders are fat-free. The fat in the evaporated milk is an important component in a lot of recipes. However, that can be overcome with the addition of some margarine with the milk and water.
There is a nice discussion of this option with some recipes here:
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20080525/PC1206/305259953
Perhaps that will give you ideas and a starting point for judging ingredient amounts.
Nido brand milk powder has fat in it. (maybe not all of the varieties, but they have a 'full cream' version that I know does)
+1 thanks to @Joe and Stephen for the clarification about fat content; looks like there are full-fat and non-fat versions of both dried milk and evaporated milk. Updated in my answer also.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.016989
| 2014-10-07T18:58:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47749",
"authors": [
"8xbet",
"Annika R.",
"Ikara rune",
"Iman Rounaghi",
"Joe",
"Marti",
"Neal Sylvia",
"aixan luzame",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46552
|
Cream Cheese vs Yogurt Cheese: what / how much difference does the bacteria make?
This recipe for homemade cream cheese looks extremely similar to making yogurt and then straining it.
In fact, the final step for culturing the milk goes:
After 12 to 18 hours, the cheese should look like yogurt (solid if tipped but still relatively soft). You may see some whey separating from the cheese. The whey is a mostly clear liquid.
The 'main ingredient' in both cultures are again, just different varieties of Lactic Acid Bacteria (plus sugars and rennet for cream cheese)
Cream Cheese Starter Culture: Sucrose, maltodextrins, lactic bacteria (Lactococcus lactis subsp. Lactis, Lactococcus lactis supsp. cremoris), Rennet
Yogurt Starter Culture: Bifidobacterium lactis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus
Upon following the same procedure as given for creation of cream cheese, with yoghurt culture +/- Rennet, what exactly would be the difference in the two cheeses as compared to each other?
I ask instead of experimenting because I'm having a hard time getting my hands on some cream cheese starter culture, so I'm hoping to get a voice of experience on this subject.
Note: There's a related question asking about usability of 'yoghurt cheese in cheese cake', but I'm more interested in knowing what the differences in the resulting cheeses would be, rather than just substitutability.
Unfortunately many so-called "cream cheese" recipes are really just yogurt cheese or fromage blanc recipes. Cream cheese is made from cream (or at least half-and-half). What differentiates the two is the ratio of fat to protein.
I have a book on cheese-making and yogurt (only make kefir and yogurt though), and one thing I notice is that both of those cream cheese bacterial strains are meant to be used at room temperature for longer fermentation, while the yogurt cultures are thermophilic, meaning they're most active around 110 degrees F and get done faster. With yogurt, I know that fermenting at a higher temperature is more likely to give you a grainy, or even pasty texture. I wonder if the room temp. strains are recommended for cream cheese to reduce the risk of a grainy texture?
Just as important as the bacterial culture is the use of rennet in cream cheese, which aids in the removal of liquid whey. When making cream cheese, the point is to drain much of the whey, resulting in a semi-solid texture. Rennet helps encourage the solids to curdle and squeeze out liquid. Yogurt doesn't necessarily include the draining step, though it can be done if you're looking for a thicker Greek-style yogurt. In this case, the acid produced during fermentation while making yogurt aids curdling and helps produce the final texture.
In fact, it's possible to take the draining process even further with yogurt, resulting in what's often called yogurt cheese or labneh. The final texture can vary a bit depending on how long it's drained, and whether you use weights to encourage the process.
In my experience labneh still never gets quite as solid as cream cheese, but it's pretty close when sufficiently weighted and drained. Labneh also retains yogurt's tangy flavor, which is mostly an effect of the bacterial culture. Though I haven't measured, I would expect that the pH of labneh is lower, so it's probably not always appropriate as a direct substitution for sensitive applications like baking. In other places, you could definitely use labneh instead of cream cheese. If you're having difficulty locating cream cheese cultures, this would be the easiest tack to take.
I haven't tried (or seen) both rennet and yogurt culture used together, but my suspicion is that it would take the curdling action a bit too far for the result to be smooth and spreadable.
So, tl;dr: the major difference is that yogurt culture is calibrated to produce a higher level of acid, resulting in a tangier flavor and reducing the need for rennet to curdle the solids. If you follow the same procedure, varying only the culture used, you'll have a reasonably similar end result.
I tried to make yoghurt, but got cream cheese.
Been making yoghurt for a long time,
spoonful of previous yoghurt in a mug of pasteurized milk, left to stand overnight.
So this time I used raw milk,
spoonful of previous yoghurt in a mug of raw milk, left to stand overnight.
In the morning, it looked wrong, instead of a mug of yoghurt (teaspoon of whey or less on top), result was much more solid (1/2" of whey on top), didn't taste like yogurt, tasted like cheese. Instead of yoghurt paste, it was very small solid curds.
Strained it through a muslin cloth and added un-iodised salt, = cream cheese.
Guess if I had wanted yoghurt, should have pasteurized the raw milk first.
PS. I'm in the tropics, nighttime temperature 20-30c
Raw milk contains loads of bacteria that would compete with your yoghurt culture, so as you said, you should have pasteurized first to get your yoghurt the way you're used to.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.017563
| 2014-08-20T19:10:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46552",
"authors": [
"Didgeridrew",
"Dumper Training LTD",
"Eliza Roxendal",
"Helen Stone",
"Mitch Duncklee",
"Richard Sailors",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer",
"lindadavid firman",
"zagrycha"
],
"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
}
|
129523
|
Cast iron pizza pan oven temperature?
I want/need to replace our broken pizza stone, and am considering the Lodge 15" cast iron pan. (picture below) I read 'somewhere' that cast iron should be limited to 400-425F. I haven't found this spec'd on the Lodge page. (I do miss things.) I can see where it might make sense though, because, seasoning.
So, I'd like to know what is the max baking temp for cast iron in general, or this Lodge pizza pan in particular.
And, If anyone has experience with thin-to-medium crust pizza cooked on cast iron, I'd appreciate hearing.
Plan B would be steel.
Lodge themselves suggest baking at "400-500°F" in their "how to clean rusty pans" section. https://www.lodgecastiron.com/discover/cleaning-and-care/cast-iron/how-clean-cast-iron. If you're the sort of pizza nut that goes to 900°F you might have an issue. IIRC the self-cleaning cycle is typically around 700°F and is one method to remove old seasoning, so somewhere between 500 and 700 would appear to be the practical limit. Some places claim higher self-cleaning temps.
I belatedly find that Lodge preseasons with soy oil, which they show has a smoke point of 450F. If using this pan, I would keep comfortably under that temperature - maybe 425F.
As it is, I expect to continue cooking pizza at 500F, and fully pre-heating the pan.
So, I will look for something else. Thanks to all.
I have a baking steel that I use for bread and pizza, works great at 480-500F
I think that such a low recommendation arises from the (massively oversimplified and inaccurate, IMO) idea that the non-stick layer that develops on such cookware is essentially just linoleum and must not be heated to carbonization temperature.
I regularly heat my cast iron and carbon steel cookware well above 425. It does not suffer thereby.
I have no experience using a “pizza steel” so I’ll leave it to others to address that part.
It may depend on what type of oil you used for seasoning, and what temperature the resulting coating starts to break down... and your oven as electric ovens tend to have a wide temperature range (heat past the set point, cool off, then cycle heating and cooling to stay in the general range set)
Neither of those strike me as important considerations. The coating because of the massive chemical changes, the temperature fluctuations because it’s a giant lump of metal which is not going to react quickly to air temperature.
Are you sure you mean linoleum as in (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linoleum)? That is a floor covering and doesn't sound like you want it close to your food.
@quarague Yes. See the “technology” section of that page. Linoleum (in its original formulation) is polymerized oil.
I've used a cast iron pan to bake a pizza at 550F a number of times with no issues. However, the pizza in the pan only spent about 15 minutes in the oven. If you're using the pan as a pizza stone and preheating it in the oven for extended times, that can potentially cause the seasoning layer to degrade. I've deliberately put the pan in the oven at a similar temperature specifically to strip the seasoning. Hotter temperatures will certainly strip the seasoning, especially for extended periods of time.
To be sure I understand, you don't preheat the pan? What sort of pizza are you making? Does the bottom of the crust cook fully? Thanks.
@George I was making this recipe for pan pizza from Serious Eats. The bottom of the pizza doesn't always crisp up fully, so you can put it on the stovetop for a few minutes more to brown the bottom.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.017980
| 2024-11-09T16:04:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129523",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Esther",
"George",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102818
|
Is this a Confectionery Ganache frame?
I have been trying to search for this device for days. I’ve used the terms “dough rolling frame, caramel ruler, confectionery frame, ganache frame, adjustable ganache frame, dough leveling frame, confectionery bars/rulers” and nothing comes up.
Is there another name for this thing that will help me find it? I'm specifically looking for a frame that is adjustable and has those little notches in it.
After some additional searching I found something similiar but they just call it a frame >.<
When I search on Google images for "rectangular ganache frame" lots of images showing something like this pop up. Weird you didn't get those. :/ They are sold on Amazon and the like under names like "stainless steel square ganache frame". Not sure if this is exactly what you want though, because you already looked for that
Hi! Thanks for the help. I did come across those when I searched "ganache frame" but they weren't exactly what I was looking for. The item I'm looking for is adjustable and has several notches on the side. I managed to find something similar but I still can't find the name for it. >.< The one I did find was part of a cake rolling system and it isn't sold separately unfortunately.
To me, this looks like a tart ring. In commercial kitchens, tarts are not baked in pans, they are baked in ring walls arranged on baking sheets.
The traditional rings are round (duh), but the word has stayed for the square and rectangular versions. And of course, it can be reused for purposes other than baking tarts, since the shape is convenient for many tasks.
So, look for purchasing a "rectangular tart ring" and you'll likely find what you need.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.018287
| 2019-10-11T03:42:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102818",
"authors": [
"Gretel_f",
"StephG",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78957"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103776
|
Increase re-heating oven temperature for cooked ham
I have an 11 pound bone-in preparation cooked ham.
It says to cook at 325°F for 15-20 min per pound.
Can I increase the temperature to 350°F without drying it out in order to speed up the reheat time?
Yeah, 25 degrees extra shouldn't make a big difference to dryness. If you have an extra roasting bag, that'll help it stay moist. A gas oven will give you more moistness than an electric oven and you might get away with an even higher temperature. I doubt it'll make a big difference to the total time, though. In an emergency, the easiest way to quickly heat a pre-cooked ham is to slice it and use moist heat on the slices.
OK thank you! Its in a covered roasting pan with quarter inch of doctor pepper in a gas oven. I was just hoping to shave off a half hour or so.
"A gas oven will give you more moistness than an electric oven" why would that be the case?
@Molot because the gas oven’s combustion produces water vapor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.018451
| 2019-11-28T21:56:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103776",
"authors": [
"Charles",
"Mołot",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79758"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55684
|
Adjusting baking powder to work with almond milk
A family member has a dairy allergy so we often substitute non-dairy milk in recipes. Most often, this is almond (it's what we have in the house for the kids to drink, and is therefore always on hand). However, if a recipe involves baking soda or baking powder, almond milk produces a less satisfying rise and there's a bitter aftertaste.
I think this means that the baking soda is not reacting fully with the almond milk. Soy milk does provide the same "lift" and eliminates the bitterness the same way that dairy milk would. What's causing this? Is it possible to adjust our baking powder recipes to use almond milk, or do we need to buy two kinds of milk (one to bake with, one to drink)?
While I'm hoping to get a general rule of thumb, here are a couple of the recipes we have noticed this with for reference. Pancakes:
1 c. flour
1 tbsp. sugar
2 tsp. baking powder
1/2 tsp. salt
1 c. milk
1/4 c. oil
1 egg
and muffins:
3/4 cup butter
1 cup sugar
4 cups flour
4 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp salt
1 cup raisins, plumped
1 egg
1 cup milk
I did find a Question about almond milk in pancakes, but I'm hoping to get a more general answer about how baking soda/powder and almond milk work together (or, more accurately, fail to work together).
Baking soda reacts with acid to create CO2 and lift.
Baking powder already has the necessary acid included.
Cow's milk is slightly acidic. Almond milk is slightly alkaline.
It may be that there is just a little bit less of the necessary acid to make your leavening react.
Experiment adding a little acid. Cream of tartar would be nice because it wouldn't throw off your liquid ratios or change the flavor. Lemon juice could also be used. I would start with 1/4 tsp of cream of tartar.
However, browsing around there are plenty of people online who don't seem to be having any trouble using almond milk in baking. It may be that the almond milk is a red herring and there are other variables that aren't controlled.
For example: Maybe the leavening was stale? Maybe the temperature of your oven was off?
The problem is generally subtle (I can barely taste it myself!), and wouldn't be as noticeable if we didn't cook the same recipes with different kinds of milk (e.g. with almond milk one day, then with soy milk a couple days later). I'm sure the kids will appreciate many batches of pancakes while I attempt cream of tartar to adjust! :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.018667
| 2015-03-14T14:38:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55684",
"authors": [
"Betty Holler",
"Betty Moore",
"Bob Lynne",
"Bridgette Flynn",
"Brock Heilman",
"Erica",
"Wootekie",
"gemma kinahan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94073
|
Which sugar is used in pastry more often, white or brown?
Which sugar is used in pastry more often, white or brown? Which sugar provides more taste/flavor?
Hi, Rashk! It's not completely clear what you're asking from your question. Do you have some specific pastry you're trying to make?
Hello! It seems you are asking two questions in one, one about the frequency of use, the other about flavor. Please [edit] your post to clarify.
you can use both white or brown sugar.
brown sugar are naturally moist,so when you use brown sugar in the pastry so your pastry become more softer and moisture.
and brown sugar contain more mineral than refined white sugar and brown sugar gives you mineral,calcium,iron and potassium.
so in most cases brown sugar is added in pastry and it gives more taste.
and when i made pastries or such like baking things means cake etc i prefer brown sugar because of its benefits and also for the taste.
so i too recommened you brown sugar in pastry
i hope it helps.....
i disagree with this. the overwhelming majority of pastries use white sugar. whether this is a good thing or not is a matter of opinion
It may be the case that in different countries and cooking cultures the relative prevalence of white and brown sugar in pastry differs. Aaisha and canardgras may both be correct in their own culinary environments.
For a short answer, I recommend using brown sugar in your case.
Brown sugar has more of it's own flavour, while white sugar is very plain, so when you ask "which one give more taste", you probably want brown. Brown sugar tastes this way because it contains molasses (a juice from the sugarcane).
An alternative to brown cane sugar is "raw sugar" (also known as "natural brown sugar", "whole sugar", or "unrefined sugar"). There are also similar sugars not made with sugarcane, such as maple sugar and coconut sugar.
There may be cases where you don't want the molasses to interfere with the other flavours (such as chocolate). You can use white sugar, while golden sugar (or light brown sugar) is in-between. However, I personally prefer brown sugar in most pastries. It works very well with cinnamon, apples, and raisins. You can also add additional molasses if you want the brown sugar to taste stronger.
Hello and welcome! This is a nice answer! Please note that we don’t discuss general “health” and “nutrition”. It’s perfectly ok to say that something contains more of this or that substance, but I strongly recommend to not make claims that something is “healthier”. You can always [edit] your post accordingly. As for all new users we recommend the [tour] and our [help] to learn more about how the site works. Again, welcome!
I am removing all vague health and nutrition bits from this post. If you want to add factual information back in, use the [edit] function.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.018885
| 2018-11-20T05:20:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94073",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Spagirl",
"Stephie",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92830
|
Ratios for making Dashi from Kombu and Katsuobushi
Im trying to figure out the correct balance between kombu and katsuobushi when making dashi. I have read here that the perfect ratio between the glutamate in kombu and inosinate in the katsuobushi is an equal 1:1 ratio.
The problem is how can one attain these ratios or is it pretty much guess work as you never really know how much of each acid in the kombu or katsuobushi. How do you know how much has been extracted, how long to soak each for etc ?
Or does it really make a difference if there is more of one or the other ?
I would appreciate if anyone has any tips on the best way to make the Awase dashi and how to achieve a good synergistic balance that amplifies umami ?
Super-challenging question. Given the different grades, shapes, and preparations of both konbu and bonito, I'm not sure that it could be anything except approximation. Here's hoping someone else has a better answer!
Yeah I have a feeling its a though one to answer. I'm just so curious as to how these japanese restaurants balance them perfectly. I'm half thinking i'll just buy some Disodium Inosinate and mix it 1:1 with some MSG :) I'm not looking for the briny taste from the Kombu, just its glutamates so a MSG substitute there is fine, but I do want the smokiness from the Katsuobushi. Maybe im just over thinking the whole thing and just find good quality ingredients and experiments until I find the right balance, that could be a long expensive process though !
Well, presumably the restaurants have reliable supplies of specific ingredients that they use that are fairly consistent. And lots of experience using them.
I just came to a realisation that the kombu industry is not too dis-similar from the wine industry in some ways. They both have different regions that grow different variations, use different ageing techniques to produce different types of flavours.
Yes. Katsuobushi is the same way, at the high end. When I've been to Japanese markets, they have anywhere from a bay to an entire aisle of seaweed & bonito choices.
Yes I noticed that too. I see some chefs will actually use combinations of different bonito for dashi. Also another thing with kombu the glutamate levels can change from year to year for the same type of kombu, so Im guessing japanese chefs have a very close relationship with their suppliers.
Another thing to consider is that different dishes made with dashi as a base will taste different with different ratios. Some chefs make a different dashi for every different dish on the menu.
Several years ago Dave Arnold tested a process for making dashi using an immersion circulator (sous vide). It is my go-to method. It does eliminate the variable of the katsuobushi, so does not entirely answer your question, but I find that it gives me consistently delicious results. As others have noted, there are many variables here, but at least this controls time, temperature, and amounts of the water and kombu. He settled on 10 grams of kombu per liter of water at 65C for 1 hour. It's easy and consistent. I would recommend reading the article and the comments. There is a lot of info there.
Measure both with weight, start with a ratio you find to be tasty and produce varying kombu to katsuobushi ratios in equal steps, preferably 3 or 5 variations in small batches. Make sure to keep liquids, temperature etc. as much of a constant as you can.
Taste all, make notes and have others taste test them as well.
This process should be repeated each time the source of your katsuobushio or kombu changes.
Unless you live in Japan, consistency may be hit and miss.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.019111
| 2018-10-11T21:33:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92830",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"JCoder23",
"SuperWild1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93105
|
Cast Iron Bread Tin is Leaving Black Spots on Bread?
Im using cast iron baking tins for my bread recipe (just standard whole wheat flour, yeast, salt).
I notice that after baking the bread it will have black spots on the bottom and sides. If I bake the bread further they only get worse.
What is this? It looks like mold, but I highly doubt that is what it is. I clean the tins after each use and keep them seasoned and oiled. Anyone else have this problem?
I think this is just iron reacting with the bread. In cast iron, I think your choices are to either:
line the pan with baking paper (then it's hardly bread anymore ):
heat up the pan to oven temperature first, and then drop in the dough, returning the pan to the oven. This technique is often used with cornbread.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.019389
| 2018-10-21T16:13:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93105",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93539
|
How do i cook pizza dough before adding toppings?
As we know, normally pizza dough is cooked after adding toppings to it. I want to know how I can pre-bake pizza dough, before adding toppings. I find that sometimes pizza dough is not cooked properly after I add the toppings.
Can you define "cooked properly?" What is the outcome you are trying to achieve? Which style of pizza are you making?
"cook properly" means that sometime pizza dough is half cooked
No, I do not know what you claim we know but how do you pre-bake the dough? I would put it in a hot oven and bake it.
Are you precooking your toppings?
yes toppings are precooked
So we have two different things here: first, can you precook your pizza crust, and two, why is your pizza crust coming out "underdone" when you cook it with toppings.
Of course you can precook pizza dough. Just roll it out, and put it in the oven for somewhat less time than you would for a finished pizza. For example, if cooking a pizza with toppings normally takes 12 minutes, parbake the crust for around 5 minutes.
The second question, though is why is this a problem for your pizza dough in the first place? I'm going to assume by "underdone" you mean "doughy and wet", because that's the usual problem with poorly-cooked pizza (aside from burnt, which is the other end of the spectrum). There's a few common reasons why your pizza crust would come out doughy and wet:
Too many toppings: if you have a thick layer of heavy toppings, the heat cannot penetrate to finish cooking the crust. Use fewer toppings
Toppings are too wet: fresh tomatoes, raw mushrooms, watery tomato sauce, uncooked leafy greens, and other "wet" toppings give off a lot of water when cooking, and can cause your crust to be soggy. The solution is to pre-cook these toppings before adding them.
Dough is too thick: if you are making a pizza crust with a really thick layer of dough, like over 2cm, then it will take a long time for it to cook through.
Oven isn't hot enough: pizza needs to be cooked in an oven that's at least 225C, and better if it's 300C or higher. If your oven is at a lower temperature, or if there is no heat coming from the bottom, then the dough may never completely cook.
You're making pizza in the microwave. I suggest this based on some of your other questions. Making pizza in the microwave doesn't work, and you cannot make it work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.019487
| 2018-11-03T10:44:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93539",
"authors": [
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70118",
"moscafj",
"mroll",
"ushna saeed"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105133
|
Yorkshire puddings in a fan assisted oven
Which shelf in a fan assisted oven is the best to use for making Yorkshire puddings?
I've always done them on the top shelf - leaving enough room for them to rise, if you use small tins.
I started before we had fan ovens & never changed the method when they were introduced.
The 'golden rule' has always been "as hot as you can get it", though you have to open the door at some point to pour the batter, so that also becomes, "as fast as you can do it [without burning yourself]".
I'm pretty sure this is going to be similar to many many other 'old but simple' recipes - there are no two people do it quite the same.
With Yorkshire puddings you need an extremely hot oven to get the best results.
In a fan oven you put them on the middle rack so that the hot air can blast over the batter, although the top rack seems to work just as well as long as you leave enough clearance for rising, and there will be a lot of that. However, many convection ovens do not go as high a temperature in convection mode as they do non-convection. Mine goes up to 200°C on fan, but up to 275°C non-fan, so I preheat the oil at 275, then I pour in the mix and turn down to 240 non-fan. As I use non fan I put it on the second to highest rack as the top would not leave clearance.
According to this recipe, you put your pudding on the middle rack.
"Adjust oven rack to center position and preheat oven to 450°F (230°C)."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.019690
| 2020-02-03T23:28:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105133",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104195
|
Food safety of low temperatures like sous vide and slow cooking
While I really like low temperature cooked dishes, I ask myself whether all microorganisms are killed with these methods. I'm worried that not all parasites and bacteria are killed at 60-70°C.
Is there a table with meat cooking temperatures and the corresponding surviving species that might remain in the products?
@rumtscho missing data on worm eggs
Food safety doesn't work by giving you raw data on the risks of worm eggs, or other specific pathogens. It gives you a hard limit for a safe temperature, and that's it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.019827
| 2019-12-19T05:53:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104195",
"authors": [
"J. Doe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64018",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104094
|
Is it possible to infuse piperine of Black pepper into oil?
Is this possible? From my understanding one would need to freshly grind the black pepper into an oil and heat it, however due to the volatility of piperine it would be lost during the heating and so wouldn’t infuse.
Is there any way to infuse piperine from black pepper or maybe another spice into an oil?
Are you trying to specifically isolate piperine, or do you want to infuse the oil with the flavor of black pepper?
@sneftel I specifically need The piperine as that gives the flavour part of black pepper I’m interested in, not so interested in other parts of black pepper flavour which I know is carried over with boiling.
Oil is used to extract pepper flavor, as piperine is relatively non-polar. Its solubility in water (a polar solvent) is only 0.04 grams per liter. It is more soluble in less polar solvents (67 grams per liter in alcohol, for example).
A related post:
How to infuse black layer of peppercorn into an oil?
Piperine has amide and benzodioxole functional groups, and would be chemically reactive, so it might lose flavor if heated too hot or too long.
A little chemical background on solubility: It all comes down to “like dissolves like”.
Atoms are made of bits with electrical charges, both positive and negative. These opposite charges attract each other, and hold atoms and chemical compounds together. Compounds are made from two or more (can be 100s or even more) atoms joined together. If the electrical charges are evenly distributed in a molecule, then its surface is neutral everywhere. That's “non-polar”. But some chemical compounds have the electrical charge unevenly distributed, so there are areas on the surface with + and - charge. That's “polar”. Some atoms or groups of atoms can also gain or lose charges to become ions. Ions are electrically charged by nature.
Water is very polar. The + and - charges on the surface are attracted to opposite charges on other water molecules, so it sticks to itself really well. This is why it has such a high boiling point for such a small molecule. Also, because it sticks using + and - charges, it can also dissolve compounds that have plenty of those surface +/- charges, like sugars, or ionic compounds like salt. But it's hard for anything that doesn't have those charges (non-polar molecules like piperine) to dissolve, because they would get in the way of the strong +/- attractions.
But piperine can mix with other non-polar or low-polarity molecules, like oil. When they mix with each other, there aren't very strong forces holding them together. It's mostly just the forces of disorder. And they aren't blocking electrically charged molecules from finding opposite charges to stick to.
Lots of molecules have both polar (electrically charged) parts and also non-polar (electrically neutral) parts. These can then dissolve/mix with both kinds of molecules (the best examples of these, like lecithin and other emulsifiers, can help fats and water stick together). Alcohol is one of these in-between molecules. It can dissolve the piperine, but also mix with water. It's also very volatile, so it could be used to efficiently dissolve out a molecule like piperine, and then be evaporated away to leave a more concentrated mixture, or even deposit the piperine into an oil in more concentrated form. Lately a lot of people are flavoring vodka with black pepper.
sorry ralp your answer is a bit too chemistry jargon for me and I couldnt understand it. In simple english, can the pipirine infuse into oil? I also wouldn't want to use alcohol. thanks.
Sorry, James, I edited to clarify in a way that I hope helps. The answer is yes, and it comes down to “like dissolves like”.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.019908
| 2019-12-14T00:17:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104094",
"authors": [
"James Wilson",
"RalphMudhouse",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79769"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103656
|
Change of volume mixing dry & wet ingredients
4C Water ~ 4 C Sugar ~ 1C instant Coffee[dry] 1QT Vodka
Water & dry ingredients mixed-simmered & cooled prior to adding Vodka. Need to know volume as must let sit 30 days in glass vessel & stirred/swirled daily.
Would like to know amount volume of output
C is for ? cup ? 1QT ? quart ? what kind of recipe is this ?
With respect to my fellow responders...This is why we don't do recipe requests...why are we questioning this poster's recipe? It's not what she came here for. Did I misread the question?
@moscafj - I agree to some extent. Some of these comments seem a bit off-topic, or at least not expressed politely. Note that the simmer is likely here to dissolve the sugar and coffee easily, a common procedure in making simple syrup with a high-sugar percentage; it has nothing to do with brewing the coffee. I do, however, think it's useful to point out that there doesn't seem to be any benefit to letting this recipe sit/swirl for a month; any "extraction" of flavor from instant coffee would be done quickly and flavors would likely settle/meld within a few hours at most.
Disagree with the close vote; I feel the question as it stands is clear (how much will the resulting volume of mixing these items be).
This question helps, from it, we learn that 1/2 cup table sugar + 1/2 cup water results in a volume of 3/4 cup. The second answer claims that 2 cups of sugar + 2 cups of water equals a total volume of 3 and 1/8 cup. Slightly different from the first response, but in the ball park. I will assume that the combination of instant coffee and water leads to a similar result. Therefore...I would calculate:
4 cups water + 4 cups sugar = 6 1/4 cups.
6 1/4 cups + 1 cup instant coffee = 6 3/4 cups (Same assumption as addition of sugar).
6 3/4 cups + 4 cups (1 QT) vodka = 10 3/4 cups.
Total volume = 10 3/4 cups or 2.69 quarts...or a bit more than half a gallon.
Feel free to correct my assumptions or math.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.020182
| 2019-11-23T18:25:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103656",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Erica",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103730
|
How Does Too Much Oil in Indian Mughlai Food Makes It Tasty?
What is the explanation of oily food being tasty? How does extra oil enhances taste?
It is evident North Indian food specialy Mughlai food uses too much oil and it is also true too much oil makes the food tasty (at least to a large amount of people).
In a forum one said that lots of oil which makes dish look complete and well decorate. Even when fish is rich in oil they cook with extra oil to gives spicy taste. But I could not comprehend what he said. I want to know why taste is enhanced.
Could anyone please explain elaborately?
Thanks!
Edit:
There's a book on this: Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us by
Michael Moss (Author). Oil doesn't improve taste much, but it improves "mouth feel". Imagine you substitute oil with water in peanut butter (google for "PB2"), or mash potato without butter.
Harold McGee’s “On Food and Cooking”, use the index to find key topics.
There's a book on this: https://www.amazon.com/Salt-Sugar-Fat-Giants-Hooked/dp/B00B4G0MMK/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=sugar+fat+and+salt&qid=1574838178&sr=8-1 . Oil doesn't improve taste much, but it improves "mouth feel". Imagine you substitute oil with water in peanut butter (google for "PB2"), or mash potato without butter.
Oil is a great non-polar solvent and will dissolve many flavor molecules that don't dissolve well in water. “Like dissolves like”. For instance, capsaicins from chili peppers, zingerone from ginger, piperine from black pepper, and many others, dissolve sparingly in water but well in oils.
Not just hot flavors, either - limonene (citrus), carvone (S and R forms, from spearmint and caraway), and other essences are non-polar.
Once dissolved, they're mobile and easier to taste.
May I know the source of information you gave?
I teach food chemistry and organic chemistry, so I picked this up many places over the years. A good source to start with, though, is Harold McGee’s “On Food and Cooking”. Use the index to find key topics.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.020354
| 2019-11-27T06:37:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103730",
"authors": [
"Consider Non-Trivial Cases",
"RalphMudhouse",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79769",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103904
|
Why does my "dulce de leche" look like this?
So I tried making dulce de leche, I've poured
1.5 litres of milk, 500g sugar and a teaspoon of vanilla extract.
I've waited for it to create foam that'll touch the rims and made sure the sugar is dissolved.
I lowered the heat and kept on stirring.
it's important to mention that I did not see at any given time that it went to the brownish color with the actual dulce de leche texture.
It felt like it went from beige to burnt brown without anything in between.
does anyone know why it happend?
What was the fat content of the milk?
the milk had 3% fat
How low was the heat? For how long did you cook it? Burning is usually either high temperature or too much time. How does it taste, bitter?
I've seen a video in YouTube that i can play with the heat to reduce the amount of the cooking as long as i dont let the milk's foam touch the rims.
it actually tastes a lot like toffee.
i also lost a sense of time lol , but probably more than 1.5 hours
Not an answer, but have you tried the cheats method of just putting a can of condensed milk in a pan of simmering water for 3 hours?
I cannot be sure, but I think your sugar may have crystallized.
Here is a link with some information about sugar crystallization (see the section on grainy caramel). [Edit: here is a more in-depth link, which gives the same two tips but with more explanation.]
To summarize, the sugar crystals have a tendency to form a lattice of crystals, which become the grains in your grainy caramel. They can't do this when dissolved, but if some sugar falls to the bottom of your pot it can accumulate and crystallize there. The resource I link recommends corn syrup to prevent this, which has worked well for me many times when making caramels.
I tried it again with fewer amounts and it came out perfectly (also added baking soda) as I also waited the right amount of time after it turned brown(i think it was about 5-10 mins).
and constantly took a sample to see how thick it is.
thanks for your help!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.020527
| 2019-12-04T13:31:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103904",
"authors": [
"Gamora",
"Luciano",
"NewbieAeg",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79841"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85643
|
Baking beetroot in coffee crust
I've just read a blog post from Amass restaurant. I got very curious about roasting beetroot in coffee grounds as they said in the article. Looking a bit further, I've also found an article by Amass' chef, Matt Orlando, where he gave us a bit more detail on it:
We roast beetroot in the grinds and dry them until they are rock hard. Then we juice some other beets (saving the pulp for kombucha) and reduce this with used tea leaves from the restaurant service. We rehydrate the dried coffee grind-roasted beets in the beet and tea reduction and they end up having a wonderful toffee texture.
Inspired by this, I thought about baking small beetroots (and maybe carrots too) using the salt crust technique, but replacing salt by coffee. I'm thinking about trying using egg whites in one of them, and in the other just burying the beets on the grinds. I'm just a bit afraid that the grinds might burn during the cooking.
Anyone has ever tried replacing salt in the crust with something else? I would love some advice from some more seasoned cooks to make this work.
The exterior of the crust might burn, but the interior should not; that is normal.
(More details on the crisps: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2015/sep/08/waste-not-want-not-the-art-of-trash-cooking)
I was thinking that maybe they could be used for smoking - as can tea leaves and rice - but the only advice google gave me was Don't smoke em.
Take a look at Cooking Slow by Andrew Schloss as he has a related recipe for carrots that are roasted over coffee beans. It's online here: https://www.splendidtable.org/recipes/carrots-slow-baked-on-coffee-beans and hopefully it will give you an idea of a way to get the coffee flavor into the beets without worrying about eating grounds.
Using coffee instead of the salt crust is something I know from cooking steak. But usually, you mix the coffee grounds with sugar and salt, to prevent burning, as in [this] (https://www.simplysated.com/coffee-crusted-steak/) recipe. There are also some youtube videos about coffee-crusted steak cooking. I would guess it works the same for vegetables and could imagine a nice beetroot/ cauliflower steak.
The burning will mostly be due to the absorption of infrared radiation by the very darkly-colored grounds, similar to how toast goes from white to brown slowly but brown to burnt very quickly.
If you keep the oven at a reasonable temperature (probably less than 340F) and wrap it in foil shiny side out (vented or not up to you, probably sealed for aroma is best) then you will create a high humidity environment with no radiant burning.
This will take longer but will probably give you the desired results. If it's too soggy, you can add salt (which doesn't need to touch the food, it can be in a cheesecloth bag separate from the beets) to absorb moisture or you can vent the foil.
The good news is that you can run small trial runs because the time/ingredients are relatively cheap. Do one first in this way and please let me know how it goes, cool concept.
That was asked 4 years ago so let's hope OP reads your answer!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.020815
| 2017-11-14T16:36:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85643",
"authors": [
"Fitter Man",
"Hannah",
"Luciano",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94782",
"noumenal"
],
"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
}
|
110311
|
How to make restaurant style poppadoms
When I buy 'cook at home' poppadoms or order from a restaurant/takeaway they are usually very crispy and expand and bubble up as soon as you fry them.
I tried a recipe for homemade poppadoms which consisted of gram flour and water (plus some seasoning and cumin), which I made into a dough and needed for a few minutes until it was smooth, rolled it into paper thin rounds, dried out gently then shallow-fried in about a cm of hot oil. They did not expand at all and turned out more like something between crackers and a flat bread.
I'm guessing they need some kind of raising agent to make them like the restaurant style ones? Are these style of poppadoms easy to make at home? Does anyone know the best way to make them?
Please edit and post the details of your recipe and method. Did you knead the dough, and if so how long?
To make a true "restaurant style" poppadom, you use pre-made; that's the secret (I worked in a restaurant). NB. They're meant to bubble as soon as you fry them, you only stick them in the fat for a few seconds. If you think you're seeing excessive bubbling, possibly you've got the fat temperature too high; for commercial/bulk poppadoms it's usually 250°C/480ºF, but might be lower for supermarket ones.
Hi @Rab , could you explain what you mean by pre-made? I’m not seeing excessive bubbling. They’re not bubbling at all
Hi @Leroy... they come like little uncooked thin-rolled patties; like on this page http://www.thismuslimgirlbakes.com/2018/01/microwave-poppadoms-with-spicy-onion.html. If they're not bubbling, then the fat isn't hot enough (or possibly they're old). They're a bit funny; too low temp, they sit there and fizzle. You end up with an inedible solid floury chip/crisp. At the proper temp, they should go crazy and bubble up soon after they hit the fat. The entire process should take seconds.
Ah I see what you mean. I am trying to figure out the recipe to make them myself so I don't need to buy the pre-made ones. Thanks anyway
I'm not an authority on poppadoms (I hadn't heard of them before today...) but after some searching online (and identifying three different brands of "cook at home" poppadoms), checking some ingredient lists, and checking other recipes, I think I'm prepared to say that the difference between the recipe you've used and the "ready to cook" prepackaged versions is indeed the raising agents, as you thought.
The next immediate question, then, is how much to add? One recipe that I saw used a 1/4 teaspoon of baking soda with an entire pound of flour. That seems on the lower end, to me, but like I already said, I'm not a poppadom expert by any means. Frankly, I'd recommend using at least 1/4 teaspoons of baking soda for every 1/2 cup of flour.
The exact amount will depend on your recipe. I hope this is helpful. :)
Thank you. This is very useful. I'll give it a go. I'll hold off a little longer before accepting an answer
I know this thread is a bit old, but just in case you are still struggling...
You might be using the wrong flour. Papads are made from Urad Atta which is made from Urad Lentils, not from gram flour (besan) which is made from Chickpeas.
It can be confusing because Urad Atta is sometimes called Black Gram Flour. If you can't find it, buy skinless urad lentils, dried ones, and grind it up in a spice grinder. I haven't tried, but I gather it works fine.
Then to that you add a tsp of Papad Kharo, otherwise known as Bicarbonate of Soda, and flavour how you like.
But Urad flour is essential.
Good luck!
Thank you. I actually was using Besan gram flour. I will try again with Urad Atta
If you are still looking for the answer.... When you knead your papad atta a.k.a. poppadum dough.... You need to knead it with very little water and more oil, so that it is tough and hard .... Then roll it thin.... Dry it under the sun (or in house with low humidity) once dry it's ready to be roasted or fried or baked how ever you prefer.
The main ingredient is Papad khar (an amalgamation of sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate) that you can buy from Amazon.
(The) Correct recipe for making Papad is here (Poppadam or Poppadum is an anglicized version of Papad):
https://www.bawarchi.com/recipe/udad-dal-papads-oesx93eddcafg.html
Good luck.
Thank you. I tried the recipe again with a good amount of sodium bicarbonate but it made very little difference I’m afraid. They did not expand at all. Unlike the shop bought ones that almost double in diameter
I think it will need a few attempts to master. Please don’t give up. Good luck.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.021086
| 2020-08-20T12:52:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110311",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Leroy",
"Rab",
"banavalikar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87263"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108845
|
How many of this mug would be 750 grams of flour
To make pizza dough, I'm trying to measure 750 grams of flour. However, I don't have access to any weight measurement tool or any standard cup. I have this mug as unit of measurement. I wonder how many of this mug would roughly be 750 grams of flour?
Cup diameter is 7 cm
Cup height is 8 cm
There's no possible way to give you an answer to this, you need to give a volume measurement of the cup.
Two issues: the walls of the cup aren't straight, and the 7cm measurement is taken between the outer edges of the cup. I think the inner diameter is about 6.4cm, which (treating the cup as a cylinder) gives a volume of about 250mL (no point in being more precise).
Do you have no containers of which you know the volume? Or do you perhaps know the total mass of the flour you have?
If you want good results you need some decent measuring equipment, which isn't hard to find. Invest in a measuring cup and a scale, guesswork will lead to inconsistent results.
@LSchoon and 250ml would probably be close enough to count as 1 cup, considering the variance introduced by the different flour measuring methods.
Even if, or once, you figure out the volume of your mug, see this almost duplicate for a discussion of converting volume of flour to mass or vise versa. I am going to ask to close the question as a duplicate because this specific question will be of little use to future searchers. Almost dups: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107612/grams-to-cup-measurements/107614#107614 https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2915/standard-weight-conversions-for-converting-cups-of-flour-to-grams-of-flour?noredirect=1&lq=1 and others
Does this answer your question? Standard weight conversions for converting cups of flour to grams of flour?
Buy a 500g pack of flour. Fill the cup with flour and measure how many cups can fill 500g of flour. You can then do simple math to understand the weight of flour each cup is holding.
also: for 750g of flour just use 1 1/2 packets, doesn't even need the cup!
Or if flour is sold in 1kg packs (like where I live), do the exercise with that.
@Stephie: First divide the pack into two, then divide one of the halves into two, then take one half and one half of half and you've got yourself 750g. Alternatively, divide the 1kg pack to 1000 equal parts, then take 750 of them.
Here it is mentioned that :
serving density | 0.58 g/cm^3 (grams per cubic centimeter)
Therefore, based on the reported dimensions, the flour weight would be:
pi / 4 * 7 * 7 * 8 * 0.58 = 178.568 grams
For a more precise answer, the cup dimensions should be measured with more precision.
Thanks to @Damila and this post.
This answer only addresses one of the problems of your previous answer (why didn't you just edit that one, by the way?), namely the conversion of volume to mass. The 'serving density' as WolframAlpha calls it can vary wildly depending on how tightly you pack your cup. It also still has the inaccurate calculation of the cup's volume. The advice to invest in a scale is still the best response.
@LSchoon Right ☺️ I'm going to buy a scale.
On this website it is mentioned:
Therefore, 4.25 ounces of flour might weight 120 grams. Also it is known that 4.25 ounces is 0.0001256875 cubic meters:
My cup volume is:
pi / 4 * 7 * 7 * 8 * 10^-6 = 0.00030787608 cubic meters
Therefore reach cup would weigh around:
0.00030787608 / 0.0001256875 * 120 = 293.944342914 grams
Please let me know if my calculations are missing something!
Buy a scale. Seriously, they cost very little and you will be able to bake with precision.
Agree with @GdD...this will only get you an estimate. You also have to recognize that humidity is a factor, as is the compacting of the flour. Also, with a scale, you use one bowl, and don't need spoons and cups. It is a far superior method.
You are overestimating your cup volume by around 20%. As I said in a previous comment on the question: the walls of the cup are not perfectly straight (the cup is smaller at the bottom) and the 7cm you measured include the walls of the cup, which seem about 3mm wide. Other than that, as other people have said, get a scale.
There is another problem: the 4.25 ounces given by King Arthur is the mass of 1 cup of flour, not the volume. 1 cup = 8 fl. oz = about 236 mL. Thus, even if your calculation for the volume of the cup is roughly OK, your final mass is off by almost a factor 2!
In short, fluid ounces ≠ ounces, unless we are measuring water. For everything else, this will cause a more or less significant error. Flour has (very roughly) half the density of water -> factor 2. Find more here.
And all that isn’t considering the difference between the “scoop-and-level” vs. the “spoon-and-level” methods, sieved, stirred or compact flour straight from the pack. There is a reason a good recipe will at least specify the method and we keep touting the benefits of a basic kitchen scale.
This answer needs to be changed. It takes one problem and compounds. it with totally incorrect information. Even setting side all the problems with variation between weights of flour of the same volume, even this answer confuses fluid ounces (ounces used as a volume measurement) and ounces (weight, mass really). 1 cup = 8 fluid ounces. In flour, that weighs about 4.25 ounces.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.021436
| 2020-06-04T10:12:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108845",
"authors": [
"Damila",
"GdD",
"Ink blot",
"LSchoon",
"Luciano",
"Megidd",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84058",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104383
|
How to declog coffee maker clogged by milk
I have a coffee maker which I used milk in it rather than water. Now milk has clogged its tubes as shown here:
Can anybody help me with a simple and easy trick to clean and declog the coffee maker tubes? Thanks =)
Make and model
When you ran milk though the machine you cooked a lot of fat and protein into the components, which isn't good. The only "easy" thing I could recommend is to try to run some clear vinegar through it, the acidity may break down the milk residue and clear the machine.
The only other way to get it working isn't as easy as it requires manually removing the residue using brushes. Inter-dental brushes are thin and bendable, you should be able to get them into those holes on the top picture. If you can get at the heating element with an old toothbrush that would be good too. Other than that the only thing I could think to try is a complete tear-down of the coffee machine, which may or may not be something within your skills or worth your time. Just remember to unplug it before you attempt any invasive repairs!
Milk Line Cleaner is a thing - its intended to clean milk pipes in automatic espresso machines.
https://segafredo.co.nz/shop/cleaning-supplies/cafetto-milk-line-cleaner/
Downside, this is a liquid which is mixed at 1:25 with water, and is then pumped through the lines/pipes by a dedicated cleaning cycle built into the espresso machine.
If your lines are clogged completely, this may not work very well, and could risk damage to any pump or impeller drive.
A better idea might have been to pour your warmed milk straight into the filter from above. It wouldn't be dripped, but the filter and basket and jug would be easier to clean. Given milk's nature, you would have to clean it all immediately once the milk has dripped out into the jug.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.021833
| 2019-12-26T21:45:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104383",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109711
|
How to unclog the stove
After cleaning the stove holes with some liquid detergent, one of them is clogged now. I used a sewing needle, without any effect. Did anybody run into this problem before?
I don't know about the clog issue, but well done with cleaning, looks spotless!
can you unscrew that thing ?
I'm with @Max. That has a hex head and designed to be removed. Word of caution here, maybe only by a service technician. I would try and find a service manual online. Even calling the manufacturer's help line might work. Yeah they might refer you to a service technician but I have found that sometimes friendly CS phone people will help you. Might also want to look in appliance repair discussion boards, there are lots out there. And here we just offer advice on cooking not on appliance repair.
and whatever you do, stop the gas.
Depending on jurisdiction, taking that apart any further requires a valid licence to work with gas. Don't touch it. Get a licensed professional. Pushing debris further inside will not help.
The jets can be unscrewed, using a properly sized wrench, and cleaned with an appropriately sized cleaner. Once clean they can screwed back in.
They are typically made from brass and are soft. Using the wrong wrench can round off the hex head. More importantly the orifice in the jet can be unintentionally enlarged or damaged easily. Inserting anything from the outside will push debris into the fuel system and while it may clear the hole it leaves the debris inside. It is better to remove them for cleaning. If damaged they are easily replaceable. Before doing anything check the documentation for your stove. The installation or maintenance instructions may include directions for replacing the jets.
I use an oxy-acetylene torch tip cleaner on my stove jets if they are clogged. My tip cleaner provides sizes 6 to 26 one of which fits my jets.
To clean them I select the largest cleaner which easily fits into the orifice. It is inserted and gently run in and out to clean the orifice. Rather than being smooth the cleaners have very small ridges on their sides that help to remove debris. If not used carefully they can act like a file and enlarge the size of the orifice in the jet. Keep the cleaner aligned with the orifice vice at an angle. It needs to go straight in and out. The cleaners can also be bent when inserting. Hold them close to the insertion point when clearing the jet. If it seems too hard try a smaller size cleaner.
I do not turn off my gas supply, just insure the burner is off and stays that way until you are done.
It’s probably clogged with water. So if you wait long enough at most a day I’d say. The residual water should evaporate unclogging itself.
You could try heat.
Both jets contribute to the manifold. You could light it and let it run and hope that the heat will unclog the blocked one.
Or you could leave the manifold off and heat up the jet with a flame - maybe just from a lighter, or a cool flame from a torch. If it is moisture in there that could dry it up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.022017
| 2020-07-17T13:10:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109711",
"authors": [
"Gigili",
"Max",
"Steve Chambers",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104217
|
How to clean pulp collector of a fruit juice extractor
Not sure if my problem is directly related to home improvement, but this problem at home is making trouble for me.
I have a New Life juice extractor of model FJU-30W-310 which has a pulp collector like this:
The pulp collector is beneath a rotating disk. The problem is I cannot find a way to take out the collector to wash it with water. Does anybody know how to clean this device make and model?
Before migrating the question to cooking.SE, someone commented on the home-improvement.SE like this:
That comment was true. I pull off the rotating center part a bit and it just came out of its plastic lock system. Locking system looks like this:
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.022285
| 2019-12-20T16:49:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104217",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104250
|
How to remove hardened dough from hair?
Besides cutting the hair or applying conditioner or oils, what else can be done to remove hardened dough from hair?
Would vinegar dissolve hardened flour?
Update: The lump is an odd consistency: between a live dough (super gluey) and tough and with a slight give, very slight. I feel like the gluten is being released and water is both releasing it and releasing a few hairs. Any strands of hair that can be freed seem to have live dough on them which, if not cleaned, contaminate other clean stands. Pushing/ scrubbing with the nails is the only, and very hard, way to get that tiny sticky amount out of the individual hairs. A shampoo with sodium lauryl sulfate helps, but it is still very hard.
I am wondering if there is an enzyme that dissolves gluten. A quick online search recommended tablets for people with who cannot tolerate gluten, not I am not sure if I open the pill tablet and apply it to the hair, it will work.
Ouch, sounds rough.
Soak it in cold water. This may be awkward; depending on how thick the dough is, it might require soaking it for an hour. But it's really the best way.
Indeed, it is. An hour is a precious tip! Thank you!
Warm water (aka a bath) should work as well. And be more comfortable for the OP.
As long as it's not too warm. You don't want the dough to cook.
Water will indeed help best, but will need a long time to get to the inside of a thick patch of dough.
I would sugest first physically breaking it apart with your fingers until it's crumbly. Then trying to gently brush out as much as possible. There is this motion which is best for highly matted hair or fur which should work here too:
Hold a strand firmly between your scalp and the dough. The idea is that you can then manipulate with the brush at the matted part, but the tugs will stop at your fingers, without transmitting the tugging painfully to your scalp.
Use quick and superficial motions with a coarse-toothed comb or brush first. It is like carding wool, or a bit like a cat licking the place - you don't want the teeth to sink deep into the matted part and get stuck, but to catch only a superficial layer and straighten those few hairs first to free them.
Once the uppermost layer is free, start going a bit deeper, again just scratching the lumpy surface.
Continue working until the hairs are free from the big lump.
After that, you will probably have individually free hairs which are still covered in dough crumbs. Now is the time to soak them well and wash.
Thank you. I will try this technique. The lump is an odd consistency: between a life dough (super gluey) and touch and with a slight give, very slight. I am
@Anna77 : you might try drying the dough some, so it becomes crumbly. If you can't break it apart, if you have more than one glob of dough in your hair, you can try crushing them against each other.
"Hold a strand firmly between your hair and the dough." – Do you mean between your scalp and the dough?
@TannerSwett yes, thank you for catching it. Edited.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.022369
| 2019-12-22T06:35:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104250",
"authors": [
"Anna77",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Sophie Swett",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80125",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104522
|
How do I recreate a restaurant's sauce if I know the ingredients but not the ratios?
I recently ate at a Mexican restaurant with a delicious sauce. They were willing to sell it to me if I put in a special order, but they insisted it was so easy to make that I should just make it myself instead. I know the ingredients are jalapenos, habaneros, onions, and garlic. There is no water or anything else, just those four ingredients. The end result is a yellowish green sauce with a smooth, almost paste consistency.
I think I can figure out cooking the ingredients and blending them together, but how do I even take a guess at the ratios? None of the flavors were overpowering (it didn't taste mostly like onions or jalapenos or garlic), so there's not an obvious base, but I doubt they're anywhere close to equal proportions either. I don't need the results to be an exact match, but I'd like it to at least resemble what I had in the restaurant.
What's the best approach to this?
I'm not very familiar with the tags on this site and it's very hard to browse them on the mobile app, so feel free to edit them as appropriate.
The "smooth, almost paste consistency" makes me think that the issue might be technique, not just ratios. Some mexican sauces are put through a blender and then cooked to thicken. (although, ingredients might've been cooked before they go into the blender, too). See for instance https://www.rickbayless.com/recipe/chicken-enchiladas-in-brick-red-mole/
None of the flavors were overpowering (it didn't taste mostly like onions or jalapenos or garlic)
That statement provides the key you can work with:
prepare a bowl of each ingredient.
make a reasonable guess as to the proportions and mix a sample from a small amount of each.
taste the sample:
if one ingredient is very overpowering, discard the sample and start again with much less of that ingredient.
if one ingredient is slightly overpowering, add more of the others.
if one ingredient tastes missing (an amazing skill to acquire if one can), add more of it.
Keep repeating this until you can taste all ingredients and none of them are overpowering, and you should be close to your ideal.
Since some of the ingredients are quite strong, be sure to occasionally clear your palate with a drink and bland crackers.
Once you've perfected it, do it once more, but this time carefully measuring the ingredients, and there's your recipe.
Garlic and onion benefit from some time in the cut up state. It mellows them, especially if sauce contains vinegar. You might want to chop up, add vinegar as needed, wait an hour, and then follow Butterworth's advice. The sauce you like is almost surely a couple hours down the road from fresh chopped.
@WayfaringStranger they explicitly said not to add any water or anything else but those four ingredients, so I assume that includes vinegar. I'll try letting them sit after chopping if they're too strong otherwise.
Ok then, Kat. No vinegar. That's odd though. Chop, let stuff sit, then proceed then. Garlic is particularly time sensitive.
First, ask if they cook any of the ingredients.
It's likely that they are all raw.
Next, I would probably start with a mix with an approximate base that has the same color as the original sauce ( e.g. 1:1:1 with one clove of garlic).
Save some of it on the side to use again, then add some of each ingredient to your base. 2:1:1:1 / 1:2:1:1 / 1:1:2:1 etc.
Then taste each one, and that should give you some idea of how to tweak it next.
Likely the habañeros will overpower the rest at that ratio. I guess it'll really rely on how got they are, the OP's spicy tolerance, and how hot the original mixture way. Also how long ago it was prepared might affect things (on the spot vs the night before).
Yeah, I would be surprised if the habaneros, by mass, were more than 5% of the sauce.
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas, "habañeros" is a Hyperforeignism - Wikipedia. It is correctly spelled "Habaneros", with a regular "n". Many people make the same mistake with "empanadas" too.
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas It was on the spicy side and I could definitely taste the flavor of the habaneros, but I agree it's probably not 1:1 with the jalapenos. I like this general idea though.
It didn't even occur to me that they were raw, but they did mention cooking it. The waiter said not to use anything except those four ingredients, no water or anything else but peppers, onion, and garlic, my boyfriend asked "so just cook them dry in a pan to blister the peppers?", and the waiter said "yeah, yeah". Nobody mentioned cooking the onion and garlic, but won't the onions taste better if cooked?
@RayButterworth. Interesting, but I doubt it's the same phenomenon. 'Empanada' obviously has no ñ because there's no such sound in the word. I've only ever heard the habanero pronounced as if it has a ñ, hence why I spelled it that way (since Spanish is phonetic.)
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas, The mispronunciations are contagious and tend to be regional, so where you live many people might say one of them right and one of them wrong. But with either word, in actual Spanish the correct pronunciation and spelling is with "n", not "ñ".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.022628
| 2020-01-03T21:33:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104522",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Kat",
"Ray Butterworth",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Sneftel",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105518
|
Does boiling meatball remove some flavor
I want to cook some meatballs by boiling them in plain water. Does this remove flavor from the meatballs?
I have a instantpot pressure cooker and I thought it would be way easier than baking for example.
Yes, probably, why are you wanting to do that ?
"remove flavor" in comparison to what, raw meat?
Pretty standard is to “cook” them in tomato sauce. Is there a reason you want to avoid that?
Could you include your recipe and typical cooking method? (For example, some meatballs are baked, some are pan-fried, some are boiled in sauce...) It's tough to know how much flavor you may lose without knowing how they're typically cooked :)
@Erica I usually stew them inside tomato sauce and eat it with pasta
You can certainly poach meatballs. I wouldn't boil them, as the rolling action could tear them apart. It is more common to poach in a sauce, however water can certainly be used. You will lose some flavor (taste the water afterward, you will see), however, it wouldn't be a reason to avoid the technique if you have a purpose for it. Lots of things are poached and still have flavor.
they definitely would lose some flavour depending on the time you are going to boil them.
rather just steam them that way you wouldn't loose much of the flavours if you have to go with this method.
What I do is I just sauté them in frying pan for few minutes so they are little browned from outside it enhances their flavour by 10 folds.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.023159
| 2020-02-25T20:47:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105518",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Lightsout",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80679",
"mroll",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105034
|
How to make my chicken taste more tender?
I have been trying out Korean Ginseng Soup recipe but the chicken meat usually turns out dry. Is this to do with the heat and the time taken to cook? I use an induction cooker for all my dishes. Thanks a lot!
Ingredients:
1 whole chicken
5 cloves of garlic
1/2 cup glutinous rice
2 ginseng
I bring the water to boil on high heat before switching down to medium fire and let the chicken cook for about 80min. Thighs and wings mostly taste ok, but other parts are drier. Is this normal?
How long are you cooking it for, how are you preparing the chicken... including your recipe in your question will help people in answering you.
dry chicken certainly always has to do with heat and time.
"Tender" is not a taste, rather it is a texture. Then, in your last sentence, you are talking about moisture. Can you edit your title? I don't think this is about taste or texture. It is about creating moist, properly cooked, white meat. (short answer: you are over cooking the chicken, particularly the white meat).
This is normal. Chicken breasts are leaner than legs, thighs and wings, so they dry out faster. I often make a similar dish, but I use pre-cut pieces and dark meat for this very reason. 80 minutes sounds like a long time to me, you could probably reduce that and get a better result. You could also cut the breasts off and take them out early to avoid overcooking them.
I imagine that traditional cooking times for pot chickens were much longer to tenderise older, tougher fowl. Modern bred chhickens don't really benefit from long cooking. The meat, especially the breast, doesn't have a lot of fat and tough connective matter in amongst the meat fibres which are what soften and melt to make something like a stewing cut of beef tender. Rather than taking the breasts out early, I would consider putting them in later, then the whole dish is ready at the same time. You could joint the chicken and leave the breasts on the crown.
That approach would work @Spagirl, you'd need to get the timing right which would come from experience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.023322
| 2020-01-29T08:45:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105034",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Luciano",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13114
|
Masking the grass flavor of green tea
I would like to start drinking green tea regularly.
Unfortunately I am much more of a coffee drinker than a tea drinker. On top of my general apathy towards tea I happen to think that green tea in particular tastes rather like grass. This seems worse when I oversteep it, but I pretty much always taste an unpalatable flavor. I have even experienced this flavor with green tea that contains other herbs for other flavor notes. Since I have good reasons for drinking green tea at the moment, I'm trying to get around them.
At the moment I'm masking the flavor with sugar, sometimes lemon juice, and non-dairy creamer. Is there something else that will counter the grassy flavor or at least mute it? If there is, why does it work?
That is the taste of green tea! It's mostly terrible. I have no idea why anyone drinks the stuff. I think it's just become fashionable. Wait a few years and we'll have Mocha-Tea or something
I believe many people want to drink green tea as it is so healthy, it's packed with antioxidants
Why are you trying desperately to drink something you evidently do not enjoy ? Why don't you start with black (generaly easier to western palates) and try to switch slowly to Oolongs less ans less oxydized ?
What green tea are you talking about ? The Chinese and the Japanese methods are quite different and generally produce aromas of different categories...
@TFD: I would seriously doubt you could call centuries-old Chinese and Japanese traditions something that has "just become fashionable"...
Another thing to note is that you should really buy loose leaves. Any single "pre-bagged" green tea I had tasted really horrible. I find oversteeping to be a greater problem for black teas than for green ones. Certain Chinese green teas need to be steeped for 10-15 minutes.
@nixy I'm skeptical about whether choosing things high in anti-oxidants has that much of a health effect: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/301/do-products-that-contain-antioxidants-have-any-value-over-products-that-do-not
I think the wrong question is being asked here. Priority 1 should be to sort out bad technique. This is what creates a lot of the unwelcome flavours associated with green tea, rather than trying to mask mistakes.
Green tea is not to everyone's taste. You can try adding honey instead of sugar. As honey has more of a distinct flavour than just sugar it may help mask the green tea flavour more successfully. Another suggestion is to add some mint leaves if you're a fan of mint. If you're drinking green tea solely for health reasons the mint can be excellent for aiding digestion.
Certain tea companies also sell 'light' green tea. This can be more palatable, especially for people like yourself who don't like the taste of steeped green tea so changing your brand of tea might be helpful.
It may be that with perseverance you may acquire a taste for green tea (I personally used to hate camomile tea but continued to drink it every day and now it's my favourite).
any idea what makes a 'light' green tea different? Does it have less of the actual green tea leaves?
I'm afraid I haven't been able to determine why it is labeled 'light', but it definitely tastes more subtle. Another key point I forgot to include is that it's vital not to use boiling water as it will burn the tea leaves, it is necessary to use water that is a little cooler.
What brand of "green tea" are you drinking? What grade of "green tea" are you drinking? Do they come in a paper tea bag? Loose leaf? Green tea has such a large range. At the bottom end, you have generic tea bags that are simply labeled "green tea", these I find to be extremely harsh and taste like well, tea bags and maybe even "grass". Not to mention, if you're drinking green tea for health reasons, these green teas probably aren't really given you as much as you could be getting...
I drink a fair amount of tea (as well as coffee), and currently in my cupboard I have teas where they are naturally overwhelmingly sweet (nothing added), to a stronger "tea" flavour, to many others. The place I would start isn't with additives, or brewing methods, but I'd go to a proper "tea" shop, and get a good loose leaf tea. I don't know if your area has a good chinatown, but there's bound to be a good tea shop there somewhere. Otherwise, even a more European influenced tea shop, should have a wide variety of green teas. Regardless of the tea shop, make sure they let you smell (waft with your hands or the lid of the canister, some shops get grumpy if you stick your nose in) the tea. Does it smell grassy? Does it smell pleasant?
If your tea tastes grassy, the solution isn't to mask it. It's to find tea that doesn't taste like grass.
Edit: I should also add that to be careful of how you steep green tea. It's much more prone to oversteeping than a dark tea. It should be steep for less time and at a lower temperature. No hotter than around 90C for 2-4 minutes I'd say.
Often even 80°C
Older answer, but I would add that the tea flavour varies wildly by the region it comes from, just like with coffee. My own preference is for 'sencha' loose leaf green tea or in general most any green tea that comes from Japan. They tend to have a very delicate, light, and fresh flavour. I personally find Chinese teas too harsh and earthy for my tastes, but to each their own! Try out other varieties!
There are a lot of teas commercially available that are "green tea and something".
A lot of the time, the "something" gives a completely different flavour to the tea.
I find that jasmine in green tea causes the tea to taste of jasmine rather than green tea.
It can work also with camomile, lemon, lemongrass, ginger or mint.
It may also help to use honey instead of sugar, because it has more of its own flavour.
I have a green tea and pomegranate that didn't taste at all like pomegranate. Maybe one of the other flavors will be stronger. I will definitely look into trying honey.
Jasmine tea is the bomb and transcends both of its ingredients, in my opinion. No taste of grass.
If you don't like green tea, perhaps you should research other, more palatable sources of catechins (which are reputed to be the active ingredient, and unless you're just after the caffeine, are what you're looking for).
Dark chocolate, the skins of dark fruits (cherries, blueberries, apples, blackberries), and oolong and black tea all have catechins. They are not so concentrated as green tea--typically half the concentration per serving, but if they're more palatable to you they might be a better place to look.
I'll have to do some research into what, exactly, is supposed to cause the particular benefit I'm after, which is not one I saw cited in any of the quick google links I've seen on catechins. Thanks for the tip, though!
Bear in mind that if the benefit you're seeking is hard to find associated with green tea, that may be because few people think it has that effect. It might be that you're burning up your tastebuds on tea you hate for no reason. Not saying that's so, but saying that you should look carefully at health claims when you're dealing with unregulated things like herbs and teas.
definitely agreed. In this case there will be a measurable affect that I will either see or not see in a short time, so I'll know soon!
You can grow limone grass, aka lemongrass, and use it with the tea. The stronger you make it the better it will taste.
My answer may be worst case scenario from your point of view, since the way I drink green tea introduces a number of other strong tastes, but here's how I do it, and it can in no way be described as a "grassy" taste (perhaps astringent or bitter, with a sour edge,but not "grassy")
I use matcha (powdered Japanese green tea). I mix 1 teaspoon of matcha with a tablespoon of lemon juice in the bottom of a mug. It becomes a bright green paste. I then bring a little more than a cup of water to a boil. I let the water cool for a few seconds, then pour it over the matcha. I add 1/2 teaspoon of cinnamon, and stir vigorously.
Sometimes you've to be lucky that the first green tea you drink is one that you like. Green tea is in fact a very diverse category. Some greens taste vegetal/grassy while others taste creamy or citrus like. Therefore, you should just the whole spectrum of green tea with a few experiences. My recommendation would be try order samples from different vendors to find out what kind of green tea you like.
If you currently have a tea that tastes grassy, here's a few ways to 'fix' it:
lower the steeping temperature to 80ºC and increase the steeping time slightly to compensate for the lower temperature.
Infuse the tea together with some sweet dried fruits such as goji berries, jujube or something else.
I have added a drop of vanilla essence a few times when I don't want a strong taste of green tea. It almost tricks the palate into believing that you've sweetened the tea without sugar. Only add a drop though - it can be VERY overpowering!
If you can't find vanilla essence, vanilla sugar could be a substitute.
is vanilla essence the same as vanilla extract? Vanilla oil? Something else?
@justkt: According to some sources, essences are highly-concentrated extracts and usually contain no alcohol. Although I found some instances of "vanilla essence" being equivalent to the extract - seems to depend on where you are.
I've always been recommended vanilla extract over vanilla essence.
FWIW, I've used both vanilla essence and vanilla extract. The taste in such a small quantity is pretty well the same. In Australia, vanilla essence is actually the one with the alcohol base and is cheaper. The manufacturer of both say the vanilla extract is "a concentrate from real vanilla beans". It's been made with fructose and glucose from cane sugar.
I made green tea for a Chinese friend of my wife's. Apparently I was doing it all wrong. Here's the quick and dirty version, which doesn't meet my Chinese friend's exacting standards, at least doesn't cause her to hit me over the head with a teapot.
Boil water.
Put boiled water in pot to warm it.
When pot is warm, dump water out.
Put in loose leaves.
Just cover with boiling water.
Immediately dump the water, retaining the now wet leaves.
Now add the water for the tea.
Steep for about a minute.
Share and Enjoy.
I can't really tell the difference, but I don't drink that stuff.
I am not a big fan of green tea either. A few years ago I tried a random raspberry green tea I picked up in a day-old-bread store. I really liked it. Then later I found that Bigelow has a Constant Comment green tea. Well - I had to try it, as Constant Comment is my favorite tea anyway. I loved it. They actually have a variety of green tea. Even more flavorful than that is the Earl Grey green tea.
what makes these green teas better than standard? Why do you think the flavors work?
Are you using too much green tea? The tea bags contain massive quantities compared with the pinch that you would use if you made leaf tea?
I wondered whether you might like white tea? You only need a very small amount to prepare it (half a teaspoon or a large pinch). You let the boiled water cool in the cup/pot before adding the tea. I find the taste milder (not at all bitter) than green tea and it seems to have similar health claims/benefits made about it.
Be warned, it does seem to have a lot of caffeine - don't try it at bedtime!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.023556
| 2011-03-14T13:15:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13114",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Antal Spector-Zabusky",
"Archagon",
"Brandon Betances",
"Cheesecake maven",
"Dave Smylie",
"Ed McMillan",
"Golden Cuy",
"Just a user",
"Kanan tuteja",
"KimbaF",
"Laurent R.",
"Luke W. Johnston",
"Manur",
"Marils",
"Niall",
"TFD",
"Tunde Ritter",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/822",
"justkt",
"nico",
"niemiro",
"nixy ",
"thenetimp"
],
"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
}
|
105102
|
Keep temperature at exact 62C/143F for an hour
Is there an appliance with which I can keep something at a specific temperature, in this case 62C, without constantly checking manually? I have been looking at thermostat controlled induction plates but haven't found any that go that low.
Edit for more information:
the temparature should stay within 2 or 3 degrees of the target, it's less of a problem if it goes too low, but too high chemically alters some key ingredients.
it should be able to do at least about 500ml of volume.
sous-vide stuff?
The answer is obviously yes, but it depends on what, and how much, you're trying to keep at 62 C and how closely you need the temperature controlled. How much you're willing to spend is another important consideration. // We need more information to give any sort of helpful answer.
What are you trying to accomplish? An immersion circulator (or sous vide stick, as the tool has become popularly known) can maintain water at a very precise temperature, almost indefinitely. If you identify your application, we can be more specific.
Are we talking liquid or solids? Water has a high specific heat, meaning you need a lot of energy to change their temperature. That being said, I'd either go for a sous-vide approach, seal whatever you want to keep at that temperature in bags and toss it into a pre-warmed 62° C water bath, or buy/rent a medium/upper quality range dehydrator. These usually work for temperatures between 50-90° C, and are quite accurate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.024679
| 2020-02-02T09:18:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105102",
"authors": [
"Johannes_B",
"MaxW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113994
|
Is steaming causing food to lose more flavor than baking?
I made two banana nugget with two different method. For those who have never heard one, that basically a thin (3 cm thick in a pan of 5x5 cm) banana cake with a lot more banana than flour.
One is done with baking in the oven and the other with steaming. Both aimed so that all part of the nugget is cooked. Baking in oven takes 20 minutes in 160 C, and steaming takes 30 minutes.
Even with the exact same recipe, I realized that the product has different flavor. The baked one is definitely more dry, more fragrant and I can feel the strong banana flavor when I eat it.
The steamed one is less fragrant, I can't really taste the banana flavor, and of course a bit more wet.
How is that possible? Is steaming really diminish/reduce the flavor? Or maybe I missed something?
For those curious with the recipe, the banana nugget basically consist of 6 part of banana, 2 part of flour, and 1 part of other ingredients (sugar, fat, baking soda, etc).
Not making an answer as I've never steamed and baked the same recipe myself, but isn't it more likely that the drying effect of baking is concentrating flavour rather than that the steaming is reducing it? Have you compared the intensity of the steamed version to the flavour of the raw batter?
Out of curiosity, and because I may be tempted to try it: equal parts by weight or volume?
@Stephie by weight
Yes it does, and you actually already described some of the mechanisms in the question already. It is an effect that is more widely known in vegetables (roasted have more taste than steamed), but I suppose that this is much rarer to steam cakes.
First, you already mention that the baked one is drier, and the steamed is wetter. This is already a factor - try dipping a bite of the baked one in water and eating it, then eat an undipped bite, and you will notice a difference there already. The "waterlogging" itself is already a reason for the taste to change.
Second, steaming leads to much lower temperatures, especially on the outside of the cake. If you have oil added, either in the batter or brushed on the pan, you are also missing out on reactions which happen between the hot oil and dryish batter in one case (these are the reactions which make fried food so tasty) and are impossible, or very reduced, between the not-so-hot oil and the wet batter (that is also covered in condensation where not in contact with the pan) during steaming.
Third, banana flavor itself is brought out by heat. For many applications using bananas, it is normal (but not so widely known) that heating/precooking your banana changes its flavor and makes it more intense - you can use this for ice cream, for example. And I suspect that the lower heat in the steaming case is not sufficient for this to happen as much.
Fourth, there is the concentration issue Spagirl mentioned in a comment, which is partly overlapping with the first one, but I suspect that there is a separate effect beyond the intermediate experience of wetness on the tongue.
So yes, it is very normal to notice such a difference, and it goes beyond banana bread and its relatives.
First thing's first: Water is flavorless. Keeping that in mind, it's intuitive that the more water added to a recipe, the less pronounced the resulting product's flavor will be.
In most cases, steaming infuses water into the product that's being steamed, whereas baking evaporates water. Notice the opposite reactions between steaming and baking?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.024833
| 2021-01-28T02:31:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113994",
"authors": [
"Spagirl",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81130",
"imeluntuk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105354
|
What's the difference between natural honey and supermarket honey?
Would either one affect glycemic index for consumption purpose?
Are they the same in terms of food safety for normal people and diabetics.
Both are natural honey - the difference is that commercial honey is often pasteurized to prevent growth of yeasts and the like. These growths are generally not nasty for you - it's how mead (alcoholic drink) is made, but honey can contain botulinum spores, which are bad for infants.
Honey comes in two forms - creamed and liquid. The difference is that creamed has had some water removed and microcrystallization initiated to form a semi-solid. Liquid may or may not have had water removed and may crystallize if left for long enough in the cupboard.
There is no difference chemically between commercial and that straight from the beehive so no difference in GI.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.025138
| 2020-02-16T18:59:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105354",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105877
|
I was able to cook on an induction stove with a non-magnetic pot, why?
As far as I understand, induction cookers transfer current (via eddy current) to the pot which heats up due to its resistance to the current. Because of this, induction pots and pans should be ferromagnetic for the eddy current to work. Therefore magnets should stick to the pot.
Now here's the thing. I was able to use a non-magnetic pot for cooking. All parts of the pot (screws, handle, body, cover) doesn't stick to magnets and yet it works when it's not supposed to be. I am not sure what alloy the pot has nor proof marks for that. The magnets I have are a neodymium and a ceramic one.
I only used the pot to boil instant noodles. My mother was surprised by this.
Looking this up, I can't seem to find an explanation. Any ideas?
Thank you and stay safe~
[EDIT] I tried hanging the magnets on a string and slowly held the pot closer and closer, no reaction.
I have a non-magnetic pan that heats up on my induction range. It is a stainless steel stock pot and magnets will not stick to it but the pan will heat up as quickly as my induction cookware. Frankly I was amazed it worked because I was demonstrating to someone how non-magnetic cookware wouldn't work (boy did I feel silly).
Related: How to explain why aluminum won't work on an induction stove?
It is likely that it was a different metal that supports inductive currents, such as aluminium.
The problem with aluminium is not that it can't create inductive current and heat up. It can, but it is rather inefficient on induction. Also, it has a very low melting point, so with thin aluminium, you risk melting it.
Many induction units have artificially added constraints to not work if they don't sense a ferromagnetic pan of a certain size, aswhich is a safety feature. Maybe yours doesn't, and so you were able to heat your pot. This doesn't make it a good idea to continue - even if you don't run into trouble with melting, you are losing much of the advantages of induction cooking.
Thank you for the reply. So aluminium can still have induction currents despite not being magnetic?
Also while I admit the cooker is a cheaper brand, it still has a safety feature where it would stop working when it doesn't detect a payload on top of it. But still,I will probably stop using the said pot, for risk of melting and also the inefficiency.
Stainless steel also isn't always magnetic (depending on the exact mix of metals being used)
Heating via eddy currents works in any conductive material, so also in aluminium. But in typical induction cookers, a significant portion of the heating does not come from eddy currents, but from hysteresis (changing the magnetization of the material at a high frequency), which contributes somewhere between <10% and 30% of the heat depending on the source you trust. And the latter mechanism only works in magnetic materials.
@MatthiasBrandl interesting! I must admit that electromagnetics is not my strong suit. Do you think that the answer is incorrect, and that eddy currents in aluminium shouldn't have been enough to bring water to boil, or is it an additional detail which is compatible with the answer?
Hm, the answer is incorrect in one respect, as you can create inductive currents in aluminium. It would heat up a bit slower than a magnetic pot because of the lack of hysteresis heating, and probably not work at all on a cooker that has "pot presence detection" based on magnetism. But without a direct comparison, the different rate of heating would be difficult to notice.
We got a expensive new induction hob and my cheap old aluminium pans would not heat at all. So that's why. (Fortunately only two of my pans, and I found neighbours very willing to have them.)
I have seen this too. It's because "Only pans that magnets stick to can work with induction hobs" is an oversimplified way to describe induction hob compatibility. Manufacturers prefer not to make the explanations more complicated. But there are some exceptions where magnets won't stick to the pan, yet the pan works on induction stoves. One example: stainless steel is an umbrella name. There are many different stainless steel alloys. AISI316 grade stainless steel is austenitic, which means it is non magnetic. But it is food safe and works with induction hob.
Are you sure the range is truly induction? Perhaps it's an electric glass-top model instead- which works wonderfully with non-magnetic cookware.
There are various types of range which have glass on top and are powered by electricity… which type did you mean?
@Sneftel: ‘glass top’ was just a style of resistive for a long time before induction came along. They’re very popular as they don’t have the cleaning issues of resistive coil cooktops, and can have more varied sizes of heating elements.
Not sure how this myth began but, I have some cookware which I think are some sort of stainless steel(not just clad?), where not only does my induction range not show any errors, which it does with some other pots & pans but, this cookware seems to heat ever faster than some of my "special bottomed" ones. & NO, they are NOT magnetic in the least, even according to all of my large N-52s.
Another factor is that non-flat bottoms are less likely to heat, via any of the physical mechanisms as contact is different.
As some of our pots aged and distorted slightly they took longer to heat up.
In some cases they now don't trigger the sensors properly any more at all.
Then the induction element sometimes turns itself off, which didn't happen before when these pots were new. You can use them on some bigger elements or when well filled with water.
Some better quality heavier pots have behaved better for us as they aged and they still heat just as well, for them the non-stick linings wear out first.
Cleaning every speck of cooked grease off the outside helps too.
I think the problem is that the magnet you tested your pots was too weak. I tested my pots with a NeFeB cherry sized magnet and it didn't respond, even though those pots heat up just fine on the induction stove. But when I took a powerfull NeFeB magnet the size of half a bank card and 1 cm thick, the pot hanging on the dryer shook weakly next to this magnet. Apparently even that weak magnetic property is enough to heat.
check the accepted answer. Other non-magnetic metals can conduct inductive current and will work with some induction hobs, it's just not recommended (like aluminium) and some units will not work if it's not magnetic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.025255
| 2020-03-17T23:48:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105877",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Matthias Brandl",
"Michael Seifert",
"Mr. Joe",
"RedSonja",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97813",
"rumtscho",
"that-hopeful-idiot"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105980
|
How to properly disinfect surfaces
What chemical product should I use to disinfect surfaces that may get in contact with the food? (wooden table where I knead bread/pasta and etc)
With this COVID-19 frenzy it's impossible to find alcohol (what I usually use for cleaning) so my wife bough a bunch of Clorox desinfecting wipes. I was wondering if it's safe to use it
Are you wanting to clean to avoid COVID-19 specifically, or are you asking about general cleaning using an alternative to your normal product due to shortages? It seems answers are making different assumptions. (I'm guessing you want the latter, but no harm in clarifying it.)
Note that bleach is not a cleaner, it’s a disinfectant. If you want to clean things, you need a soap.
Thank you all for the contributions. I'm looking for a safe way to manipulate food in these surfaces. So before I dump my dough into my table to kead it, how should I clean it? Water and soap are enough, or it's a good idea to use alcohol or bleach after that.
Croves — you should clean first (with a soap or detergent) and then disinfect, especially if there was raw meat involved or if you're concerned about contamination from a virus. If you're just cleaning a cutting board after chopping carrots, cleaning is probably enough.
Does this answer your question? Does soap kill germs?
This is honestly a HUGE topic, with literally reams of government guidelines on what's effective for surface disinfection. For example:
USDA Clean Then Sanitize
FSIS Cleaning Regulations
5 Steps of cleaning and disinfection
So partly this depends on how sanitized you want things to be. For my part, I just clean my counters with a mixture of Simple Green (a concentrated organic soap) and water. If you're really concerned, you could do a second washing with a weak bleach solution (wear gloves!).
I just did some research on Simple Green and it doesn't disinfect. https://simplegreen.com/news-and-media/coronavirus-faq/. Just want to have that here to make sure that readers have all the info.
To disinfect use 1/3 cup bleach per gallon of water.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/cleaning-disinfection.html
To clean, use a detergent or soap. You should clean first, then disinfect.
Bleach is not a cleaner! It's a disinfectant only.
Rob — since the OP was looking for a replacement for alcohol, I believe they are looking for a disinfectant, and my answer is correct.
Read the title, "How to properly clean surfaces". Alcohol is not a cleaner, either.
If you read the actual content of the question he was looking for an alternative to alcohol. If you're worried about semantics you could simply correct the title of the question as I just did. He is clearly worried about killing a virus as he specifically mentions COVID-19 and alcohol.
Like most viruses it's easily damaged, soapy water is enough. It has a protective lipid layer so anything that damages that helps. Alcohols and anything alkaline are your best bet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9qDKcUaPUo
The downside of soapy water is the mess. The chances of having water in the floor is big, that's why I'm a big fan of a damp towel and alcohol
a hot soapy water bucket with a damp towel should not make a mess.
There are these amazing new tools called "sponges".
@FuzzyChef That are liable to become breeding grounds for germs in their own right.
@nick012000 - just the same as anything else.. cloths or towels, if you don't clean them. Sponges aren't magically more dirty than any other medium.
@Tetsujin I’d be interested in any sources you had about that. My gut feeling is that because it is hard to get the interior of a sponge rinsed and dried, that they are more difficult to keep sanitised than a cloth.
@Spagirl - rather than a true scientific test in ideal conditions, just try smelling your dish-cloth & sponge after a week… which would you rather use again? My sponges get put back in the drainer after being rinsed, soaped & squeezed. Most people's dish-cloths don't, they just get put back in the drainer.
I wouldn’t keep anything I was using to clean a food prep area for a week between washes. I don’t use sponges any more, but folk at in the office’s shared kitchen do and they regularly leave it sodden in the sink.
My sponges do not smell. Heat and chlorine can sterilize it and the combination of washing, rinsing and drying it will keep it clean enough that sterilization is unnessecary.
fwiw, in my area, health departments forbid sponges in restaurant kitchens.
There is a school of thought that says these antibacterial sanitisers tend to be effective only against the little bugs that are virtually harmless but, by their numbers, manage to keep the big bad guys from multiplying. I’m not a scientist so I don’t know and I imagine the chemical companies certainly would not agree! I find white vinegar with some drops of lavender and peppermint oil in a spray bottle does the job well - and these are the basic ingredients of most eco-friendly cleaners. You can buy 4x5 litres of it on the web for about £14 and you can use it for cleaning glass, killing weeds as well as cleaning surfaces so it’s a pretty good bargain. I’ve used it for about 6 years and it does a good job. Btw you can use whatever essential oils you like though some, like lavender and lemon etc, are reputedly more anti bacterial. Apparently the Romans used lavender oil to clean their hands etc hence the word Lavatory meaning originally -place where you clean yourself-. Lavar in Spanish means to wash - from the same root as lavender.
When in my kitchen cooking, cleaning, washing dishes, I always have a clean dish pan of hot soapy water that I’ve added a few sprays (3-5) of cleaner with bleach (Clorox clean up) Before I start cooking, surfaces are wiped. I use separate cutting boards n knives for meats n veggies. Countertop wiped in between. I use both a dish cloth and sponge, cloth gets laundered, sponge get put in the dishwasher at the end of the day. If I haven’t cooked with meats, the cloth and sponge can be left out to dry overnight and used again the next day. The key is letting it dry out as bacteria multiply in moisture. Also don’t be afraid to change the water frequently in the dish pan especially if you’re going to wash dishes by hand. I always immerse my dishes And a fresh pan of hot soapy water with bleach after I’ve rinsed them off. Cleaning water should always be clear, hot, and soapy. I’m 60 years old and no one has died yet from eating from my kitchen. It’s not rocket science, just good common sense! Hope this helps, sent with love ❤️
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.025868
| 2020-03-23T20:05:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105980",
"authors": [
"Croves",
"Erica",
"FuzzyChef",
"Kat",
"Max",
"Rob",
"Spagirl",
"Tetsujin",
"goboating",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"milesmeow",
"myklbykl",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20223
|
Why double fry French fries after blanching instead of just blanching and frying?
I love good fries fries. I've made them with some success at home using the Steak Frites recipe originally developed by Cooks Illustrated/America's Test Kitchen. In their recipe cut potatoes are rinsed, soaked, fried at a lower temperature, then finished at a higher temperature. It did not involve blanching, and I've been convinced through research that blanching them can be helpful.
In another recipe I've found for twice-cooked fries, they are merely blanched and then fried. Is this technique going to produce good fries?
According to Serious Eats fries from McDonald's are both blanched and fried at a lower temperature, frozen, and then finally fried before being served to you.
The French Culinary Institute has a technique that pre-blanches, blanches, freezes, and then twice fries - talk about work!
From what I've read pectin is released during the blanching at certain temperatures. Also the blanching removes some external starches, which I assume rinsing and soaking may accomplish. Plus if you blanch in salted water you pre-salt the fries.
My question is, what does that initial lower temperature fry do? Cook the inside? Why should I do it instead of just blanching and frying once? The accepted answer to this question says the initial fry is to cook the fries, which it seems blanching already does. It seems to have something to do with starch molecules, but I'm interested in the details.
The double fry process is to make a crisper potato chip. Tests have indicated that less oil is absorbed too, so this is a general health benefit
The blanch process is mainly for mass production reasons to stop potato chips from sticking together when packed. It removes all surface starch. Cold water rinsing is all that is needed for home, small scale production
Cooling and drying the chips between steps generally makes for a better chip
The quality, and suitability of the potatoes is still probably got more to do with it than the cooking process
Interesting experiments at http://www.macheesmo.com/2010/02/the-great-baked-fry-experiment/
I'm aware of the different uses of chips, crisps, and fries in the various English dialects, but even so I'm not sure you're talking about American French fries/Commonwealth chips here... If so, it'd probably be best to use the same dialect as the question (so stick with French fry)
Hmmm. Fair enough. Though French fries mean different thing in different parts of the world too. We just call them "chips". My thinking was; Potato = Potato and chip is a common word for a common process for lots of thing, not just potatoes, and this does not just apply to straight cut either, so somewhat more self explanatory. Photos do a lot of talking :-)
Here in NZ when we chip Kumera (sweet potato), we tend to make rough disc shapes as they more often grow as long narrow tubers, more than fat potato size tubers
Heston Blumenthal did a master class following his research into the perfect chip. He refers to the science of how starch is released in boiling rather than blanching and makes good sense in reasoning for air drying to remove moisture. The first fry seals the outer surface and is done hot so the potato sears and seals reducing fat up take, this is good for taste crunch and health.
The second fry colours and heats the fries ready to eat.
Quoting him from a webpage that now no longer exists:
These chips are one of my proudest legacies! You see them on menus up and down the country now but the original recipe came out of endless experimenting at home long before I even opened the Fat Duck. The first secret is cooking the chips until they are almost falling apart as the cracks are what makes them so crispy. The second secret is allowing the chips to steam dry then sit in the freezer for an hour to get rid of as much moisture as possible. The final secret is to cook the chips in very hot oil for a crispy, glass-like crust.
Recipe: Heston Blumenthal's triple cooked chips
Youtube videos: How to cook perfect chips - In Search of Perfection (BBS) and How To Cook Like Heston S01E06 Potato
I disagree with the accepted answer's premise that blanching is to keep potatoes from sticking.
Both blanching and double-frying initially cook the potatoes at a lower temperature. This allows the first round of cooking to happen without crisping the outer layers. The second "fry" is usually with oil at a higher temperature, which nicely crisps the outside of the fry.
If you're using a fry with the thickness of more than "shoestring" potatoes, the challenge is getting the inside cooked to a certain degree of tenderness without overcooking the outside. If you cook it long enough for the heat to penetrate to the middle, with oil at a high enough temperature to crisp the outside, you're going to end up with a darker, tougher, thicker, over-fried exterior. If you cut back the time or temperature enough to get the outside right, then you wind up with undercooked interior or greasy and soggy fries.
I've done both, and I find that blanching (with a bit of baking soda in the water, as suggested by Cook's Illustrated) gives me a nice fry.
The idea is to start the high temperature fry with an uncrisped/unbrowned, but partially cooked potato, with either technique. Why fry twice instead of blanch and then fry? Probably just a matter of personal preference - maybe you don't get a "wet" fry that spatters when you put it back in the oil, maybe the first frying makes less of a starchy mess for handling..... I'm not sure. I think, for practical "final product" considerations, there isn't really that much difference in how you initially cook the fries. If you Google "double-frying vs blanching french fries" you'll even see a lot of articles about double frying where they refer to the initial frying step as "blanching."
To circle back to the main thrust of the question - if you blanch, then frying once is fine. There's no need to both blanch and double-fry.
I boil them and fry them once at very high heat. This does the trick. I tried even double frying, but didnt notice much of a difference.
Actually what I did notic, is that boiling them would roughen up the surface, thus creating more crispyness. Also spices added after would stick better.
That doesn't answer why double fry, which is the main question.
When you cook it twice, the fries will absorbe fat less the second time.
An idea if this is true beyond doubt and more importantly, why?
The blanche process actually, and quite importantly, leads to a fry that has a fluffy center and crispy exterior. It is the superior method. Blanche, then fry. A restaurant I worked at made the best wedges I've ever had (executionally) blanched (in plenty of salt until almost fully cooked), cooled in the fridge, then par fried (golden), so that at service they needed less cook time in the fryer. French cuisine teaches blanche, fry at a low temp then flash fry again at a higher temp for crispy skin. The double fry however does lead to a crisp exterior, but isn't necessarily something that couldn't be achieved by frying it for a longer period of time, one time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.026401
| 2012-01-06T19:47:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20223",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"Marc Luxen",
"TFD",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53232",
"user44369",
"user53232"
],
"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
}
|
45684
|
Crisping chicken skin after braising
I have a go-to chicken dish that I like a lot. I marinate thighs in a soy based marinade and then brown them. Then I mix the marinade flavors, chicken broth and rice and put the thighs in skin side down, cover, and cook over medium-low heat until the rice is nearly done. With 10 minutes or so left to go, I turn the thighs skin side up, lay them on top and finish cooking, uncovered, until the rice is done.
I like the skin done this way. I start the browning in a cold pan which really renders the fat nicely (you can see the fat in the first picture, I added no oil), but I know that a lot of people only like chicken skin crispy. The skin here isn't flabby, but it isn't crispy either. Does anyone have a good trick for crisping chicken skin that is already fully cooked by braising?
I'm not sure if you need a trick or a miracle, I'm not sure it's possible to do. Have you tried a broiler for 2-3 minutes? Or a hand-held torch?
@GdD I have not tried the torch. I'll give that a whirl. I have tried broiling, that isn't successful. The very top burns before the rest gets crispy.
It'll be interesting to see how you get on with that. My instinct says it's not going to work as there's too much water. You could take the skin off and put it in a 400 degree oven for a bit to dry and crisp it up, that's a lot of extra work though.
@GdD : I was thinking the same thing ... for that last 10 min of cooking, strip the skin off, set it on a sheet tray w/ a wire rack, and roast it to make a sort of crackling. I don't know how much time it'd take, as you've already rendered off some of the fat, but added moisture.
Why not strip the skin off the chicken before you cook it? You can then make chicken crackling, which is yuuuuummmy!
@Jolenealaska I have tried the torch method with very similar tagine-style chicken thigh dishes, and it doesn't work much better than the broiler, sadly. I think you're going to have to separate the skin in order to get a nice crispy texture.
As some of the commenters have noted, this just might not be possible. Water is the enemy of crispy, and unfortunately for your chicken skin braising is all about moist heat. I would try searing the skin before braising, if you don't already, in order to get some of the fat rendered out and the Maillard reaction on it's way. Braise as you would, but remove the chicken five minutes before it hits doneness and place the thighs on wire rack. Put the thighs under a screaming hot broiler until, god willing, they're crispy. A torch or the searzall could also do the trick.
That actually works, sort of. I do sear the skin prior to braising, putting it under the broiler at the end helps. Using a torch in addition to that helps even more, but probably more of a pain than it is worth.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.026978
| 2014-07-18T07:51:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45684",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105956
|
Seasoning chicken in sous vide?
Question: should chicken be pre-seasoned or post-seasoned when sous vide-ing?
See my results below, but please post your own preferences and results as well.
I'm voting to close this as it lacks focus. There's no real question here. As for seasoning that's all open to opinion.
The question is as stated in the original post. Have others tested pre- vs. post-salting with any significant findings?
My suggestion for your post is to only ask your question. Then, after your experiment, include the rest of your commentary, with the results of your experiment, thus answering your own question. This is both encouraged, and appreciated.
Thank you, Moscafj. I am new here and appreciate the tip.
I have an answer for you, and then I will comment above about your post. In terms of salt and sous vide, in general for shorter cooking times, say less then 2-4 hours, salting in advance is fine. In longer cooks, salting in advance produces more of a "cured" result in terms of texture. Some folks like this, others not so much. In general, I salt after the sous vide step and before the finishing step. So my preference, based on lots of sous vide cooking, is no pre-seasoning.
Experiment: cook four boneless, skinless thighs in a sous vide bath at 165°F.
1) 3.5 hours pre-seasoned with kosher salt, both sides
2) 3.5 hours no salt
3) 8 hours pre-seasoned
4) 8 hours no salt
Result: there was a bigger difference between the seasoned and unseasoned 3.5-hour thighs. The un-salted (beforehand) had a better texture than the pre-seasoned one. There was a much more minor difference between the two at eight hours, but I still preferred the one that was not pre-seasoned. Between the four the eight-hour, un-seasoned thigh was best.
I will also try this test with white meat but I expect similar results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.027249
| 2020-03-22T21:18:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105956",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"moscafj",
"myklbykl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123830
|
What is this slimy Asian leafy green?
I bought this leafy green at H-Mart, a Korean supermarket. It was labelled "Monchoy", but I can't find anything online for that term! Both raw and sautéed, it has a slimy texture reminiscent of okra, and I'd like to figure out how it's typically cooked. What is this vegetable usually called, and what part of the world does it come from?
Although it's hard to say without seeing the stalks, your description of the flavor and texture is consistent with Malabar Spinach, also called Wood Ear. It's used in a variety of Asian and African cuisines.
Yes, it's called "Montoi" in Vietnamese, and in Asia it's known as Vietnamese Spinach. Are you sure that it's called Wood Ear, though? I thought that was a mushroom.
@FuzzyChef This page claims that "wood ear vegetable" is the word-for-word translation of the green's name in Chinese.
@A_S00: That makes sense, but the “vegetable” is crucial. “Oyster mushrooms” shouldn’t be confused with “oysters”; “wood ear vegetable” is not “wood ear”. A slightly more idiomatic, but still fairly literal, translation might be “vegetable wood ear” or “wood ear greens”, since we don’t usually use “X vegetable” as the name of types of vegetable in English.
it's never, ever, called "wood ear" and I suggest just removing that from the otherwise excellent answer. A_SOO ... "word for word" translations mean nothing. It's never called "wood ear"
Note: botanically, it is not in the same plant family as spinach although it looks very similar.
Note that if you do not qualify 'wood ear' with 'vegetable' you will get these: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%BB%91%E6%9C%A8%E8%80%B3 , so I agree that the aside should be removed from the answer.
The name ‘wood-ear greens’ is indeed a verbatim translation from Chinese 木耳菜 mù ěr cài, though that’s not the primary name in Standard Mandarin (going by Wiktionary’s overview of dialectal synonyms, it’s used in a ‘belt’ stretching from around Shanghai through Anhui, Jiangxi, Hunan and Guizhou). The name 木耳菜 is based on the mushroom (木耳), but I’ve never seen it used in English either. Never seen or heard ‘monchoy’ either. It looks like someone took the Vietnamese name, mồng tơi and tried to turn it into Cantonese.
Weird. Google Translate has no concept of 木耳菜 and seems to treat it as if the 菜 part didn't exist. DeepL thinks it means this plant. And yet any search engine's image search will correctly identify it, including Google. If I start from Vietnamese, I can only get ordinary "spinach" as a translation, but search engines can still find the thing. I can't find any evidence of Korean having any native word for this thing, which might explain the signage, @JanusBahsJacquet. It seems plausible the Chinese was chosen for phonetic reasons, too.
@KarlKnechtel Given that 木耳菜 is a dialectal word, it’s not that surprising that Google Translate can’t suss it out. It’s more surprising that it doesn’t even understand 木耳 (which it just translates to ‘fungus’, far too broad) or indeed the more standard term for Malabar spinach, 落葵 (which it translates verbatim, as ‘falling sunflower’). This could be the beginning of Cooking.SE’s very own Swedish axe mystery!
@Fattie, I saw it called that in a local Asian supermarket, so someone calls it that.
It's called Malabar spinach,my family grows this kind of vegetable in china.
It's definitely of the spinach family. I put spinach in my spaghetti bolognese for years so I know it well.
This doesn't really add anything given the previous answers.
That’s probably at least partially incorrect. Malabar spinach (as identified by the other posters) is Basella alba, while spinach is Spinacia oleracea. They are not in the same family. Wikipedia has a nice overview of plants that are called spinach.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.027436
| 2023-04-06T15:44:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123830",
"authors": [
"A_S00",
"Cong Chen",
"Fattie",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"Karl Knechtel",
"PLL",
"Stephie",
"Wastrel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95101"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94301
|
Ground turkey raw in crockpot
I forgot to cook turkey first. How long should I cook ground turkey on high in crockpot? It’s one pound of ground turkey already defrosted in spaghetti sauce. It’s already in it. It’s the original crockpot from 1980
Thank you
Karen
My slow cooker manual gives, for 500-800g (1-1.5lbs) of poultry 3.5-4 hours on high. However I find this one a little fierce, so I looked in an older recipe book. Recipes for similar amounts of poultry with sauce also come to 3.5-4 hours on high, but assume you brown the meat first (but nowhere near fully cook). This book says to add 1-2 hours if you don't pre-brown the meat. It also assumes that you preheated the crockpot, if not add half an hour. On that basis I get to 5-6 hours assuming you preheated it, which fits with what I recall from when I used to cook this sort of thing in the slow cooker.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.027756
| 2018-11-27T20:17:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94301",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94672
|
Why add Vodka to Stock?
The recipe for brown veal stock in Modernist Cuisine (Volume 2, page 300) lists Vodka as an ingredient. Why?
I have never seen Vodka as an ingredient before for stock, in no professional cooking literature. No alcohol other than wine. Do you think it makes a positive difference, taste-wise?
Would an author of a cookbook add ingredients to a recipe not for taste but to appear clever? (I could imagine it with this book)
Addition 1:
Very good answers so far, thank you! So far I learned that theoretically it could make a difference. But in practice? Can anyone testify to having personally, clearly tasted a positive difference in taste due to the addition of Vodka?
Can you provide the recipe? Some flavour chemicals are soluble in alcohol and this might liberate some of those. It’s also a component of the somewhat traditional cream and vodka spaghetti sauce, e.g. https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/rachael-ray/you-wont-be-single-for-long-vodka-cream-pasta-recipe-1912258
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/18566/67
Thank you for the related links. Interestingly the author of the linked questioned also assumed the recipe tried to be 'nouveau'.
Unfortunately I cannot provide the recipe without copy right infringements (I think). The book is very expensive.
Pure alcohol is a solvent: that is: it will dissolve other chemicals more easily than water. If you put vodka in oak barrels for long enough, it'll turn into bourbon as it will dissolve and concentrate the taste of the oak.
The same thing is happening while you're making stock:
The oils in whatever the recipe of your stock calls for will dissolve more easily in alcohol than water.
It speeds up the creation of the stock
You could use any alcohol, but if you would use Bourbon the stock would get a smoky oak taste, so by using vodka (which is 40 Vol% of alcohol in water) no extra taste gets added except what's in your stock recipe.
As alcohol has a much lower boiling point than water, the vodka will extract the oils and mostly evaporate so depending on the amount used it might be safe for children too if you follow the Halal rules but you should know a water-ethanol mixture forms an azeotrope.
The alcohol won't actually evaporate completely unless all the water does as well. We've got a couple of questions going into more detail. Whether you regard the final alcohol content as acceptable for children or religious/dietary requirements is a matter of personal choice, and it may be small due to dilution and some evaporation. The halal rules you link are rather specific and don't mean all the alcohol is gone
@ChrisH I originally added that H2O-C2H5OH forms an azeotrope but in the end decided to keep it simple. Added back in for scientific correctness. :-)
Linked site allows foods with 2% alcohol. Saying it is safe for children is dubious, at best. Plus, in some jurisdictions it might be illegal to give 2% foods and drinks to underages.
In your own home??? @Mołot Please give some reliable source to the country you're talking about?
@Fabby Poland, Penal Code, Article 208. Can you now give any source that 2% alcohol is indeed safe for kids?
Belgium "Table beer": anything below 2% is promoted to lactating women (so babies get this in their breast milk) and gets sold in the lemonade section of supermarkets. @Mołot Specifically Piedbœuf Foncée
The fact that an azeotrope is formed by alcohol and water is irrelevant here so better you remove it again. It prevents to attain a pure alcoholic broth ;)
Would a cookbook or recipe author add ingredients to a recipe to be clever rather than taste? Absolutely some would. Also, they might to make the recipe different and unique, claim it as their own rather than a copied, traditional recipe.
That said, I would doubt that is the case in your stock recommendation, rather it is more in line with @Fabby's suggestion looking for specific reactions from the alcohol. In the case of wine or stronger flavored spirits are called for, the intent usually is to retain those flavors, and potentially also have the chemical reactions which might bring out other flavors. With Vodka, it is a relatively neutral base flavor other than alcohol, so to goal would normally be just the reaction flavors, not to get the flavor of the spirits coming through. Most vodka sauce recipes I have used call for cooking long enough, and diluting enough that the alcohol in the final product would be very low by serving.
For many, any intentional use of alcohol is not acceptable, and for those, flavored spirits have a number of known substitutes such as apple juice for apple cider, almond extract for amaretto, etc. As Vodka itself is usually not intended to be tasted, I do not know of a substitute for it. So, if a person wants to exclude added alcohol in their cooking, vodka sauces and stocks are likely off the table, You certainly can make fine sauces and stocks without them, they simply will not duplicate that given dish.
If interested, USDA chart is a USDA, State of NY chart of tested alcohol cook off rates so you could estimate how much alcohol would remain depending on how much you initially added and how long you continued to cook it. Also included is a chart of non-alcoholic substitutes for many common spirits. Again, given its more neutral flavor, vodka is omitted in that table.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.027859
| 2018-12-10T22:29:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94672",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Chris H",
"Fabby",
"Gulango",
"James McLeod",
"Joe",
"Mołot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71215"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95258
|
Peanut Butter Fudge
I tried to make peanut butter fudge using this recipe (which I got off the internet): Bring 2 cups granulated sugar and 1/2 cup milk to a boil. Allow to boil for 2 1/2 minutes, stirring regularly, and then remove from heat. Add 1 cup peanut butter and 1 tsp vanilla extract and stir until smooth. However, when I added the vanilla extract and peanut butter, it turned into a crumbly, dry mess. It could not be poured into a pan so I tried scooping the crumbly mess into a pan. When it cooled, it was hard as a rock and ruined. What did I do wrong or was the recipe wrong? I prefer to make my fudge without marshmallow cream.
Possible duplicate of How hard is it to make fudge?
For fudge to work you need to get it to the right temperatures. It is difficult (but not impossible) to do this without a sugar thermometer. I would recommend getting one if you are new to candy making.
It sounds like you didn't let the temperature drop enough and stir to allow microcrystal formation so it precipitated sugar crystals once you added the peanut butter (it acts as a nucleation point for crystal formation).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.028388
| 2019-01-01T18:25:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95258",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45453
|
Where can I find a hand blender like this?
My mom uses this in India. It is very convenient, has 5 types of detachable blades - some are smooth for mixing, while some sharp for chopping. I haven't been able to find a similar product on amazon.
Did you search for "stick mixer"? https://www.google.com.au/search?q=stick+mixer&oq=stick+mixer&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l5.912j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8 or http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=dp_brw_link?ie=UTF8&node=289916
Yes, I couldn't find having chopping blades.
Is the second one I linked to below what you're looking for?
Ah yes, thanks! That is as close as you can get. Wish it was less powerful (150W vs 550W) - and thus cheaper - but I'm happy with this. Thanks again!
You're very welcome. You should be happy with that one, the reviews are very good, it seems to be a quality product. As a matter of fact, that one would replace my mini food processor that just died and I've wanted an immersion blender for some time, so I'm going to get it too :)
Yes, the reviews are indeed good. I ordered one. :)
@Jolenealaska Once you have an immersion blender you'll find yourself wondering how you ever survived without one.
That's a hand blender, or immersion blender. They're common, Amazon has a bunch of them.
Here's one with interchangeable blades.
Side note: They're sometimes called "liquidisers" in the UK/Commonwealth. Mind your spelling ;-)
That looks sooo weird with an S.
Didn't mean to be disruptive; OP mentioned India and it seemed relevant. Do you prefer "liquidiser" (sans trailing s), or "liquidiserz" (in the "can haz" sense)? ;-) A Google search for "liquidiser" returns many more useful results for this topic than does "liquidizer" (which looks sooo weird; won't you agree?).
@hoc_age :) Not disruptive at all. I just find the British "ise" odd looking, being more accustomed to the American "ize"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.028508
| 2014-07-10T02:18:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45453",
"authors": [
"Ava John",
"Bipin Kumar",
"Carey Gregory",
"Jolenealaska",
"Milwrdfan",
"Ming",
"Randy Knight",
"Rowy",
"black storm",
"elexhobby",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107656
|
Is eating soap or bleach dangerous?
i was cooking some dessert today which contains milk as a primary ingredient. While cooking I started to notice that powder ingredients weren't dissolving in the milk. After a while under heat they dissolved, but I noticed what looked like soap bubbles. We usually use Fairy Soap for washing kitchen tools and Clorox. Now I'm concerned if we can eat what I've made or if it poisoned. The soap came out of the tool I was using to cook the dessert.
It sounds like you used a package of some dry powder and dissolved it in milk to make the dessert. Some powders (like starch and flour) can only mix with cold liquids and form clumps in hot liquids. Other powders (like kokoa) can only mix with warm liquids and float on cold liquids. Other again (like gelatine) need some time to soak up the liquid and dissolve. There might be nothing wrong with your dessert, but better have a cautious taste and throw it away if anything seems odd.
Is this something you've made before so you'd be familiar with how it looks while cooking, or is it a new recipe? If a familiar recipe, did you do anything different or use different ingredients? There are some other possible explanations for what you saw.
By the time you could get anywhere near enough soap or bleach in food to be vaguely dangerous, it would be so strong you wouldn't be able to eat a second mouthful.
You can try these tests:-
Wash a spoon in your regular washing-up bowl before anything else, so it's as clean as clean can be. Don't rinse, just shake it once. Lick it. How strong did that taste? Imagine doing the same with a pan, but afterwards half filling it with water or food as you're cooking it. That concentration would then be further diluted by a thousand-fold.
Touch your finger lightly to the open top of the Washing-up liquid bottle. Taste.
Now, that still won't do you any harm, but would you imagine being able to eat anything with that kind of soap concentration in it?
Don't repeat the tests for bleach. The smell alone is enough to warn you not to go anywhere near any concentration high enough to be able to still smell it in food.
Note: soap is not the only substance that will form bubbles. Bubbles alone are zero indication of soap contamination.
Most pure soap is safe to eat in small amounts, but the food won't taste great. Fairy Soap, from some brief research, is safe to ingest in small quantities, but I wouldn't recommend it. Bleach in very small and diluted concentrations won't hurt you, but it's very toxic if larger quantities are ingested, particularly undiluted. It is a very strong base. If you think you put (any) bleach in your food I would throw it away. If you think you put soap in your food, I'd also throw it away. The maxim I live by is: "When in doubt, throw it out."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:58.028694
| 2020-04-17T00:17:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107656",
"authors": [
"Elmy",
"Kat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71396"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.